<DrumBeat: August 1, 2007 The Oil Drum Easy Come, Easy Go..>

105 comments on The House is poised to debate and pass an Energy Bill this week...get your thoughts in...UPDATED

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

jokuhl on July 31, 2007 - 8:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Thanks for bringing this up, PG. It's been coming up this week, and I'm in a quandary..

I got emails from MoveOn and Greenpeace about energy legislation over the last couple days, but didn't get any specifics with their messages vying for us to call and advocate or oppose more 'mystery amendments'..

Udall's HR 969, with the 20% renewable standard mandate for utilities was what MoveOn wanted me to cheer for, but I want to hear what TOD has to say. I don't feel that this is as clear or effective a policy direction as the oft-touted 'carbon tax'.

I'm doing some searches of past TOD discussions, but to just lay it out there, what are the Pros/Cons with a carbon tax.. appreciating already that 'Political Feasibility' might be all that's required to kill it. But is it a good idea? What are your other proposals for useful energy-policy riders that could/should carry us in the right direction? X-prizes for Tide and Wave solutions? Better Batteries? For Cities/States that reach new transit-improvement goals akin to Alan Drake's improvements possible with Electric Rail Freight, etc. ?

Bob Fiske

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Prof. Goose on July 31, 2007 - 8:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/gas_tax

We had a lot of discussions over a year ago about a) whether or not a gas tax was a good idea, and b) whether or not it is a regressive tax (i.e., it hurts the poor more than the rich). Political feasibility aside, public opinion and logic is on the side of a gas tax if you believe the world is at plateau.

Of course, they don't all know this yet, unless you tell them to read theoildrum and the rest of the po blogosphere.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
auntiegrav on July 31, 2007 - 10:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

b) whether or not it is a regressive tax (i.e., it hurts the poor more than the rich).

Consumption taxes are a lot less regressive than a dead planet.

Since this is discussion of the energy bill, I agree that a fuel tax should be considered to some degree, but better handled at the state level for exemptions and rebates for farming, etc, since most states already have a system for that. However, as consumption taxes go, it is regressive. After considering how it hurts the poor, then perhaps they can start considering The Fair Tax, which prebates the poor end amount to everyone so that low consumers don't pay any tax. To do this with the energy tax would be cumbersome and invasive. To do it on a consumption-wide basis means you only need an address or a bank account and a name, and since everyone gets the same amount, there is no need for major monitoring systems.
After all, oil is being consumed by all consumption, not just transportation. Transport costs get transferred to the end products anyway, so why not just tax the end products and reduce overall demand for CWDN ('stuff' we don't need)?

Sorry for the ramble.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dryki on July 31, 2007 - 11:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It's less and less obvious to me that consumption taxes affect the poor more than the wealthy. So they drive the poor into an underground economy. Or they barter time for vegetables, work in a community garden or swap. Those are options not really open to the wealthy. [They pay their lawyers or politicians for tax breaks instead.]

Another way to think about that is how much can be swapped and bartered or self-produced vs how much must be purchased in coin-of-the-realm. That gets you into the "Two Income Trap" where women earning a wage find themselves worse off than some of those not earning a wage but home-producing otherwise.

If people can get off the consumption treadmill, then the consumption tax is less of an issue. The caveat, though, is that it becomes a "sin" tax; we need to encourage what we do not want to generate revenue.

cfm in Gray, ME

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on August 1, 2007 - 11:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

CFM;
So what is the upshot on 'Sin taxes'? Are they less effective because the government becomes dependent on the revenues, and may be less vigilant in eradicating the 'sin'? ( I guess that's what you were saying there.. it took me a second to unravel it) The heavy taxing on cigarettes, for example. Is it worth it? Is it also just taking cruel advantage of Addiction, instead of working to cure it? (Whether for Nicotiene or Gasotiene)

What about a scaled tax reward system for Utilities that are investing in distributed RE technologies?

Do we want better Gov't programs for helping to create and enhance the development of US-owned RE businesses?

