OK, so what the hell should "they" do to prevent global warming???

[jpak]

I posted this back in July...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=61442

Now that the Dems have retaken the House and Senate, what the hell should they do to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions????

Try to be specific and explain how "they" should pay for it.

Some of my thoughts...

General revenue funding ideas: Get the fuck out of Iraq and use that revenue for renewable energy and energy conservation programs. Rescind the GOP billionaire tax giveaway. Establish a "reasonable" windfall tax on Big Oil profits. Re-establish "reasonable" royalties on gas, oil and coal produced on federal lands. Establish a $5 a barrel tax on imported oil and a similar tax on imported LNG. Put ALL these revenue streams into a transparent "locked box" dedicated to the reduction of US greenhouse gas emissions - allocate these funds equally among congressional districts (where applicable).

Increase the homeowner tax credit for solar PV/thermal and small wind turbines to 50% of the total cost (up from the current 30%). Cap at $15K per household.

Establish a 100% tax credit for PV/solar systems for rental property owners - limit $15K per rental unit. Why 100%???? Because there is currently no financial incentive for renters or rental property owners to purchase these systems. $15K is enough to install a good solar hot water system and a reasonably sized (~1 kW) grid intertied PV system.

Establish a 50% tax credit on the installation of passive solar heating structures (attached greenhouses, sunspace/trombe walls etc.). Cap $15K per household. Homeowners would have to certify that these systems provide at least 25% of their annual heating needs to qualify (or else :evilgrin:)

ALL household/rental property renewable energy systems should be eligible to generate Federal Renewable Energy Certificates - proceeds from the sale of these certificates would be used to defray the cost of domestic renewable energy tax credits.

Establish a 50% tax credit for the purchase of top-rated Energy Star appliances (fridges, washers, dryers, AC, heat pumps AND windows) - cap annual credits at $10K per household.

Establish a 50% tax credit on the purchase and installation EPA certified wood/corn pellet, conventional wood stoves and liquid biofuel furnaces.

Establish a 100% tax credit for Energy Star appliances for rental property owners - limit $5000 per rental unit. Why 100%???? Again, because there is currently no financial incentive for renters or owners to purchase these appliances for rental properties.

Establish a 100% one-time tax credit on home energy audits - cap at $300 per household, $1500 for rental properties.

Increase the tax credit for home weatherization (insulation etc.) to 50% of the total cost. Rental property tax credits would cover 100% of the cost up to $5K per rental unit.

Congress should establish a surcharge (yes a tax) on the sale of electricity generated from fossil fuels. The surcharge would start at 1 mill per kWh and increase to $0.10 per kWh (or more) by 2020. Fossil-fired co-generation/district heating plants would be exempt. This surcharge would be used to defray the cost of tax credits for Energy Star appliance purchases and home weatherization.

Establish a 50% tax credit on the purchase of (federally certified) efficient industrial electric motors, manufacturing equipment and plant heating and lighting systems.

Establish a sliding scale tax credit for fuel efficient personal vehicles:
$10K for 50+ mpg, $5K for 40-50 mpg, $3K for 30-40 mpg. Flex-fuel and diesel light trucks should be exempt as they can use ethanol or biodiesel.

Establish a $2000 federal excise tax for fuel inefficient SUVs with EPA gas mileages of 20-25 mpg and a $5000 tax on SUVs getting <20 mpg. This revenue would be used to fund fuel efficient vehicle tax credits.

Larger (and smaller) fish to fry...

Congress should establish a National High Speed Rail System seamlessly integrated with local public transit systems and powered by a national renewable energy electrical grid. This program should receive the same level of funding as the Interstate Highway program. It should include both freight and passenger service.

The DOT should fund local public transit systems powered by renewable energy systems/fuels - not more roads - with federal gasoline taxes. The DOT should provide grants to local governments to plan, establish or expand local public transit systems. By 2025, no American citizen should wait more than 10 minutes for a rural-shuttle/bus/train/trolley in their neighborhood and spend more than 30 minutes on routine local commutes.

As ethanol and biodiesel cannot fuel the entire US vehicle fleet, efforts should be made to allocate sustainably produced biofuels to agricultural/farm machinery, school buses and public transit systems.

Establish a $0.50 a gallon subsidy for biofuels produced using low-input no-till and organic agricultural methods and from state/federally certified sustainably managed forests (and large punitive fines for cheating).

The Dept. of Agriculture should establish and/or greatly expand programs that encourge organic agriculture and reduce the use of petroleum-based pesticides and fertilizers. The DoA should also fund R&D programs to produce anhydrous ammonia fertilizer from hydrogen produced by electrolysis using renewable electricity. The goal: replace all ammonia fertilizer produced from natural gas. The DoA should also provide low-interest guaranteed loans to establish local farm cooperatives to produce biofuels/biogas and renewable electricity for local agricultural economies. Emphasis should be given to methane capture/combustion from large-scale livestock operations. The DoA should also fund R&D for solar agricultural applications (crop drying, etc.) that would reduce or eliminate the use of fossil fuels and provide low-interest guaranteed loans to deploy these technologies. The DoA should also provide funding to establish local farmer's markets and urban agriculture operations nationwide. DoA and EPA should (again) establish a sustainable biofuels certification program to ensure that biofuel production is indeed sustainable and has a low environmental impact.

