Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

9594Re: permanent energy crisis

Expand Messages
  • dubluth
    Feb 20, 2006
      I 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 carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Neuman" <mtneuman@...> wrote:
      > --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Fiddies" <v03fiia@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > "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.
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic