Taxation DOES work for energy conservation

I'll throw this in for good measure;

BBC News - France's richest say: Tax us more

France's richest say "tax us more"!

 

When we do the Prius vs. EV calcs, for USA, we find the similar amount of fossil fuel now costs about 3x as much in the form of gasoline (vs. electrons). Thus currently we are seeing the higher price for gasoline that many have long advocated. This does seem to be trending to smaller, better MPG cars.

 

Actually, both took very substantive action, by pouring their vast wealth into family foundations -- the best tax dodge of the super rich *evuh*

Gates to his credit gives a lot of money to charity. I don't know about Buffet, but I'm willing to bet he is not an energy hog, regardless of his wealth. In any case, neither of these two people represent the typical republican hypocrisy I was posting about earlier.

 

I was actually referring to Bill Gates SR, not MS/Gates foundation Bill Gates JR. I don't know Jr's position on taxes but I know that Sr spend a bunch of money working for a Washington State Income tax on high earners.

JR on the other hand has spent billions on philanthropy, ( through the Gates Foundation) and he has convinced Buffett to do the same.

Icarus

 

Warren Buffett is 80 y.o. and rapidly going senile.

A few years ago the sage of Omaha wrote, “Doubling the carbon dioxide we belch into the atmosphere may far more than double the subsequent problems for society.”

but now says . . . he doesn’t believe greenhouse gases represent a material risk for Berkshire’s insurance operations. HuH?


But here's something to back your energy bet on WB . . . so far the best I could find.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-theory/08/buffetts-road-to-riches.asp#ixzz1W9VKn8yR

 

perceived_risk=f1(actual_risk)
coverage = f2(perceived_risk)
fee=f3(coverage)
payout=g(actual_risk)
profit = fee - payout

?

 

I suppose one could argue that it is not taxation per se that reduces energy consumption, but clearly higher prices do! If we accomplish this through cogent social policy, where energy is priced ( in part through taxation) than that is a good thing for both society in terms of energy/national security as well as the environment.

Icarus

 

This is one of two separate discussion that need to converge. The elimination of externalities/subsidies/(insert your favorite term here) would go a long way to getting the cost in the correct range. Taxes are never going to work as well as eliminating market distortions. This is not an objection to taxes to raise revenue, but an objection to taxes meant to shape social behavior (...while simultaneously giving tax breaks to reward corporate lobbying.)

 

You're right, it's not that simple. No, coal is not cheaper than solar. It only looks that way because, as you say, the prices are skewed via taxes and subsidies. If all forms of energy were made to 'pay their way' by recognising the full costs, including pollution and other environmental damage, and by eliminating favourable tax treatments, maybe then we'd be able to make a fair comparison.

 

I'll backup Hyo Silver's point. If regulations are enforced such that coal pollution is eliminated (total sequestration, total coal mine restoration, etc.) .....the cost of coal would be quite high indeed. No tax manipulations needed. Solar and/or other sustainable energy production would leave the coal/gas/fossil fuel plants in the dust economically.

I'll often refer to the "free market" but that always assumes a free market constrained to work within regulations that protect the planet. Now too much regulation, too quickly or clumsily implemented will do much more damage than good. Likewise, taxes levied for economic or social engineering have a tendency to backfire. What I have seen is well crafted regulation results in the best outcome. Well crafted means:
1) Self Enforcing-The larger population becomes the enforcement agency, more so than a government agency. (Clean car exhaust)
2) Effective - The intent matches the implementation without externalities creating problems elsewhere. (Heavy coal regulation in the US results in us selling all our coal to China....to be burned with no pollution controls)
3) Technology independent - The goal is regulated, not the method. (The utilities are free to optimize wind, or solar, or something not yet invented.)
4) Special Interest Resistant - Self Explanatory

This is already at work. Scrubbers are now needed on new, and eventually old coal plants. The mine damage left behind via various mine company scams is much harder to repeat. The lack of a permanent radioactive waste site is much more well know and presents a real restraint on new nuclear plants.

 

Cell phones did not need to be subsidized to explode into widespread use. So I'm not sure that we need subsidies to reach a tipping point. I'll use the EV1 as an example. Due to the smart California requirement for XX% non-polluting vehicles, GM was taking very smart steps to make it a successful EV. The Toyota EV RAV-4 was a very solid vehicle. No subsidies needed. If the regulations had been maintained, we would be much farther along with EV choices. Likewise, no subsidies were needed to enact huge reductions in car pollution, just good regulations.

Different Thread discussion. My point was that the only way to get scrubbers put on plants was to make it law. Trying to use subsidies and tax manipulation to solve our acid rain destruction problems was not working.

As far as putting "everything" back to the sustainable state it was found in, should that not be the goal? Isn't the alternative to have xx% uninhabitable land and yy% pollution as the final result? If we leave it to corporations to determine the final state, 100% for xx and yy is probably their starting position. One thing for sure, is that the "true cost" corporations claimed for scrubbers was far, far higher than it actually ended up being. That's why the "justification" for leaving scrubbers off old plants is weak.

The thing that got smoke out of the workplace and eating places was not taxes, but regulations. We will probably not come to convergence, but that's expected. Somewhat different rules apply to addictive substances than to pollution elimination. Thanks for responding.

 

The anti-tax stuff has been overhyped by the media--as they usually overhype.

No taxes, no government. And no government, no services. It's that simple.

Ignore those dopey politicians who want no taxes and no government. They'll be voted out soon. The "silent majority" isn't that stupid.

 

You want to see conservation of fuel? Raise the price to $10 per gallon. Just put a big old $6 federal tax upon it. You will suddenly see people save more fuel than ever before.

Same thing applies to electricity, gas, water... When my area of Georgia went through the water shortage a few years ago, there was a surcharge put upon the price of water above a certain usage. Water usage dropped of substantially after those first high bills arrived.

 

Cell phones are subsidized and I'm not talking about free phones with a contract. Just mentioning that the handset subsidy does help fuel the market for new phones and services - do you think that smartphones would be as popular if customers were picking up the full tab?

The subsidy is the use of public airwaves by the cell phone companies. Each time different frequencies are auctioned off people gasp as the prices they go for, but soon after it becomes clear that they are worth far more. Just take the spectrum that Qualcomm is trying to sell to AT&T - they bought it in 2008 for under $600 million and the proposed sale price is over $1.9 billion. Yes, I know that it was supposed to be for Flow TV, but it can be used for any cell phone/data needs as well. The same argument could be made for TV and radio in the past - the companies got the airwaves for less than market value which the government did to spur the technology.

 

Who pays for the right to use the airways? The government does not since they sold the spectrum rights and received money. The corporation then in turn charges the users for all cost of running the system, buying the spectrum, etc. When the users are paying the entire cost of running and using the spectrum, then that hardly meets the definition of a subsidy. This is the free market in action with the corporations paying what they see as the true value for spectrum rights. Something that changes (like the price of gold) based on market dynamics. Subsidy?-not from my viewpoint.

 

I do not want to tax coal or etc. What I want to do is encourage/require use of min. 50% thermal efficiency "clean coal" technology (vs. 30% current USA status quo). And I want no Hg, NOx etc. I want the money to go to steel on the ground for good energy technology. I think this is where Germany is headed now.
I am pleased were are getting more wind solar natgas too.