Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Wind incentive

November 9, 2011

Advertisement

To the editor:

We received good and bad news in the Oct. 19 Journal-World article “Wind energy on the rise but could slow soon.” Readers learned that “Kansas is poised to more than double its wind energy production in the next 18 months, but the status of federal energy policy could slow development by 2013.”

The eight projects slated for the next year and a half represent an investment of $2.7 billion. Future development of wind in Kansas depends upon a clear signal from Washington that the tax credits for wind production will continue, but who knows what our leaders will decide to do?

A better solution, and one less subject to the whims of Washington, is a carbon fee and dividend that works like this: A fee is applied to carbon as it comes out of the earth in the form of coal, oil or gas. This fee is passed on to consumers, but the total fee collected is returned equally to all U.S. taxpayers. A tariff is added at the border for those countries not participating in a similar program. Each year the fee increases, making products and energy sources low in carbon (such as wind) more and more attractive to consumers. Fee and dividend ends up providing an effective, market-based solution to climate change.

Kansas has the second largest wind capacity in the nation. Hopefully we’ll put this resource to good use, rather than letting the winds blowing out of Washington squash this great development opportunity we have in our own backyard.

Comments

mustrun80 2 years, 9 months ago

Another insane happy time utopian fantasy. Great idea - make everyone - who's already suffering - pay more and more for gas, and therefor everything else.

I didn't know we could choose more "carbon friendly" things to put in our cars then gas. Lynate couldn't possible be more out of touch with the reality of how much people are suffering right now.

Oh oh oh oh - she's saving the world!

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 9 months ago

Actually, if you look at it honestly and critically, (rather than in knee-jerk, ideological fashion) it's revenue neutral.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 9 months ago

Hey, buddy. Leave my bananas and apples alone. They didn't do nothin' to you. But you have my permission to tax the heck out of pomegranates. I never understood pomegranates.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 9 months ago

Comparing apples and bananas doesn't make any better an argument than comparing apples and oranges.

0

kenos 2 years, 9 months ago

No matter how you dress this up it's still a carbon tax. The big boys have already got it figured out, how to make vast profits from something that could be as lucrative as the income tax. The only thing left is for them to get the poor dumb slaves to ask for their own enslavement. Wait! They've already done that.

0

Getaroom 2 years, 9 months ago

Well bozo, it does if you are Liberty_One. Remember Liberty_One is a fan of fantasy, the one that has Ron Paul as Commander-in-Chief ruling over a perfect "Free Market" Union where Utopia has become heaven on earth. The fact is, we need to be simultaneously working toward developing non fossil fuel alternatives along with making better and more efficient use of fossil based fuels. Like conservatives are fond of saying, "There is no free ride" so yes taxes are apart of the way we pay for what we use. How big the profits, shareholder's percentages and executives bonuses all adds into the formula of those costs too. And not to forget that Ron Paul and Liberty_One do not want any government regulations telling them what they can and can't do, because the "Free Market" is perfect and will take care of itself, which is exactly the point, will take care of itself meaning - those who control it and those who do that are your friends in the top 1%. This all works beautifully - assuming it is moral, ethical and greed free. We all see how well that treated this nation and world when the bubble burst. I am not sure about what has been proposed in the article, needs much more vetting before arriving at any conclusions. Options toward resolution to the issues of energy production and use must be openly explored!

0

Richard Heckler 2 years, 9 months ago

Lynate Pettengill is among the folks who understand the energy situation. The bottom line = the $2.8 billion investment means jobs and those jobs will create other jobs as spending picks up a bit. This is one way spending tax dollars makes good sense. Tax dollars producing jobs directly is an investment.

Cleaner and less expensive energy brings down the cost of living.

Good letter Lynate Pettengill. Thanks for the information.

0

David Reynolds 2 years, 9 months ago

The problem here is alternative energy sources like wind & solar are more costly than current sources. Consumers won't by it therefore it is not viable. Spain has proved this. We can not afford to have government both subsidize & tax. Free markets work when the right & economical idea is introduced to the market.

0

Ken Lassman 2 years, 9 months ago

Umm...have you priced the cost of new coal or nuclear compared to wind lately? Wind is WAY cheaper even without subsidies, which, by the way, are bigger for new coal and nuclear than wind. Why do you think there has been so much installed wind capacity lately compared to the huge financial sinks needed for new coal or nuclear?

And then there's the best investment of all, energy efficiency, which dollar for dollar is the best return on your investment, if you consider that a penny saved is a penny earned.

The fee and dividend method method described by Pettengill is just a way to finance needed energy efficiency and renewables development, something that will make our nation way more secure than our current strategy of fighting mideast wars and removing mountaintops.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.