If, after reading this series of posts. where we lay out scientific research, studies, analyses, and expert scientific opinions that show global warming may not be the imminent danger, or any danger at all, to the human race, if you cannot separate yourself from the Al Gore school of global warming insults, slander, slurs, and ravings, then please do not proceed any further with this post.
The status quo of identifying any doubter of global warming as a idiot, science illiterate fool has not done anything to help the situation. All it has done is entrench those that have a differing view because of the insults and name calling, resulting in no progress at all.
Our position is that there may be manmade global warming or the rebranded theme, man made climate change, going on. There is probably enough evidence on both sides to drive whatever thesis you want. However, our position is that no one really knows for sure what is going on.
The climate models over the past twenty years that have long predicted a global warming disaster have proven to be horrendously inaccurate. The earth’s average temperature has not increased in at least 15 years. Some climate scientists predict a “global cooling” period is underway. There are many reasons to doubt Al Gore.
However, why take the chance? Why not stop the name calling and look for solutions together that address global warming, regardless of whether it is a fact or fiction? That is what we propose over the next two days. Because looking for new, lower cost energy sources, cleaning up the current inexpensive energy sources, cutting pollution, etc. will benefit us all and help address global warming, if it is a reality.
If it is not a reality, we still end up with cleaner air, a more varied energy menu, and cheaper energy sources. This will not happen as long as global warming people like AL Gore are calling others racists, homophobes, etc.
Yesterday, we reviewed the current energy situation in the world. The realities include the following:
- China’s economy is growing rapidly and will require larger and larger amounts of energy sources, amounts that will require the use of carbon intensive energy sources such as coal for decades to come.
- China is literally choking on the pollution that its economic growth and energy usage growth has caused.
- The U.S. has already substantially reduced its carbon footprint over the past five years without government mandates or bureaucracies.
- Energy industry experts predict that carbon based energy sources will still constitute the majority of raw material used to generate energy in the next several decades, renewables not withstanding.
- New energy technology usage in the U.S. is one of the very few industries segments that have shown positive economic and employment growth over the past few years.
A number of overarching principles will guide our solution:
- What if you did not need a massive government bureaucracy to address both global warming and our energy crisis? In other words, lets not create another Obama Care government bureaucratic mess to handle the global warming and energy crisis situation.
- What if there was a long term strategic approach to both problems together rather than the failed tactical approaches to either problem?
- What if you could leverage the force of the entire market place to solve both problems, real or imagined, and not rely on the limited ability and knowledge of the 600 or so people in the White House and Congress?
- What if you could solve both problems with a minimal impact on freedom and citizens' wealth?
- The approach to co-solving the global warming/energy crisis would be revenue neutral to the Federal political class, i.e. it would not put more of our wealth within the power of the politicians in this country.
- Once the approach was set, it would be hardwired for at least ten years in order to remove market uncertainty and allow businesses and citizens to compute their short term and long term personal energy plans based on a firm belief that the rules would not change midstream. The Obama administration and government in general have an ugly tendency to inject major uncertainty into all of the major issues of our times (tax codes, tax breaks, health care, energy policy, etc.). Uncertainty breeds fear and we do not need any fear on an endeavor such as this.
- Market forces and the personal choices of Americans would drive/leverage this process, not another massive government bureaucracy. The massive bureaucracy known as the Energy Department has been a bust for over thirty years, there is no reason to believe it or another government bureaucracy will do better going forward the next ten, twenty, or thirty years.
- The plan will be strategic and long term, no more short term failures like Cash For Clunkers, Cash For Appliances, and Cash For Caulkers, all of which not only were non-strategic but also were not successful.
- There will minimal and hopefully no failed government subsides. There should never be another Solyndra, Beacon, or Evergreen. The market, operating under a long term strategy and set of rules, should pick the winners and losers, not politicians and their cronies who have shown a propensity for only rewarding themselves and operating ill fated companies into bankruptcy. For a good review of these failures, track down a New York Times August 18, 2011 article entitled: "Number Of Green Jobs Fails To Live Up To Promises."
A five dollar per barrel of oil tax/fee would be implemented and added onto to previous year's $5 tax every year for ten years, and that cost would be allowed to filter down into the production of heating oil and gasoline. Thus, ten years from now, a barrel of oil would carry an incremental $50 cost per barrel tax.
If everyone knew that this tax was coming and it was going to increase $5.00 every year, would happen over time? People would adapt, the entire market would adapt, creating leverage for less consumption of oil and less creation of emissions that may be causing global warming.
