emission rights

[eppie]

I remember we have discussed the buying and selling of CO2 emission rights here some time ago. Today an article in a dutch paper (so sorry no english link) http://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/articl..._gesjoemel

showed wat dubious roles governments and industry has.
The same as the subsidies on biofuel, which instead of going to small innovative companies that work on new technologies go to large multinational that burn down rainforrest to grow palm trees for oil.

In this case the dutch government and a few big banks and energy companies are in on the deal.
So the idea is that dutch companies can claim emission rights if they help bring down CO2 production in development countries. This idea seems to be great because over there a lot more can be done with a lot smaller investments.
But what is the case; they pay chinese companies to produce large amounts of HCFC22 (a cooling liquid that is a bit more ozone and greenhosue friendly than the old coolants). In this process HFC23 is a by-product and this material is a very strong greenhouse gas (12.000 times as strong as CO2). By destroying this HFC23 in a clean way these companies gain huge emission rights. (HCFC22 of course being a potent greenhouse gas itsself and will probably be banned soon).


I don't have to tell you how damaging this kind of scams are for people's belief in the government when it comes to the greenhouse effect.

[kandrathe]

I don't have to tell you how damaging this kind of scams are for people's belief in the government when it comes to the greenhouse effect.

The thing about slime is... The harder you try to grip it, the more that squeezes through your fingers. I'm old now, and I've earned the right to be a cynic. Oh, and BTW, Google has a passable translator. Here is your link, filtered through the translator; Hint of cheating around many CO2 projects. You need to read it with a Yoda accent for full effect though.

Money begets politics. Politics begets legalism. Legalism begets lawyers. Lawyers beget loopholes. Loopholes beget money.

Every election cycle, politicians ply you with the idealistic words and charm that you want to hear. They have to pretend to be a common person, just like you, who believes in the same ideals that you believe in, in order to get your vote. Once the first office is secured, and they've proven to be useful to the money interests in the cycle I've described above, incumbency and the power brokers do the rest. They perpetuate the system. Anyone who does get in with the aim of dismantling the system will be expelled.

In the US, it is not a coincidence that when you look at the professions of most of our politicians you would see they are lawyers. Most look at a stint in public office as a way to claim a niche market, and then represent clients as they pick their way through the jungle of laws they helped to build.

The question for you and I would be; Where can we best disrupt the cycle? I believe the answer is in choosing the type of person who is willing to hack down the jungle of law, and to simplify the system such that we do not need so many lawyers.

This is the point of contention between Pete and I in our previous discussion. In order for things to work for the people, the people need to diligently ensure they elect officials who serve their interests. They don't. People become complacent, and because they know little about what is happening around them, they are susceptible to charm, cunning, wit, and lies. The people, including you, keep perpetuating this system which mostly serves to separate fools from as much of their money as is possible without making them destitute. The politicians practice a smoke and mirrors deception, funneling your money into the interests which elected them, while attempting to convince you that its for your own good. I could cite any number of examples... But, yours will do.

More links, links, and links on how the Carbon Credit schemes are fraught with fraud and abuse. I would say in general, because they too are environmentally idealistic, whereas the people (companies really) who have money interests are profit motivated, and don't really care about the environment. Here is Dr. Micheal Wara's testimony to the US congress. Note where he says, "The good news, in theory, is that most of the growth in CDM has been outside the HFC‐23 sector (and projects involving other industrial gases with similar drawbacks). The bad news is that these new projects reveal even deeper problems with the CDM mechanism—problems that, for projects that could theoretically deliver the largest reductions in emissions, can’t be fixed."

And, I would add that even if the system begins with the best of people and intentions, that over time, our systems tend to become corrupted and complacent with the status quo. The key word is diligence. Much like any UN sanctions program against Iran, Iraq, or North Korea, eventually the system itself become the generator of wealth through the black market. The prohibition of alcohol in the US, became the engine of economic power for those people who were willing to operate outside the laws (and in this case, in the gray area). In reality, our legalistic systems tend to harm the bulk of peaceful, idealistic and law abiding citizens, yet, rewarding the minority of slime who ooze beyond the law. Similarly, in the US, we can crush drug cartels over and over again south of the US border, but while the demand for product remains, eventually the diligence to containment wanes resulting in the rapid return to empowering the wrong people.

