Our federal elected representatives should be hammering out a phased-in tax shift from income to non-renewable energy; but, they're not.
What are they working on? Crap. Pardon my bluntness. The Chinese have a saying:
"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right name."To make things worse, many "environmental" groups are buying in and becoming part of the "Don't worry, be happy" crowd." More on that toward the bottom.....
***************
Our federal elected representative's focus is on "cap-and-trade" and raising vehicle, appliance and building energy efficiency standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GGE). Cap-and-trade is ill-conceived for reducing GGEs -- GGEs are too broad; they're everywhere. (Note that many believe that cap-and-trade was effective for mercury air pollution reduction in the U.S. - a different animal). For more info on how cap-and-trade for CO2 has not worked well in Europe (although it made some rich), check out
Environmental taxes: btu's vs. carbon - a politician's view.
What about efficiency standards?? How high? By when? Who winds up paying the cost?? (contrary to the "Don't worry, be happy" crowd's propaganda, there will be additional costs (actually it probably is not propaganda since they completely ignore any mention of additional consumer costs).
Why not lower federal income taxes and raise taxes on non-renewable energy (so we begin to pay the external costs), and LET THE MARKET ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS?
Here are excerpts from a Washington Post editorial titled
Climate Change on Capitol Hill. Some they get very right and some they get very wrong:
- "Five climate-change bills have been floated, reflecting a growing consensus on Capitol Hill for a cap-and-trade system to achieve mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The Lieberman-Warner measure would cover the electric power, transportation and manufacturing sectors, which account for 75 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. A declining cap on carbon dioxide and other gases that enhance global warming, in addition to energy-efficiency standards for appliances and buildings, would cut total emissions to 63 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. That's shy of what many scientists urge but still substantial."
- "A carbon tax would be more straightforward. With cap-and-trade, there's potential for games, fraud, evasion and abuse. Some companies could earn windfall profits, and the price volatility of emissions allowances could be disruptive." YES (!) Although, a BTU tax is better because nuclear power will begin to pay some of it's external costs.
- "But we also understand the upside of a cap-and-trade system. It would give industry and the American people time to transition to the greener reality they're facing. It would allow the government to set a goal for total emissions. It could fit into an international market. Most of all, it's politically more plausible. A carbon tax is unthinkable for most in Congress." Agreed, we need to transition. But, cap-and-trade is not the only way to do this, so don't say that "time to transition" is an upside of cap-and-trade. Try a phased-in federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy instead. "Unthinkable for most in Congress"...why? Because the Washington Post and the "environmental" group below are giving our elected representatives an easy out. If the Post or Union of Concerned Scientists (below) believe something is a bad idea (particularly something in the early stages), SAY SO!
*******************
Now to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) -- an "environmental" group of scientists that has become part of the "Don't Worry, be happy" crowd. Copied below is an email I received from them today. My comments added in square brackets [ ].
-----------------------
Dear Paul,
This is it—after thousands of emails, letters, and phone calls from UCS supporters like you, Congress is now finalizing the energy bill. Urge your legislators to support a clean energy bill that increases renewable energy and fuel economy standards.
["Increases renewable energy" - GOOD, but how? "Increases fuel economy standards" - BAD. Who will buy these higher mileage vehicles? Depends on the price of gasoline, right? So, if the goal is to have people use less gas for transportation, why not raise the price of gas, let the auto manufacturers compete and figure out what to make, and then let people buy what they want?? In other words, "change the rules" for the benefit of society (and the world) and then let the market decide. (Google "Tragedy of the Commons")]
According to new UCS analysis, if utilities are required to produce 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources—like the wind and sun—U.S. consumers would save between $13 billion and $18 billion a year in energy costs. Combined with the $24 billion consumers would save nationally if Congress increased fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon—this energy bill could have a direct effect on your pocketbook!
[U.S. consumers will SAVE and it's going to end up in MY WALLET - YIPPEE! Don't worry, be happy! Crap. Almost across the board renewable energy is more expensive to generate (without a tax shift) than non-renewable energy. As oil becomes more and more expensive, there could be a rush to coal and nuclear power the likes of which we can't even imagine - unless we act soon. When utilities produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources, who is going to pay the premium?? I long for the day when across the board renewable energy is less expensive than non-renewable energy sources like fossil fuels and nuclear. Actually, I do more than long for it; I'm trying to help accelerate us getting there by promoting a federal tax shift.]
Yet automakers, coal companies, and utilities are lobbying hard to keep these consumer- and climate-friendly provisions out of the Energy Bill. Please email your senators and representative and tell them to support an energy bill that saves consumers money and reduces the risk of global warming.
["...saves consumers money...." B.S. -- turn in your college degrees and go home.]
Sincerely,
Ben Larson
National Field Organizer
Clean Energy Program
------------------------------------------
Thanks for reading, commenting, fomenting and forwarding.
P.S. - We'll be well over 900 views this week......... !!
