Q&A With Bill Bradley: Oil & The Environment

Very interesting Q & A. I would still like to know Senator Bradley's take on this question that you asked:

"What is the truth about the environment, and why do Americans seem persistent in their blindness?"

How do you reconcile the fact that it is so often the consumers who work for environmental causes who cannot afford to purchase the more fuel-efficient vehicles and appliances because of their lower salaries do not meet the costs of this new technology?

How do we convince those who can afford the newer technologies to purchase them? Are tax incentives enough?

Before the the demise of gas guzzling whatevers can happen in this country, there will have to be some sort of proposal outlining the kind of society a non-oil-based society would be presented to the public.
I am 100% for a non-oil-based economy/society for many reasons. Here are the main three.
1. We are being held hostage by the countries that produce the oil.
2. Burning fossil fuels may have a negative impact on the planet.
3. Burning fossil fuels DOES have a negative impact on the health of people.
However, I do realize that a vacuum is not an acceptable replacement for the place oil now holds in our economy. Our government should be encouraging the development of new ways of doing business in this country, not just putting all our eggs in one basket marked "substitute for oil ".
Hasn't it occurred to anyone that our salvation may lie in rethinking how we do business rather than simply finding a substitute for oil, so we can plod along doing business as usual ?
Rethinking old ideas often leads to an improved way of doing things. I say look for an alternative to oil, but at the same time work on developing ways of improving our economy that do not require us to wait for that.
Let's guard against letting "oil alchemists " control our future.

If we raised the mileage standard to 45 mpg, gave people a subsidy to buy fuel-efficient cars and paid for it by taxing fuel-inefficient cars and put a $1 tax on gasoline and used the revenues to reduce taxes on work such as the Social Security, Medicare or unemployment tax, within four years, the auto industry would have retooled to produce more fuel-efficient cars and the average person would then be paying no more for driving than he pays now, but he would keep the cut in "work taxes" even as companies with less work taxes would be hiring more people. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

If a Republican proposed this -- the left would be beside themselves with hysteria. Isn't this nothing more than a plan to shift taxes away from corporations and onto consumers? This is nothing more than a national sales tax disguised as an energy tax.

It might be wise to tax oil imports to prevent OPEC from trying to kill alternative energy programs by slashing prices and to nurture an alternative energy industry but Bradley's poorly thought out plan has no sunset. In short, after we transition to green energy he is still taxing the middle-class to subsidize corporate profit.

Clue --- your employer pays 6.5% of your wages for Social Security and employers pay unemployment, not you, it sure looks like they would be paying nothing under Bradley's plan -- even in a green future.

I am very sensitive to the fact that any solution to the gloal warming conundrum will cost somebody something- that is my main argument with Al Gore, he has all the facts straight but is incorrect in arguing that the solutions are all cheap and easy. Some of them are (replace your incandescent lights with compact fluorescents), and some are not (pay a $1 per gallon tax on gasoline ).

But global warming is real, not imaginary. If we focus on the up-front costs and talk ourselves out of taking action, fine, our great grandkids will be left holding the bag. What is the benefit of ourselves living in relative convenience and comfort if our descendants do not? America has always been about the future, not the past.

pay a $1 per gallon tax on gasoline

This is the difference between college kid activism and thoughtful national policy.

One would hope that we would elect politicians who would:

1) Clearly identifiy the problem.
2) Match the solution to the problem.
3) Worry about the problems caused by the solution.

The last one worries me the most.

Bill Bradley is proposing that we tax a guy living in a trailer park in Clark's Grove Minnesota $1 a gallon for transportation so that we can reduce the corporate payroll taxes of his employer -- Hormel Corporation (How raising the profit margin of the pork industry solves Global Warming is beyond me -- maybe some of the activist can explain).

How that solves our energy problems or addresses Global Warming ONLY depends on what the guy drives to work. If he burns oil from Saudi Arabia -- that would be a problem that Bradley's plan might help solve, but if he is using ethanol produced from switch grass that is run through a fuel-cell -- that is not so much a problem.

But Ooops, now we got another problem

Guess what? That guy who is now getting 100 mph ---- his fuel consumption is not paying his employer's payroll taxes anymore.

Guess what? Whose going to pay for what corporations used to pay before Senator Bill Bradley's solution went into effect?

You guessed it, the federal government will just have to raise some other consumer sales tax to pay for the gift that Bradley gave to corporate America.

I am suspicious of any energy plan that taxes gasoline at the pump and uses the money for any purpose other than research into alternative energy sources. Gasoline taxes are among the most regressive and will impact those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder most severely.

Biofuels such as ethanol may offer some short term benefits if they reduce our dependence on foreign oil but they do not offer a viable long term solution to overall energy consumption. Shifting the yield of arable land from food production to fuel production is not sustainable for the long term. Increasing agricultural acreage consumes enormous amounts of fresh water. Availability of fresh water for human consumption and agriculture will be the next major resource crisis in this country and already is in other parts of the world.


