Here’s an outline of the actions that I think the U.S. Federal government needs to take to minimize the enormous pain the country will experience during the rapid transition from a petroleum based transportation system to the inevitable electricity based system of the future. While they all seem self-evident to me, please feel free to disagree.
- Encourage Fossil Fuel Conservation
- Carbon Tax: high and permanent
- Gas Guzzler Tax: high and permanent
- Tax Credit for High Fuel Efficiency Cars, not subject to AMT
- Encourage non-food based ethanol and biodiesel (and end food based subsidies)
- Encourage Urban All-Electric City Car Systems
- Encourage Intercity Electric Rail Systems
- Encourage Electricity Generation from Solar, Wind, Nuclear, and Clean Coal
- Encourage DC Transmission
- Allow states to set their own fuel efficiency standards.
* “Encourage” means to provide Federal subsidies, tax credit, coordination, and other assistance as appropriate. Federal action is needed because market signals will not make these inevitable changes happen fast enough to deal with the looming energy crisis. The bulk of taxes levied to discourage consumption should be reinvested in the economy to promote alternatives to oil and gas or re-distributed equitably among the population.
14 responses so far ↓
1 Jack Miller // Apr 21, 2008 at 4:23 am
Hi there Jim,
I noticed you picked up on AC verses DC, ‘cool’.
Perhaps you should note that ‘car pooling’ failed.
Or…has it been in need of direction from the Feds? I’m sure that incentives can promote ‘car pooling’.
2 Jack Miller // Apr 21, 2008 at 5:07 am
Oh Jim,
After rereading your article I am wondering if coffee could play-out in advance what oil may do.
Nobody really needs to drink coffee and the symentry to oil is that it may not really be needed as the guy from the oil Kingdom seems to say. I’m just wondering if he wears a nose-ring which he could be led around by thoses that “own” him.
3 Don Cornwell // Apr 22, 2008 at 6:56 am
Encouraging telecommuting could also be an option - and another opportunity for investment with the telecoms. Also, a reduction in traffic volumes from carpooling and telecommuting should take some pressure off of funding for big road projects in metro areas….
4 dave miller // May 7, 2008 at 9:21 pm
sounds good short trem,long
trem you must have less people.
5 Richard Pallan // May 8, 2008 at 1:15 am
Shortest commute to significant impact: An immediate and sharp increase in CAFE standards, including classifying all SUV’s and Minivans as cars, not light trucks.
In addition to AVERAGE MPG, a flat out and very high gas guzzler tax on all vehicles that individually to not get 20 mpg, increasing by 1.5 mpg per year for 10 years. Apply to all new vehicles and apply, at 50% rate, to previously registered vehicles.
What about drilling in ANWR?
What form of fuel for power generation? Major increase in nuclear and coal, with current environments standards, needed. If France can safely generate about 70% of its power from nuclear fuels, so can U.S.
Stand up to the corn lobby and end all subsidies for corn-based ethanol — one of the dumbest gov’t programs in modern U.S. history.
Cancel all trade barriers for South American sugar-based ethanol, and even importing sugar from Cuba for conversion to ethanol in U.S.
“Encourage” construction of domestic-based refineries, including legislation banning future environmental lawsuits as long as plants are built to today’s standards and, possibly evolving future standards.
6 Dennis Nielsen // May 8, 2008 at 4:58 am
I couldn’t agree more with your list but I also think the Federal Government should invest in a world class rail system to provide efficient passenger and cargo transport. I also think we have no choice but to open up our outer continental shelves to O&G exploration 80% of which is currently off limits.
7 fran // May 8, 2008 at 5:12 am
before an addiction can be addressed and “cure”[RX]effected, the addict must move from denial to recognition to admission into education before the RX becomes effective.
the populace and their elected politicos for the majority remain in denial. this is demonstrated in the daily pandering permitted/accepted by the electorate.
i admire your attempt to motivate toward prescriptive action, but the patient and enabler are still on a “HIGH” binge.
8 Paul Livingston // May 8, 2008 at 5:23 am
I know we are all a bunch of “fools” to think our government , the politicians and their interest groups are the solution to this issue.
First, the solution to less dependency on oil is going to take time, measured in decades. It takes time to develop new technologies and then get them accepted and implemented in the market place.
When I see “encourage” I read “subsidize” and I say no as they distort the free market system.
The solution is suck it up, endure the pain and the “Free market system will work it out with a transition to new fuels. And of course we could drill for oil of our sea coast and in Alaska.
Amen, and I am not running for a political office.
9 Burt Jaffe // May 8, 2008 at 6:05 am
You listed “clean coal” as a Rx for our nation. Clean coal is an oxymoron if you consider the hazards of mining, the destruction of land , the pollution of streams and rivers, transportation pollution, and the fact that coal sequestration has limits and hazards.
CAFE standards encourage more miles per gallon, but fail to get us off oil. My Rx would be to mandate that auto manufacturers must produce all-electric cars (battery or hydrogen) starting at a low percentage in 2 years (perhaps 1/2 %) and going to 20% by 2020. These cars are already being manufactured.
10 Poul Andreasen // May 8, 2008 at 6:29 am
Good Rx for a start. I have no problem with “encourage”. But then again, I am no hard nosed liberal, because the Danish advantage over US concerning peak oil is not merited by a free market system but by active and efficient Danish state energy policy.
If you would like to sweeten the path for the liberal cats, tie the tax part of your Rx to encouragements so that taxes need to go directly back into energy investments.
11 George // May 8, 2008 at 6:35 am
Since it’s evident that the US population views cheap oil as a birthright…, it’s unrealistic to expect them to change by themselves. However, if US business interests were to see a “goldmine of opportunity” …then these corporate wizards would quickly engineer a way to turn around the collective US attitude to embrace this new approach. It’s all about the money and the spin.
If corporations were able to make lots more cash selling LED bulbs…..the regular light bulb would dissapear. Same with SUV’s. Tax the livin’ sh*t out of all the “bad” stuff and tilt the balance….of course I’m not dependant on a lobbiest for my lunch ticket!
12 William Kennedy // May 8, 2008 at 8:06 am
Jim did you see the lettr that your friend Harry Newton had on his web site yesterday. It was a very frank assessment of the federal government. We are in the hands of completely self serving governors who can easily see our nation crumble as long as they have their’s. Do I need to named names, but really it is the large majority of them. I think it is futile to expect a energy policy out of Washington until there is a terrible emergency
13 Isaac // May 8, 2008 at 8:53 am
Excellent thinking. In order for the government to avoid choosing the fossil fuel replacements, any subsidies and tax credits to alternatives should be on a btu basis. A btu of energy produced by a CSP facility could compete for the federal incentives equally with a btu produced from a Pebble Bed reactor, or a wind farm. This would allow an “apple to apples” economic sorting of the alternatives.
14 A // Aug 17, 2008 at 8:23 am
A…
A…
Leave a Comment