New entries Wednesday &
Sunday evenings
(& sometimes in between)
- Contribute to this online
public conversation -
|
|
1 - Global warming
2 - Dependence on
foreign energy
3 - Trade deficit
4 - Pollution from non-
renewable fuels
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Blueprint for State Action
This entry was posted on 1/30/2008 10:58 PM and is filed under Legislation,Action,Communism,Leadership.
It's very good for what it is - a Wisconsin state plan by Wisconsin Environment. Titled, A Blueprint for Action - Policy Options to Reduce Wisconsin's Contribution to Global Warming, it concisely lays out the problem and lists 13 specific "key policy strategies" that include some innovative ideas (see below).
The problem: individual states shouldn't need to create these elaborate, in-depth policies. We are the United States - solving global problems like global warming is a responsibility of our federally elected representatives. Did you know that Iraq just signed on to the Kyoto treaty? Iraq! (good for them) The U.S. is the only major industrialized country that has not signed on -- unbelievable; beyond words.
The important question: these strategies will cost more at the start and some have reasonable paybacks. But, do these strategies, at the levels proposed, represent the best return (reduced greenhouse gases) for our investment?
The answer: we don't know. And, we're not even giving it our "best shot" by using the most powerful tool we have -- the market. Instead of recognizing and paying for the external costs associated with non-renewable fuel use, these recommended policy strategies are only a step away from communism. The "State" (instead of the market) is making the decisions: eleven of the 13 strategies require something, one "prevents", and one "encourages" (doesn't say how).
***************************
It's good that this report was written. The alternative is that the U.S. continues to do next to nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Hopefully these individual state efforts (and similar country and city efforts) will spur our federally elected representatives into action.
All of the 13 proposed options make sense. From an initial read, the three best seem to be #2) Require energy-saving replacement tires, #3) Create mileage-based automobile insurance, and #1) Adopt the Clean Cars Program. For the Clean Cars program to be effective it needs to be at least regional (with neighboring states) to minimize additional cost. Mileage-based auto insurance, paying for what is "used", is good business. Based on the information in the blueprint, requiring energy-saving replacement tires is a slam dunk -- do it now! "The resulting fuel savings would pay off the additional cost of the tires in about one year." I look forward to reading more of the specifics on each.
Just one, #10) Encourage combined heat and power is pretty thin on how combined heat and power should be encouraged. It states, "Wisconsin can also promote the spread of CHP by educating utilities to the benefits of cogeneration and restructuring incentives to make CHP more cost-effective for utilities." Ouch - "Educating utilities on the benefits of cogeneration...."?? The bottom-line is that fossil fuels are so inexpensive that it is more profitable to ignore "waste" heat in most cases. Want to change this? Enact a phased-in, federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy. When we're all paying the external costs of energy use, utilities won't be throwing energy away.
************************
We live in a capitalistic society, so these 13 options should be divided into two categories:
A ) - There is a cost(s), but they save enough energy so there is a reasonable payback period after which the individual (and therefore Wisconsin) benefits. Let's put the cut-off in the 5-7 year range; any longer and people tend to lose interest in making the initial investment. And, in the case of some of these options, 5-7 years in the full-life of the investment (e.g., appliances). Based on the blueprint, #2) Require energy-saving replacement tires easily falls into this category, "...The resulting fuel savings would pay off the additional cost of the tires in about one year." (so enact a phased-in program now)
B ) - There is a cost(s) and the payback is more than 7 years. I believe #4) Reduce the number of automobile commutes falls into this category. Is the employee really going to see a net benefit in dollars and/or time?
Here's the thing, per the "Tragedy of the Commons" model, the way to solve global warming is by an agreement on shared sacrifice -- at least in the short-term. (If anyone knows of a better way, let me know) This is the basis for the Kyoto treaty. We need agreements between nations and within the U.S. we need agreements between the states.
The problem with strategies that fall into category "B"? Sure we'll be doing "nice" things, and hopefully this will spur others to action, but these strategies may not be sustainable (because economically the cost is greater than the benefit) and therefore they may fail in the long-term. If there is no federal action, states need to start with those in category "A".
~ ~ ~ ~
Concluding with my earlier point, global warming is a national problem requiring a national solution. Thanks for reading.
   
|
|
|
|
|
|