Current electric cars also have limitations. They must be recharged from the power grid which continues to be fed by fossil fuels.

Lastly, there is still a need for large vehicles that have some cargo hauling capacity. Most families I know have two vehicles, one of which is an SUV, pickup or van. It is a mistake to think that they do not use the capacity these vehicles offer.

Greg has offered a couple of good examples of the law of unintended consequences.

When the rich can get richer by investing in alternative-fuel sources and dumping their oil stocks / holdings, only then we will see the picture change dramatically.

Unfortunately it might be too late and, ironically, there is already money to be made in alternative fuels - but the investors don't get it. Yet.

If we raised the mileage standard to 45 mpg, gave people a subsidy to buy fuel-efficient cars and paid for it by taxing fuel-inefficient cars and put a $1 tax on gasoline and used the revenues to reduce taxes on work such as the Social Security, Medicare or unemployment tax, within four years, the auto industry would have retooled to produce more fuel-efficient cars and the average person would then be paying no more for driving than he pays now, but he would keep the cut in "work taxes" even as companies with less work taxes would be hiring more people.

What I immediately saw when I read that was this situation (because it would be very likely one I would struggle with): the poorest among us would be the most highly taxed. Even with subsidies it would be unlikely they could afford to purchase a new car. So they would be taxed for not being able to afford one, pay a lot more to commute to work because of the higher fuel prices and be made increasingly unable to "upgrade" into a car that would put them into a better position because of the increased burden of trying to afford to work with the vehicle they currently owned.

It would be a wonderful thing for the people who regularly replace their cars with new ones. My current car is six years old and paid for. If I'm lucky, it's worth $5000. I do not make enough money to afford a car payment. What magic formula is there out there to protect the large numbers of single working mothers, retired couples on fixed incomes, etc., who don't have the ability to cope with a suggestion like this?


...Oh, and don't tell me to take the bus. I live in a rural area thirty miles from the closest large town and sixty miles from the closest town that HAS public transportation. Not everyone is afforded the luxury of public transportation, either.

" ........the increased burden of trying to afford to work with the vehicle they currently owned."

The vehicle they currently own would also plummet in value.

Biofuels such as ethanol may offer some short term benefits if they reduce our dependence on foreign oil but they do not offer a viable long term solution to overall energy consumption. Shifting the yield of arable land from food production to fuel production is not sustainable for the long term. Increasing agricultural acreage consumes enormous amounts of fresh water. Availability of fresh water for human consumption and agriculture will be the next major resource crisis in this country and already is in other parts of the world.

Keep an eye on cellulous ethanol -- we are looking at returning the Great Plains back to native grasses which will build soil, reduce chemical application and recharge our aquifers.

When the rich can get richer by investing in alternative-fuel sources and dumping their oil stocks / holdings, only then we will see the picture change dramatically.- Diana Raabe

The largest stockholder in Exxon is a teacher's union.

From an article published in 1991: Who owns Exxon? We do.

In the early 1970s, with almost no public notice (not even their own), the workers of America learned to slurp at the money river. One person who did notice was the eminent Austrian-born management/economics writer Peter Drucker. In his 1976 book The Unseen Revolution, he said the United States was becoming the world's first truly socialist country. American teachers, teamsters, corporate full-timers and city employees were, in aggregate, squirrelling away billions in more than 50,000 pension and retirement funds. The funds, in turn, invested that money in the stock market. By now, as Drucker pointed out in the Harvard Business Review this spring, pension funds have $2.5 trillion in assets, are enormous industrial lenders, and own 40 percent of American common stock--enough for a controlling interest in most companies. Who owns Exxon, GM, Du Pont and Citicorp? We do--at least those of us with pensions.

Greg - maybe you own Exxon but one teachers' union having invested in Exxon does not mean that "we" own Exxon.

I would quibble with that Diana, the ownership of corporate America by retirement funds pretty much assures that "we" the majority of Americans own the corporations of America.

The teachers union is only "the largest stockholder". Exxon is mostly owned by pension funds and by extension it is owned by very ordinary people.

""we" the majority of Americans own the corporations of America."

I am not sure that "ownership" means much if it does not translate into influence. While some teachers may benefit from their pension fund investments, I doubt that you will find many teachers that believe that their individual, meager stake in the Exxons of the world translates into any influence over the corporate decision making and behavior.

Well, yes and no WM H. People do love that great Return on Investment (ROI) but are not so keen on just how it came to be.

Some groups are though-- to their credit.

Concerned That Exxon Mobil's Handling of Climate Change Lags Behind Other Competitors, U.S. Institutional Investors Seek Meeting with Exxon Board

HARTFORD, CT., AND BOSTON, MA. - Seventeen leading U.S. pension funds and other institutional investors controlling $658 billion in assets are pushing for a face-to-face-meeting with independent members of the Exxon Mobil board of directors as a result of growing financial world concerns that ExxonMobil is "a company that fails to acknowledge the potential for climate change to have a profound impact on global energy markets, and which lags far behind its competitors in developing a strategy to plan for and manage these impacts."

Pension fund trustees from seven states, New York City, and eight other major institutional investors with over 110 million Exxon Mobil shares worth an estimated $6.75 billion made the request for the meeting this week. All those seeking the action from Exxon Mobil are members of the Investor Network on Climate Risk. The group of 17 consists of six state treasurers (Connecticut, California, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Maine, Vermont), the California State Controller, the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), the New York State Comptroller, New York City Comptroller, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, General Board of Pension and Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment, Walden Asset Management, The Nathan Cummings Foundation, and the Sheet Metal Workers Pension Fund.

Actually I used to own Exxon. I sold it and bought Toyota when I noticed that they had built the Prius and that their overall vehicle fleet has better efficiency than that of Ford and GM. The future does not belong to those who cling to the ways of the past: "running out of energy? drill deeper."

We are already paying for our addiction to oil. We just do not understand yet quite how much we are paying. You hear $1 a gallon tax on gasoline and you think wow, that will destroy our economy. Nope. More people are going to go bankrupt from balloon mortgages than would ever go bankrupt from paying a few hundred bucks more each year for gasoline. But it would in fact help us to realize that we are living in a fool's paradise,and that is an overdue realization.

I am more concerned with where that $1 goes. If it went to reduce the national debt fine -- I would worry about any other use. The thing with a revenue stream is that once you turn the spigot on and constituencies get used to the flow of funds - it is almost impossible to shut it off. If the flow diminishes, you have to tax something else to keep the constituency satisfied.

In this case you are talking about a brand new $144 Billion revenue stream --- think long and hard before twisting the handle to get that kind of cash flowing.

I am more concerned about annual $200 billion expenses that have zero revenue stream- for example the Iraq War. The $1 per gallon tax would almost pay for that- which is perhaps a fitting idea as our involvement in the Mideast is partly an effort to defend our access to oil. It seems to me that we are not paying the true costs of the oil we use.

A war would be an expense stream Chris, not a revenue stream. The thing with wars is that they do end.... not like social program such as the War On Poverty that is going into its 30th years with no light at the end of the tunnel and mounting casualties.

The problem still remains if you tax oil how do you raise the money to fund the programs that oil taxes funded when the oil taxes run out?

Big problem.

Lauren, I agree with you. We are very low on the economic scale, yet are very concerned. I was able to get a used car that gets better MPG, and replace my lightbulbs with energy savers, but as far as a hybrid, it's not in my immediate future. I also could not afford another $1 per gallon gas, it places the burden % wise on those who earn less. Let's place a "sin" tax, a very large "sin" tax on SUVs and other gas guzzlers. Then place that money to help assist lower income persons with their purchase of alternative/hybrid fuel cars.

Greg S., you hit the nail on the head with ethanol. As global warming reaps its havoc on the agricultural world, many areas that were barely sustainable will be unable to grow their own food, let alone fuel. (As you stated, water is also to be a problem.) France is largely nuclear and they reuse their waste. I'm not sure this is a long term option, but it is a good start. (Please note that I am not a big nuclear fan, but let's talk.)

All I know is something needs to be done NOW! Waiting is not an option. We are almost at a point of no return. China is another problem, but that's for another discussion.

Senator Bradley,

Can we all quit JUST talking, and start walking?
Quit JUST blogging, and start jogging?

Let's Jog your Blog, Senator!
Let's put a real hook in your Book!

If you're concerned about energy, then you are in the right place to DO something about it - you are now a CITIZEN of the U.S. and one of "US."

Let's REALLY get book sales going (so others can benefit, not just you), cut through the bullshit, and turn ideas into action.


Will YOU MEET ME to discuss a 100% SUCCESSFUL GRASS-ROOTS PROJECT to RE-DECLARE Independence - this time, from foreign energy?

I've got a plan which I believe will work. I need 100,000 people to make it happen though. Want to be my #1?

:)

5 YEAR PLAN: By July 4th, 2012, we WILL be 100% ENERGY INDEPENDENT of OPEC
10 YEAR PLAN: By July 4th, 2015, we WILL be 100% ENERGY INDEPENDENT of ALL other nations

We can discuss it HERE, in "Open Source" form, or you can have "your people" call "my people." Of course, my "people" is just ME.

(815) 276-3972. John Coonen.

Hey, life's gone in a blink of God's eye, brothers and sisters; it's best we we make some positive progress while He can see us, don't you think?

Cheers.

LOL...I got so excited, my "fuzzy math" got the best of me. I love self-editing.

Correction:

10 YEAR PLAN: By July 4th, 2017 (not 2015), we WILL be 100% ENERGY INDEPENDENT.

Hey, Who doesn't love a ten-year plan that gets done in eight?

Keep smilin,

JC