How would they adapt? The next time they bought a car, they would likely give serious consideration to a vehicle that got great gas mileage, considering that in ten years the cost of a gallon of gas might be as much as 50% more expensive.
They would likely look to better insulate their homes if the cost of heating oil was likely to be 50% higher within ten years.
They might also consider implementing active or passive solar energy equipment to avoid or minimize the higher cost of electricity and heating. All of these actions would create more demand for energy efficient products and services, driving the down the costs of such products and services, getting more people and small businesses interested in managing their energy future if costs came down.
Auto manufacturers and heating equipment manufacturers would invest in research and technology that is more energy efficient, knowing that their customers will become more efficient and smarter shoppers in the future. That would further reduce costs and emissions. All of these actions occur because the true costs of energy, loss of freedom due to the dependency on foreign energy sources and environmental impacts, are now fully part of the end price, i.e. the $5 per gallon per year increase represents these environmental and freedom costs.
Innovators would seek out, invent, or refine better energy sources, be it natural gas, wind, solar, tidal, or other energy technologies that do not exist yet. The competitiveness of new energy sources would be enhanced by the annual incremental $5 tax approach on oil, creating new domestic industries competing on a more equal basis against oil and coal.
But won't that destroy the economy and give our politicians more access to our wealth? Here is the beauty of this plan: the $5 a barrel tax never makes it in the hands of the Treasury or the political class. That money is rebated back to taxpayers every year to do with as they see fit via an income tax credit. They could use it to go on vacation. They could use it for a new TV. They could use their wealth as they see fit, freedom of choice.
But many of them would use it for a better gas mileage car, a better heating system, more home insulation, etc. Thus, we have not reduced the amount of wealth in the market, we have not given it to politicians to waste, we have just reallocated it for the good of the country and the environment back into the pockets and wallets of citizens.
This plan has leverage, it has certainty, and it will affect far more people than anything else the political class has passed off as an energy program. Cash For Clunkers affected about 300,000 people. I would bet Cash For Appliances and Cash For Caulkers affected for fewer. Their results were pitiful. Practically everyone in the country would be affected be this program. The key is not allowing the political class to get their hands on this additional oil tax money.
How much money might this get each of the 140,000,000 U.S. personal taxpayers every year? The U.S. uses about 19 million barrels of oil a day. If you go through the math of 19 million, 365 days, $5 a barrel, you would end up sending each of the 140 million taxpayers a check for just under $250 the first year. It doesn't seem like much but the next year that might get twice that much since the tax would be raised another $5, resulting in more money coming in for distribution.
However, if the plan works, there should be less oil consumption the following year. Thus, rather than $250, assume that consumption goes down 10%, resulting in a second year payback/rebate of $250 and $225 (10% less) or $475. If you continue this model for ten years, an additional $5 tax and an additional 10% decrease in consumption, by the tenth year, each American taxpayer is getting over an annual $1,600 credit that they can use for weatherizing their homes, putting in solar equipment, etc.
A simple but elegant solution: less consumption, less emissions, certainty in the market, a leveraging of the entire market structure, no massive and doomed to failure cap and trade bureaucracy, no energy technologies, and our politicians get no more of our money in the process.
However, I cannot take credit for the plan and its elegance. Many of the details and philosophy of such an approach are well laid out in a September 6, 2010 article in Fortune magazine, that was written by Nina Easton and which covered the above plan proposed by two Republican Congressman, Jeff Flake and Bob Inglis.
And if global warming is just a myth, who cares? Lower pollution, cleaner air, more diverse energy sources, cheaper energy sources as the market drives innovation and efficiency, and no bumbling government bureaucracies to screw up the situation, i.e. no cap and trade nonsense. The market drives the right decisions.
And if global warming is a reality, than that is an added bonus since the world’s carbon footprint from petroleum would be reduced substantially. Tomorrow we propose a similar solution for coal, including looking at some interesting alternatives to traditional coal usage, and discuss what needs to be done politically and diplomatically across nations.
Hopefully, by the end of that post, we can agree that one can be a global warming doubter and a believer in science AND come up with worthwhile strategies for humanity, regardless of whether or not global warming exists. No thanks to Al Gore.
Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:
www.loathemygovernment.com
It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.
Please visit the following sites for freedom:
Term Limits Now:http://www.howmuchworsecoulditget.com
http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w
www.loathemygovernment.com
It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.
Please visit the following sites for freedom:
Term Limits Now:http://www.howmuchworsecoulditget.com
http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w
No comments:
Post a Comment