Solve 4 Biggies
  ~  by reducing income taxes & increasing energy taxes

                          
   
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

Striking at the root

Print the article

This entry was posted on 8/6/2008 7:25 PM and is filed under Tax Shifting,Tragedy of the Commons,Global Warming,Leadership,Action.

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root"
                                                 ~ Henry David Thoreau


This Thoreau quote applies to the global warming and energy problems we face.  The "evil" part may be a bit much, but maybe not.  People that are losing their homes in floods or find themselves in war would probably say that evil fits.  Anyone that doesn't acknowledge the direct connection between global warming and Iowa 2008-type floods needs to get with the program; even the White House has (see the last link).

Many have different opinions about how to solve the very large problems of global warming and our dependence on fossil fuels.  The themes of solutions almost always include conservation and sustainable/renewable energy.  Some suggest nuclear power, but that's a bad idea.

How do we really achieve conservation and sustainable/renewable energy solutions?  Create incentives and disincentives by phasing-in a federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy.

For those interested in additional reasons why this is a good idea look at the long-term economic benefit of paying the external costs of our energy use at the time we use it.  The "long-term" part of this statement is probably the biggest reason we're in the position we're in.  In the short-term there IS an economic benefit to plunder our natural resources - air, water, fossil fuels, etc.  It's 'piggy' and creates problems later on, but there is economic benefit.  From Garrett Hardin, author of Tragedy of the Commons, :

    "In the early stages of the exploitation of a natural resource, when there is no real shortage, an unmanaged commons is the most economical mode of distribution.  But human demands increase faster than resources, so there comes a time when a help-yourself policy becomes contrary to the interests of all."

    `      `      `      `

Let's not waste the time we have, nor our personal energy; let's strike at the root by creating financial incentives and disincentives based on the principal of external cost.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments

    • 8/7/2008 7:25 AM Mark Jeantheau wrote:

      I agree that until we "strike at the root," our various problems will continue to be addressed by our leaders with non-solutions. Global climate change, energy shortages, overpopulation, etc. -- all of these are EFFECTS of the true problem, which is political in nature. As long as we use a debt-based economic model and have politicians who act according to moneyed interests rather than "for the people"---the bailouts of the last year are a sure sign of where their allegiances lie---all efforts to correct the problems will simply be ineffectual hacking at the branches. Things are going to have to get a lot worse---and they will---before the general populace in the US wakes up and smells the pluto-coffee. If they ever do.

      Mark
      Reply to this
    • 8/7/2008 7:33 AM Mark Jeantheau wrote:

      P.S. I usually find a lot to agree with whenever Paul Krugman speaks. I was surprised, however, that even he does not talk about tax shifts.

      For example, this snippet is from an op-ed, August 1, 2008, in the New York Times,
      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/opinion/01krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=s

      << After all, a cap-and-trade system would in effect be a tax on carbon (though Mr. McCain apparently doesn’t know that), and really would raise energy prices. >>

      Grrr. I sent him an email....

      <<<<<<<<<<

      Yes. But why, why, why is this always phrased as a "tax increase" (and thus a net loss to consumers)? There is another way---a tax shift.

      Substantially increasing taxes on carbon-based fuels---and other sources of greenhouse gases, such as beef production and use of certain chemicals---while at the same time cutting payroll taxes an equivalent amount would be a net wash to US consumers, at least statistically. The average consumer would get the choice of spending the un-tax-collected money on gas and burgers, as usual, or cutting back a bit on those and pocketing the difference. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

      You're one of my favorite writers/speakers on economics---one of the few who "gets it" on most issues. I hope you will start actively pushing a tax shift as the only plausible solution to global warming. (The carbon-cap-and-trade approach is feasible but is being perverted in a way that makes it less about GHG reduction and more about how corporations can harvest additional profit during the solution phase of a problem they largely created.)

      Showing consumers that a global warming solution can have a silver lining, however thin, will be essential to gaining public support. A tax shift is simple, straight-forward, and easy to explain. The public will "get it"---if only some smart people will start explaining it to them.

      >>>>>>>>>>

      Krugman has not been afraid the "speak truth" on other issues; hopefully he will start doing so here too.

      Mark
      Reply to this
      1. 8/7/2008 10:01 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:

        Thanks Mark.  My favorite thoughts:

        From Mr. Krugman's article:

           "It’s true that scientists don’t know exactly how much world temperatures will rise if we persist with business as usual. But that uncertainty is actually what makes action so urgent."

        From your comments:

            "A tax shift is simple, straight-forward, and easy to explain. The public will "get it"---if only some smart people will start explaining it to them."

        Reply to this
    • 8/18/2008 12:13 AM Jim Blair wrote:
      Hi,

      I don't see Paul Krugman as showing much interest in the environment. I have a review of some of his books on my web page, including this:

      http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/51.txt

      He criticizes the Thatcher government in England for shifting power
      production from coal to gas thus causing unemployment among coal miners.
      (p181). No attempt to evaluate the
      environmental impact of gas vs coal. In
      these and other situations, he explains things from only a narrow economic
      perspective and does not attempt to consider environmental factors.

      Note that England is one of only two countries to actually meet their Kyoto Treaty commitment, and it was done because of Thatcher's coal to natural gas shift.

      PS I am now in Israel for another month, but continue to look into this web page sometimes.
      Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Enter the above security code (required)

     Name

     Email (will not be published)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.