So, when pondering Bush's upcoming SOTU speech -- specifically, the energy proposals contained therein -- I had a thought (stop the presses!). It's not an original thought, but it's worth discussing in a general way.
What smart greens would like to see happen is a balanced program of changes. A move to clean, renewable energy from an array of decentralized sources, perhaps with some bridging technologies to buffer us until we get there (clean coal, nuclear, etc.). Eventually, electric cars run by renewable power. Also, less driving, more public transit, more compact communities, more sustainable agriculture, more application of the precautionary principle in manufacturing, dramatically improved energy efficiency in all areas of the economy. Etc.
Here's the problem, though: Out of that grab bag of changes, there are two kinds. One kind has the backing of large financial interests. The other doesn't. I fear that difference, rather than any particular suitability to the problems at hand, will decide which are implemented.
Bush's proposals are an answer to the question: "How can one appear to care about the energy issue while maximizing the benefit of corporate contributors?" (Much like he approaches any policy issue ...) So we get nuke-boosting. Ethanol-boosting. Hydrogen-boosting. Coal-boosting. What we don't get is anything that's simply in the public good, to no particular industry's benefit. And certainly nothing (e.g., a gas tax) that might actually harm a large corporate interest.
Another way to parse the distinction, though there's not total overlap, is that energy supply issues get a lot of attention, because someone will always benefit from selling energy, but energy demand issues, which offer fewer chances for big moneymaking but arguably larger aggregate savings, get very little.
This strikes me as a central dilemma for those hoping for a green future. And I'm not really sure what the answer is. Any ideas?
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 8:47 am
30 Jan 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
nweurosport Posted 10:22 am
30 Jan 2006
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:28 pm
30 Jan 2006
...and gives tax incentives and subsidies directly to individual homeowners and small businesses to install small to medium scale solar, wind, and geothermal heat pumps for heating and cooling and to buy electric vehicles.
Offsetting the lower wages caused by globalization and loss of high wage US manufacturing jobs by helping families and small businesses invest in making their own inexpensive energy from renewable resources right at their location wind, solar, and geothermal heat, then use that energy in much more cost efficient heat pumps and electric cars.
In the process a whole new manufacturing and installation sector of the economy is born. Reviving the tax base and paying the taxpayers back for the devt incurred in the tax incentives and subsidies.
It's a neat package that people can vote for. Industry gets off the government dole, that actually hinders inovation, corporate welfare they don't need and is not healthy for them, witness the demise of GM and Ford.
And help we the people invest in the means to produce the energy we use and save the earth from global climate disaster at the same time.
and mo taxes are raised in the process. Raising taxes is political suicide.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
kjmclark Posted 6:16 am
31 Jan 2006
Environmentalists are already doing this to some extent by raising red flags for US energy drilling. That raises the costs of energy, working to reduce demand and encourage conservation. Amazingdrx's suggestion for a windfall tax on energy companies is the same sort of thing - raise costs for energy companies and they will pass the costs along to consumers.
Unfortunately, anything environmentalists do to raise energy costs and encourage conservation will get thrown back in our faces, since average Joes care much more about filling up their pickups than what kind of world their kids will live in. At least we can point to the economics community, which has called for increasing energy costs to solve many problems for quite a while now.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:43 am
31 Jan 2006
I wouldn't try to propose raising taxes to reap some of those war profiteering windfall energy company profits.
Only eliminating subsidies and tax breaks.
Then using those funds to incentivise small to medium sized distributed green energy production and conservation for homeowners and small businesses.
Fuel prices would rise, but consumers would blame OPEC, the saudis, and big oil bushco inc for that.
And install solar and wind and use heat pumps and electric cars, subsidized and incentivised by money trabsferred from energy monopoly corporate welfare, to beat those rising fuel prices.
Og course the rovian big lie spinmeisters would blane gifger fuel prices on yax "increases" caused by eliminating subsidies for big oil. Let them parse, the public is fed up with their lies.
They see duuhbya holding hands with his saudi uncle in that Crawford ranch visit when they look at the gas pump ticking over 50 bucks per tank.
Make sure they see it!! Download and print that image today and stick it on every gas pump in town, hehey. People are actually doing this!!
The phrase.."Bend over for bush and his king!" prominently displayed over the picture.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
rh Posted 6:56 am
31 Jan 2006
I think you're really making a great distinction here. Working on demand is the only realistic way forward if we're going to stop growing the amount of energy needed, and eventually turn back towards using less than we do now.
I was at a conference last week and saw the head of EIA make a presentation about the energy outlook for 2030. And the reality is, everyone in a position (gov't, corporations) to make change happen is absolutely counting on more supply (adding 1.1% a year if you're interested).
So, the question is: how do we get away from the paradigm of providing what it is that we want (lights, mobility, etc.) through some other means than constantly supplying more energy?
And Dave, I agree with you here - I don't know the answer. But I do know we as a country have to get serious about finding a good answer, and get serious about it really soon.
Permalink
rh Posted 6:59 am
31 Jan 2006
To take away part of the energy industry's profit through a windfall policy is a new tax. Let's call a spade a spade.
I won't make a judgment call on whether I think it's a good idea or not, but it's certainly a tax.
My two pennies.
rh
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:06 am
31 Jan 2006
I am not proposing a windfall tax. Only eliminating tax breaks and subsidies.
Let's not play neoconman linguistic games.
If a tax break for solar energy installation, for instance, was eliminated, which they were by the Reagan administration, did you see that as raising taxes on solar power?
Naturally anyone opposed to solar energy would see that as a just elimination of a wasteful program.
Just as those of us opposed to oil based energy see eliminating tax breaks for oil as elimination of a wasteful, unecessary program.
Why unecessary? Because of record profits gained through war profiteering, price fixing, and monopoly control by multinational oil companies and OPEC.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:18 pm
31 Jan 2006
All the profits from selling the power going towards a non-profit buying land that is put into conservation and some tourism related sustainable development.
I think mother earth might bless that effort somehow. No need to buy and sell the land with that scenario.
Land could be leased for sustainable cabins that are not permanent buildings. No mcmansions or elaborate tourist lodges, mainly camping for visitors.
My question is how would one get a tax break similar to the ones held by organized religion? Start a religion? I call pope!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
rh Posted 11:52 pm
31 Jan 2006
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't read your second post closely enough. My mistake.
I absolutely agree that we should eliminate the subsidies and tax breaks. I misread and thought you were asking for a "policy" that would take windfall profits.
Thank you for clearing that up.
Permalink