9594Re: permanent energy crisis
- Feb 20, 2006I agree with the use of financial incentives to achieve many
environmental benefits. However, rebates come at a cost -- revenues
to fund the rebates must come from somewhere. Also, allocating
rebates accurately also requires a LOT of administrative effort and
complexity. We must somehow accurately account for energy non-use in
order to reward potential energy users.
Why not tax carbon emmissions to achieve the financial incentive? I
think you answer "political acceptability". Can carbon taxes achieve
political acceptability? Because it costs less and guides behavior
towards energy conservation rather than detection avoidance, it should
be more acceptable.
We could use the revenue from carbon taxes to fund other desirable
aims like reducing other taxes, funding schools, or providing services
to the needy.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Mike Neuman" <mtneuman@...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "Ian Fiddies" <v03fiia@>
> > "Why, oh why, can't we ever seem to talk about
> > doing more with less? It's just not all that
> > difficult. Must be bad for friends of Bush."
> . . . Money is what most people respond to most
> readily. So offer them monetary "rebates" if
> they use significantly less energy (per capita)
> over the month/year than others.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>