Thomas Friedman's November 14, 2007 Op-Ed post says it all.
Click the "Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda" title above to read his piece.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
U.N. Report Describes Risks of Inaction on Climate Change
This appears to be the top story today for the Times, and it's an important one for sure -- essentially capping off the IPCC's total findings. The set of IPCC reports is likely to form global policy for years to come. Understanding the weight of this set of reports is essential:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/science/earth/17climate.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1195313252-jLJbP3t5WQZzFDwOL2yIkw
As if the issue were not clearly urgent enough, note on page 2: "Likewise, a recent International Energy Agency report looking at the unexpectedly rapid emissions growth in China and India estimated that if current policies were not changed the world would warm six degrees by 2030, a disastrous increase far higher than the panel’s estimates of one to four degrees by the end of the century."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/science/earth/17climate.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1195313252-jLJbP3t5WQZzFDwOL2yIkw
As if the issue were not clearly urgent enough, note on page 2: "Likewise, a recent International Energy Agency report looking at the unexpectedly rapid emissions growth in China and India estimated that if current policies were not changed the world would warm six degrees by 2030, a disastrous increase far higher than the panel’s estimates of one to four degrees by the end of the century."
Friday, November 16, 2007
Cap and Trade vs. a Flat Carbon Tax
Yes, David, "cap and trade" would be one answer, but not the best one in my opinion. Europe is currently floundering with such a system. In the US we have a great advantage over Europe, a central taxing authority. Therefore, in my opinion a flat carbon tax is better for the US. That said, I respect the argument that governments are not good at putting money to work. Therefore I propose a flat tax that replaces another tax, netting to no new tax. The only other tax large enough to be that other tax is income tax.
The final point Shira raised (in another post) is what to do with families that don't pay any income tax now. Here is how that is addressed: A 250% tax on dirty fuel collects enough revenue to refund $ 2,500 to each and every American household. Think of it as your "standard deduction". This refund compensates you for essentially the first $ 1,000 of fuel you purchased in a year. Buy an efficient car, ride the bus, etc and your cost all net to zero. On the other hand, if you own a lake house and a boat and drive an inefficient car you will end up paying much more.
/kim
On Nov 16, 2007, at 9:08 AM, David Rein wrote:
Interesting discussion. I think what you are arguing Kim is that we don't actually pay the full price for coal power because the costs of its negative environmental impacts are external to market for electricity.
A comprehensive energy plan would account for these impacts by setting carbon targets and auctioning off credits for the amount of CO2 emissions that can be sustained without causing global warming. Power companies like those in Georgia who rely on coal would then have to purchase enough credits to cover their Carbon emissions, and this added expense would create incentives to transition to non-coal fired plants or to find technological mean to sequester the Carbon emissions.
The final point Shira raised (in another post) is what to do with families that don't pay any income tax now. Here is how that is addressed: A 250% tax on dirty fuel collects enough revenue to refund $ 2,500 to each and every American household. Think of it as your "standard deduction". This refund compensates you for essentially the first $ 1,000 of fuel you purchased in a year. Buy an efficient car, ride the bus, etc and your cost all net to zero. On the other hand, if you own a lake house and a boat and drive an inefficient car you will end up paying much more.
/kim
On Nov 16, 2007, at 9:08 AM, David Rein wrote:
Interesting discussion. I think what you are arguing Kim is that we don't actually pay the full price for coal power because the costs of its negative environmental impacts are external to market for electricity.
A comprehensive energy plan would account for these impacts by setting carbon targets and auctioning off credits for the amount of CO2 emissions that can be sustained without causing global warming. Power companies like those in Georgia who rely on coal would then have to purchase enough credits to cover their Carbon emissions, and this added expense would create incentives to transition to non-coal fired plants or to find technological mean to sequester the Carbon emissions.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Current Energy Legislation
The current legislation in Congress needs support. It is critical to:
1. Become an energy-independent nation.
2. Effectively fight climate change.
3. Provide a robust solar energy industry will create good jobs in every state for years to come, and
4. Most importantly, provide investment tax credits for solar power, which must be part of the Congressional Energy Bill.
I urge my readers to let your voice be heard on this bill.
1. Become an energy-independent nation.
2. Effectively fight climate change.
3. Provide a robust solar energy industry will create good jobs in every state for years to come, and
4. Most importantly, provide investment tax credits for solar power, which must be part of the Congressional Energy Bill.
I urge my readers to let your voice be heard on this bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
