carbon tax and 100% dividend

So while we're moving past the failed Lieberman-Warner climate bill, I've come across another way to get big stationary (and mobile ones too, it looks like) to cut their emissions without making basic needs such as energy unavailable to lower and middle classes. The idea is that you set up a number of credits that allow certain amount of CO₂ to be emitted each year. The number of credits will decrease, and with it the amount of pollution emitted into the atmosphere. Companies will have to purchase these credits.

So far this doesn't sound too different from the standard Cap & Trade system that was in the Lieberman-Warner bill. But where these two ideas differ is what to do with the money collected from the carbon credits. The Dividend idea would return the money to the public. I'm guessing this is to help offset some of the increased costs of energy as a result of a realistic price on carbon.

What sort of bothers me about this idea is that we have to return the money to the public. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind a check coming in every month, but I can think of a ton of other uses for the money. I personally would favor taking the money and investing it in research grants and projects (NSF, DOE, etc...) instead of having some guy go out and buy a new plasma or iPod with it.

Maybe somebody has more info on this idea? I'd love to learn more about it.

Cross-posted at davidwogan.us

the other march madness... part 2

After reading David Wogan's post and the associated comment by John, I started to write a comment of my own. This "comment" became so long, that I decided to make it its own post.
--------------------------------------------------

Nice post, David.

The comment by John brings up a question that I would really be interested in leaning the answer to (by the way, I really enjoyed the article that John suggested).

Which matters more, race or gender? Does the very fact that we're talking about this mean that this is an influential piece of this years Democratic primary?

This question has been asked throughout the Clinton-Obama race. Would you rather have a female President, or a black President? Does it make any difference in your vote? In the decades since the Civil Rights Act, has the mentality surrounding gender and race truly changed?

Polls that I have read indicate that these are not the first thing that people consider when they are in the voting booth. In Nashville last weekend, I watched a local news station report on the top ten words that come to mind when people speak of the candidates. Included were the following:

For Obama - young, inexperienced, hope

For Clinton - experienced, solutions, *rhymes with witch*

McCain - old, veteran, experienced

With the exception of (potentially) one (the expletive I don’t care to repeat here), none of these words referred to the race or gender of the candidates. Does this mean that race and gender are not deciding factors in the Presidential race?

If this is true, then I am very proud of our country. The issues are what should matter... not the race or gender of the candidate. We should be talking about climate change, energy policy, national security, and economic prosperity for this country. To quote J.T. marsh “I care about who will be a better leader for this country. Race and gender are not a factor.”

I hope that citizens of this country agree with the Marsh perspective. However, despite this hopeful view, I still wonder how much male vs. female, black vs. white will influence the vote today here in Texas.