Badge of Honor
This entry was posted on 1/13/2008 10:45 PM and is filed under Tax Shifting,Action,Leadership.
A phased-in, federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy will provide a financial incentive for energy conservation. But there's more, much more.
(Remember that it's been estimated that in 2007 AT LEAST 150,000 people died from global warming-related problems - increased disease, drought and floods. The actual number may be over 1 million. (see January 9, 2008 entry))
**********************
When this federal tax shift is enacted, there will be a widespread understanding of the need for resolute U.S. action to solve our energy-related problems -- that we need to lead worldwide reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.
But, if we're only phasing-in, say, the energy equivalent of a $.15 per gallon of gasoline tax shift per year for 10 years, will this make a difference and change energy use?? Yes. Here's why....
We're smart enough to care about our environment, we care about people, and when the majority recognize we need to take significant action we will do so with aplomb. In early years, the (say) $.15 per gallon equivalent annual tax shift on non-renewable forms of energy will have little financial effect on individuals, families, and the economy. But, using less energy will become a goal for all; a Badge of Honor.
Those that take action and make personal sacrifices will be revered. Those that continue to waste energy and/or over consume will feel societal pressure. We are human, we are compassionate, and the need for individuals, families, and businesses to take action is going to hit home. There will be a mind-set change. People and businesses will strive to have their actions match their desired self-image: as environmental stewards.
We have a precedent to learn from, World War II.
World War II
Search Yahoo! for "World War II sacrifice united states civilian" and you'll get over 7 million hits. Civilian sacrifices included higher taxes, no cars were manufactured, significant restrictions on home construction, rationing of "essential commodities" such as gasoline, meat, canned goods, sugar, butter, gasoline, shoes, and clothing through the use of coupons, and all were encouraged to reduce consumer spending and buy war bonds. "Victory Gardens" were planted to provide vegetables to take the place of canned products. A "Victory Garden World War II" search on Yahoo! yields 16 million hits. The volunteer Civil Air Patrol was created. People wanted to help out.
However there are obvious differences between the 1940's and now. The enemy then: Germany, Japan and Italy. Now:........ourselves. It is our own unsustainable lifestyle and habits that need to change. Arguably (and unfortunately), this makes the challenge more difficult. But, on the other hand, we do have control over our public policy and actions.
Two questions for you: 1) Which was/is more important to solve - World War II or global warming?; 2) Which was/will be more difficult to solve?
Our current course
The fact is, we're making our task much more difficult with our current actions. When we do finally begin to lead on greenhouse gas reductions, what do think the rest of the world is going to say? -- China for example. It's likely that for many, many years they'll say (in essence) - screw you. "Given U.S. inaction since 2000, why should we do anything to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?"
We've started a very sad race to the bottom. Yes, we. Even if you didn't vote for George W. Bush, we elected him. We'll be dealing with the consequences of U.S. unilateralism in the Middle East for many, many years and other countries will not soon forget U.S. arrogance and selfishness with respect to the Kyoto treaty and greenhouse gas reduction negotiations.
From Professor Jon Foley (last Solve4Biggies entry) -- an analogy: we're the captain of the Titanic, we see the iceberg ahead, and we still have the throttle open.
Hope
There is hope. When Americans fully recognize the need to act, we'll do so. We'll make the necessary sacrifices together to solve the energy-related problems we face. What we need are elected representatives that understand and act so we start to pay the external costs of our energy use. However, it's unlikely that our elected representatives are going to lead, so we need to push elected representatives toward a federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy -- smart public policy that creates a market-based solution to the 4 biggies.
The sooner we address an escalating problem, the easier it is to fix.
-----------------
P.S. - from July 2007 as reported on www.sciencedaily.com: Americans Consider Global Warming An Urgent Threat, According To Poll -
"Sixty-two percent of respondents believe that life on earth will continue without major disruptions only if society takes immediate and drastic action to reduce global warming."
"...drastic action....." -- so, what do you think is stopping meaningful action to solve our energy-related problems by our federally elected representatives? What are you doing about it?