I'm not really policy Savvy, (I don't think I can even SPELL savvy!) but then again, some of the policies I hear coming out of DC convince me I'm not that far behind the Senate, either way! So can you see past programs that have really been good examples of the kind of public planning that we could model current efforts on?

Thanks,
Bob Fiske

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
auntiegrav on August 1, 2007 - 1:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

If people can get off the consumption treadmill, then the consumption tax is less of an issue. The caveat, though, is that it becomes a "sin" tax; we need to encourage what we do not want to generate revenue.

I'm sorry if this may digress, but this issue needs to be fleshed out more in discussions.

High parking fees are a "sin" tax on having too many cars in the city, set at a 'price point' which maintains flow of revenue.
What about raising someone's insurance premiums just enough to keep them as a customer, but not enough to lose the income?
We do this stuff all the time. We just have to apply it properly from the long-term picture of humans as a species.
Conservatives get scared when you start reducing their profit revenue POTENTIAL, and Liberals get scared if you reduce the potential of future government revenue. It's time we reduced it all and be conservative about how much government we really need in the future. Jack up taxes until people actually stop doing stupid things, then get rid of the overhead we created to WATCH them do stupid things instead of STOPPING them from doing stupid things.

What are our grandchildren getting for all the oil we are burning up? If we don't make ourselves pay the true costs, THEY will simply have to pay much more in the long run.
Changing some economic paradigms now is better than trying to survive on a planet full of plastic McDonald's toys and Roundup-flavored Cheez Doodles.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Spaceman on August 1, 2007 - 12:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

If the world is at plateau, logic dictates conservation not taxation.
Not one pro tax argument on this site has clearly shown demand destruction from price increases, tax based or otherwise.
IF the House is serious about reducing fossil fuel consumption pass the bill with the strictest CAFE standards, limit the speed to 100kph on the Interstates, mandate higher efficiencies from household appliances and extend fuel efficiency ratings to personal watercraft, motorcycles and gasoline powered yard machines etc..

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
auntiegrav on August 1, 2007 - 1:31pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Not one pro tax argument on this site has clearly shown demand destruction from price increases, tax based or otherwise.

"Price point" and education/public buy-in are important. People don't stop speeding until the price of a ticket gets high enough. Until that point is reached, there is no deterrence, only revenue generation for local government. If the price is raised too much, the problem becomes one where you can't afford to pay for the police you no longer need when people stop speeding. It's a matter of whether we are going to give ourselves enough credit that once we learn to behave, we won't need the government constantly around to tell us how to behave. Imagine that. It used to be called "growing up".

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Spaceman on August 1, 2007 - 11:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Another thing, a biggie too.
Establish fuel economy standards for commercial vehicles as well.
Thanks musashi!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on July 31, 2007 - 8:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

To drop in one set arguments for Carbon Tax from April:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2473#comment-181772

"1. You need a carbon tax, not just a gas tax. The carbon tax base is large enough to off-set the payroll tax cuts that have to come unless you want a working-middle-class revolution or worse (ballets, bullets or begging...)

The carbon tax punishes coal for electricity on an equal CO2
impact basis with other fuels/processes. If, as you propose, you give other tax relief to rail that electrifies, rail can handle the carbon tax and will feel the same pressures as others to economize (design of rail cars to handle more riders on a user-friendly basis, etc.)

A carbon tax will likely hit the airlines more than what you have on the table. E.g., cross-country flights will start re-fueling mid-country for further fuel efficiency, carriers will increase pressure on the builders to make more efficient planes and engines, and more short-haul flights will be cut due to electric ground transport competition.

2. The national economy that exploded on the back of cheap oil after WWII scattered family members to the four winds.

As a partial remedy for raising the cost of air travel, provide regulatory and financial incentives to expand, and enhance the quality of, video telephone and video-conferencing. Video can make families stay connected with less travel.

3. Ensure that the expanded electric grid can be fully responsive to both supply- and demand-side load management. Provide incentives (regs + $$) for residential and commercial user-friendly real-time demand management of their electricity use. Implement IPv6 and put the grid on the Web. Don't overlook solar.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

105 comments on The House is poised to debate and pass an Energy Bill this week...get your thoughts in...UPDATED

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version