FERC should establish a $0.20 per kWh "feed in" tariff on large scale (>100 kW) solar electric generating facilities located in brownfields and along agricultural fence rows. Solar power facilities would be limited to a maximum of 5% of total agricultural field acreage. This would allow farmland owners to produce electrons as well as fiber, forage and food. This program would sunset in 2025.

The DOE/FERC should establish a $0.10 per kWh "feed in" tariff on electricity produced from biomass-fueled CHP district heating plants.

FERC and State PUCs should establish regulations etc. pertaining to renewable electrical power quality, reliability, distribution, storage and grid management systems by 2012.

The DOE/FERC should establish a $0.05 per kWh tariff on electricity produced at existing coal-fired plants that produce >50% of their power using solid agricultural biofuels (wheat straw, corn stover etc.).

DOE/FERC/NRC should mandate that any new nuclear power plant must replace existing fossil fuel generating capacity on a MW by MW basis (that is, build a 1000 MW nuke, shut down a 1000 MW coal/gas-fired plant).

All coal-fired power plants currently grandfathered under the Clean Air Act should be decommissioned by 2015.

The DOE should fund R&D to produce and deploy a new generation of energy efficient street lights.

The DOE and FERC should fund/license the development of hydro-power at existing dams that do not currently produce electricity. The DOE should also establish a $.05 per kWh "feed-in" tariff on electricity produced by tidal and wave energy facilities. This program would sunset in 2025.

The EPA and DOE should provide grants to local communities to convert existing sewage treatment plants to anaerobic digester biogas systems and install biogas-powered generators, solar electric systems and/or wind turbines to make these facilities energy self-sufficient by 2020.

The EPA should provide grants to all US communities to establish methane capture and biogas power/heat production facilities at all landfills where this is feasible.

Finally, state and federal governments should make all US public schools energy independent by 2025 by employing appropriate energy conservation technologies and renewable energy systems. This includes electricity, heat and bus fuels.

Did I forget anything????

:evilgrin:


edit: reposted working DU link

[Iwasthere]

1. I have been wanting a factory plug in electric car for some time

Simple 12 V Solar panel on my roof. car charges at night. LETS GET OFF OF OIL!!!!! Rumor is Toyota will now go ahead with the plug in prius for 2008.

[petronius]

12. I understand what you meant, but this phrasing made me laugh:

"Simple 12 V Solar panel on my roof. car charges at night."

:hi:

[jpak]

21. Saw that too...

:)

[nodular]

2. nuclear

"DOE/FERC/NRC should mandate that any new nuclear power plant must replace existing fossil fuel generating capacity on a MW by MW basis (that is, build a 1000 MW nuke, shut down a 1000 MW coal/gas-fired plant)."

I think it's been decades since we opened a new nuclear power plant in this country. Nuclear power is clean energy that contributes nothing to global warming. Why set up one more barrier to opening new nuclear power plants when there are already so many?

[Dogmudgeon]

3. This is still a decent idea

Especially for coal-fired generators, which are horrendously dirty. Both pro- and anti-nuclear people point out that coal waste produces a great deal of uncounted radioactive fallout in its smoke and ash.

I agree, nuclear power is an under-appreciated and misunderstood resource, but many people still have tremendous fears of it, and some of those fears are legitimate. And alt-energy development should proceed anyway, whether or not nuclear energy is a factor.

We also need a long-term program to improve not just the safety of energy in general, but to make the process "transparent". It will go a long way to eliminating misconceptions of not only nuclear energy, but of energy resource use in general.

There is still a lot of (self-)education that needs to be done, and I include myself in that statement.

--p!

[nodular]

7. some interesting points

 	
"Especially for coal-fired generators, which are
horrendously dirty. Both pro- and anti-nuclear people point
out that coal waste produces a great deal of uncounted
radioactive fallout in its smoke and ash."

Interesting.  I never heard that one. Of course, coal-fired
plants kill thousands of people in the United States every
year with their pollution.  But I think the evidence indicates
that not a single person has been killed by nuclear power in
the United States.  Of course, many were killed in
Chernobyl---but that was due to gross incompetence far beyond
anything that exists in the American nuclear power industry
(even though we do, I'll admit, have some incompetence in the
industry, which is unacceptable).

"I agree, nuclear power is an under-appreciated and
misunderstood resource, but many people still have tremendous
fears of it, and some of those fears are legitimate. And
alt-energy development should proceed anyway, whether or not
nuclear energy is a factor."

Clearly, there are some pretty awful dangers connected to
nuclear power.  But I look at France, a country that is
practically covered with nuclear power plants---and has never
had any kind of serious accident whatsoever as far as I know. 


They have interesting system.  By some process, I don't know
what it was, they came up with one extremely safe nuclear
power plant design. Then, everyone building a plant had to use
the same design. I think this makes great sense. 