[Jester]

This is the point of contention between Pete and I in our previous discussion. In order for things to work for the people, the people need to ensure they elect officials who serve their interests. They don't.

Unless you adopt a very naive perspective as to who "the people" are, isn't this exactly the problem you are railing against? That elected officials do not ask "what is best," or "what is right," but "whose interest do I serve"?

The interests of different constituencies, regions, demographics, all weigh on politicians' minds all too heavily. Would voting one's interests change that? It seems to me everyone already does - and that this is the fundamental (and perhaps unchangeable) source of political problems.

Whether reducing the number of lawyers would help or not, I can't say for certain, but I'm skeptical to say the least. While I like diversity in government as much as the next guy (my favorite Canadian senator is a career jazz pianist and bandleader) are taxi drivers and rig workers and junior high school teachers really such angels that their presence would change the very nature of government?

-Jester

For the interested, there is a breakdown of the Congress by profession here, for the 110th congress. While law, public service, and business dominate, there are representatives from just about every type of job. I am especially impressed by the shellfish specialist and the mortician. Wondering why politics stinks? Ask those guys!

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm old now, and I've earned the right to be a cynic.

The two are unrelated. Cynicism is a fundamental right. Jefferson just forgot to include it. I was a cynic as a preteen.

Oh, and BTW, Google has a passable translator.

I hadn't tried it. It's really quite impressive.

In the US, it is not a coincidence that when you look at the professions of most of our politicians you would see they are lawyers.

What a coincidence. The people interested in the law want to be lawmakers! Wow. That's almost as unbelievable as those interested in science becoming scientists, or those interested in art becoming artists. (I was also sarcastic as a preteen )

I believe the answer is in choosing the type of person who is willing to hack down the jungle of law, and to simplify the system such that we do not need so many lawyers.

I agree with you completely. And just as soon as we get an electorate that is capable of rational thought, that might happen. But as long as it's vox populi, vox dei and the vox populi is the braying of asses, I'd sooner bet on lift lines in hell.

This is the point of contention between Pete and I in our previous discussion. In order for things to work for the people, the people need to ensure they elect officials who serve their interests. They don't.

Right. Thank you for completely summarizing my position. And, really, no sarcasm here. Every now again in the annals of history, a small group of altruistic and idealistic wolves bands together to give the sheep some rights. The sheep neither have the intelligence to understand those rights nor the courage to defend them. So the succeeding generations of wolves slowly takes those rights away. I used to think that the wolves or the sheep could be changed. I no longer believe that.

. . . are taxi drivers and rig workers and junior high school teachers really such angels that their presence would change the very nature of government?

Probably, yes. Not because they are angels, but because they are, probably and on average, less educated than are lawyers. Thus, they are probably less capable of understanding the problems and more likely to try simple, wrong, solutions.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

This is the point of contention between Pete and I in our previous discussion. In order for things to work for the people, the people need to ensure they elect officials who serve their interests. They don't.

Unless you adopt a very naive perspective as to who "the people" are, isn't this exactly the problem you are railing against? That elected officials do not ask "what is best," or "what is right," but "whose interest do I serve"?

I think there is a bit of nuanced equivalence between "interest" and "what is right". My view would be that representatives would not be champions of change according to popular demand, but rather the voice for every represented constituent equally whether they be the majority or minority. Too often our representatives abrogate their responsibility for justice to the courts, and even intentionally ram unfair, unlawful, unconstitutional, or intentionally vague laws through our system for the purposes of malfeasance on behalf of themselves or benefactors.

