POLICY PROPOSALS for ECO-INDUSTRIALIZATION, the next industrial revolution

[cloudythescribbler]

ECO-INDUSTRIALIZATION. I have elsewhere outlined a program for taxes on scarce resources and pollution.
Here is that proposal, reprinted (but it's only PART of eco-industrialization, I'll call it PART I:

PART I Why not place heavy taxes on
pollution and scarce resource use, both to protect
the environment (which I understand some don't care
about) and to reduce the GIGANTIC deficits that Bush
and the Republicans have racked up, after Clinton
managed to run a series of surpluses?

Here are examples of some taxes, which would NOT
preclude hard ceilings on emissions of pollutants,
as opposed to 'tradeable caps':


* Heavy taxes on redwood trees
Extremely high rates of taxes on redwood trees,
in addition to the kinds of limits on cutting set
in the proposed ballot measure "Forests Forever",
narrowly defeated in 1990, could both reduce the
incentive to cut too much by reducing demand, and
generate a stream of revenue to buy up both VIRGIN
forests and to restore land that has been destroyed
by clear-cutting. It could also finance jobs in that
restoration for loggers, as well as in forestry
and in state-owned mills, etc.

* A tax structure on new autos, SUVS, etc to push up
gas mileage

Many propose raising the price of gas to $4 a gallon
with steep taxes. That would unduly hit the poor and
be politically unfeasible anyway. But a tax structure,
giving a $3000 credit MINUS $150 per mpg that the
vehicle gets less than 60 miles per gallon (mpg) would
push people into buying cars with higher mileage, and
manufacturers into making more of them to meet demand.
Any car getting over 40 mpg would get a subsidy. So
poorer purchasers of new cars (and the overwhelming
majority of NEW car buyers are in the upper half of
income) could SAVE money, but buyers of NEW SUVs would
pay through the nose. And vehicle mileage would rise
dramatically, reducing both the Greenhouse Effect and
our dependence on foreign oil.

* A tax on large scale agriwater and other heavy water
consumption, especially in places like CA, with water
shortages

The state of CA is especially hard hit by both water
shortage and by deficits. A tax per acre-foot of
water that raised several billion dollars a year extra,
with the first acre-foot of usage per year exempt, to
get only the huge users, would cut water consumption by
these big users, saving money on public works, and
reduce the deficit of the state, possibly by as much
as one sixth.

* Not only limits on pollutants like mercury and
sulfur oxides and other emissions from coal and oil
plants, but taxes on them heavy enough to drive the
companies to build new plants instead of continuing the
loophole in the Clean Air Act over 30 years after its
passage

It's curious how those who treat the environment as
worthless get all weepy about big utilities and big
oil. But at any rate, these taxes could be partly
offset by reductions in the payroll taxes of these
companies in proportion to their power generation
or production. Thus they will have an incentive to
keep production high, and pollution low, and hire
MORE workers not less.

* a similar tax structure for agrichemicals It is
still possible to tax as well as fine ILLEGAL use,
but many toxic agrichemicals, eg, ozone-destroying
methyl bromides, are LIMITED in their use. This
LIMITED usage should also be heavily taxed, to
MINIMIZE use. Then there are many toxic or
suspected toxic agrichemicals that could be taxed
in proportion to their harmfulness, even if usage
is still uncapped, to minimize their usage and
encourage organic farming or at least non-toxic
agrichemical uses. This could also go for the
FORMS of application

Other possible examples abound. Republicans are
against taxes, especially on the rich, but it's
hard to see how one would be more concerned about
taxes than about scarce resources and toxics in
the environment.

PART II -- much more briefly outlined. The general progressive emphasis on pushing hydrogen energy, solar voltaic, solar thermal, and wind energy,and of course conservation, with certain specific twists. First, instead of relying on the private sector, not only research & experimentation & development (r&e&d) but also implementation should not be held only for the private sector. Public investment, especially in monopoly areas like utilities, could provide many of the jobs outlined in the unemployment caps program, as well as others, financed with the taxes outlined in Part I, could make huge headway. Also not to forget GOVERNMENT consumption of energy, as in the solar thermal retrofitting of public buildings, which I canvassed on in Mass IN THE 1970s! This could create more jobs, financed the same way, in part filling the requirements of local unemployment caps, but also more.
Then there is the area of hydrogen vehicles. There is a lot of doublespeak about the area, so a few points. There have been such vehicles quite feasible, even to change a gasoline car into one, for several decades. (See "Somebody Doesn't Like Hyfuel", from THE NATION magazine IN 1981!) The problem is coming up with enough hydrogen, something for a large scale publicly funded R&E&D program.
But there is enough hydrogen to create recyclable metallic hydride canisters (MgH2) for cars that produce only water vapor as a byproduct. Those cities not meeting the Clean Air Act standards, especially those with high pollution like LA, Denver, etc as well as the NYC metropolitan area should be required to run ALL public buses as well as licensed taxis, after a certain time, on these metallic hydrides, and to have the canisters available for sale at gas stations. Indeed, wherever feasible, all public vehicles, federal, state and local should be run on metallic hydrides, as well as a large area of publicly specially licensed vehicles or government subcontractors (like sanitation, where easily feasible). There is enough cheap hydrogen to easily underprice gasoline for over 10% of automotive use, probably having risen from that level somewhat over the last 20 years.

PART III -- ecoindustrialization other than in the energy sector.
In addition to the taxation and the publicly funded R&E&D mentioned above, to make the transition easier for businesses and NONtransition harder, there are many other areas, such as reforestation mentioned earlier, and other environmentally promotive projects that would help to reduce pollution and/or to promote the transformation of industry (metals and mining, manufacture generally, and chemicals etc.) Model plants should not be treated squeemishly. The public doesn't mind smart, targeted public INVESTMENT, it's what is considered waste that is unpopular. Let the Repugs complain about these progressive programs which would both create jobs and create entire new industrial sectors in which the US would be at the forefront.

Part IV -- a whole litany of other environmental issues, one of the most popular areas, but which the Democrats have avoided in EVERY national election year making a central issue, or a central policy concern of the Clinton Administration, as if by tacit agreement and/or repressive preventive 'glass walls'.