"We also need a long-term program to improve not just the
safety of energy in general, but to make the process
"transparent". It will go a long way to eliminating
misconceptions of not only nuclear energy, but of energy
resource use in general." 

Agreed.  A while back, I read about an fairly well-known
environmental activist who become "converted" to
nuclear power.  Don't know if he is still on that track were
not, nor can I unfortunately remember his name.

The problem with these alternative energies is, it is very
difficult to come up with the massive amounts of energy that
we need in our modern society keep everything going using
these technologies.  Some people have invested pretty heavily.
 recently, I was reading about a Japanese company that has
been putting green much money into solar technology for a long
time and they have achieved lots of improvements.

Still, I'm skeptical about these alternative technologies ever
replacing coal and oil.

[jpak]

13. Some more thoughts on nuclear

:evilgrin:

Increase the Nuclear Waste Fund surcharge on nuclear electricity to 5 mills per kWh and make the nuclear industry - not tax payers - fully fund Yucca Mountain.

Enact legislation to prevent the nuclear industry from suing the DOE to recover existing money in the Nuclear Waste Fund.

Also - the nuclear fuel cycle does produce greenhouse gases (and lots of them) as uranium ore quality declines, more fossil fuel will required to mine low-grade ores and greenhouse gas emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle will increase. Using low-grade uranium ores, a nuclear power plant will emit the same amount of GHG as a gas-fired power plant over the course of it life-cycle.

This has been discussed here before...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=38882

unfortunately the article linked to the OP is no longer available.

Also, the US doesn't have the uranium resources to support its current stable of nuclear power plants - let alone an expanded program...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=29898

The US nuclear industry should be left to die on the vine - I still contend, however, if new ones are built, they should replace existing coal- and gas-fired power plants.

That's the only way they can actually reduce US GHG emissions...

[skids]

4. Start small on the "taxes" -- for example, an easy one:

Taxing gas or SUVs is going to rile anti-tax advocates.

However taxing residential incandescent lightbulbs (leaving compact flourescent bulbs untaxed) probably would not. They should be taxed up to mach the price of CF bulbs.

Theater, appliance, cooking, industrial bulbs should be exempt.

[Nihil]

6. Why the exemptions?

> Theater, appliance, cooking, industrial bulbs should be exempt.

Theatre bulbs are high wattage but not used for most of the day.
I'm not sure what you mean by "appliance" or "cooking" bulbs but
there is no reason at all why industrial bulbs should be exempt.

A tax on incandescent bulbs to match the corresponding CF price
would be a major (and politically "cheap") step to take.
Those applications that *require* the properties of inc bulbs
can pay for them whilst the majority of consumers will opt for
the "WalMart" choice - cheapest on the pocket without having to
think about anything beyond the checkout.

FWIW, I think that simply taxing petrol/diesel is a damn good
way to reduce consumption too ... you waste fuel, you pay a lot,
you use it efficiently, you save money. Is it really that hard?

[skids]

9. Avoiding resistance and backlash.

By appliance bulbs I mean small bulbs inside ovens and other such appliances (why you would not want to use LEDs or CFs inside ovens is pretty obvious, in other cases it is a matter of the bulbs being low wattage custom jobbers that would not likely benefit the environment very much and cause manufacturers fits trying to make compatible.)

Culinary bulbs are the heat lamps used to keep food warm in serving trays -- these have to be incandescent.

Most decorative lights would not be exempt because LED bulbs are far more efficient for colored light.

As to why you nailed it with "politically cheap." Excessive taxing on energy consumers and sources will eventually generate backlash. Legislation should try to do first those things that will get the most bang for the least amount of annoyance -- to notch some success stories under it's belt by doing things that are only mildly annoying to the consumer and which the consumer eventually have to admit saves them money in the long run.

It is always important to remember that government (and by extension legislation) is a blunt instrument. The best intentioned laws can have unanticipated negative consequences. It is exactly those types of blunders that opponents of energy conservation will highlight when trying to harness the eventual backlash movement politically. So "simple" legislation is not a wise goal -- instead to stave off the backlash we need to be as surgical as possible. In addition to the generic contrarians, support for backlash will be aided by marriages of convenience -- for example those states trying to mandate appliance efficiency laws have already run up against industry resistance from manufacturers and organized industry on the consumer side -- specifically here in New England the theater people who need their uber-bright spots and specialty bulbs.

Finally though I'm never one to put business interests in front of the environment, the impact on manufacturers should not be left completely unconsidered -- which companies would benefit and do they employ U.S. workers, for example?

The most tacit solution I could see would be to tax only common household socket bulbs, and perhaps outdoor spots -- which is the majority of the market wattage-wise, to phase in the tax over a few years to give investment capital time to react gracefully, and to put a sunset clause in the legislation such that the tax expires at the point where it is anticipated that most people will haved moved to CFs and gotten used to them and the habit of buying incandescents has been broken. This would be much more pallitable to the anti-tax crowd.

Finally an option would be to earmark the tax receipts for assitance to communities in upgrading traffic lights and street signs to LEDs, thus causing the tax payed on incandescents to result in reduced local taxes for community energy bills.

