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

The purpose of this blog

Print the article

This entry was posted on 9/14/2008 10:49 PM and is filed under Tax Shifting,Energy Policy,OIL,Global Warming,Action,Elected representatives.

Our lack of an effective energy policy has created many big problems - the biggest are global warming and our dependence on foreign energy and fossil fuels.  If anyone doesn't believe this look at:
  - the high price of oil, the price volatility and the associated negative effects on our economy;
  - studies that point to global warming being man-made and that it is causing catastrophic events such as more and stronger hurricanes, more flooding, and more and bigger forest fires.

The studies do not offer guarantees.  Yet for many the evidence is enough to warrant action and, yes, even change.

The purpose of this blog is to:
  - make the case that significant action is needed NOW to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and our use of fossil fuels;
  - make the case that a phased-in, federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy is the best was to achieve these goals by providing an incentive for conservation and a stimulus for our renewable energy industries;
  - recognize that no elected representatives (that I am aware of) are making the argument for a federal tax shift so it needs to come from citizens like you and me.  Economists support a federal tax shift, but not politicians.  Why?  Because it would be unpopular at first and they want to be reelected.

I heard a quote that was attributed to Franklin D. Roosevelt (I searched the web to no avail, so maybe neither he or anyone else said it; if you know who said this let me know.)  Anyway, here it is:

    "That's a great idea.  Now make me do it." 

The reality is that elected representatives most often do what their constituents want and rarely lead.  So it's up to us to make the case that there are benefits to a federal tax shift and that the costs of inaction are astronomical in both human suffering and economic terms.

Many countries, including the U.S. - entry one and entry two, are reeling (or are predicted to) from global warming related problems.  The sooner we address these escalating problems the less costly it will be.  And, to maximize the benefits derived from this change (green jobs and renewable energy leadership) - we need to move now.  To move, we need to change our mindset.

  ^     ^     ^     ^

What do you think our fellow citizens that have been affected terribly by Hurricane Ike are thinking now about our increasing greenhouse gas emissions?  How about the flood victims in Iowa?

They are us.

 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

    • 9/15/2008 2:14 PM mikey wrote:

      I agree with the post, but it does not go far enough!

      The American Revolution was begun at a grassroots level, and spread from bottom to top. I believe that our energy and tax problems will have to be solved from bottom up, also. It will take more than a mindset change, or begging our pathetic excuses for leaders to help.

      We, as citizens, need to get off our butts and act. We can put solar water heaters on our houses or in our backyards. We can install windmills or PV panels. We can install efficient and clean wood stoves or inserts. The payback periods for these things are reasonable, and with our newfound independence we can tell Exxon and OPEC to keep their oil for now.

      Keep fighting the good fight, Paul. But let's also open up new fronts in the battle.
      Reply to this
      1. 9/15/2008 9:18 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
        Mikey,

        YOU are leading by example and are creating the market.  YOU are getting a decent return on your investment and it should be much higher!  I'm with you....the more the better.  Chipping away....

        Similarly, our family should be getting a larger payback on our new mini-van (pictured below).  It even has a trunk!

        Thanks for your comment,

        P


        Reply to this
        1. 11/11/2008 1:56 PM mikey wrote:

          Paul-

          And your MPBB (Miles per bon-bon) is probably pretty good, too.

          When my folks quit smoking they said they put the savings, each day, into a big jar and used it to buy furniture.

          I'm thinking with the cost of gas dropping from $4.00 to $2.50, may be time to put the difference into a jar, and use proceeds to upgrade energy performance of the house. Replace lighting, install solar panels, etc. Kind of a self-tax.
          Reply to this
          1. 11/12/2008 12:00 AM Paul Riehemann wrote:

            What a GREAT idea!  A self-tax.  You are the man.

            Last time I filled up, it was about $20 less than the "peak" from several months ago.  I'm going to do it.

            Reply to this
    • 11/21/2008 4:45 PM Jim Blair wrote:
      Hi,

      Many of these ideas are not practical and would be ineffective. The "payback time" for personal wind or solar units are "reasonable" only because of the federal tax subsidy. They don't make economic sense given the price of conventional energy.

      Solar panels on my roof or in my yard? Trees shade both much of the summer and there just isn't much sunshine here during the short winter days.

      Winds typically die off at night and are not reliable anytime of year, especially during the summer. The large turbines that the power companies have placed in ideal locations in Wisconsin generate only about 20% of their rated capacity. So some backup (usually natural gas) makes up the other 80%. "Wind power" here is 80% natural gas power.

      Wood stove? When you consider the gasoline used to collect and cut and transport the wood, and the stove efficiency, is there much gain over heating with natural gas? And if lots of people switched to wood, do we have enough trees? And do we want to cut them for fuel? Or replace farms that grow food with farms that grow biomass?

      By rejecting the 300 MW Cassville coal/biomass power plant, the PSC will generate a lot of detailed consideration of alternatives. That is good. For starters, it would take about 1000 of the large 1.5 MW Enron wind turbines to produce an equivalent amount of power on AVERAGE over a year. (And over 2000 of the smaller Vestas 650 kw turbines) But the 1000 (or 2000) turbines would make much less power during the summer when demand is greatest.

      Some have suggested methane from cows. I saw an estimate of 2500 cows to replace one of the large wind turbines. That is millions of cows just to offset the Cassville plant

      If we are to get serious about Green House Gas we must think beyond wind, sun, and biomass.
      Reply to this
      1. 11/21/2008 10:47 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:

        Thanks for your comment.

        <<The "payback time" for personal wind or solar units are "reasonable" only because of the federal tax subsidy. They don't make economic sense given the price of conventional energy.>>

        Exactly.  That's why a phased-in federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy is needed to raise the price of "conventional" (non-renewable) energy such as fossil fuels and nuclear.  When we create the market conditions for energy innovation, the economically viable options will rise to the top. 


        Reply to this
    • 11/23/2008 11:51 AM Jim Blair wrote:
      Hi,

      I agree with the tax shift idea, but it should address the actual problem: GHG and climate change. "Renewable" has nothing to do with that.

      The focus on "renewable" leads to debate over side issues such as:

      Is hydro power "renewable" since dams silt up and shut down in a century or so, and depend on the changing climate?

      Is corn ethanol (or any biomass) "renewable" since they deplete topsoil?

      Are nuclear breeder reactors "renewable" since they produce more fuel than they consume?

      But CO2 emissions could be reduced if they were taxed directly and the money rebated back on an equal per capita basis, via the IRS for example.
      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.