Skip to main content

View Diary: The Clean Energy Dividend (15 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  cap and trade, fee and dividend, whatever (0+ / 0-)

    the real solution is a a carbon tax.  Anything else overcomplicates things.

    Conservatives want bad policy so they can then criticize it when it doesn't work.

    Global warming is the inconvenient truth, nuclear power is the inconvenient alternative.

    by eigenlambda on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 10:48:48 AM PST

    •  ? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Wells

      I explain how the clean energy dividend is the same as a carbon tax on the front end but is designed to not siphon money into the black hole of congressional appropriation by returning 100% of it as a dividend.

      contraposition.org - thoughts on energy, the environment, and society.

      by barath on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 01:10:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "black hole of congressional appropriation" (0+ / 0-)

        if it means less other taxes, then that's already a dividend, which is spread as fairly over the rest of society as you believe the tax code is.

        Global warming is the inconvenient truth, nuclear power is the inconvenient alternative.

        by eigenlambda on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 01:53:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  true, but (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Wells

          the issue is that the stated goal of such a policy would be to enable and incentivize a rapid shift towards clean energy or simply decreased energy use.  it could mean less taxes, but it could also mean subsidies for clean coal research or highway construction or any number of other policies that are counterproductive.

          a 100% dividend approach is transparent and direct.

          contraposition.org - thoughts on energy, the environment, and society.

          by barath on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 04:22:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  meanwhile, dividends could also be used to fund (0+ / 0-)

            the "hydrogen economy" bullshit of a decade ago (the physicist at the DoE pulled the plug on that immediately), or subsidies for corn ethanol.

            Setting energy policy and researching the future of energy is the point of having a Department of Energy in the first place.  Of course, Bush's DoE was pursuing intentionally insane policy.  Sadly, any scheme depends on having sane government.

            Why not take the money from carbon taxes, and give it directly to Steven Chu?

            Global warming is the inconvenient truth, nuclear power is the inconvenient alternative.

            by eigenlambda on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 05:17:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  practicality (0+ / 0-)
              Why not take the money from carbon taxes, and give it directly to Steven Chu?
              I would love for that to happen, but only in a perfect world would he not be burdened by political nonsense in funding priorities.  As we've seen even among Democrats there's far too much support for coal and natural gas (as there are plenty of Dems from states that produce those).
              the "hydrogen economy" bullshit of a decade ago (the physicist at the DoE pulled the plug on that immediately), or subsidies for corn ethanol.
              I'm unclear how this would happen in a clean energy dividend scheme.  Dividends go to the people at large.  If hydrogen-powered systems were cost effective, then people would use them.  If not, then not.  There wouldn't be any hidden subsidies for boondoggles like that.  It'd automatically be based on real costs.  And carbon would be directly disincentivized just as with a carbon tax.

              contraposition.org - thoughts on energy, the environment, and society.

              by barath on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 05:42:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  And the dividend is progressive (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            barath

            Which is critical because critics will hold up the poor as examples of people negatively affected by any carbon tax - you have to demonstrate benefit for them.

            We shall not participate in our own destruction.

            by James Wells on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 05:20:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site