Evaluation of the program's progress midway could be used as justification for expanding it to include other classes of bulbs or other improvements such as taxing the use of aluminum in squirrel cage AC motor rotors (copper can be used to increase their efficiency, or PM motors used instead in some applications.)

[jpak]

14. Yeah - a SUV tax will piss some folks off

but these people don't believe global warming is a problem in the first place.

:P

I included it to ensure that fuel efficient vehicle tax incentives were funded using tax disincentives...

[amandabeech]

5. You have many, many good ideas.

But here are a few additions and deletions.

Methane and certain other gases are extremely powerful greenhouse gases. I propose that we hit them hard. For starters, all landfills should be fitted with methane burners or recovery technologies.
We need to tighten up all methane handling to reduce any and all accidental emissions.

Nix the corn-burning stoves except in the corn belt. Corn has better uses and it is extremely thirsty for water and nitrogen. We should only grow as much of it as we absolutely must.

Extract ammonia from animal and human wastes to use as fertilizer. For that matter, recycle as much human and animal wastes into the soil as is safe. Those wastes contain phosphorus, of which we have only a 70 years' supply, potassium, trace minerals, water and carbon, all of which are necessary for soil health and large crop yields.

Encourage any and all farm practices, organic or not, that sequester carbon in the soil as beneficial hummus. In fact, soil with a high carbon content absorbs and stores water much better than low-carbon soils. It think it is the EPA that has been encouraging farmers in the plains and corn belt to increase carbon as a way to survive drought and near-drought conditions.

Greatly increase research into technologies that would store electrical energy, and technologies for long-distance transmission and technologies to help the electrical grids cope with variable inputs from renewable sources.

Find a way other than tax credits so that lower income folks who really don't pay that much in taxes will have more of an incentive to employ energy-saving technology.

Find out if there is anything that will get the freight railroads to build more track so that we can get all those inefficient semi-trailers off the highways and onto rail. IMHO, more folks would be interested in smaller cars if they didn't have to face these monsters everywhere, and lets face it, it will be a while until we get rid of the car in many parts of the country.

Edit: carbon in the soil

[nodular]

8. well put

"Methane and certain other gases are extremely powerful greenhouse gases. I propose that we hit them hard. For starters, all landfills should be fitted with methane burners or recovery technologies.
We need to tighten up all methane handling to reduce any and all accidental emissions."


Interesting approach. Has anyone done any ballpark estimates about how much of a reduction we could achieve if the above strategies were carried out fully?


"Nix the corn-burning stoves except in the corn belt. Corn has better uses and it is extremely thirsty for water and nitrogen. We should only grow as much of it as we absolutely must."

Intuitively, I am dubious about this corn strategy as well. A number of problems have been created so far that have made the situation worse. I can't remember the details right now; the whole problem of creating, distributing, and using this new type of fuel is quite complicated. The problems I'm referring to, however, may be short term ones that will be solved. Your objection sounds more fundamental.




"Extract ammonia from animal and human wastes to use as fertilizer. For that matter, recycle as much human and animal wastes into the soil as is safe. Those wastes contain phosphorus, of which we have only a 70 years' supply, potassium, trace minerals, water and carbon, all of which are necessary for soil health and large crop yields."

Yes, this sounds right. I imagine the main barrier to implementing this is psychological objections on the part of the potential consumers, would that be correct?




"Encourage any and all farm practices, organic or not, that sequester carbon in the soil as beneficial hummus. In fact, soil with a high carbon content absorbs and stores water much better than low-carbon soils. It think it is the EPA that has been encouraging farmers in the plains and corn belt to increase carbon as a way to survive drought and near-drought conditions."

Sounds interesting but I don't know what you mean. Could you explain the basic mechanism by which this is done a little?

"Greatly increase research into technologies that would store electrical energy, and technologies for long-distance transmission and technologies to help the electrical grids cope with variable inputs from renewable sources."


Good point.

"Find a way other than tax credits so that lower income folks who really don't pay that much in taxes will have more of an incentive to employ energy-saving technology."

Good point, but it speaks to a larger problem. I don't think these technologies will really take off until they become cost-effective.

"Find out if there is anything that will get the freight railroads to build more track so that we can get all those inefficient semi-trailers off the highways and onto rail. IMHO, more folks would be interested in smaller cars if they didn't have to face these monsters everywhere, and lets face it, it will be a while until we get rid of the car in many parts of the country."

I agree hundred percent. The way the trucking industry gets the US government to spend a fortune building a national road system designed to sustain the road weight of trucks is a scandal. Because their transportation links are paid for by the government, the railroads have trouble competing.

As you point out, this is horrible for the people driving cars---the ones actually paying for the roads (good point that it discourages smaller ones). I remember a simple diagram from high school physics that showed why railroads are so efficient. It is largely because trains, with their metal wheels, have such a small contact point with the track. Cars on the other hand, with their tires, at a fairly large rectangle of contact with the ground. The fact is, railroads are an inherently more efficient way to move freight.

[amandabeech]

30. Your reply merits a real response.

However, I am suffering from the head cold from hell which seems to be combined with the flu.

