I Said What They Say -- Raise the Gas Tax

I like it when respected publications echo what I've been saying for months. Wired just wrote about how it's time to raise the gas tax. No kidding.

Of course, I still think we should take things a step further and tax carbon — otherwise, coal's huge contribution to climate change and air pollution will be left unaddressed. Driving electric cars that plug into a power grid that generates electricity by burning more than 1 trillion tons of coal a year is hardly an impressive step forward. The whole system has to change. Sensible incentives/disincentives (such as a higher gas tax) can help expedite the transition to a more sustainable American lifestyle. I'm all for it.

Serve God, Save the Planet

After writing a series of posts on facing the energy crisis late this summer and some other reflections on environmentalism, I decided to pick up and read Serve God, Save the Planet by Matthew Sleeth, M.D.

I'd highly recommend it. Even if you don't care about serving God and think saving the planet is stupid, he makes a pretty convincing case for reconsidering some everyday lifestyle choices...a case made especially powerful in light of our ongoing economic collapse. If current events are any indication, our materialistic American lifestyle is entirely unsustainable.

I found an article in Advertising Age yesterday that touched on the same issue. The author writes:

Above all else, we'd do well to acknowledge that conspicuous consumption — which has fueled economic growth since World War II — is simply not a sustainable answer in a world in which we already have so many possessions...Here's 40-year ecologist and biologist David Suzuki in a recent interview with New Scientist on the subject: "The industrialized world has only 20% of Earth's population but uses more than 80% of the resources and produces more than 80% of the toxic waste. I asked a top ecologist at Harvard University how many humans Earth could sustainably support, and he said 200 million if you want to live like North Americans. When I say this, people get angry. They say the stores are filled with food, we're living longer than ever, we're better off. Well, the reason we have the illusion that everything is OK is because we're using up what our children and grandchildren should expect to inherit."

Even if you are among those who still want to write off experts such as Mr. Suzuki as melodramatic tree-huggers, you must surely look around and wonder whether the profligate ways that we go about clothing, feeding, sheltering and transporting this ever-growing population of ours can truly be sustained for much longer.

We Americans are conspicuous consumers, indeed. One way or another, it's clear something's gotta give. Dr. Sleeth, writing as both a successful medical professional and a concerned Christian citizen, cuts right to the heart of the matter and exposes our materialism for what it is: ugly, selfish, and ultimately harmful (physically and spiritually) to ourselves, our family, and our neighbors all around the world. But rather than leave you there feeling condemned and hopeless, he shows you a way forward — a way he's proven by example. He and his family have cut their monthly electrical bill to just $20.

You have to admit, simplicity has a certain appeal these days — even if only to save a buck. Whatever your motives, pick up a copy and read this book. You just might end up saving the world.

Creating a Sustainable Future (Facing the Energy Crisis: Part 3)

Fossil fuels are on their way out whether we like it or not. Which, in the end, is fine — over time, the human race can adapt to survive without oil and coal, especially if we begin changing our lifestyles and developing solutions today.

But not just any solutions will do. If the energy crisis teaches us anything, and I hope it teaches us much, it must teach us the importance of sustainability. As we wean ourselves from dirty, dead-end fossil fuels, we must be careful not to develop new dependencies that could lead to other crises further down the road. Our efforts at sustainability must extend far beyond energy to include the atmosphere, oceans, freshwater (Wired had a great article a while back about the threat of freshwater shortages), architecture, materials, waste, food, and, indeed, all natural resources and processes. Bottom line: it's time for a little creative problem solving.

Recently, both presidential candidates have taken this task a little more seriously, although their lofty campaign rhetoric still contains significant traces of fantasy and foolishness. Private investors (doubtless you've heard of the Pickens Plan), auto manufacturers, and even Big Oil companies all have their ideas about what to do. Although I don't consider Al Gore to be entirely credible (was that a Nobel prize for hypocrisy...?), his We Can Solve It campaign is very well intentioned, and his "plan" to convert 100% of America's energy into clean energy in 10 years (although probably unrealistic and prohibitively expensive) is just the kind of go-for-broke effort this country needs.

Here's where we should start:

Encourage U.S. Innovation. In Part 2, I suggested a carbon tax as a way to make fossil fuel use unattractive. But there's another side to that coin: the more undesirable gas-powered transportation and coal-fired electricity (i.e., the status quo) become, the more desirable the alternatives seem. This throws the doors wide open for innovation. With the appropriate disincentives, it shouldn't be long before Americans scramble to change their personal habits and fight to adopt emerging carbon-neutral innovations. New business innovations will blossom as manufacturers begin competing for customers looking for the most efficient, carbon-neutral products available. Almost immediately, the competition inherent within our capitalist system starts working to propel desirable change. A revenue-neutral carbon tax must be the foundation of any serious energy plan.

Additional incentives may play a role from time to time. For example, it could be helpful to offer government "prize money" for demonstrating certain cost-effective breakthrough innovations in energy and efficiency, similar to McCain's (unbelievably extravagant) $300 million incentive for an exponentially better electric car battery.

Stop Using Corn-based Ethanol as Auto Fuel. Immediately. There's probably a future in biofuels of other sorts (e.g., biodiesel), so encourage research in this field. But corn-based ethanol is a government-funded failure. It might burn somewhat cleaner (even that is questionable), but it's not cost-effective, or remotely sensible. Food prices are escalating and half the world is starving, so let's maybe boost our exports and feed people instead of liquidating food supplies by turning them into inefficient oil alternatives.

Invest in Wind & Solar. (Same goes for hydrogen fuel and other, more experimental energy sources.) Remove all current fossil fuel subsidies and use the money to subsidize sustainable energy development and production instead. Encourage private investment, research, and development, but as a rule, don't dump government money into any unproven or underdeveloped technologies. Wind and solar offer fantastic potential as renewable fuel sources, but they're still not efficient or cost-effective enough to provide broad-scale alternative energy. Besides, weather-dependent energy production brings it's own set of challenges (some companies are already rising to meet those). That said, we can't be afraid to adopt new technologies as they emerge (and private investors like Pickens should be encouraged and supported in their efforts). Expect innovations in these fields, and work to integrate them quickly.

Take Full Advantage of Geothermal & Hydropower. These are great natural, sustainable energy sources. Whenever available and wherever possible, we should tap into them. We already know how. Also, the huge potential of tidal power remains largely unexplored.

Start Relying More on Nuclear Energy. New nuclear plants have to be a huge part of any serious clean energy plan. Nuclear plants currently supply only about 20% of U.S. electricity, yet nuclear energy is arguably the safest, most reliable, sustainable, cost-effective method of energy production in the world ... with a tiny carbon footprint. This is proven technology. It's time we stopped being afraid of it. Especially since nuclear "waste" is close to 100% recyclable (see France and the U.K.). Future innovations in this field (e.g., fusion research) are bound to bring even greater efficiency. Still not convinced? Talk to former Greenpeace pioneer-turned-nuclear energy advocate Patrick Moore.

Decrease Wastefulness & Inefficiency. Finally, one of the most obvious (and increasingly necessary) ways to relieve the U.S. energy crisis (and save ourselves a load of money) is to use less energy. As they say, waste not, want not. Consider this: Americans use five times more than the average world citizen. That's right — although we represent just 5% of the world's population, we use nearly a quarter of the world's energy. Even the average homeless American has a carbon footprint twice the size of the world average. Researchers from MIT suggest we can cut fuel consumption 50 percent in 25 years. That seems reasonable — in theory, it shouldn't be hard for us to scale back even more than that. In practice, however, the greedy, selfish, lazy part of our human natures often needs a bit of a nudge to stir us from complacency.

Here, a carbon tax will certainly help. But in some cases, more new taxes and restrictions may also serve to influence citizens' and corporations behavior for the better.

One place to start would be taxing the manufacturing and sale of new vehicles and appliances that do not conform to strict efficiency and emissions standards (used vehicles/appliances would be exempt). This would discourage people from buying (and manufacturers from making) certain models. Odds are, every new car will be a hybrid in 12 years anyway. Another idea, provided that there's sufficient public transportation available, is banning cars that don't have special permits (e.g. fuel-efficient taxis, emergency vehicles, etc.) from within city limits — encouraging walking, cycling, subway trains, etc. as energy-saving alternatives. We could even go so far as to outlaw certain vehicles for private or recreational use (always providing exceptions for demonstrated business needs). Some of these measures sound extreme, but they're all worth looking into.

On a more simple, personal level, it's time to evaluate our lifestyles. Simplify. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. We have to be part of the change we're hoping for. It won't be easy. It won't be without cost. But it's within our reach.

Additional Reading:
Part 1 — Making Sense
Part 2 — Treating Fossil Fuels with Foresight

Treating Fossil Fuels with Foresight (Facing the Energy Crisis: Part 2)

In the spirit of making sense, it's time we started thinking long-term about energy and the environment. Even if you discount the arguments of various global warming/climate change doomsday prophets, you're going to have a hard time sounding intelligent arguing that wastefulness and air pollution are good things.

But even if the environment were in pristine condition (it's not), we'd still be headed for trouble. Why? Because nearly 80% of U.S. electricity comes from non-renewable resources and nearly 100% of U.S. transportation systems are dependent on non-renewable resources. "Non-renewable" means "incapable of being replaced by natural ecological cycles or sound management practices." Let me break it down: sooner or later these resources will run out completely. Thanks to population growth and the rise of the developing world, that'll probably happen sooner rather than later. So, to prepare for the future, we need to start doing things differently today.

Here's what we do:

Force Big Oil to Develop Its Land. The fact is, it'll be quite a long time (if ever) before we can completely eradicate oil use in the U.S., so if we're truly going to be energy independent, we'll eventually need to drill for more oil on our own turf. Here's where we start drilling: on the land Big Oil companies already lease from the federal government. Right now they have about 68 million acres of oil-rich land stockpiled, and they've left it unexplored and undeveloped. So ... what were you saying about supply and demand? C'mon, Big Oil, you're not fooling anybody. Be honest, remember?

Permit Offshore Drilling. But do so only after Big Oil starts producing on the land it already leases. If executed responsibly, it's not the worst idea ever. And if we absolutely need more oil, drilling for it off our own coasts is better than importing it from foreign war zones and hostile nations. Even then, I have a few caveats: even as a short-term solution, offshore drilling is far from ideal. Yes, it helps move us (just a tiny, tiny step) toward energy independence, but it does nothing to address environmental concerns and long-term sustainability. Even worse, it only serves to perpetuate our dependence on oil. It also runs the unnecessary risk of damaging the tourism industry and local economies for some of our shoreline destinations. That said, if local and state governments support drilling in certain regions, the Federal government should let them — and charge Big Oil big money for the lease.

Save the ANWR Coastal Plain ... For Now. Despite what you hear, there aren't any good environmental reasons not to drill in ANWR. This oil-rich region is little more than a barren wasteland and developing 2000 acres out of over 500,000 square miles wouldn't come close to disrupting the ecosystem or damaging its natural beauty. The piping infrastructure is already in place from the nearby Prudhoe Bay oil field, so development in this area would be (relatively) inexpensive. However, as I mentioned above, drilling in ANWR now will only serve to perpetuate our dependence on oil. Catering to our dependence on oil today, while it might bring a temporary spike in supply and short-term relief from skyrocketing prices, could fatally delay overdue innovation and speed the inevitable day when the earth runs dry ... leaving us with a nonfunctioning transit system and the surface temperature of Venus. As bad as price increases hurt now, it's better to use the cost of oil as a disincentive for overuse and a catalyst for innovative and radical change. Now is the time to transition to renewable energy and, perhaps more importantly, a sustainable American lifestyle. If innovations come slowly or the transition to renewable energy doesn't go as smoothly as we hope, it'll be better in the long run if we've saved our precious ANWR oil reserve for when we truly need it. Bonus: if it turns out we don't need it, we can export it at a premium to the other oil-starved countries.

Preserve the National Oil Reserve. Our reserve is for emergency use only. Needless to say, it astonished me when Barack Obama suggested handling the energy crisis by tapping into our national reserve. Dear fellow Americans (and Senator Obama), this is reality talking: $4 for a gallon of gas isn't the end of the world (to put things in perspective, gas costs about double that in Germany). Certainly, rising gas costs are putting a squeeze on some people. But high oil use is putting a squeeze on the entire country, the environment, and the world's resources. There are other, better, but sure-to-be-politically-unpopular solutions to high prices at the pump (keep reading). Catering to our dependence on oil and artificially lowering prices by depleting our national reserve is short-sighted and foolish. See above.

Phase Out Fossil Fuel Power Plants. Do away with fossil fuel subsidies and use the money to subsidize sustainable energy development and production instead. Currently, fossil fuel-fired plants account for nearly 80% of U.S. electricity production, burn non-renewable resources, and aren't doing the environment any favors. Still, even if the need for coal and petroleum is eliminated completely, we should continue to harvest and store these natural resources for a rainy day (if anything, our national reserves should be expanding). Also, as we phase out many of these plants, we should investigate ways to repurpose and/or recycle the existing infrastructure. And, of course, we need to be careful to replace the jobs lost when scaling back these energy sectors.

