The Future Of Energy?
show comments
  • Taxing energy is dumb.

    Taxes on job creation and wages are dumb too, but as the wise man said “reversed stupidity is not intelligence”.

    To be credible you need to do more than align yourself with a lesser evil, you need to propose non-evil solutions.

    Think about it. The desire to improve the tax structure to avoid strangling society must not increase energy costs. Energy is a key part of job creation and wages.

    A broader based general consumption tax rather than one explicitly targeted at energy would be as benign as you can get. Eliminating subsidies to energy would reduce the tax burden as well, though it might lead to higher energy costs as they rise to their true value. It has the added virtue of reducing the friction of government meddling and waste.

  • nadine

    I don’t understand why you are not “particularly skeptical” about climate science, since you plainly understand how it is being held hostage by climate policy. Which means it is politicized science. Politicized science generally becomes junk science in short order, and climate science is no exception. You don’t need a Ph.D. in climatology. All you have to do is listen to hundreds or thousands of media reports, all uniformly reporting that every conceivable weather event — cold, hot, wet, dry, it matters not — is evidence for global warming, whose effects are as bad as they are certain, to understand that the whole thing has become an unfalsifiable thesis.

  • Kenny

    ” … serious establishment figures like Yergin and Zakaria continue to distance themselves from the sterile posturing and irrational policy prescriptions of the conventional green movement,..”

    Good Lord! These two geniuses have finally noted that the sun rises in the east. Let give them a pat on the head. Who knows what they’ll discover next — maybe that neo-Darwinism is another hoax.

  • via Meadia is big on “establishment figures”, I’ve noticed, and apparently unmindful of the consequences of further inflating their importance. And then there’s this bit of keen analysis:

    Politics are an inevitable part of the energy business. Government has a huge role to play because of the public costs and benefits — when you put something into the atmosphere, it affects everyone.

    I breathe; I enjoy a fire in the fireplace every now and then; I drive an automobile. Do those activities – particularly my exhalations – require that I acknowledge the need for a “huge role” for government?

  • John

    But wouldn’t there be huge politics involved in determining the rates of a carbon tax? How does one determine who gets taxed what? I think it makes a bad situation worse.

  • I’d be careful taking anything Yergin says at face value. I found many mistakes and biases in his treatment of oil supplies.

    See my article for Grist:
    http://www.grist.org/oil/2011-09-27-the-quest-questioned

  • Russ

    Or we could jusy get serious about *modern* nuclear energy and *modern,* safe nuclear power-plant designs, grab the uranium out of the seawater, and have the whole thing be over and done with. Lots of energy AND a blissful lack of smog-free days.

    Maybe even some DOE kickbacks so that K street will be able to get its pound of flesh, too?

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.