I would say that if any of their constituency is potentially adversely affected by legislation, the representative would provide the voice for that constituent, and vote according to their conscience as to what best defends the rights of all of the citizens. A law may be very good for 99 percent, but I feel the representatives have the responsibility to prevent harm to all 100 percent. The courts act as a final arbitrator to this, but impartial justice should begin with the lawmaker.

Again, this is why I reject the progressive taxation scheme. It unfairly penalizes the minority who has typically only become exceptional in their success. It perpetuates the Robin Hood myth, in justifying crimes against the wealthy, merely because the poor are so needy.

The interests of different constituencies, regions, demographics, all weigh on politicians' minds all too heavily. Would voting one's interests change that? It seems to me everyone already does - and that this is the fundamental (and perhaps unchangeable) source of political problems.

My wife recently took a temp job grading essays. She needed to apply a fair heuristic across every essay, regardless of what opinion was voiced, or whether she personally agreed with the opinion of the writer. I see the job of representative as similar to this; dispassionately setting aside what is best for the individual, to look at the impact across the entirety of their constituency, protecting and defending the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights). Again, I would want our representatives to envision themselves in every pair of boots, and not just the boots of the majority opinion (or wealthiest opinion).

Whether reducing the number of lawyers would help or not, I can't say for certain, but I'm skeptical to say the least. While I like diversity in government as much as the next guy (my favorite Canadian senator is a career jazz pianist and bandleader) are taxi drivers and rig workers and junior high school teachers really such angels that their presence would change the very nature of government?

My perspective, from the street level, is that "the people" feel their representatives are epidemically unconnected to what is happening to "the people". I think less incumbency, and more diversity would definitely enhance the "connectedness" of the House. But, you know me, I would rather we revert the Senate to the old way, where the State congress would appoint them (which would bring more importance to local State elections). I would rather the Senate be the forum of States rights, and the House be the forum of the people.

[Jester]

What is "the constituency"? The individual? The county? The state? The United States? Humanity? How about the demographics that voted for you? The interests that funded your campaign? Your religion? Your ethnic group? Your gender? Sexual orientation? Every level creates new and *contradictory* demands, both on the voter and the representative. If our politics is complicated, it's because it serves a complicated master - "the people," who are every bit as diverse and confused as ever. Increasing the responsiveness of politics to "the people" might be a positive step, but it certainly isn't going to eradicate the selfishness of individuals, groups, cities, states, or countries.

There is no way to govern a country which is pareto-optimal, or at least, none that I understand. (Even if their was, there are still distributional struggles.) Every set of laws involves a distribution of power and wealth, and every constituency (in all senses) is jockeying for more. To which meaning of the word "constituency" is the representative beholden? If a project is bad for the country, but good for their region, should they vote for it, or against it? If there is an alternate project, better for the country, but devastating for the people who elected them, should they vote for it, or against it? What about the current generation, vs. future generations?

People tend very strongly to elect people who defend *their* interests. Not those of their neighbour, not those of the city or state next door, seldom those of the whole country, and almost never those of the whole species. And yet, it is the last category I am interested in politicians serving.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

For the interested, there is a breakdown of the Congress by profession here, for the 110th congress.

Sorry for replying twice to the same post, but I just got around to checking your link and I didn't want this to be buried in an edit.

"According to the Military Officers Association of America, 127 Members of the 110th Congress have served in the military. The House has 99; the Senate 28."

Only 127 out of 540?

No wonder our government values our military so lightly and misuses it so often.

--Pete

[Lissa]

Whether reducing the number of lawyers would help or not, I can't say for certain, but I'm skeptical to say the least.

It couldn't hurt when 70% of the world's lawyers are here in the US...

[Jester]

It couldn't hurt when 70% of the world's lawyers are here in the US...

No chance. The entirety of the rest of the world has less than *half* of the lawyers in the US, combined? I suspect that number is off by at least a factor of 5 - probably more like 10.