Make Fossil Fuel Use Unattractive. In direct contrast to McCain's ill-advised suggestion that we suspend the gas tax and Obama's equally short-sighted and potentially more damaging plans to provide relief at the pump, we phase in a revenue-neutral carbon tax. The plan outlined by the Carbon Tax Center is brilliant.

Yes, this is one of those sure-to-be-politically-unpopular solutions I spoke of earlier. But hear me out: taxation always acts as a disincentive. Therefore, the Federal government can use taxes to indirectly influence citizens' behavior — most people will alter their lifestyle to avoid higher taxes. Since we're trying to decrease our national dependence on oil and fossil fuels, it makes sense to create or increase taxes on these items to discourage consumers from overusing them.

Also note that I'm suggesting a revenue-neutral carbon tax. That means the government wouldn't be allowed to take any more money from the American people than it already does by heaping a carbon tax on top of everything else. Rather, they'd have to scale back other taxes to offset the tax on carbon (this is called tax-shifting) or implement some sort of rebate/dividend program. Personally, I'm a huge fan of scaling back the Federal income tax or significantly shifting the tax brackets. This would lessen existing disincentives for earning more and let Americans keep more of their paychecks, a desirable scenario with the possible pleasant side-effect of stimulating the economy.

Lastly, bear in mind that this tax would be phased in. That is, it would start off on the lower end of the scale, and then increase some percentage annually to give individuals and businesses the opportunity to adjust. Commitment to keep raising the tax is important to ensure that long-term, energy-critical decisions are made with the increasing cost of a large carbon footprint in mind. With the appropriate disincentives, it shouldn't be long before Americans change their personal habits and adopt emerging carbon-neutral innovations.

Either way, the oil-guzzling lifestyles we Americans have grown so accustomed to needs to change. The sooner we start, the easier it'll be in the long run. In the end, it's all about foresight.

Additional Reading:
Part 1 — Making Sense
Part 3 — Creating a Sustainable Future

Facing the Energy Crisis: Making Sense (Part 1 of 3)

I'm growing tired of the pandering political responses to our economic and environmental energy crisis — vague promises, illogical challenges, and imbecilic proposals that cater to popular (uninformed/misinformed) opinion, big corporations, and big-shot environmentalists. In what's shaping up to be a fairly tight presidential race between Senator Change and Senator Straight-talk, I was hoping for more imaginative (or at least sensible) policy ideas. In the absence of such, I've drafted a rough plan, offered in three parts.

Part 1 — Making Sense
Set Broad, Meaningful, and Inspiring Goals. We'll never hit the target if there isn't one. And it won't matter if we hit it if it isn't any good. Let's try something like: "Achieve complete energy independence & sustainability within the next 20 years." Crazy? Maybe. I'd call it visionary. Let's not be underachievers, here. In pursuing such goals, it's important to keep other factors in mind — funding, energy costs (for production and consumption), the national economy, local economies, trade, foreign policy, global responsibility and world leadership, etc. But it's time to move away from "reduce greenhouse gases to 80% of 1990 levels by 2050" jargon. Those type of goals are painfully uninspired and completely meaningless to ... just about everybody. Kyoto Protocol, anybody?

Start Defining Our Terms. Efficient, sustainable, carbon-neutral, zero-emissions, environmentally friendly, renewable, eco-centric, green — everyone is making claims these days, and almost none of these claims are regulated. Fuel efficiency and energy efficiency aren't necessarily the same thing. Just because something gets better gas mileage doesn't make it better for the environment. And just because it's better for the environment doesn't mean it's better for the country, the economy, or the world. Are we talking about relief at the pump or relief for the planet? Let's not confuse the issues.

Be Honest. Unless it really is significantly better for the environment, don't call it "green" if that's not its color. Admit to some inconvenient truths, like the fact that shaping wise environmental policy for our future will require compromise and sacrifice. The economic situation may get worse before it gets better. Admit that Cap & Trade is a bad idea and "carbon offsets" are little more than useless gestures. Admit that manufacturing fuel-efficient hybrid and electric cars isn't always as environmentally-friendly as people assume. Just be honest. People are confused enough as it is.

Additional Reading:
Part 2 — Treating Fossil Fuels with Foresight
Part 3 — Creating a Sustainable Future