Comments on: Obama’s “number 1 priority”

By: KLD BLOG » Fighting Recession with Carbon Tax Rebates: A Consideration of Cap and Dividend, Part 1

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:16:24 +0000

[...] – that turns a tax on carbon into an economic stimulus. As Mr. Barnes (founder of Working Assets) explained in a Reuters piece: “The advantage of cash dividends is that they’d tangibly and frequently remind people that [...]

By: Cyril R.

Cyril R. — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:54:50 +0000

Excellent article; the divident system is best. 75% back to the people, 5-10% for research, development and deployment and other energy programmes, the rest to pay for the system and for other govt expenditures. Seems like a fair deal to me.

I’d prefer a carbon tax & dividend over trading, since trading carries risks of bubble/bust cycles that damage clean energy and efficiency, while a tax has a guaranteed price level which stabilises the investment climate for the clean and efficient energy revolution.

Still, if Obama is intent on trading, then I’ll support him. This article makes a good point about being careful with the details. It will be absolutely vital to have clear information and openness in the carbon trading market, at all times, in order to reduce risks of creating bubble/bust cycles.

By: R Shah

R Shah — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:39:37 +0000

First what Obama needs to do is combine 10 towns into 1 like they do in Woodbridge, NJ across the country, sell off the remaining real estate as result, combine services saving the American taxpayers plenty. Estimated Savings: Woodbridge residents pay half the taxes of other towns nearby. By reducing the tax burden people will automatically have money to spend. After all 70% of the US economy is based on the consumer spending money.

Second, If you tax people less they will want to work and have money left over to spend. Reduce the taxes to a flat tax of 15%, get rid of the sales tax nationwide. This will stimulate consumer spending. This might also reduce the welfare budgets.

Third,THINK GREEN. Take the existing government buildings and implement a 100% Recovery plan, reuse everything, convert what you can to energy and put it back into to grid. This money government makes can be further given back to the public to stimulate the economy. Place Solar panels on government building. After the initial cost the energy becomes free for ever!!

By: A.R.Shams

A.R.Shams — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:39:05 +0000

Mr. Obama’s first and foremost triumph towards uplifting the downtrodden economy of the country would need extra-ordinary efforts to give development to agricultural growth of the country by leaps and bounds because Nature has gifted vast land for growing crops much of which are known as still uncultivated.

Further to that Obama’s Government may consider the over expenditure of the country in war activities because he is believed to know well enough, ‘War conductors make more enemies than friends’

By: rrr

rrr — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 05:09:40 +0000

Perhaps like many Americans, I do not understand all the scientific talk in the above article and this is no fault of the author whatsoever. It is simply a statement that reveals something bigger - most of us do not know what source of energy is best for the world or our economy. What most of us do know is that the U.S. and other “industrialized” countries must act quickly and intelligently on the issue of energy. We all do understand that something simple like changing lightbulbs has a direct effect on our electric bill. It is also something that is very tangible and easy to do. But other questions, like what is carbon? Why carbon and not nuclear energy, etc. is rather complicated, it seems, to those of us who are not scientifically oriented. Is there anyone out there who can break down carbon vs. nuclear energy in simple terms?

Nonetheless, fortunately most of us now know that change in how we consume energy and how our consumption effects our environment is something we need to addressn ASAP. Which brings us to Obama’s suggestion of driving our economy. Yes, “green” jobs will be better for our economy; but how quickly can these jobs be created before more layoffs and foreclosures occur in the U.S.?

I do like the idea of rewarding those who conserve energy and fining those who pollute - this is genius!

Is there any simple solution to our economic crisis? Probably not, but creating jobs which are better for our environment, and really are the future, is a good way to start.

As far as a kilowat or terrawat? Huh?

By: Pete Cann

Pete Cann — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:39:30 +0000

During the crisis, if you give a handout to underemployed construction workers and engineers, well… If you pay them the same money to build a transmission line to get solar or wind power from where it’s plentiful to where it’s needed, the country ends up with a transmission line, and reduced oil imports (and less greenhouse emissions), and the construction workers and engineers still end up with the money. Energy has a cost, and most people won’t care unless they pay it. After the crisis, do what you like with the proceeds.

By: Barbara

Barbara — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:46:51 +0000

Jacques,
Nuclear fuel would be lovely except for one glaring problem. What do you propose be done with the nuclear waste that is produced? We do not know what to do with the nuclear waste that already exists, does it make sense to create more?

It seems to me that we would be creating another problem that would have to be dealt with even more urgently than is being done currently. I don’t think we want to trade one problem for another,or give our descendants yet another life threatening problem to repair from our lack of forethought.

By: jacques bimromav

jacques bimromav — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:00:03 +0000

it’s called nuclear energy, people. it’s cheap, it doesn’t pollute, and technology has advanced so much that there is close to no risk of a melt down. no need to waste money on wind turbines or solar power; both cost far too much and rely too much on perfect weather conditions.

By: john wibel

john wibel — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:38:57 +0000

I heard over public radio that one solar plant 94 miles square would generate enough power to run the whole country. how about 100 plants 1 mile square. At 100 million $ each. This would solve a lot of problems for us as once the world sees that we have done this they will want join us. It was stated by NPR that the technology currently exists to accomplish this.

By: Don

Don — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:36:39 +0000

America isn’t ready for solutions but rather self-imposed austerity and suffering. If a researcher with a cure for cancer, new type of propulsion or energy source tried to share his ideas, the media, government agencies, educational institutions and the general public would ignore him. Because people believe in scams and liars in nice suits. We got a lot of warning of the economic slowdown from economists, right? No, because most of them don’t have the foggiest idea what they are doing. They wear nice suits. All of those bankers with companies going bankrupt - each a halfwit if you think about it from a detached perspective - wear nice suits and sound great.

People pray for solutions. But if there were a God and he actually sent people to help us out, we would ignore such folks. There are no shortage of great ideas in the world. But we lack people of substance and conviction to help transform those ideas into tangible solutions.