I simply cannot see how promotion of energy independence and reduced energy consumption can harm US society as a whole. And heck, because of that solar panel you subsidized, global fuel consumption decreased, less power plants have to be built, and your kWhr cost of energy just dropped by a tiny bit. Everyone benefits
OK, samclem covered one aspect, I'll take the second.You are going to have to show me how $1,000 from the Fed coffers (our money, borrowed at the rate of Govt bonds) provides a net economic gain for others in lower fuel bills. I understand that *if* ( a big IF with some of these credits) consumption is decreased, prices are driven down, but I can't see how that would exceed the amount paid out for marginal benefits.
If it were a BIG savings in energy for the $ expended, I could see it. But then, people would do it w/o credits. I don't know anyone who lives in a house in this area w/o insulation. Why is that? Not just building codes - people *know* it will save them money.
Only some % of people will make these changes. Also, you have to consider with and w/o the credit. In my case, I *will* be replacing my water heater. Even though I'm I plan on getting the cheapest, least efficient model with the features I want (glass lined tank, same basic model that has lasted over 22 years in my house), it is more efficient than the old one. Old rated at 313 annual Therms, new at 254 - assuming the measurements are the same as they were in 1986). Now, some people will do the math and say that the credit was responsible for ALL the increase in savings over my old one, but in reality, it would only be responsible for the incremental increase over the cheaper, but somewhat more eff unit I would have bought w/o the credit.
Nords may have, but how many others may not? Be it initial availability of capital outlay, inability or unwillingness to do the economic analysis, or even the psychology of future economic gain discounting, there are a variety of reasons why most people would probably not put in solar systems.
And how about those of us who have done the math and decide it is NOT worth the expenditure? And then we see people take advantage of the credit w/o thinking (free money!)..., or to fill their hot tubs with the "energy efficient" "endless hot water" unit.... kinda burns me up.
I think one needs to look at this from a societal perspective of 30 years down the road, not 2 years down the road.
I am. That is why I keep saying that
if we want the govt to push conservation, they should have put an ever rising, publicized floor on energy prices over the past 30 years. Let the free market devise real solutions, rather than having COngress "bless" a select few. We could start now, better late than never.
Global population is still increasing and noone seems to want to suggest that this is not a good idea.
Many people suggest it. Few want to legislate it.
Many high-population countries are starting to increase energy usage (India and China, for example).
Should we give them tax credits too? You said these tax credits are a benefit because it will lower energy prices for everyone. Energy is a fungible commodity. So it should make no difference if we save a barrel of oil in China or India or the US, a barrel saved will lower costs. This is a missed opportunity, based on your thoughts. We should send them container ships full of tax credits, energy prices will decline dramatically for us and everyone on the planet! /sarcasm/
Like wise (seriously now), that lower energy cost you claim we get with these credits is lowering energy costs for everyone on the planet. That money really has an uphill battle, and it means my tax dollars are going to lower energy costs for people in other countries. Why do I care to do that? So they can use more of this cheaper energy, which then offsets the conservation here in the US? It makes no sense.
Cheap hydrocarbon based fuel will not last forever; one can argue about how long it will last in terms of decades, not centuries.
Exactly why we should tax it (apply my caveat here). What causes people to conserve something better than raising the price of it? I'll say it again: $4 gas?
And many other countries (S. Korea, Japan, western Europe, China) are realizing this. They are all investing, to some degree, in homegrown energy-efficiency or alternative energy industries. This is both to spawn local commercial viability and also to reduce dependency on external energy sources.
Same point as samclem - some of those countries have accomplished nothing but raising the price of their energy to their citizens. Why use a more expensive substitute?
-ERD50