Commentary on Energy and Environment

What I expect/hope to see if the mid-term elections result in a re-balance of power (i.e., more dems elected) with respect to energy and environment:

We will begin to pursue real initiatives for alternative energy. Hopefully Prop 87 will pass in California, resulting in additional cost for Crude Oil. This proposition, if passed, will be a catalyst for other states to do the same. The tax on crude ranges from 1.5% to 6% based on the cost of crude. The lower tax range is during times of low crude price and the higher range for high crude cost. This tax pool is to fund alternative energies. From a broader economic perspective, the US has thrived on innovation and highly educated, highly compensated jobs. A fundamental problem with "exporting" low-skill jobs overseas is not that we are exporting jobs. The problem lies in the fact that we are not replacing those low-skilled jobs with things that we do best, innovation and education.

Imagine that we fund high technology ventures and education. Perhaps we will have the opportunity to let others do what they do best (low skill, for a low wage) while we focus on what we do best, (high skill for a high wage). The clearly evident avenues for this to occur is with respect to environmental resources such and water, agriculture, and energy. These are critical because of the ever expanding global population that will inevitably put significant stress on these resources. (An academic exercise from college place the global carrying capacity of the earth at 9 billion people, a number I expect to see in my lifetime). Water purification technology and infrastructure, more efficient and sustainable energy use, and more efficient and sustainable agricultural practices present opportunities for the US to be a world leader.

Like I have stated before: Being green should no longer have a "tree-hugger" connotation. Being green is becoming the backbone of financial decisions.

The rate of adoption to "being green" should be encouraged from a broader governmental push with incentives and regulation. With that said, I believe the US should mandate ISO 14000 on imported goods. This would address two problems: the export of manufactuing (because the environmental conditions to do business would be similar to a US corporation), and serve to limit pollution globally. The US is the biggest world consumer of goods, why then do we import manufactured goods that are subject to less stringent environmental regulation than if they were manufactured domestically, while we decry domestic polluters? Is this NIMBYism or lack or care for the environment?