As you can imagine, my powers of concentration are extremely limited.

When I'm out of the virus fog, I intend to respond in a manner appropriate to your excellent questions.

Bosha

[nodular]

35. hope you feel better soon.

Welcome to winter.

[jpak]

32. I used to be against corn pellets until they started to use them in Maine

In Maine, most of the pellet fuel operations are small (<20 acres) and do not use irrigation.

Most of these farms also use animal manures, sewage sludge or appropriate crop rotations/green manuring etc., for fertilizer,

Corn pellets have a much higher EROEI than corn ethanol, and unlike wood, corn kernels are already in "pellet" form. Other than post-harvest drying, bagging and transport, external energy inputs are minimal. You can also grow a lot more corn pellets per acre per year than you could "grow" wood for pellets.

There are millions of homes in the Northeast that use oil or gas for heat - pellet wood and corn (as well as biomass CHP district heating) could be used to heat many of these homes.

After Peak Oil and Gas, there will be relatively few options left.

[Porcupine]

37. Pay farmers to sequester charcoal (carbon) and improve soils

Researchers are finding that charcoal sequestered in soils called Terra Preta significantly improve the water holding and biological content of the soil.

A feasable application would be a farmer coppicing trees along his fencerows cutting poles to firewood lenth as they were of proper size to sell. He could then put his slash and chip material in a pressure vessel, cook off and capture the hydrocarbons for conversion to diesel and plough the char back into his fields.

Used in the above system the farmer gets invome from: 1) firewood sales 2) biofuel sales or diesel fuel savings 3) increased production on his row crops 4) get carbon sequestration credits 5) Ag subsidies for the first five years of program as startup incentive. (farmers not participating in areas with over 25 inches yearly rainfall could be ineligable for Ag. subsidies, loans or payments.)

We have billions of tons of carbon that we took out of the ground and put into the atmosphere and the oceans. We need to put it back into the ground in the most sustainable way possible.

[4dsc]

10. Its all about peak oil!!

Not one mention of the fact that the world will experience peak oil within the time frame of your suggestions listed here(and I might add its a good list). but without the proper cultural changes they will be just that suggestions and nothing will prepare us for the world where oil usage will be curtailed greatly..

Many of your suggestions will take OIL to complete and lots of $$$$.. Where will the oil come from??

[jpak]

16. All those proposals will deal with Peak Oil and Gas AND global warming.

A national high-speed rail system would replace long-haul trucks and passenger aircraft.

Convenient and efficient public transit systems would significantly reduce fuel consumption for personal transportation.

Fuel efficient personal vehicles would further reduce oil consumption.

Weatherized/Zero Energy homes would use biomass fuels and solar heat instead of oil or gas.

Agricultural systems that would use renewable energy for crop production, food processing and food transport.

Also - I do believe that I have included funding mechanisms: royalties on oil and gas, an imported oil tax (could be any acceptable amount), Renewable Energy Certificates, taxes on SUVs etc.

I'm sure these details can be worked out - no problem...

:evilgrin:

[4dsc]

27. But is it to late already??

I love your ideas so don't get me wrong, but I wonder whether or not peak oil will have more of an impact sooner than glogal warming, which will take many years longer?? And while you're suggestions will ultimately lead to some people using less energy, most will not..

What we need are cultural changes in our society and that I'm afraid will not happen until its too late..

[jpak]

29. Peak Oil implies that half of the world's petroleum endowment has been used up

which means we still have the other half left to exploit (but at much higher cost than "young" oil).

Too late???

It is if we don't try...

[4dsc]

31. I guess you don't get peak oil

inasmuch as the answer to the your question is yes we have used half the known world oil, its not that easy for the second half. the ramifications include extracting less, FAR LESS oil in the future than we do know.. What the implications of that upon the suggestions made here.. That's where I am headed..

[jpak]

33. Oh please - I was Peak Oil before Peak Oil wuz cool

I bought and read "Beyond Oil: The Threat to Food and Fuel in the Coming Decades" back in 1987.

and I know what a Hubbert Curve looks like...

[4dsc]

38. SO it doesn't answer the question

How are all you ideas going to be implemented if oil production continues to to drop?? How will we implement your ideas if by 2030 the world is only producing 50 mbpd versus the 77 mbpd we are now??

What are cost's of all you idea's?? Who's going to pay??

[jpak]

39. This is a bit of a red herring

More than two thirds of US petroleum consumption is in the transportation and domestic fuel oil sectors - not the manufacturing sector.

The manufacturing sector accounts for <20% of US oil consumption - and a good part of that is for petrochemicals - not process energy.

Reducing transportation and home fuel consumption would free up lots of oil for manufacturing.

PV manufacturing consumes a lot of electricity (silicon and aluminum production, cell production, module assembly) - not oil. Hydro- and geo-thermal electricity can be used for this.

One US PV manufacturer (Solarex) built and operated a "Solar Breeder" facility back in the 80's. It used on-site PV to produce PV modules (hence the term "breeder"). The concept works and I believe the plant is still in operation today.

