Dr. Dean: a program for American jobs and for energy independence

Chairman Dean states Democratic message--DU thread



How are we going to do that? Here are my offerings, what would you tell the Chairman?

1. Significantly higher automobile and truck fuel economy standards with big gas guzzler taxes on the worst vehicles (Hummers)

2. Energy requirements in building codes: super-insulation, efficient windows, limit on gross consumption to discourage 4000 sq ft single family homes.

3. Energy sources in new construction: tax incentives for domestic hot water and photovoltaic integrations in new construction of homes and businesses.

4. A methane pipeline from the Alaskan fields

5. Committee hearings & federal investigations into gasoline price fixing

6. Efficient housing replacement plan for old cities (creates construction jobs, too)

7. Plan for replacements for the existing nuclear generating plants as they age such as activating second generating units on site.

8. Set caps on CO2 emissions and force the industry to reduce emissions through consumer efficiency, plant efficiency, sequestration, or alternative energy sources. (Ok, that is not for energy independence, but for the planet).

The Doctor is IN.

1. New higher standards does not improve old rolling stock, nor does it encourage taking fewer trips, using transit, or working closer to home. High fuel prices do. High fuel prices pinch the poor first. Raise taxes on fuel, use the revenue for a credit / voucher / rebate.

2. Same as #1. Theres nothing wrong with a guy owning a 4000 s.f. home, he employed a lot of people getting it built. What is wrong, is that he when he gets to take something from the rest of us to do it. Find out what he's taking, and charge him for that.

3. I would exempt solar systems and the like from property tax. In fact, I would exempt the whole building from property tax. However, high fuel prices does a fine job of ensuring people make sound decisions about energy use. It may be more cost effective to insulate more, or replace windows, or some other thing, rather than to put a solar hot water panel on the roof. So my vote would be to keep doing what we did in #1 & #2, while exempting buildings and improvements from property tax.

4. I'm not sure a methane pipleline would be the best method, but I don't know enough about it to be sure. I am sure, though, if the price were right, it've already been done.

5. I'm OK with this. But since I know that oil prices aren't like other prices - high wheat prices make more people produce wheat, high oil prices doesn't put any more oil in the ground - I'd just as soon tax the crap out of oil & other fossil fuels.

6. I firmly believe that we need to save our cities if we, as a species, are to continue to prosper on this planet. I think step 1 of rebuilding our cities would be to eliminate the property tax on buildings - creating construction jobs. Step 2 would be to recapture the value of public transit (and schools and public safety, etc) by taxing land values near such public investments.

7. I agree. I fully support the idea of licensing nuclear plants by model, rather than by each project.

8. If we set caps on CO2 emissions, we will surely use every bit of the allowance. If, instead, we tax CO2 emissions, or rather charge a 'user fee' for using the commons as a waste dump, we will continually try to reduce emissions. A tax on CO2 emissions is generally at tax on fossil fuels, so I'd gladly accept a CO2 tax in lieu of a fossil fuel tax.

So I'm left with the following:
I. Tax CO2 emissions
II. Use the tax to fund a Carbon Dividend, paying each resident a share. They could use this share as they see fit, but since high fuel prices affect the prices of just about everything, heavy consumers would be pinched; light consumers (including the poor, by neccessity) would wind up with more than they started with.
III. Abolish property taxes on buildings and improvements, especially in urban areas.
IV. Raise taxes on land values in urban areas.
V. Allow design based licensing for nuclear plants.