The coal and other carbon-based energy supply industries benefit from numerous subsidies & tax breaks which result in higher rates paid by other taxpayers. In my opinion, if these industries cannot produce clean fuels, then dirty fuels should be taxed wherever it is delivered.

The coal industry has posted many billboards along West Virginia Highways touting “clean coal”. Well guys, let’s see you deliver! If “clean coal” isn’t available, then the coal industry should “shut up and tear down those billboards”.

Without a leveled economic playing field, the USA will never achieve sustainable power supply, and create new, clean energy jobs. Subsidies (such as those for hybrid vehicles and solar panels) are given & taken at political whim, and do little in the long term to reset the economic and political paradigm.

Instead of allowing the carbon-based energy supply industries to dig in their heels at every opportunity for intelligent change, we should think about the opportunities to economically phase in beneficial clean energy technologies over the next 15 – 20 years by using phased tax policy to progressively discourage use of dirty fuels, and to convert most of the revenues into TAX REBATES for USA citizens who file income tax returns or receive social security benefits, and use the remainder of these revenues to nibble at repaying the National Debt.

Ben’s comment is a nice way of describing part of this approach.

The coal and other carbon-based energy supply industries benefit from numerous subsidies & tax breaks which result in higher rates paid by other taxpayers. In my opinion, if these industries cannot produce clean fuels, then dirty fuels should be taxed wherever it is delivered.

The coal industry has posted many billboards along West Virginia Highways touting “clean coal”. Well guys, let’s see you deliver! If “clean coal” isn’t available, then the coal industry should “shut up and tear down those billboards”.

Without a leveled economic playing field, the USA will never achieve sustainable power supply, and create new, clean energy jobs. Subsidies (such as those for hybrid vehicles and solar panels) are given & taken at political whim, and do little in the long term to reset the economic and political paradigm.

Instead of allowing the carbon-based energy supply industries to dig in their heels at every opportunity for intelligent change, we should think about the opportunities to economically phase in beneficial clean energy technologies over the next 15 – 20 years by using phased tax policy to progressively discourage use of dirty fuels, and to convert most of the revenues into TAX REBATES for USA citizens who file income tax returns or receive social security benefits, and use the remainder of these revenues to nibble at repaying the National Debt.

Ben’s comment is a nice way of describing part of this approach.

Otherwise, the increase in costs will just be passed on to the consumer, with no change in utility or bank behavior.

Of course, investing in renewable energy could have been a condition of the bailout…

Otherwise, the increase in costs will just be passed on to the consumer, with no change in utility or bank behavior.

Of course, investing in renewable energy could have been a condition of the bailout…

So that big polluters are taxed and that money comes back to the people in the form of a cheque at the end of the year. People would be happy about that kind of “tax”. That would be an easy sell. The tax amount should go up by a certain percentage each year.

While I realize that system is not perfect, its good enough for me.

The reason it would be so hard, of course, is that the point made in the article is exactly right — a “carbon tax” sounds ok to people right now because the right wing insanity brigades haven’t started attacking it yet. As soon as that happens, the “tax” label will make it very unpopular. But still, I do think that if the president made a very focused, concerted effort to sell the idea, he could succeed (I seriously doubt he’ll do that, though — he seems to give up on things too easily).

The reason it would be so hard, of course, is that the point made in the article is exactly right — a “carbon tax” sounds ok to people right now because the right wing insanity brigades haven’t started attacking it yet. As soon as that happens, the “tax” label will make it very unpopular. But still, I do think that if the president made a very focused, concerted effort to sell the idea, he could succeed (I seriously doubt he’ll do that, though — he seems to give up on things too easily).

So that big polluters are taxed and that money comes back to the people in the form of a cheque at the end of the year. People would be happy about that kind of “tax”. That would be an easy sell. The tax amount should go up by a certain percentage each year.

While I realize that system is not perfect, its good enough for me.