Saturday, September 07, 2013

The Washington Post Gets It Right on Nuclear & Wrong On Carbon Tax

The Washington Post gets it half right by supporting the continued use and expansion of nuclear power but gets it wrong in recommending a carbon tax.

The Center has a policy against using price as a conservation tool.  We believe that such policies are regressive and literally raise the price of all goods and services for everyone.  We believe that innovation and efficiency can be achieved without burdening society with exhorbitant prices.  We also believe that nuclear power is an efficient technological innovation that helps in achieving our energy and carbon dioxide reduction goals.

No politician is going to vote for a carbon (gasoline - fossil fuel) tax anyway.  It is political suicide.  The political third rail.  So any such recommendation is a waste of time.  It sounds good but is right up there with the hovering cars we are supposed to have by now.  A fantasy.

Here is what The Post says about carbon dioxide taxes:

"...a carbon tax, an elegant policy Congress could immediately take off the shelf. It would make polluters pay for their own pollution, which is the best way to encourage greener thinking. It would cut emissions without overspending national wealth on grandiose central planning or command-and-control regulation. And it would raise revenue, which lawmakers could use for debt reduction, lowering other taxes, improving the social safety net or some combination. The carbon tax is one of the best ideas in Washington almost no one in Congress will talk about."

And here is what they had to say about nuclear power:

" of nuclear’s greatest attractions: It reliably produces a lot of electricity without producing carbon dioxide emissions. Construction costs for nuclear plants have also been extremely high. It’s possible that, with more rational climate-change policies in place, new and innovative reactor designs could help bring down nuclear energy’s cost. It’s also possible that some other technology could eventually offer nuclear’s reliability and low-emissions profile at a commercial scale, a unique and necessary combination.
Until that’s clearer, the nation must remain open to maintaining and even expanding its fleet of nuclear power plants."

(Wash Post, 5/7/2013, Wash Post, 9/4/2013)

No comments: