Tax Energy Use, Not Work

The Boston Globe today offers a thought on local food: perhaps not so good for the environment (Hat tip to M).

But a gathering body of evidence suggests that local food can sometimes consume more energy -- and produce more greenhouse gases -- than food imported from great distances. Moving food by train or ship is quite efficient, pound for pound, and transportation can often be a relatively small part of the total energy "footprint" of food compared with growing, packaging, or, for that matter, cooking it. A head of lettuce grown in Vermont may have less of an energy impact than one shipped up from Chile. But grow that Vermont lettuce late in the season in a heated greenhouse and its energy impact leapfrogs the imported option. So while local food may have its benefits, helping with climate change is not always one of them.

Eating local food has a number of benefits-- which the article points out-- but reducing energy consumption isn't necessarily one of them. (An Economist article a few months ago offers more documentation for this claim.

The environmental consumption movement in general faces a problem: we don't have a simple measure to quantify a product's impact on the environment. For instance, the production of cotton may use less energy than polyester, but because it needs more washing and longer dry cycles, over a lifetime, a cotton garment may use more energy.

I'm with economists in thinking that the price system is the best way of addressing this: let the price of a product reflect the harm it does to the environment. Tax CO2 emissions or energy use more generally. It's called a Pigovian tax.
Simple political program that everyone should support:
1) increase gas taxes and energy taxes
2) reduce income taxes progressively, so that there is no net financial impact on low-income households

Results: equivalent tax burden, lower energy usage

Do the same thing, get the same results

Over at the blog of the Christian Century, Julie Clawson laments:

I am passionate about social justice and have come to believe that Christians are required to care for the poor and the oppressed. It is the essence of my faith to work for change in the world. But baby boomers tell me that I will eventually grow up and leave behind these passions. They tell me, on a regular basis, that I will eventually see how trivial such things as debt relief, gender equality, global warming and ending hunger really are.

Yet I was feeling similar to these baby boomers during church today after a discussion of the parable of the Good Samaritan. Of course, debt relief is not trivial, but I ask, Is there room in my life for yet another thing? Often, the gospel message seems to be try harder. Occasionally such an exhortation can revive my flagging will, and I do try harder, and it can make a difference. But if the message is (and has been) "we're not doing enough," it's quite clear that the message will continue to be "we're not doing enough" a decade from now.

What we need--and it is not at all easy-- is to reshape the way we live together so that we can change. So much of how we live is not a conscious choice, but shaped by our community.