Coal - not oil - is used to smelt iron for steel production. IF worse comes to worst, coal and coal derived fuels (liquids, syngas, etc) could be used to make the transition too.

So I don't think oil is the limiting resource for the transition to a renewable future...

What are the costs????

There are 114 million American homes. If every home took full advantage of those tax credits it would amount to <$2.85 trillion over the next 20 years or so - or about <$142 billion per year.

Expensive - maybe, but compared to the cost of Our War of Terror ~$80 billion per year - it's a bargain.

How to pay for that?

It's in the OP...

Oil and Gas royalties, ramped taxes on imported oil, windfall profit taxes on oil and gas, ramped carbon taxes on fossil fuel electricity, taxes on SUVs, reallocation of funds from the federal gasoline tax, repeal of the tax cuts on millionaires and billionaires - and ending the War on I-raq.

No one likes taxes but you don't get something for nothing.

So what's your plan????

[bloom]

11. Taxing/rationing/etc.

If the polluting things are taxed so that the cost is considerably more than the efficient things - that would be useful.

I think we need rationing. But I don't like any system which allows people to be able to pollute more just because they have the money to do it. (Because too many people could pollute without limits). I think that there should be upper limits on energy use for each particular person. Some probably will be able to afford to pollute more - but there could be limits on things like how inefficient houses are allowed to be - how much fuel it takes to heat/cool any particular house. (People will be flocking to Costa Rica or something.)

Some George Monbiot ideas:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1935441,00.html

1. Set a target for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions based on the latest science. The government is using outdated figures, aiming for a 60% reduction by 2050. Even the annual 3% cut proposed in the early day motion calling for a new climate change bill does not go far enough. Timescale: immediately.

2. Use that target to set an annual carbon cap, which falls on the ski-jump trajectory. Then use the cap to set a personal carbon ration. Every citizen is given a free annual quota of carbon dioxide. He or she spends it by buying gas and electricity, petrol and train and plane tickets. If they run out, they must buy the rest from someone who has used less than his or her quota. This accounts for about 40% of the carbon dioxide we produce. The remainder is auctioned off to companies. It's a simpler and fairer approach than either green taxation or the EU's emissions trading scheme, and it also provides people with a powerful incentive to demand low-carbon technologies. Timescale: a full scheme in place by January 2009.

3. Introduce a new set of building regulations, with three objectives. A. Imposing strict energy-efficiency requirements on all major refurbishments (costing £3,000 or more). Timescale: in force by June 2007. B. Obliging landlords to bring their houses up to high energy-efficiency standards before they can rent them out. Timescale: to cover all new rentals from January 2008. C. Ensuring that all new homes in the UK are built to the German Passivhaus standard (which requires no heating system). Timescale: in force by 2012.

4. Ban the sale of incandescent lightbulbs, patio heaters, garden floodlights and other wasteful and unnecessary technologies. Introduce a stiff "feebate" system for all electronic goods sold in the UK, with the least efficient taxed heavily and the most efficient receiving tax discounts. Every year the standards in each category rise. Timescale: fully implemented by November 2007.

<more>
________________________________________


I think that the UN needs to take a bigger role. And that things like vacuuming for Krill need to be seen as part of the global warming problem.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x71547

Now you have countries that think that they are not big contributors to global warming by fishing (they are just looking at industries/cars) - but they are and just don't know it. Also - stop the cutting down of forests - the earth needs the trees. The whole thing needs to be tied together. With people thinking about what the effect is to the entire planet - not just how much profit some investor can make.

Every country should be curbing their population. Birth control and vasectomies should be subsidized (free?) everywhere. Our country needs to stop inhibiting birth control - as has been a Republican agenda item for quite awhile. Get the pope involved.

We need some kind of advertising campaign for quality of life instead of elevating people who have lots of crap. The "rich guy" has been worshiped in our civilization for eons. Start elevating the people in the media (they should do their part) and anywhere else - who do with less - that organic garden - that live off the grid - all that stuff.

While there will be some businesses that will have useful things to sell that are helpful - I think our economy needs to change. It's fucked up anyway these days - when people like social workers make next to nothing compared to MBAs whose role in life is to get people to buy a bunch a crap they don't need - that just contributes to more global warming, anyway.

So sure - do all sorts of things about new, cleaner energy - but more people also need to start looking at this world as the finite place that it is.

[jpak]

15. All good points

Instead of taxes on energy consuming electronics and homes - a different approach would be to set stringent efficiency and/or energy consumption standards on appliances and electronics.

...and enact stringent federal energy codes for new homes and buildings (this would prevent individual states from becoming Energy Hog Havens).

Although Energy Star rated windows are more costly than standard windows insulation is cheap and neither would significantly increase the cost of a new home (let alone a McMansion).

Also - there's probably no real need to ration oil and gas - Peak Oil and Gas will ration it for us.

But we need the solutions in place before that happens...

[bloom]

17. well

I think that McMansions are one of the things that should be outlawed. People can learn to be happy with smaller spaces. They could still be nice - just small. There are the trees to think about and whatever else. Nearly all materials are pollutive/destructive/wasteful - unless you are building a mud hut.

If people know that they will only have X amount of BTUs - then they could build places that could be heated/cooled with that. Of course - better passive solar and all would need to be taken more seriously, as well.


As far as "Peak Oil and Gas will ration it for us" - I say that Peak Oil and Gas will LIMIT it for us. Without rationing - the wealthy will get what they want - the rest of us won't get anything. People could see the need for rationing, growing gardens, conservation, etc. in WWII - why not now? We are in a battle to save the planet for habitation - human and otherwise.


Another thing that would help is if people stopped using paper any more than necessary. The end of junk mail, advertising inserts, mail order catalogs. Get newspapers online. Magazines online. Save trees - we need the oxegen. Mandatory recycled paper. If it were up to me - I wouldn't be messing around.

[jpak]

18. Some more thoughts...

All federal buildings should be retrofitted with renewable energy systems (wind turbines, PV, solar heat and hot water).

All US military facilities should be equipped with renewable energy systems with the goal of energy independence and energy security (especially overseas).

The National Forest Service should implement a nationwide greenhouse gas reduction program (intensive logging releases GHG from disturbed soil, litter and slash) and/or carbon sequestration programs (i.e., designated carbon sinks) on National Forest lands. Part of that plan would include limited sustainable harvests for biomass fuels...

[kestrel91316]

19. Be sure you forward that EXCELLENT list to whatever

Congressional committee is in charge of alternative energy/sustainability issues (after the Dems take over, of course).

K&R

[jpak]

20. Heard on NPR this AM that Rahm Emmanuel (sp?) wants to spend $12 billion

on renewable energy (money coming from Big Oil)

and...Senator Elect Jon Tester (D, MT) is an organic farmer!!!

:wow:

:bounce:

[nam78_two]

22. Happy to put this on the greatest page

Will offer my "valuable" :evilgrin: thoughts when I get home...

[jpak]

34. Please do!

:evilgrin:

[Gregorian]

23. Pay people to NOT have children.

Instead of giving people tax incentives to breed, give people incentives to stop putting more humans on the planet.

I don't expect people to even get it, let alone give this any thought. The standard response I get from this is that it's not population that is the driving force behind global warming. I don't want to hear it. Go back and think some more, if that's your reply.

[Senator]

24. Impeach Bushcheney (yes, really)

Impeachment is the most effective action that can be taken to advance ANY agenda/issue item.

The regime is the biggest obstacle to anything good happening until he is gone.

Impeachment would leverage advances on all other fronts.

Sad that such a simple calculation seems beyond the LieberDems.

--

[SnoopDog]

25. Excellent list - thanks for your work on this.

My top points are to put solar cells on every roof, solar water heaters, electric cars, and the National High Speed Rail System.

[FREEWILL56]

26. Firstly a comment on this of well puts

"Greatly increase research into technologies that would store electrical energy, and technologies for long-distance transmission and technologies to help the electrical grids cope with variable inputs from renewable sources." from well put.

I'll go along with storage methods as batteries are a means of storage too and they need to be improved upon as there is no better means of storing power than the battery at this time. For the record it should not be limited to just the battery though.
As to the transmission of electricity there isn't any problem with various power points being placed onto a grid system. The problem right now is that we have large generating plants that are designed to feed power hundreds of miles away from a central location. That is what is hard on the grid as the needs far away became greater without any upgrade to the transmission system itself.
This is a match made in heaven for renewable energy as everybody can generate some electricity. Any electricity made does not have to be gotten from that huge generating plant up to several hundred miles away thus lessening the power going across those grid lines. Also note that not all of the power made by the plant arrives at its destination due to resistive losses in the wires. That loss is dissipated in the form of heat and that further degrades the transmission lines. That renewable energy does not have to travel hundreds of miles. SIDENOTE: Didn't everybody notice that this summer California didn't have the massive blackouts and brownouts that they had a few years back? They gave heavy incentives for renewable energy is why. There is one more benefit for renewable energy that not many have thought of, but me, and that is when you have that many power sources available that are spread out that the terrorists will not have a single target that they can take out to cause power disruptions. The best part of all is that the interfacing systems already exist for sale to the public and have existed for quite some time.

jpak,
Some of your ceilings on tax incentives are no good as some low end solar systems can cost that much with better ones costing even more. Also note the renter will not be able mount photovoltaics on a rental property and as such should only be for those that own property. Some of this makes no sense at all as the costs involved are much higher than you are allowing for. Why limit the benefits in the first place to $15,000 as it will be better to allow the government to go into debt for this than some Iraqi oil? And nobody would be going to war for solar either! If you insist on a ceiling make it adjusted by income as a millionaire can certainly afford to impliment this as opposed to somebody making minimum wage. One more thing concerning the people doing this is that local governments take advantage of those that would generate savings to our electric grid and/or save upon the LNG usage through solar by taxing the property at a very high rate or adding too much to its taxable value. It is my contention that takes away any incentives to do your part, so I would propose renewable energy to be property tax exempt and mandated from a federal level to all states and local governments.
As for suvs and other rediculous gas guzzlers I agree a tax should be implemented as a one time surcharge in the thousands of dollars (variable as to extent by vehicle type, model, etc.) to be added to the sale of such said vehicles upfront with those proceeds going as income to fund the renewable programs. It is too difficult to tax one vehicle more than another at the pumps.
Taxing the oil companies I also totally agree with, and also without the provision of them passing on those taxes to the consumer by putting it into the price of the gasoline, diesel, etc. as they currently do many times over the actual costs to themselves.Any fines incurred to the oil companies shall also not be allowed to be passed onto the consumer. SIDENOTE: Anybody notice that right after us democrats took back some power in the midterm elections that gasoline went up by about 10 cents a gallon? These ruthless oil companies gouged America at a very bad time as Katrina and other hurricanes hit. They cited the need due to Katrina and the higher costs from opec and yet their profits hit all time highs. You need not be a math wizard here to know what they're doing. I have no sympathy for them as they have none for America or its people.

