Question by : Which of these AGW solutions sound “socialist” to you?
There are a lot of posters here who think that AGW is some sort of communist/socialist/liberal conspiracy to take charge of our economy.
But (aside from the fact that unpalatable solutions don’t mean that the problem is false) there are a lot of solutions to AGW that, well, I don’t see how any sane person could call them communist, socialist, or in some cases even particularly liberal.
Off the top of my head:
government actions:
Cutting or entirely eliminating subsidies to or special tax breaks for oil and coal producers and fossil-fuel power plants
Replacing some portion of the national income tax with a carbon tax, or any other roughly revenue-neutral carbon tax
Offering tax breaks to alternative energy producers
Converting vehicles the government owns to use alternative power sources
Instituting energy-saving measures in government buildings, such as insulation, turning off lights and computers, and installing low-energy lighting
Expediting permits for biofuel, nuclear, and other non-fossil-fuel power plants
Allowing permits for plants intended to turn “spent” nuclear fuel into lower-power energy generation
personal actions:
Drive less
Turn off appliances when not in use
Insulate your home where appropriate
Support your local economy by buying locally produced goods, or at least ones made in this country (that is, Buy American–substitute your country where appropriate)
Feel free to chime in with any other non-“communist” AGW solutions.
Peter: I think you might be surprised what would happen with a completely level playing field. Look up “oil from turkey guts”, for a start…
And how is it “picking winners” to cut special advantages one set of businesses currently enjoy (the various subsidies for oil and so forth), or instituting cost-saving measures in government offices (the energy-saving measures I mentioned)?
And I’m not saying “a government program to make everyone turn off their lights”, I’m saying the government turning off unneeded lights/computers/etc in their own offices, and private citizens individually turning off their own unneeded lights/computers/etc. And the latter applies to everything else I listed under “personal actions”, that’s why it’s under “personal actions”, not “government actions”
Bravozulu: how are the things I proposed *increasing* government? I suggested a revenue-neutral tax (no change in government income), tax breaks (that is, *less* money going to the government), reducing/easing government regulations, and what should ultimately be reductions in government spending (though they may require some initial investments). This is increasing government how, exactly?
Jim Z: on your article, I’d count the money lent to Brazil as an oil subsidy…
Matthew: I *hope* you’re joking…
Peter: corn ethanol is a bad idea for several reasons…
Dook: heh.
Er, that is, corn ethanol as a fuel. Corn ethanol as a beverage is… no worse than any other booze.
Bubba: I think you mean externalities. Despite the spell check choking on it.
Bravo: and why would buying electric vehicles be stupid? They make perfect sense for a lot of in-town type driving situations (my brother’s Leaf can go 100 miles on a charge, that will get him pretty much anywhere in town and back, I’d bet a lot of government vehicles would have similar use profiles)
Best answer:
Answer by Hey Dook
“Socialism” may be a bigger deal than you realize:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMLgEnDGkG4
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!