The Oil Drum

Or, on a related matter, how about encouraging the raising of grass fed beef and other kinds of meat such as poultry on integrated pasture based farms that incorporate a heavy emphasis on localized consumption of same. Corn is an energy intensive, environmentally destructive crop; the primary reason it is being used for ethanol is because it has become, through subsidization of mega monocultures, such a dominant part of our agricultural landscape.

Several points.

Taxes must come from some source. Taxes will alter behavior (why am I waiting to May 1, 2007 to sell a big gainer of mine even though I am itching sell the stock today ?) A distortion of the capital markets (MAJOR SIN) but many of those that decry other market distortions love the capital gains exclusion.

So I see no sin in sending signals via the tax code to change behavior.

Personal behavior and choices are driven by other factors than economic New Present Value. First cost is often the primary driver with little or no knowledge of long term operating (read energy) costs.

Landlords have no (or very little) incentive to increase energy efficiency for tenants.

The 50 mph speed limit places another tax on auto use; a time tax. So it saves energy, but it also makes that 55 minute commute a 62 minute commute and makes driving less enjoyable. Enough to perhaps alter behavior, particularly of higher income individuals who are unaffected by gas taxes, etc.

The market, as already distorted by gov't policies (90% federal matching for building Interstate highways) has failed us. So I see nothing wrong with statist actions to reverse the impacts of previous statist actions. And "distorting" a market that has failed us does not concern me either.

No mortgage interest deduction if one's home is not within 1 mile of an electrified transit stop and meets certain energy requirements. How is that more statist than the mortgage interest deduction that we have today ? Since 95% of Americans (rather than half) would not get the mortgage interest deduction, I see this as fairer.

Tearing down highways has been shown to be an excellent way to revitalize the areas that they once ran through (the reverse happened when they were originally built). And as it makes urban areas more desireable by removing the auto sewers, it makes long distance commuting more undesireable. A clear energy gain !

Decades ago, the gov't spend billions picking losers (inner cities got auto sewers to degrade their quality of life and disrupt local transportation patterns) and winners (suburbs). Just spend a few dollars reversing prior market distortions tearing them down, one by one.

Best Hopes,

Alan

Hello from Esperance, Western Australia.
We have banned the incandescent lamp.
Joe Sixpac is clueless when it comes to energy.
The hospital that I worked at as an electrician spends a grandiose amount of government money on Gas and Coal electricity.
I told them that we could reduce their expendature by 80%, and then use that money for nurse accomadation.
They stuck their fingers in their ears and called me horrible names.
I am afraid that Mr. Darwin will have to work his magic.
I am building big ships and boats,
Putting up monuments, jotting down notes.
Everybodies in dispair, every girl and boy.

"Require minimum energy efficiency on new rental unit construction." -- I'm all for improving building codes. Good luck on getting it done on a nationally mandated basis.

This might not be as hard as you think. Building codes are usually administered at the county level and counties almost alway adopt the The Uniform Building Code with some localized additions. A full set of commercial and residential codes would be beyond the budgets of most counties to research and create, hence the UBC. So there would really only be one target for ecology-enhancing legislation.

For all the evils markets cause, I trust them more than naive technocrats with competing agendas.

I don't like the Gov - BAD! Market - GOOD!!! Method of thinking – ideology will not get us out of this one

“Government are part of the problem, not part of the solution. A sensible mitigation programme would become the disaster "du jour" in the hands of government.” Posted by Burgundy

To me, this directly points to the really tough question: How do we keep an elected government out from under the undue influence of a primarily corporate economic class, well organized and financed to make that government see things their way, as well as keep the thinking always in the short-term of the electoral cycle, as opposed to thinking primarily in the long-term future of our society. (Never mind the virtual purchasing of elected positions, via contributions and contracts.)

If at some point in the near future, a US president and congress tried to impliment almost anything on Alan’s list, they would find themselves blocked by a hailstorm of lawsuits from myriads of industries. This alone would delay any implimentation until after a round or two of elections when you can be sure such president and congress would be history. And the legal system is as much a part of the problem as the other two branches of government. Almost certainly, anything that would actually seriously grapple with the situation would step on too many toes and, at some point, be ruled unconstitutional.

So if we can’t clean our “democratic” system out, and we don’t like Communism, Fascism, Feudalism, Socialism Monarchy, Saddam Hussein style rule, or whatever has ever been tried, then what do we do? Are there any other alternative economic and political systems out there that have not been to at least some degree, already discredited? If so, we’d better start looking them over because, as our current US government operates, Burgundy is absolutely correct.

Antoinetta III