The following entry comes from Gregg Lombardi who suggests an energy-equitable plan for gas consumption in the United States:
There has been a lot of talk recently about the need to reduce U.S. energy consumption—and for good reason. If we use less gas and other energy, then we can slow down global warming and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Here is an idea of how to start the process now:
1) The government would set a monthly allowance for gas use for all individuals, say, 25 gallons per month.
2) Every person of driving age would be issued a gas-use card that would look just like a credit card that would track their consumption.
3) When you go to the filling station, you would just insert your card into the pump and it would show you how much gas you had used for the month.
How it would work:
If you use more than 25 gallons per month, then a tax would be added to your bill of $1.00 per gallon.
If you use 50 or more gallons, then a $2.00 charge would apply.
If you use less than 25 gallons, then, at the start of the month, you would get a $1.50 credit for every gallon that you saved.
If you only use five gallons, then you would get a $30 credit. You would not have to use the credit for gas, you could go into the store and the cashier would simply pay you the $30.
This would provide a strong incentive for people to reduce their gas use. People who want to drive gas guzzlers, like Hummers, could still drive them. They would just have to pay a small tax for the extra pollution they are causing, which only seems fair. People who save gas would be rewarded for helping the environment.
The same system could apply for businesses, although it would be more complicated. The business’s monthly allocation might be based on their payroll. Businesses that use a lot of energy, like UPS, might complain that the burden of a gas tax would unfairly be saddled on them, which would increase the cost of their products or services.
Like the Hummer drivers, however, if those businesses are going to contribute more heavily to pollution, global warming and U.S. dependence on foreign oil, then it is only fair that they and their customers bear a small part of the cost of the pollution they are producing.
A price that more accurately reflects the true cost of the product in terms of environmental impact would also encourage people to buy products that have less of an environmental impact - like buying apples that were grown 100 miles away, instead of apples that were grown in Venezuela.
What’s more, even with the added tax, gas in the United States would still cost a lot less than gas almost anywhere else in the free world.
The same system could be used for electricity, natural gas and pretty much any other form of energy. There would be no cost for this system, it would actually raise money. And the money could be used to fund mass transportation and other solutions to the energy problem. Parts of the country that reduce their energy use the most might receive additional funding for public transportation.
Solving the problems of global warming and U.S. dependence on foreign oil is going to take a lot of new ideas and a pretty fair amount of sacrifice. This would be at least a step in the right direction and we could take it immediately with little pain.
Energy Plan with the Environment in Mind - An Egads! Guest Opinion
May 6, 2007 · 2 Comments
The following entry comes from Gregg Lombardi who suggests an energy-equitable plan for gas consumption in the United States:
There has been a lot of talk recently about the need to reduce U.S. energy consumption—and for good reason. If we use less gas and other energy, then we can slow down global warming and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Here is an idea of how to start the process now:
1) The government would set a monthly allowance for gas use for all individuals, say, 25 gallons per month.
2) Every person of driving age would be issued a gas-use card that would look just like a credit card that would track their consumption.
3) When you go to the filling station, you would just insert your card into the pump and it would show you how much gas you had used for the month.
How it would work:
This would provide a strong incentive for people to reduce their gas use. People who want to drive gas guzzlers, like Hummers, could still drive them. They would just have to pay a small tax for the extra pollution they are causing, which only seems fair. People who save gas would be rewarded for helping the environment.
The same system could apply for businesses, although it would be more complicated. The business’s monthly allocation might be based on their payroll. Businesses that use a lot of energy, like UPS, might complain that the burden of a gas tax would unfairly be saddled on them, which would increase the cost of their products or services.
Like the Hummer drivers, however, if those businesses are going to contribute more heavily to pollution, global warming and U.S. dependence on foreign oil, then it is only fair that they and their customers bear a small part of the cost of the pollution they are producing.
A price that more accurately reflects the true cost of the product in terms of environmental impact would also encourage people to buy products that have less of an environmental impact - like buying apples that were grown 100 miles away, instead of apples that were grown in Venezuela.
What’s more, even with the added tax, gas in the United States would still cost a lot less than gas almost anywhere else in the free world.
The same system could be used for electricity, natural gas and pretty much any other form of energy. There would be no cost for this system, it would actually raise money. And the money could be used to fund mass transportation and other solutions to the energy problem. Parts of the country that reduce their energy use the most might receive additional funding for public transportation.
Solving the problems of global warming and U.S. dependence on foreign oil is going to take a lot of new ideas and a pretty fair amount of sacrifice. This would be at least a step in the right direction and we could take it immediately with little pain.
Editors Note: Click here to read the May 5, 2007, Washington Post article, “Panel Calculates Cost of Global Warming Fix - Nations Could Afford Solutions, Scientists Say”
Categories: Commentary · Energy · Environment · Read it · Think about it · Thought · legislation