Bart, over at the Energy Bulletin, and Alanfrombigeasy helped me out with a proposed op-ed piece for the Dallas Morning News, scheduled to run on 6/11/06.   It's a defense of the Peak Oil concept, in response to an anti-Peak Oil article by a writer for Reason Magazine.  In a sense, this is a response to my "Open Letter" on the Energy Bulletin.  In any case, following is the last part of the article (DART = Dallas Area Rapid Transit):

"There will be massive efforts with unconventional oil, such as Canadian tar sands and the tar and very heavy oil deposits in Venezuela. However, I predict that unconventional sources of oil will only slow--and not reverse--the decline in total world oil production because of the time and energy needed to expand production of these "oils".

"Without question, we have to reduce greatly our energy consumption to account for this new reality. What can we do? I have seen two very sensible proposals.

"The first is that we fund Social Security and Medicare with a tax on energy consumption, especially at the gas pump, offset by reducing or eliminating the highly regressive payroll taxes. Doing this would unleash enormous free market forces against profligate energy use. The second proposal is that we electrify our freight railroads and encourage freight to go by rail instead of truck with any of a variety of economic incentives while building electric urban rail systems, such as DART, at a rate much faster much faster than today's pace. Incidentally, both strategies will also find favor with those concerned about global warming."

The Daily Kos plan is complicated and begs the question, "what haven't they thought of"?   Instead of a complex mix of incentives and disincentives and all sorts of complex regulatory schemes, wouldn't it be simpler to institute a comphrehensive carbon tax that would be sufficiently high to incentivize all those nice things we like, i.e., more efficient cars, less cars, more mass transit, more wind energy,  more solar energy, less coal, cleaner coal, more rail transit, less road transport, compacter cities, more walking, more bicycling, more solar water heaters, on and on and on.  

It does make sense, however, to set up a body or use and existing body, to monitor how we are doing each year and adjust  the tax accordingly to ensure that we meet our goals. And we do need specific goals for carbon reduction.

On the other hand, the Kos approach may be more politically feasible.  Because the carbon tax is relatively simple, and  I mean relatively, perhaps it would be easier to shoot at ensuring that it is dead on arrival.  I guess we need to impose costs and a little pain without people noticing, the American way.