There doesn't appear to be an easy source for it, but apparently India alone has almost the same number of lawyers as the US (about a million). So, no. There's no way it's even close to 50%, let alone 70%.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

What is "the constituency"? The individual? The county? The state? The United States? Humanity? How about the demographics that voted for you? The interests that funded your campaign? Your religion? Your ethnic group? Your gender? Sexual orientation? Every level creates new and *contradictory* demands, both on the voter and the representative. If our politics is complicated, it's because it serves a complicated master - "the people," who are every bit as diverse and confused as ever. Increasing the responsiveness of politics to "the people" might be a positive step, but it certainly isn't going to eradicate the selfishness of individuals, groups, cities, states, or countries.

I agree with most everything you wrote here. I just disagree with two ideas (which I may have just read into what you wrote); 1) that it is the role of the government to resolve every major problem we face (e.g. building a huge hydro power plant). I understand why we tend to do it this way; because these "interests" generate political power, and so we feel safer with that power being restrained by the controls(checks and balances) we believe are inherent in government. 2) Why would be want to "eradicate the selfishness of individuals, groups, cities, states, or countries", in fact, a system that would last should design it into its very fabric. Hence, why I feel promoting "Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!" and "Pas trop gouverner" are good ideas. This is another reason why I feel the government should only be limited to restraining "greed" where it intrudes on our rights, where we are harming (people, or the environment). What you might judge as selfish, or greed, others might call "motivation". When you remove self interest, you remove motivation. Again, I am in no way discouraging [y]our feelings of concern for improving the situation of those less fortunate. I just feel our caring for one another needs to be separate from the force of State imposed laws. I can prevent my two sons from beating each other, but I cannot instill brotherly love.

There is no way to govern a country which is pareto-optimal, or at least, none that I understand. (Even if their was, there are still distributional struggles.) Every set of laws involves a distribution of power and wealth, and every constituency (in all senses) is jockeying for more. To which meaning of the word "constituency" is the representative beholden? If a project is bad for the country, but good for their region, should they vote for it, or against it? If there is an alternate project, better for the country, but devastating for the people who elected them, should they vote for it, or against it? What about the current generation, vs. future generations?

My penchant is for simplifying this by delegating more decisions to the appropriate level, rather than trying to craft imperfect compromises at higher levels. I know you will raise the issue of waste in redundancy at more local levels, but that might be serviced by some contracted third party amoungst regions (e.g. my local situation with garbage haulers, or our communities shared fire and police services).

People tend very strongly to elect people who defend *their* interests. Not those of their neighbour, not those of the city or state next door, seldom those of the whole country, and almost never those of the whole species. And yet, it is the last category I am interested in politicians serving.

I don't see my government as the means to solving the problems of the people (or the species), but rather preventing us from being harmed, or harming others. I think now it has become common to use the government as the means of raising funds to "build" or enact something without regard to minority interests.

[Jester]

I don't see my government as the means to solving the problems of the people (or the species), but rather preventing us from being harmed, or harming others. I think now it has become common to use the government as the means of raising funds to "build" or enact something without regard to minority interests.

But the most pressing problems, the ones that (purportedly) require a powerful Federal government, are exactly those that are not so simple as you suggest. Global trade. Environmental damage. Military threats. Criminal networks. Migration. Technological regulation. Shared resources. And so on. You can't just devolve enormous problems to the local level, because they can't be dealt with at that level.

Humanity is not endangered by very much other than itself, and yet that one danger seems almost certain to kill us sooner or later. What, except a consistent set of laws over a large (possibly global) area, has any chance of "preventing us from being harmed, or harming others"? Almost all of the problems we face are caused by humans. We live an an age of externalities, where what we do in one place has an impact across the globe. Getting those issues sorted out doesn't even seem to be possible with governments at a national level. What possible hope could there be amongst hundreds of thousands of localities?

Were we to adopt a policy of total harm prevention, as you suggest, ("100%") we would find our government utterly paralyzed. The question is usually where the buck stops, and with that policy, the answer would be "everywhere".