[jpak]

28. Thanks for your comments and some explanation of my rational(s)

My rational on tax credits: a 50% tax credit represents a reasonable partnership among homeowners, taxpayers at large and the federal government.

Also, we need to reduce the federal deficit and maintain tax revenue for Medicare etc. as well - I tried to put some fiscal brakes on these proposals.

As far as caps on domestic PV: a 4 kW PV system would satisfy the electrical needs of an energy efficient US home - anything more than that might be viewed as "excessive" by solar naysayers.

A 4 kW PV system costs ~$30K installed, the homeowner would get a federal tax credit of $15K. If they lived in a state with a solar rebate program, they could receive up to an additional ~$16K - which would make the purchase "free".

Rental property solar systems: I assumed most of these are 1-2 bedroom apartments with a fridge, a dishwasher, an AC/heat unit and maybe a washer and dryer. Landlords would purchase appliances and install solar systems at the request of tenants - the 100% tax credit on these improvements to their property would be the incentive. Some would make these improvements, some would not - but the opportunity to do so would be there.

Rental appliance caps: $5K is more than enough money to buy a good Energy Star fridge, dishwasher and AC/heat system (and maybe a washer and dryer too).

Caps on rental solar: A 1-2 bedroom apartment would not require a large PV system or a large solar hot water system. An apartment-sized top-end solar hot water system costs between $2-5K installed. There are ~1 kW plug-and-play grid intertie PV systems on the market today that cost less than $9400 delivered and installed.

http://www.bluelinksolar.net/fmain.html

It would produce a minimum of 1100 kW per year (compared to <400 kWh per year for an Energy Star fridge, ~250 kWh per year each for an Energy Star dishwasher, washer and dryer).

It would provide enough electricity over the year to power all the lights and appliances (excluding AC and heat).

Most apartments have no more than 3 windows and maybe a sliding patio door - replacing those with Energy Star units would cost ~$2.5K at the most. Adding insulation to attics and walls another $2.5K per unit(???). It depends on how much is done.

The result of all this: the landlord gets a better apartment to put on the market, the renters cut their energy cost dramatically, appliance dealers sell more products, carpenters and contractors get work and greenhouse gas emissions go bye-bye.

A win-win-win-win-win situation...

[FREEWILL56]

36. OK I see where it is you are coming from

with this now and basically I still disagree with rental properties becoming more self sustaining than say my property would. I know why you are saying it because slumlords don't do anything unless it benefits them financially. You are giving these greedy slumlords the ability to have better systems because it would be 100% free whereas mine up to 50% as I am not able to receive a rebate from my state.
The rebate system is what needs addressed as it is primarilly federal money that is funding many of the state programs. For example somebody in California may get more towards their purchase than in another state. Moreover, it should be made equally accessable to all in every state as I am in Pa. and most of Pa. offers a rebate, but not for those in western Pa. around Pittsburgh. This is the second largest concentration of population in the state and we are overlooked as they fashioned it based on what electric utility you have.
I have also heard horror stories of the reaction many of these utilities has been to knowing that you have a solar or wind installation as they view it as forced competition. Some have been taxed or given unfair fees and made to pay for a seperate meter and given a smaller rate for the power you have generated that the utility uses to pass along to another at a profit. Others put so many ifs, ands, and buts that they are trying to make it unappealling to go renewable. Even the NEC is still trying to figure out the best safety rules concerning solar's implementation to the grid and it is rediculously going overboard in some areas with unnecessary red tape and costs. ie. Photovoltaic panels must be UL approved. WHY? They are a dc component being fed into a dc solar controller that must be approved and then in most cases into a battery that has no approval needs. Are they going to force battery approvals next? The inverter that interfaces to the grid and its fusing and switching along with wiring requirements I will whole heartedly go along with on regulating.
Look at me going off in a tangent here. Sorry for the sidetracking, but I too want renewable energy more available and affordable, but it needs to be more even for all. Landlords are quite as capable to install on their rental properties as on their own home, but I can see an additional 5-10% incentive would be needed with say a discount in property taxes for all properties(not just landlords) for say 10 years. I don't have all of the answers here, but I can see some of the problems and I commend your effort as much of it looks good to me for the record.
Do you post on any solar energy forums?