DOE and tax shifting
This entry was posted on 6/27/2007 11:59 PM and is filed under Air pollution,Dept. of Energy,Energy dependence,Global Warming.
What are the Department of Energy's (DOE) priorities? Check out the "Energy Hog" site.
Encouraging conservation is a good thing. Unfortunately, its return on investment is similar to that of voluntary greenhouse gas emission reduction programs - next to zero. If DOE really wants energy conservation to occur, they should be recommending increasing the cost of non-renewable energy by shifting taxes from income.
Spending resources on the Energy Hog wouldn't be so bad if there was an effective U.S. energy policy. In fact, it's non-existent; we're a mess. A few examples: over 60% of our oil is imported, we're completely vulnerable to any drop in supply or refining capacity (think this is an accident?; it's not, think capitalism with zero oversight), the renewable energy industry grew by only 1/2 of 1% in the 20 years between 1985 and 2005 (Energy Information Administration Monthly Energy Review - page 7), and the EPA just lowered ground-level ozone standards because we're literally killing ourselves (and our quality of life) with pollution from fossil fuels. (didn't even have to mention global warming to make this argument).
We need DOE to provide information that can be used to educate the public and lobby representatives; the end result: effective energy policy.
The results of a DOE website search on "tax shift" and "tax shifting".......... two documents. TWO documents!
Want to know what one of them is? (you can't make this stuff up) - freedom of information act (FOIA) documents on Enron. It's 117 pages long and titled, "Enron 1996." The other document is a PowerPoint referencing the fact the Netherlands is implementing tax shifting.
In a twist, the information on pages 108-111 of the Enron FOIA document is AWESOME. These pages contain notes from the "World Resources Institute-Enron Working Group on a Fiscal Policy and Subsidy Commission." In addition to Enron, members of this Working Group include Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Dept. of Interior, US Dept. of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, SC Johnson, Dept. of Commerce, DOE, Browning-Ferris, Environmental Defense Fund, Small Business Administration, Sierra Club, General Motors Corp., Dept. of Transportation, and Dept. of Education. Wow - a diverse and powerful group. "The group focused on the recommendation of the President's Council on Sustainable Development for a Commission to review federal tax and subsidy policies." (Mark at Grinning Planet is going to love this). Here are some of the things they said over 10 years ago:
- "....the Commission would consider tax changes intended to support sustainable development, and not to raise revenues." (my comment - they learned the lesson of President Clinton's attempted BTU tax; keep revenue generation out of it.) "As such, any tax shift should be revenue neutral in that it would not increase the overall tax burden."
- ".... tax and subsidy reform ... (should) not place a disproportionate burden on lower income individuals... and....be phased-in over a period of time."
- "...the purpose of reducing subsidies should be to eliminate those subsidies that are harmful to the goals of sustainable development and especially those that provide incentives for environmental degradation..."
- "The group acknowledges that while there are strong environmental arguments for eliminating some subsidies, there may be powerful political forces that support any one of the many subsidies that a Commission might want to target for elimination." (I love this part --> ) "The Working Group notes the possibility that by targeting for elimination numerous subsidies in concert, the potential uses of the revenue savings could create political momentum of their own for elimination of subsides." 
- "...there is a need to discourage overuse of publicly held resources that currently are being offered for development at below market prices."
- "The sense of the group is that taxes represent a powerful driver of individual and corporate behavior. Current taxes fall heavily on work and investment, and a shift to taxes more closely aligned with overall societal goals could produce significant societal benefits." "... there are serious environmental problems which can be addressed, at least in part, through environmental taxes."
- "...the goal of such a tax shift should be to promote sustainable development by enhancing economic prosperity and social equity as well as environmental improvement, and that all three of these areas are important."
***********
So, there you have it; over 10 years ago. Can you imagine how much better off we'd be global warming-wise and no Iraq war-wise if taxes had been shifted as described here. Note that the recipients of these notes were the heads of federal agencies and corporations - people like Bruce Babbitt (Interior), Carol Browner (EPA), Henry Cisneros (HUD), Samuel Johnson (SC Johnson), Mickey Cantor (Commerce), Fred Krupp (EDF), Kenneth Lay (Enron), Hazel O'Leary (DOE), and Federico Pena (Transportation).
What should DOE be doing? (stay tuned for the next entry.........I'm going to bed.)
P.S. - a search for "tax shift" and "tax shifting" on www.whitehouse.gov results in one document --> Who Pays for Tort Liability Claims? An Economic Analysis of the U. S. Tort Liability System Council of Economic Advisers April 2002