-Jester

[kandrathe]

But the most pressing problems, the ones that (purportedly) require a powerful Federal government, are exactly those that are not so simple as you suggest. Global trade. Environmental damage. Military threats. Criminal networks. Migration. Technological regulation. Shared resources. And so on. You can't just devolve enormous problems to the local level, because they can't be dealt with at that level.

If we only had to deal with your list, we'd be in pretty good shape at the Federal level. But, take an anachronism like the post office, for example. The are on track to lose 115 billion dollars over the next decade, after reductions in service, and increases in postal rates. There is zero reason, except legacy, for this to continue to exist as a public monopoly rather than as private enterprise. How about NASA's new mission to improve Islamic relations? Certainly, we have the State department to worry about that, right?

Humanity is not endangered by very much other than itself, and yet that one danger seems almost certain to kill us sooner or later. What, except a consistent set of laws over a large (possibly global) area, has any chance of "preventing us from being harmed, or harming others"? Almost all of the problems we face are caused by humans. We live an an age of externalities, where what we do in one place has an impact across the globe. Getting those issues sorted out doesn't even seem to be possible with governments at a national level. What possible hope could there be amongst hundreds of thousands of localities?

I'm not suggesting there be zero Federal government, just that it work in a more limited way being true to principles of federalism, and democratic republicanism.

Were we to adopt a policy of total harm prevention, as you suggest, ("100%") we would find our government utterly paralyzed.

It might have sounded like I meant preventing all harms, but that would be obviously extreme (e.g. balancing our freedoms with attempting to stop terrorist infiltration).

The question is usually where the buck stops, and with that policy, the answer would be "everywhere".

When the local animal control officer is not doing their job, the buck stops with the mayor. When BP has a blow out offshore at 5000+ feet, the buck stops with Obama, especially concerning international impact. Although, the governors of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida might also have a role in defending their shores. It's pretty clear to me.

At a Federal level, harm prevention would certainly include environmental things like clean air, clean water, off shore oil, endangered species protection. It would include interstate transportation and ports. It would cover working hand in hand with states to augment border security (unlike our Arizona problem), legal immigration, and emigration. It would include the branches of the military, although, I would prefer they focus more exclusively on the defense of the US.

The biggest problem with this idea (i.e. reverting to a more limited government at a federal level) is that it is nearly impossible to get people excited about all the things that won't be done for them anymore by reining in deficit spending.

The Republicans talk big, and do occasionally cut taxes, but don't have the guts to really cut back on spending. To be fair, there are about 3 kinds of Republicans from what I can tell; 1. Reaganites (Hannity), 2. Neocons (Cheney/Bush), 3. socially conservative fiscal libertarians (Glenn Beck).

The Democrats confuse me as well, since they tend to be all over the political spectrum; 1. idealistic (radical) leftists in their cool Che t-shirts (aka. college students), 2. Fiscally conservative/moderate social libertarians, 3. Outright socialist/communists, 4. Righteous dependents, 5. Progressives. What they seem to have in common is the consensus that people should be served by government (whether they like it or not) and it is unnecessary to curb spending, or avoid taxation in accomplishing that goal.

Me, I believe that I work like a Republican, and party like a Democrat.

[Jester]

So, aside from Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, NASA initiatives you don't approve of, and of course the Post Office, what powers would you be in favour of stripping from the Federal Government? Presumably the Dept. of Education, since you've said that one before.

Anything else?

-Jester

Interestingly, the power to create a Post Office is actually one of Congress' constitutionally enumerated powers. I guess, like their power to grant letters of marque, it's a clause you would like to see go unused?

[kandrathe]

Anything else?

Probably I would eliminate and/or disperse to the states the programs covered in Agriculture, Commerce, HUD, and Education. I would consolidate EPA, and the DNR. I would consolidate NASA, Energy, and the other science and technology departments into one unit focused on administering programs promoting pure research and underwriting advanced development by industry.

