He's mostly right on the idea of reducing carbon emissions but the idea of restricting emissions from existing generating plants does not make sense - at least not now. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is not yet technically feasible, mostly because the storage problem has not yet been solved, and it will not be economically feasible for some time. To shut down coal fired plants - even gas fired plants - that still have significant remaining life has an economic cost that is not necessarily justified by the scale of the problem. Certainly, the citizens of the USA (and the world) have not yet accepted the need for measures as radical, and costs as great, as implied by the President.
So, start with a modest carbon tax, increase it every year by a respectable amount for the next ten years or so. After that, increase it by a very large amount. The market, given a reasonable amount of time, will then solve the problem by encouraging conservation and the use of renewable electricity generation. Tax what is clearly bad (i.e. CO2 emissions) rather than subsidize what the government thinks might be good. Taxpayer funded research and development is good: a government that pretends to have the skills of a venture capitalist is an expensive bad joke.
The worst thing, however, is that we have a President who seems to have decided that the democratic process in the USA is broken, which is true, and irrelevant which it is not. His solution seems, therefore, to be to govern by decree like the tinpot dictator of a banana republic. That is the really scary part and, to old fashioned conservatives like your correspondent who also have green streaks, it is a matter for deep concern as well as bringing to mind the words spoken by Benjamin Franklin: "A republic, Madam. if you can keep it."
Mr. Obama would be better served by considering one of President Eisenhower's thoughts: "Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it."
Posts
