[Vision2020] carbon tax

[Ted Moffett]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> wrote:

"I still think the best way to fight the carbon pollution is to force the
engineering of more fuel efficient systems rather than sucking what little
resources away they have left from those that must use them."

Actually, upon a moments reflection, I realized in the past I have agreed
in part, in different terms, with this statement.

It has been advocated that to quickly transition away from fossil fuels a
massively funded "Manhattan" style project, to develop new energy
technologies, whether it be the promise of fusion power, next gen fission,
solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tidal, biofuels, fuel cells, etc. or even
coal with massive CCS (carbon storage and sequestration), the later being a
very questionable technology.  A few sources on this idea are below.  Some
approach this not primarily from the climate change problem, but from the
national security risks of continued massive dependence on fossil fuels,
especially oil; and of course eventually no matter how we force the issue
extracting fossil fuels, they will run out:

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1339.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-d-intriligator/why-we-need-a-new-manhatt_b_544464.html
--------------------------------
Please provide a specific reference or references regarding your statements
about the "Mom and Pop distribution businesses" going extinct, under
Australia's "Clean Energy Future" plan:
http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/clean-energy-future/securing-a-clean-energy-future/

You may be right.  There will be winners and losers under this plan.  No
economic system, of any kind, guarantees everyone doing every job unending
economic survival, with changing technology and environments.   But most
low and middle income families are compensated on average to offset the
increases in the costs of goods and services associated with the carbon tax.

Consider this plan an experiment.  If it does not work as expected, it can
be changed or some other plan adopted.

But at least it is a start, though too late and too little, given the
magnitude of the problem.

What is appealing about NASA climate scientist James Hansen's fee and
dividend plan is actually how little government engineering of the economy
is involved.  For the most part, the plan is to assess a carbon fee at the
well head or mine for domestic fossil fuels, or at the point of importation
of imported fossil fuels, distribute all the fees (100%) to the citizens,
in a manner commensurate with their economic position, and let the economic
choices of citizens decide if a intensive fossil fuel economy or a more
alternative energy economy will result.

The fees are not put in government coffers to be handed out as pork by
politicians... Well, at least ideally.
No government support for boondoggles like solar cell company Solyndra,
though I do not mean to say I oppose all government subsidies of
alternative energy technology.

Info below on a fee and dividend system presented to the US Congress:
Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend vs. Tax and Trade
Testimony of James E. Hansen
Committee on Ways and Means
US House of Representatives
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2009/WaysAndMeans_20090225.pdf
---------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> wrote:

> I think this idea of taxing fuel is going to be more destructive to
> businesses and the economy than helpful to the Australian environment. One
> group of people that will go extinct for sure is the Mom and Pop
> distribution businesses. Up to $6500 in assistance for new machines and
> "advice" from the government isn't going to help a small business that must
> use an abundance of fuel.
>
> Many of the families that cannot afford to upgrade and don't get enough
> assistance, or cannot wait for the assistance from the government, will
> also be greatly hindered. A $300-$500 tax credit isn't enough to keep up
> with the increases of needed goods and services, much less buy new
> appliances the government expects them to.
>
> I still think the best way to fight the carbon pollution is to force the
> engineering of more fuel efficient systems rather than sucking what
> little resources away they have left from those that must use them.
>
> In addition, the equipment western society is engineering and building
> today, will be the equipment used by developing countries in the future.
> These countries and continents with 100s of millions and even billions
> are the ones more greatly impacting world environmental conditions. Third
> world countries follow our technologies, not our social
> engineering. Depending on social engineering, which is what this tax is,
> to solve the Earth's environment issues, rather than creating only
> machines that will not destroy the planet, I think is foolhardy. Does it
> not make more sense to not to build the machines that will destroy the
> Earth in the first place than to build them and try to control human
> behavior not to abuse them?
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>   *From:* Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> *To:* Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, June 4, 2012 4:10 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] carbon tax
>
>  A carbon tax with tax shifting or other compensation, or a fee and
> dividend system, would offer relief to consumers of low and middle incomes
> for the increases in the cost of goods and services.  In fact, some
> economic projections show low and middle income consumers coming out ahead
> financially, with a carbon tax and tax shifting or other compensation, or
> fee and dividend systems, to promote a quicker transition away from fossil
> fuels.
>
> This of course would depend on their economic choices.  If someone used a
> lot of coal fired electricity and drove a gas guzzler 100 miles a day to
> commute, they would see a large increase in the cost of coal and oil energy
> associated with their lifestyle.  But for those who make choices to avoid
> intensive fossil fuel associated economic decisions, the reduction in their
> taxes or other compensation or the dividend payments they would receive,
> could offer the chance to economically benefit from the tax or fee on
> carbon.
>
> Incredible that in this thread, Australia's plan, just now being
> implemented, though in the works for a long time, to tax carbon and
> compensate families for the increases in costs, was not mentioned once...
>
> Below are sources of information on carbon tax and tax shifting or other
> compensation, and fee and dividend systems.  Cleanenergyfuture.gov.au<http://cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/>source below claims compensation of 120 percent of the expected
> increases in costs from the carbon tax:
>
> Lowering Income Taxes While Raising Pollution Taxes Reaps Great Returns
> Lester R. Brown
> http://www.earth-policy.org/book_bytes/2010/pb4ch10_ss2
> -------------------------------
>  Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization<http://www.earth-policy.org/books/pb3>
> Lester R. Brown
> Chapter 13. The Great Mobilization: Shifting Taxes and Subsidies
> http://www.earth-policy.org/books/pb3/PB3ch13_ss2
> ------------------------------
> Info on Australia's "Clean Energy Future" plan with a carbon tax:
>
> http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/who-will-get-assistance/
> Over 4 million households get assistance worth 120 per cent of their
> expected average price impact
> -----------------------------
> Info below on a fee and dividend system presented to the US Congress:
> Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend vs. Tax and Trade
> Testimony of James E. Hansen
> Committee on Ways and Means
> US House of Representatives
> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2009/WaysAndMeans_20090225.pdf
>
> "...Tax and 100% Dividend--tax carbon emissions, but give all of the money
> back to the public..."
>
> NASA climate scientist James Hansen, quoted above, has opposed the cap and
> trade system that the Obama administration was trying to pass the US
> Congress, that failed:
> Cap and Fade
> By JAMES HANSEN
> Published: December 6, 2009
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html
> ---------------------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120605/f50dda67/attachment-0001.html>