I would move toward slowly privatizing Social Security, but for now leave the mandatory payroll deduction (increasingly putting more money into your own tax deferred retirement account). I would do the same for Medicare, and Medicaid (putting increasingly more money into a medical savings account). For transportation, I would repeal the gas tax, and make States more fairly share costs. I would transfer the federal fuels tax to be a petroleum import tariff.

I would massively cut back Homeland security to what cannot be privatized (e.g. security personnel at airports). Their jobs should be preparing for unthinkable scenarios (i.e. plagues, terrorists, Mexican gun battles spilling into El Paso).

That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

Interestingly, the power to create a Post Office is actually one of Congress' constitutionally enumerated powers. I guess, like their power to grant letters of marque, it's a clause you would like to see go unused?

Yup. It can drift into obscurity, as we've moved well beyond the need for a pony express these days.

[Jester]

I would transfer the federal fuels tax to be a petroleum import tariff.

Most of what you've said seems sensible, given your goals, although the devil is no doubt in the details.

However, this one has me stumped. What is the purpose of this? If I had to guess what this would do, I would say: deplete American oil reserves faster, and transfer wealth from American exporters to domestic oil producers.

And, assuming it was revenue neutral, that's just about it. I wouldn't want either of those things - and I can't see why you would either, especially given the "no harm" principle.

-Jester

[eppie]

Only 127 out of 540?

No wonder our government values our military so lightly and misuses it so often.

--Pete

You are surprized the rich kids don't do military service?

[eppie]

Probably I would eliminate and/or disperse to the states the programs covered in Agriculture, Commerce, HUD, and Education. I would consolidate EPA, and the DNR. I would consolidate NASA, Energy, and the other science and technology departments into one unit focused on administering programs promoting pure research and underwriting advanced development by industry.

To get back to the topic, I don't see how a smaller government could lead to a better environmental track-record.
Or it should be something like this: smaller government and lower taxes>state becomes weak> state can't take care of citizens anymore> instability> poverty> less consumption> less polution but I don't think this is what you are aiming for.

The problem is much more in waht Jester and Pete said. People care not about the general wellbeing of our species/planet but about their own wallet. That is why environmental law is so badly enforces and why nobody does anything to close the loopholes.
Earlier this year there was this conference in Doha (I believe) about protecting animal species. 100s of people have been there discussing for a week, and the only thing decided is not to protect endangered species because we want to make more money of them.

[kandrathe]

To get back to the topic, I don't see how a smaller government could lead to a better environmental track-record.

Ironically, large polluters are currently shielded by exemptions to Federal laws. Our State wants to force them to reduce emissions.

Or it should be something like this: smaller government and lower taxes>state becomes weak

Or, rather, state becomes more focused and better at the things it does.

> state can't take care of citizens anymore

Or, the citizens are better able to take care of themselves.

> instability> poverty> less consumption>

Isn't that the way Greece has gone? Promises, hand outs, dependency, corruption, and finally riots (tantrums) when austerity measures are enforced.

The problem is much more in waht Jester and Pete said. People care not about the general wellbeing of our species/planet but about their own wallet. That is why environmental law is so badly enforces and why nobody does anything to close the loopholes.

I said this as well. But, I suggested that you cannot force people to hug trees and mean it. Since the environment persists beyond any individual, we need to ensure that exploitation of the environment is one area that is well regulated. Then, you need to couple the cost of protection, and in minimizing harm with the exploitation (e.g. timber harvesting followed by reforestation, oil drilling coupled with spill prevention and preparedness).

Earlier this year there was this conference in Doha (I believe) about protecting animal species. 100s of people have been there discussing for a week, and the only thing decided is not to protect endangered species because we want to make more money of them.

The problem here is the flip side of the coin I described earlier. Just as lawyers are drawn to become politicians. Who do you think attends these conferences on behalf of their nations? Environmentalists? It seems to me the problem is inherent in the system.

"By design, CITES regulates and monitors trade in the manner of a "negative list" such that trade in all species is permitted and unregulated unless the species in question appears on the Appendices or looks very much like one of those taxa ... then and only then, trade is regulated or constrained. Because the remit of the Convention covers millions of species of plants and animals, and tens of thousands of these taxa are potentially of economic value, in practice this negative list approach effectively forces CITES signatories to expend limited resources on just a select few, leaving many species to be traded with neither constraint nor review."

