Taxation DOES work for energy conservation

Oh, his poor neighbours. The new ones, I mean.

Don't think of it as a tax. Think of it as pricing commodities to match their costs. But yes, we'd all act differently, and the world's economy would also be different.

 

Removing tax subsidies would be even easier, at least in terms of administration. Maybe not 'easier' in terms of changing people's minds, though.

 

Of course it does - when something costs signifigantly more it will affect behavior.

The OP's post also indirectly points out the problem (in my oppinion the fatal flaw) with this as a solution - the fact that this serves as a regressive tax hurting the most vulnerable members of society - the people who have trouble making it week to week and who could not imagine installing solar to keep being an energy hog.

 

Best not to confuse conservation with installing solar. Poor people can learn to not be wasteful, too.

 

Taxes have always worked for energy conservation.

Taxes go up, the economy slows down.
Evil, rich companies lay off employees and produce less...electricity savings!
The newly unemployed no longer have to drive to work.... gas savings!
Cars get repossessed. No longer clog roads and pollute….pollution savings!
Lots of unemployed people have to give up living in horribly inefficient single family detached dwellings, and move into more efficient apartment complexes...all kinds of savings here!!!

SAVE THE PLANET!!!
RAISE TAXES NOW!!!

 

OK.....lets pretend that I'm 180-degrees out of phase for a moment. It could happen you know. I sling wires for a living, and I am in NO way an economist.
Please tell me where and how I'm wrong.
All throughout the Lebanese Goat-Grab that was the debt ceiling debate, the "pundifs" kept saying that raising taxes during an economic slowdown isn't a cool thing to do.
I simply took them at their word.

Pray tell.....how does raising taxes improve the economy, other than eliminating the 40-something percent deficit perhaps??

 

Actually, this sounds a bit like that "Bush v. Gore" thing that happened years ago. Gore talked the talk about AGW and energy conservation but didn't walk the walk. Bush on the other hand did both, he lived a very Eco friendly home while Gore lived in a house that consumed over 12Kw of electricity per month IIRC. Just like then the left mocked him about his environmental record but now that he's out of the spotlight the left has just retargeted it's spew on republicans/conservatives in general.

As to the efficiency of raising taxes to increase energy conservation, all you're doing is hurting the poor and small businesses.

How dare you call the president a "pundit" you racist!

 

^^ You live in a fantasy world Treb. Bush the little took 6 years to acknowledge that the Earth was warming, 7 years to admit that AGW was real, but never stated that AGW was the main driver of climate change. His White House policy regarding carbon emissions was VOLUNTARY INDUSTRY REDUCTIONS.

hahahahahahhahahahhahahha

Give me a fu*king break.

 

Ouch.

The server in my house eats 11 watts doing nothing, and ~ 13 watts when busy. In any case, power sucking server monsters at home are probably not the main worry of poor people. Not turning off power sucking desktop computers and monitors can be.

 

I'm late to this thread, but I've advocated diverting US income tax to the pump to help reflect the real cost of driving. The nation's tax revenue would still be the same - just more of it from gas taxes. The effect is Americans would pay attention to what they drive and how they drive.

I'm not addressing the debt talks - that's a whole another story.

 

What do you mean that the poor get assistance on a different tier? Yes in some cases there are tiers for energy consumption - typically with electric and natural gas, but they are the exception rather than the rule. There are also assistance programs, but they just reduce the sting to the very poor.

I know the guy in your original post is not hurting for money - that is exactly the point. Instead of higher prices causing him to change his behavior he has gone in the opposite direction - blowing money so he can consume more. Putting in solar so you can keep your personal consumption high is the antithesis of being green.

So how is my my point about energy taxes being regressive wrong? A regressive tax is one that puts a bigger burden on the poor rather than the rich, and that is exactly what energy taxes do. So, the cost of energy goes up and those of us lucky enough not to be poor can buy more energy efficient items - cars, appliances, etc and can weather the impact of the price increases to energy as well as all of the other things impacted - food, consumer good etc. We might need to tighten our belts but we get through it. For the very poor they are ravaged. They can not afford to buy new items and they can not afford the increased price of everything else.

 

The OP is more about tiered pricing than it is about taxation.
The more of a valuable resource you use, the more you pay per unit.

Tier pricing is easy to impliment for a metered utility such as water, natural gas or electric and is often done. Drought states can penalize wasteful water use in times of drought just based on monthly billings.

Keeping the lowest tier affordable so everyone can have the basic needs (lights, refrigeration and cooking) is fair and non regressive.
If you want luxuries (giant tv, ac, monster server/computer) you pay at a higher rate per unit.

Increasing the gasoline tax is regressive in that it hits low income people hard in that some gas is needed to get to work, grocery etc.
I wish there was an easy way to impliment tier pricing for petro.

 

Fuel is $5 Liter ($20 gallon) in many parts of Europe. People are conservative and use fuel wisely.