Cap and Dividend: Cap and Trade Wrong Solutions, Energy Taxes Best

    I read with intdrest Mike Tidwell’s and Michael Noble’s perspective on pending legislation promoting Cap and Trade, and Chris Van Hollen’s Cap and Dividend bill.I take issue with some of their assumptions;

   1. The throwaway line : “then, after being divided by 300 million, it goes straight to you and me and Aunt Betty.” You’re kidding right? When, if ever, has the Congress gotten huge chunks of money and returned it directly to taxpayers without “re-allocating” all or most of it to their definition of socially useful goals? Does such a dividend get paid equally to drivers and non-drivers; to commercial trucks and personal vehicles; to tax return filers only, or to unemployed, people who never worked, illegal immigrants, home owners and renters equally? Are commercial fuel users any less entitled as corporate “citizens” to a share of the fuel tax based on usage?

   2. Taxing at the “wellhead” makes no distinction between types of pollution, or type of process that generates pollution. Therefore, a twenty-year old coal-burning power plant pays the same tax as a brand new coal gasification plant. And, offering that year-by-year reduction of permits will achieve the goals is the height of naivete in assuming that miners and plant owners will not “lobby unto death” on behalf of continuing extraction , and they’ll win.

   3. By not making a distinction between the fuel and type of pollution, you seem to be saying that natural gas. a demonstrated “clean” fuel, will get the same tax as 2% sulphur coal, a position that offers no re-direction of consumption into cleaner fuels, or incentives to research the technology for cleaner processing, like coal gasification for one, or even user conservation, a true manifestation of the free marketplace, aided by appropriate market incentives.

   The bottom line is just what you said, “Who owns the sky?”

   We all do and we should all pay for keeping it clean; consumers because they benefit from the processes that generate power and produce goods and services; commercial, industrial and institutional users, because they generate the pollution, and waste.

   That said, those who pollute “on our behalf” to produce goods, provide services and generate power must receive the appropriate incentives from the fuel tax revenues to encourage alternative and different uses of fuel, different processes for power generation, and “treat to zero” emission policies for all types of pollution, not just transportation and power generation, but manufacturing processes as well.

   That way we, as individuals, will “vote with our feet” in selecting fuel efficient vehicles, conservation measures, alternative energy, and much more. The free market can solve this problem, assuming it is a problem, with high taxes at the user point-the consumer, and fuel users, utilities and commercial and industrial users. They are the ones who will vote with their pocketbook.

   Now, if we could only trust the government to make sure that appropriate incentives are created to encourage conservation, alternatives, and consumer relief.Technologies to improve the use of energy, like underground insulated power transmission lines to extend the grid by hundreds of miles, while increasing efficiency (existing above ground power lines lose a percentage of their power each mile they take to deliver to the end user), and importantly, adding up to ten percent additional power to the marketplace without a new plant.

   Develop underground tunnels for everything from high speed mass transit to long distance freight hauling, to power and communications transmission. Underground is 100% more aesthetically appealing, while much more efficient in delivering goods to users and consumers, and offering much greater security from folks who want to do damage.

   Over two million acres of land now devoted to above-ground power plant to sub-station distribution, and other services could be buried under ground, at the least offering greater aesthetics, at best offering high value land for development, consumer use as parks, mass transit with rights-of-way already established; gosh I’m getting “wallet tingles” just thinking about it! A series of side-by-side, well-designed tunnels using existing rights-of-way would allow for multiple uses by high speed mass transit, freight transit, utilities, communications, natural gas and other fuels.

   Jobs! This approach would generate hundreds of thousands of jobs, lasting for a generation or more.

   Now, that’s a dividend!