So, in summary, "the environment" is not protected. Merely the trade of lists of enumerated species that enough people notice and raise a fuss about.

[kandrathe]

I would transfer the federal fuels tax to be a petroleum import tariff.

Most of what you've said seems sensible, given your goals, although the devil is no doubt in the details.

However, this one has me stumped. What is the purpose of this? If I had to guess what this would do, I would say: deplete American oil reserves faster, and transfer wealth from American exporters to domestic oil producers.

And, assuming it was revenue neutral, that's just about it. I wouldn't want either of those things - and I can't see why you would either, especially given the "no harm" principle.

More details... The federal tax is was partly a way to generate revenue for roads and budgets, but recently (Bush I, Clinton) it also was conceived of as a "sin tax" to coerce transportation to be more efficient. I believe that, yes, the US should use its own resources, rather than fight wars to keep foreign prices low. My general principle of government spending is; Whatever you tax, you tend to get less of, and whatever you subsidize you tend to get more of.

And... the rest of the story... I generally oppose market interventions, but "energy" is so crucial to economic growth and stability that it must be guided toward that future (stable, and abundant). What I outline below is meant to discourage increasing fossil fuels generation, and encourage the transition to alternatives.

Here is my 50 year plan.

When it comes to energy, I would remove all fees and taxes on electricity. The price of electricity needs to be well below that of fossil fuels. Currently electricity costs about 10 cents per KWH, coal costs about 1 cent per KWH, and oil ($70/barrel) costs about 5 cents per KWH. This means we need to increase the electrical generation capacity of the US by about 7 times to break even with current consumption, and aiming for 15-20 times over the next 50 years would ensure keeping up with growth.

To prevent an explosion of coal use, I would limit their emissions to present levels (and reduce to near zero over 20 years), and encourage innovations to sequester all emissions. So, don't limit the consumption of coal, but eliminate the ability to dump the byproducts of its consumption into the environment. Coal fired generation is by far the most deadly environmental contaminant (even ignoring GHG).

So, I would reform and streamline the entire process of using nuclear fuels, from mining to reprocessing and containment of their byproducts. This is not a long term solution, but it has the capability of getting large generation facilities in place quickly to offset reductions in fossil fuel consumption. I would see this as a 30 to 50 year program before the plants might be decommissioned and enough renewable sources have been built to offset them.

For the very long time, we need to underwrite and promote the production of numerous smaller scale wind and solar generation sites, as well as the additional power lines needed to get the power to consumers.

[Jester]

I agree with most of what you've proposed, but I still don't understand the role of the tariff. You've said the US should use more of its own resources. Why?

Your reason appears to be that the US shouldn't fight wars to keep foreign prices low. But that's the kind of absurd logic you get from half-baked (in both senses) anti-war protesters who don't understand economics. Oil sells at the market price. Unless you want to invade Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Canada, Norway, Russia, China, Mexico, Brazil, and strongarm US producers into selling at sub-market prices, you can't control oil prices with the military. US interest in oil is not about price, but strategy - in a wartime situation, militaries run on fossil fuels, and control of the supply is critical. But in peacetime? The price you pay is the world price.

So, what then does an import tariff do? If it is to generate any revenue at all, it must change the price of imported oil upwards. US production would then undercut that price, and shift the US towards depleting local reserves. Imports would decline, and therefore so would exports. Someone in the domestic oil industry would get rich, and someone in the export trade would go out of business. (So much for no harm.)

Would this decrease consumption of oil? No, since prices would not change. Would this help make the US energy independent? Not really - the US already has plenty of friendly sources of oil, and the power of OPEC is barely a shadow of what it once was. You can buy today at market prices, and you can almost certainly buy tomorrow at market prices.

So, I ask again: what is the point of this?

-Jester