Tax shifting - the whole enchilada
This entry was posted on 6/13/2007 10:42 PM and is filed under Air pollution,Energy dependence,Global Warming,Economy,Action.
Tax shifting is not a new idea, but it is an idea whose time has come.
This entry summarizes the call to action into three main points, and lists seven reasons why tax shifting makes sense. Please post comments and forward blog links to others.
Action will only occur from the bottom up, not from our Washington representatives down. Please help publicize Solve 4 Biggies in any way you can. Readership is steadily increasing and is close to 200 views/week! If you have "publicizing" ideas for me to follow-up on, please email: paulr4@tds.net. Thank you.
~ ~ ~
1. Our situation is bad
A.) Global warming:
- is real and is hurting and killing people today. For example, heat waves and droughts.
- has incredible inertia. IF we could stop emitting greenhouse gases today, how long would global warming continue? According to the Journal of Geophysical Research and Wikipedia, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lasts 200-450 years, but (even worse) "Recent work indicates that recovery from a large input of atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels will result in an effective lifetime of tens of thousands of years."
B.) Our representatives in Washington are working to end our conundrum in Iraq, but what about the root cause?! --> addiction to oil.
2. Why we need to act now
The sooner an escalating problem is addressed, the easier it is to fix. (think fixing a leak in the Hoover dam)
3. Why shifting taxes from income to non-renewable energy is the best solution
Four reasons:
A.) People will pay the same amount of tax, but non-renewable energy (gasoline, coal, natural gas, nuclear, etc.) will cost more. The wallet and pocketbook are the way to effect change.
B.) How much of a tax shift?? According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an energy tax equivalent to $1.00 over 10 years will mitigate the negative effects of global warming.
C.) By phasing-in the tax shift over 10 years, the potential for inflation is minimized. Potential inflation is the only possible downside to tax shifting - a small price to pay for the huge benefits.
D.) Higher non-renewable energy prices means a 10 year stimulus for the renewable energy industry. More U.S. renewable energy solutions become economically viable for both domestic use and export, thus creating a mighty economic engine in the U.S. - and, new jobs.
Tax shifting makes sense because......
i.) The market decides!! Trying to "pick winners" through subsidies is not effective; in fact, it's communism.
ii.) All of the costs of using non-renewable energy are not being accounted for in the price. For example, we are paying only a small fraction of the cost for the right to cause global warming and the right to pollute the air. The price we pay for non-renewable energy does not include the detrimental effects it's use causes to our economy and lifestyles. For example, who is paying the true costs of nuclear power? No one. The true costs are being passed on to future generations. Other examples include our record trade deficits, the cost of feeding the "oil monster" (two wars; 4,139 coalition soldiers lives in both wars; 3,513 U.S. soldiers lives in the Iraq war; and $495 billion in both wars), and energy price volatility because demand is rising rapidly and is so close to the maximum supply.
"The ultimate test of person's conscience is the willingness to do something today to help protect future generations." David Edwards, WI Dept. of Natural Resources
iii.) Tax shifting changes the "rules of the game" similar to patent laws and anti-trust laws for the benefit of all. Google "Tragedy of the commons."
iv.) When you see an SUV, huge boat, or lots of energy being used, you'll be able to say.... "Hey they're paying some of my income taxes." What's the biggest user of energy you've seen? For me it's a toss-up between the "air curtains" on buildings that blow hot air (in winter) or cold air (in summer) near entrances before you enter a building AND indoor skiing on man-made snow when it's summer-like outside the building. There's no "morality judgment" here; these use lots of energy, create the costs described above, and should be priced higher to account for the true full costs.
v.) Global warming is a world problem. The U.S. is the leading greenhouse gas producer and therefore should lead reduction efforts. Instead we're being Neanderthals (yes, we.... this is a representative government).
vi.) If we had shifted taxes in this manner 20 years ago, global warming would be a fraction of what it is now (U.S. leadership on the issue would have been, and has the potential to be, very persuasive), and 3,513 U.S. soldiers would be alive.
vii.) What will we be able to say two years from now? Will we have done anything meaningful to solve these problems?
