LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BEST-L Archives


BEST-L Archives

BEST-L Archives


BEST-L@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BEST-L Home

BEST-L Home

BEST-L  April 2009

BEST-L April 2009

Subject:

Re: Friedman on carbon tax (again) - need a compromise that works economy wide

From:

"David E. Bruderly" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

David E. Bruderly

Date:

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:57:32 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (122 lines)

Jason
I agree with Friedman, but the political momentum for cap-and-trade is huge.
We need a compromise that works economy wide; for smokestacks and motor
vehicles.

The professional environmental groups, such as Environmental Defense, have
staked everything on cap-and-trade that will yield measurable and verifiable
results for smokestacks. At the same time many in the financial community,
utilities and utility regulators have decided that this cap-and-trade
approach will protect the profits of the electric utilities and smokestack
industry while gradually increasing electricity prices at politically
acceptable rates and stimulating efficiency and conservation.

Unfortunately cap-and-trade is not an efficient solution for reducing carbon
emissions from motor fuels and vehicles. The technical arguments for an
economy wide cap-and-trade system that includes motor vehicles are not as
strong as the support for a program targeted specifically at smokestacks.

I advocate a compromise; a hybrid solution that works economy wide to make
every consumer part of the solution. I advocate cap-and-trade for utility
and industrial smokestacks and a revenue-neutral life-cycle carbon tax for
hydrocarbon-based motor fuels.

The smokestack cap-and-trade program would be limited to those utilities and
industries that have the infrastructure and institutional framework in place
to manage this complex and confusing regulatory program. The life-cycle
carbon tax on all motor fuels would mimic the federal excise tax on motor
fuels except that the tax would be revenue-neutral. The tax would be easy to
collect and would be pro-rated based on the fossil carbon content of the
motor fuel. Federal carbon tax revenues would be offset by reductions in
federal income taxes on corporations and individuals.

States could also implement state carbon taxes that could be used to fund
immediate deployment of low-carbon motor fuels best suited to regional
resources, business conditions and needs.

This simple revenue-neutral life-cycle carbon tax on motor fuels would
satisfy conservatives and liberals; it would be market based and would
empower consumers to make wise choices. More importantly a motor fuel carbon
tax would stimulate massive investment in cost-effective, low-carbon motor
fuels infrastructure; i.e. cellulosic and advanced biofuels, compressed
natural gas, compressed hydrogen and electric motor fuels. Once the
automotive industry understands that low-carbon motor fuels will be readily
available to consumers, the industry will quickly ramp up production of
affordable, cleaner, more efficient, low-emission engines and vehicles.

The tragedy of the energy solutions implmented to date is that most of the
stimulus monies are focused on more sustainable production, distribution and
use of electricity in buildings and advanced battery technologies. While
important long-term solutions, policy to promote cost-effective near-term
solutions that would reduce both the cost and carbon content of motor fuels
used in conventional engines and vehicles, such as compressed natural gas
motor fuels, have been overlooked by policy makers.

How do we get Friedman to understand that this compromise approach, a hybrid
approach, is not only technically viable, but also commercially viable given
current oil price volatility, market constraints and uncertainty?

How do we get Obama and the leaders in Congress to consider compromise
solutions that actually break our national addiction and total dependence on
high-carbon, petroleum based motor fuels?

It is ironic, but the natural gas industry discovered several years ago that
it was much more profitable to sell natural gas for inefficient electric
power production that make the massive investments needed to promote direct
use of natural gas in millions of more efficient, cleaner distributed
applications, such as motor fuels for vehicles. It is time to mobilize the
investment power of the natural gas and hydrogen stakeholders to start
deloying low-carbon motor fuels.

Since these stakeholders have been sitting on the sidelines and not engaging
this debate, a divisive either-or political debate between clean energy
advocates and operators of smokestacks has evolved. Motor fuels are being
ignored, again.

This will result in political grid-lock and continued addiction to status
quo liquid hydrocarbon-based motor fuels and higher carbon emissions and
extreme price volatility. Rather than encouraging significant progress
towards widespread deployment and use of less expensive low-carbon gaseous
motor fuels in affordable vehicles consumers will continue to be totally
dependent on those who supply liquid motor fuels -- petroleum based gasoline
and diesel fuels.

Continued total dependence on liquid motor fuels is the wrong policy for
Florida; it is the wrong policy for America.

Come to my BEST seminar next Monday evening (13 April 2009) in the Fine Arts
Building and learn more about gaseous motor fuels and how this community can
use existing natural gas and electric infrastructure to start making real
reductions in carbon-emissions and thus become an integral part of our
sustainable energy solutions.

dave

David E. Bruderly PE
CleanPowerEngineering.com
WiseGasInc.com
920 SW 57th Drive
Gainesville FL 32607-3838
352-377-0932
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Bioenergy and Sustainable Technology Society
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jason Evans
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 10:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Friedman on carbon tax (again)

Another interesting column from Tom Friedman that argues for a 
carbon tax, rather than the cap and trade approach being used by 
the Europeans and currently proposed by the Obama administration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=1

--
Jason M. Evans, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Researcher
Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
University of Florida
Newin-Ziegler 319
(352) 846-0148 - office
(352) 328-1199 - cell

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
July 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager