The Case For Range Voting: Democratic Primaries

Ian Kerr, November 20, 2016

In a recent post, I mentioned the notion of Range Voting in Democratic Primaries.

For full details on the mechanics of it, see rangevoting.org. The process in brief: it's the same process by which they judge figure skating or gymnastics in the Olympics. Each judge (voter) gives each contestant (candidate) a numeric score (not just the contestant/candidate they like the most); highest average score is the winner.

First, I'll provide an example that starts with real Primary Election results and theorizes how Range Voting might have changed the outcome.

Hypothetical Example - Arizona Democratic Primary 2012

By the time Arizona held its Primary, there were only two active candidates in the race, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The actual vote totals had Clinton winning by 15%:

Candidate	Votes	Pct.
CLINTON	262,459	56.3%
SANDERS	192,962	41.4%
OTHERS	10,600	2.3%
	466,021

What the raw vote totals do NOT tell us is the level of affinity for each candidate among voters for whom that candidate was NOT their first preference.

Suppose ...

A) these voters could have cast their ballot by Range Voting -- allowing them to rate each candidate on a scale of 0-to-9 (9 best).

B) each vote from the actual Primary (above) were worth the maximum 9 points to the candidate for whom the vote was cast. That would leave the following number of voters the opportunity to further rate each candidate:

Candidate	Additonal Ratings*
CLINTON	203,562
SANDERS	273,059
OTHERS	455,421

*Total ballots cast minus number of actual votes received.

C) Clinton supporters had a generally more-favorable view of Sanders than Sanders supporters had of Clinton... such that the table below describes the frequency with which each candidate received each possible additional rating:

Additional		Candidate
Rating	CLINTON	SANDERS	OTHERS
9**	5.0%	7.0%	5.0%
8	5.0%	15.0%	13.0%
7	5.0%	15.0%	13.0%
6	5.0%	15.0%	13.0%
5	15.0%	11.0%	13.0%
4	15.0%	11.0%	13.0%
3	15.0%	11.0%	13.0%
2	15.0%	11.0%	13.0%
1	10.0%	2.0%	2.0%
0	10.0%	2.0%	2.0%

**there would be no rule against giving two or more candidates the same rating, including the highest rating.

D) THEN the final result would give Sanders the win:

RATING	CLINTON	SANDERS	OTHERS
9	272,637	212,076	33,371
8	10,178	40,959	59,205
7	10,178	40,959	59,205
6	10,178	40,959	59,205
5	30,534	30,036	59,205
4	30,534	30,036	59,205
3	30,534	30,036	59,205
2	30,534	30,036	59,205
1	20,356	5,461	9,108
0	20,356	5,461	9,108
AVERAGE	6.68	6.86	5.11

Also relevant... the total number of "enthusiastic" supporters (voters who gave each candidate a 7, 8, or 9) and "detractors" (voters who gave each candidate a 1 or 0).

Candidate	Enthusiastic	Detractors
CLINTON	292,993	40,712
SANDERS	293,994	10,922
OTHERS	151,781	18,216

What does this illustrate?

1) Someone with as much as a 15-point margin in a "check one box" vote might NOT be the most popular candidate in the race. Only Range Voting could illustrate this.

2) The most popular candidate almost always has to be the one with the most "enthusiastic" votes. 

3) The candidate with the most "detractors" almost always will NOT win. 

#2 & #3 are especially important in a Primary election... because there's a General Election to be won thereafter. The enthusiastic voters are the ones who will knock doors, make phone calls, put up yard signs, give people rides to the polls, talk up the candidate with friends... they're the foot soldiers in a successful ground game. The detractors will entertain the thought of voting for a different candidate in the General Election... and some will actually do so.

Again the breakdowns above are not based on any scientific study of Arizona's Democratic Primary voters... but I don't think it's unrealistic. This example raises the possibility of 40,000+ Clinton detractors having voted in this Primary (more than 1 in 12 Primary votes). Third-party candidates garnered more than 140,000 Arizona votes in the General Election. It's totally possible that 3-in-10 of the 3rd party votes came from Clinton detractors who voted in the Democratic Primary.

What do you think?

Circular Firing Squad: Cease Fire!

Ian Kerr, November 20, 2016

A dozen days following an election that stunned the 48% of America (at last count) that voted for Hillary Clinton and many of the 5.3% who voted for someone else. Social media remains fertile ground for the blame game.

Instead of wasting keystrokes and LIKE buttons on blaming each other, can we come to agreement on the following things?

1. The Democratic National Committee needs to be led by a new chairman who 
• will be able to work the job full-time
• has not held high public office in the last two years
• will not endorse or oppose any candidate vying to be the party's Presidential nominee in 2020 until the conclusion of the primaries and caucuses.
• will work for the Party to be more of a reflection of the aspirations of its voters rather than the wants of its donors or other highly-influential individuals.
2. The DNC should scrap the concept of Superdelegates.
3. The concerns of working-class and middle-class whites hold much in common with those working-class and middle-class minorities. The Democratic Party has not stressed that enough.
4. When turnout is high in-general, it favors Democrats. The advantages Democrats have with respect to the voting tendencies of diverse voters do not accrue to Democrats if diverse voters do not turn out.
5. If it would be hard very soon to abolish the Electoral College, we should work in the various states to pass state laws that would require the Electoral Votes of that state to accrue to the winner of the national popular vote.
6. Polling. Trump won states despite the polls saying he was behind in those states by more than a normal polling error. Clinton made campaign decisions based on those poll numbers. Either get better polling or treat "5 points ahead" as "tied."

And can we consider the following:

7. Democrats should select their nominees for public office via Range Voting.
   For a technical explanation, see http://rangevoting.org/
   I'll offer a strategic explanation in a later blog post. 

How To Watch Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Election Returns

Ian Kerr
November 6, 2016 (Updated 7am MST - November 8)

Before you turn on your TV set Tuesday, you need to ask yourself three things:

1) Are you an eligible voter or can you become one via same-day registration?
2) Have you yet to vote?
3) Are the polls open in your jurisdiction?

If the answer to all three of those questions is YES, then get off this website and go vote.
-----
The following is meant to help Election-Night (or, if you’re watching from the Eastern Hemisphere, Election-Morning) viewers interpret the Electoral Vote scoreboard as it unfolds. If you’re not familiar with the workings of the U.S. Electoral College system, consider reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States).

The table below reflects an approximation of the Electoral Vote scoreboard at various times of the night (and early morning, with reference to U.S. Eastern Standard Time).

TABLE 1 – Approximate Electoral Vote Count at various Time Points

My data – 

A) Poll-closing times for each state

B) The state’s electoral vote counts, and

C) The odds for given candidates to carry each states (treating parts of Maine and Nebraska as “states” in their own right) per http://fivethirtyeight.com as of 6am Eastern Standard Time, Monday November 8. Consult that website for its methodology of developing their odds.

The following table indicates which candidates are most likely to be declared projected winners and the various states and approximately when.

TABLE 2 – Approximate Times At Which States Would Be Projected For Various Candidates

Note – Maine {ME} and Nebraska {NE} award two EVs for their states At Large (AL), then one for each Congressional District; ME has 2, NE has 3. Numbers in parenthesis that follow these state codes represent the number of the Congressional District(s) encompassed in a particular projection; "(AL)" means "At Large".

My methodology –

1) Whichever candidate the odds indicated to have the best chance of winning each state, I eventually credit that candidate with the requisite number of electoral votes.

2) In the Clinton and Trump columns of the table above, you will see postal codes of certain states appearing BEFORE the forward slash {/} and some appearing AFTER.

3) If the odds data indicated any candidate to have better than an 86% chance of carrying a particular state, I believe the networks will declare that candidate to be the projected winner of that state within 5 minutes of the poll-closing time of that state. These are the states in the Trump and Clinton columns with postal codes placed BEFORE the forward slash.

4) To the extent the odds are not as good as 86% for a candidate, I believe the networks may wait for more data to declare projected winners there (they may not wait so long; I’m being conservative). Those states initially appear, at their poll-closing times, in the Too Close column.

5) At the approximate time when the media will make projections for these initially-Too-Close states, the postal code for that state will appear in two places: a) in the Clinton or Trump column, but AFTER the forward slash AND b) in the appropriate “Shift: 'Too Close' to _____” column.

6) I have chosen to vary the time interval between the poll-closing time and the approximate time the projection would occur according to these variables: a) how close the odds are {closer = longer}, b) recent history of long queues of voters in line at poll-closing time, especially in urban areas {i.e. Ohio}, c) varying degrees of difficulty in vote-counting {i.e. Virginia has 95 counties and 38 cities doing vote-counting}, and d) past experience {i.e. 2012} of how long it takes projections to occur when there is a close result (I used this article, which described some of the 2012 timeline of when networks projected winners of various states: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/nbc-news-declares-obama-winner-387191).

How I plan to use this data

Again, this is an approximation of the Electoral Vote counts for each candidate at various times of the night based on 1) a respected oddsmaker’s calculation of the probable outcomes and 2) my not-terribly-scientific view of how those outcomes will manifest themselves during Election Night coverage.

When I watch election coverage Tuesday, this table should help frame the answers to questions like:

A) “Who’s ahead or who’s behind right now?”
The answer isn’t just the raw electoral vote total – it’s the total relative to what might be expected at a point in time. If Trump is ahead by a count of 160 EV to 120 EV for Clinton at 9:05 pm EST on Tuesday, it may be a mistake to say Trump is “ahead.” It's more truthful to say he’s “performing as the oddsmakers expect.”


B) “What are the surprises? And what do the surprises mean?”
The vote count will differ from the tables above for two general reasons – 1) one candidate bucked the odds and won a state unexpectedly or 2) the media projected a winner in a state earlier or later than the approximation called for. The first surprise is more consequential than the second.

NATURE OF 11/7 UPDATES -- Due to changes in odds:
Moved FL, NC and NV to Clinton from Trump
Changed projection times for AK, CO, IA, ME(AL), ME(2), NE(2) & WI.
NATURE OF 11/8 UPDATES -- Due to changes in odds:
Moved ME(2) to Clinton from Trump
Changed projection times for AZ, GA, ME(AL), MN, NE(2) & VA.  

I am an Arizonan. I am angry.

I am Ian Kerr. I’m in my late 40s. I live in Phoenix, Arizona, with my wife, Birgit, and twin children, Max and Anna. Each is in 4th grade and attends the same public school in North Phoenix.

I was not born in Arizona, but my mother was. My family (mom, dad, brother and myself) moved to Arizona when I was 9, and apart from 6 years in the mid-1990s, I have lived in the state ever since. I attended nothing but public schools while growing up in Arizona and elsewhere. I have a Bachelors Degree from the University of Arizona, and a Postbaccalaureate Certificate from Arizona State University. All of the other college courses I’ve ever taken (apart from 3 online courses) were through the Maricopa Community College system.

My mother attended public schools in Arizona throughout her childhood. When she enrolled in what is now Northern Arizona University, she became the first member of her family to do so. She became her family’s first college graduate. Within a decade, her sister and mother also earned college degrees from NAU. All became teachers, serving in Arizona’s public schools for, collectively, about 80 years. At times, my mother’s income from teaching was the vast majority of the income supporting our family of four. My brother, an ASU graduate, teaches in a public school in Arizona, as does my best friend in the world. My father taught on-and-off at the community college level in Arizona. I attend a medium-small church in north Phoenix with less than 150 member families. There are at least 8 members who work in public schools, six being teachers.

Few people owe so much of who they are to Arizona’s public primary, secondary, and post-secondary schools than I. I would not be who, what, and where I am professionally and personally without those institutions.

I am angry because the institutions so important to my formation are being financially abandoned to the detriment of a state that, more than ever, needs them to be strong.

By every credible measure, Arizona’s public schools are underfunded relative to how other states see fit to fund theirs… to dire consequences.

Primary and secondary schools are having a hard time recruiting and retaining teachers. Many haven’t seen a pay raise since 2008. My son’s teachers for gifted math, gifted language arts, and his home room teacher all changed in the middle of the current school year. A friend who will be a principal at a new school next year spent much of this year flying around the country to recruit teachers.The district in which I live is relatively affluent, yet a standard class size for 4th grade in our district is 28 students.

Things are just as bleak at the post-secondary level. Arizona State University (all of its campuses put together), in the fiscal year just ended, received about 10% less support from Arizona taxpayers than just the Main campus of the University of New Mexico did from New Mexico’s taxpayers. ASU, all-told, is 3 times as big as UNM-Main.

The principal consequence – in-state tuition so high (twice as high in AZ as NM) many well-qualified Arizonans can’t take advantage of the strong universities close to home. In the three decades since my freshman year at the University of Arizona, general inflation has caused consumer prices to be about 2.2 times higher. U of A in-state tuition is 11 times higher than it was 30 years ago.

Year after year, proponents of education beg and plead with the legislature and the governor of the day to do right by our schools to little avail – and they’ve found ways to sidestep various school-funding ballot measures.   

I’m angry and I need to do something about this… for the sake of my children, my extended family, my friends in education, and for a state I care for a lot.

I have decided to start a group, which I hope will become a movement, called Citizens of Arizona for the Reform of Public Education Finance – C.A.R.P.E. Finance (pronounced CAR-pay as in the latin carpe diem – seize the day).

Its sole purpose is working for increased funding for all levels of public education in Arizona – adequate, sustainable, equitable long-term funding for all public schools, colleges and universities done in such a way that elected officials would have a hard time undoing it.

C.A.R.P.E. Finance is not yet mature enough or robust enough to take any action – for now, it will be a group that agrees schools need more funding (the “how” will come later, at the discretion of the group members).

Such a change would be great. I am under no illusion that it will be easy. Great things seldom are easily created and rarely created without the persistent optimism of many of their creators. On this topic, I choose persistent optimism. I choose to believe a large enough number of Arizonans believe as I do on this topic to make a difference.

Now, I ask you:

Do you want public education in Arizona to be adequately, sustainably, and equitably funded for the long-term? Are you willing to join a a grassroots movement committed to working toward that one goal and willing to participate in a little bit work from time to time to make it happen?

If so, C.A.R.P.E. Finance would be glad to have you. Message me and I’ll include you in our Facebook group (which is a Closed group). It’s free to join the Facebook group. At the moment, the group is not big enough to

Even if you like the goal and want to join the group and want to get others to join the group… there is a very specific reason I do NOT want you to LIKE and SHARE a link to this on Facebook or other Social Media. That reason will become clear once I reply to your request to join C.A.R.P.E. Finance.

The Fallacies of “How Much the Rich Pay”

 

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece makes a flawed attempt to rationalize Mitt Romney’s tax rate of "probably closer to the 15% rate than anything," as well as to rationalize the tax rates paid by wealthy people in general.

The first flaw in the logic of the article is the assertion that income taxes corporations pay from their own treasuries as a result of their own profits should be attributable to the corporations’ shareholders. By that logic, an investor in the top tax bracket who took long-term capital gains in the stock of a company subject to the highest corporate tax rate (35%) should have a tax of 44.75% attributed to that investor for that gain (the 35 cents on the dollar that the corporation paid “off the top” plus the 15% the shareholder paid on the “remaining 65 cents”
{15% x .65 = 9.75%; 9.75% + 35% = 44.75%}). This argument has limited merit for three reasons.

Reason One: the corporate taxes don’t come from out of the investors’ pocket.
Suppose Company A pays 35% taxes and Company B pays 10% taxes.
If Investor Z buys stock in Company A for $40 and sell it for $50, how is that different than buying Company B stock for $40 and selling it for $50? There’s no difference at all.  Company A can no more come back to Investor Z and say “I want $3.50 of your $10 gain to cover our taxes” than Company B can claim $1 from Investor Z for the same reason.

Reason Two: corporate taxes don’t reduce the return on an investment, they reduce the price of the investment.
The only 2 bottom-line reasons that give a company’s stock any value at all are expectations of:
   (1) the growth of the company’s net earnings.
   (2) the maintenance and growth of company’s dividend payout.
Both expectations are limited by the company’s tax burden.
Thus, when you buy a company’s stock, you demand that the price reflect this limitation. When you sell, the investor you sell it to also expects corporate taxes be “baked in” to the price.
Stockholders, especially the super-rich and their money managers, (who set and move the prices of all publicly-traded stocks) are acutely aware of how taxes effect various companies and they don’t trade any stocks without paying/receiving the right net-of-tax-effect price per share.

Reason Three: The CBO website, where the WSJ writer(s) got the statistics for the piece, even admits that there attributing corporate income taxes to corporations’ owners is a debatable practice. The statistical source says on Page 4 of their report summary:
   “Far less consensus exists about how to attribute corporate income taxes (and taxes on
   capital income generally) [than other forms of taxes]. … Over the long term, however, some
   models suggest that at least part of the burden falls on labor income.” [emphasis mine]
There are any number of ways a corporation a corporation could use its income if it weren’t taxed: pay its executives more, pay its rank-and-file more, build a rainy day fund, build a new factory, hire more people, or charge a lower price to customers. Why not attribute corporate tax effects to all these stakeholders?
The reason: it’s impossible.
At the end of the day, the CBO is tasked with attributing federal corporate income taxes to households using samples of income tax returns. From those samples, it’s pretty easy to identify people who sold stock in Company XYZ. It’s much harder to identify Company XYZ’s other stakeholders, like its customers or the workers that weren’t hired because the company had to pay taxes instead.
Even if all the stakeholders could be identified, how could you quantify the price each paid as a result of corporate taxes? A daunting task.
Thus, it is convenient for the CBO and others interested in economic statistics to attribute corporate taxes to households with capital gains. That doesn’t mean it makes a lot of economic sense, and it certainly doesn’t mean it makes moral sense.

The first flaw in the article plays into its second flaw: it distorts the overall tax burdens of all Americans, especially the rich.
The article asserts that the top 1% pays an average federal tax rate of about 30% (the CBO says 29.5%) inclusive of the attributed corporate income taxes. If you subtract attributed corporate income taxes, the average out-of-pocket federal tax rate by income bracket is as follows:

1st 20%	2nd 20%	3rd 20%	4th 20%	Top 20%	Top 10%	Top 5%	Top 1%
3.6%	10.1%	13.5%	16.3%	20.5%	21.0%	21.1%	20.7%

But that isn’t the whole story. The article fails to address the impact of state and local taxes on various income brackets. Fortunately, a report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy does it for us. Here is the average state & local income tax burden by income bracket of non-elderly taxpayers (including elderly taxpayers causes undue distortions).

1st 20%	2nd 20%	3rd 20%	4th 20%	80%-95%	95%-99%	Top 1%
10.9%	9.9%	9.4%	8.5%	7.4%	6.7%	5.2%

The net effect is as follows (*since ITEP didn’t give me direct numbers on Top 20%, Top 10%, or Top 5%, I had to estimate them; I estimated conservatively):

Bracket	1st 20%	2nd 20%	3rd 20%	4th 20%	Top 20%*	Top 10%*	Top 5%*	Top 1%
Full Rate	14.5%	20.0%	22.9%	24.8%	27.0%	27.0%	26.9%	25.9%
Avg Pretax Income	18,400	42,500	64,500	94,100	264,700	394,500	611,200	1,873,000

Clearly, the average Top 1%-er pays a lower tax rate than the average Top 5%-er, 10%-er, or
20%-er, and many in the top 40%.

I include average pretax income (in 2007 dollars per CBO) to prove a point.

A line from the WSJ article: “No matter how many times Mr. [Warren] Buffett asserts it, secretaries… do not on average pay a higher tax rate or less in taxes than do CEOs.” 

Well, maybe not the garden-variety secretary, but executive assistants who work directly for Fortune 500 CEOs and top Hedge Fund Managers have lots of skills, put in longer hours than their bosses, and they get paid accordingly… usually $100k-$250k. This puts them squarely in the brackets that pay as high or higher taxes that their millionaire bosses.

C’mon WSJ, whatever your editorial board’s collective wisdom is about money, Warren Buffett knows more.

Arguing with Warren Buffett about money is sort of like arguing Stephen Hawking about science… or arguing with God about Heaven.

From Here To Sustainable… Part 4 (update)

 

I told you I was being conservative…

In part 4 of this post, I asserted a potential for 500,000 - 800,000 jobs due to aggressive implementation of solar power.

According to the USA’s 42nd President (beginning 2:50 in to the video below), I’m a little off…. by a factor of at least 3.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Courtesy: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, November 8, 2011

From Here to Sustainability… Part 4

Economic Impact

I’m not an economist, but I am a common-sense accountant, so I believe I can take a conservative measure of the economic impact of this policy proposal. 

Consider the case study in Part 3. The policy allowed Mr. Jones to borrow about $39,275 more than he otherwise would have been able to. Furthermore the terms of the loan forced him to spend all of it, and then some (i.e. another $3,225 out of his pocket {for the moment}... plus another $5,500 out of his utility’s treasury). All told, it’s an injection of $48,000 directly into the economy that would not have occurred but for the long-term low-interest financing brought about by the policy. Over time, Mr. Jones would recover $7,500 in tax credits for installing the solar panels and geothermal heat pump[6] plus the net $106 per month in reduced cost of home ownership, plus an additional tax deduction for mortgage interest on the borrowed $39,275. At least some of these credits, deductions and savings will be further spent... another direct economic infusion.

Most economists believe in a multiplier effect... where direct spending is compounded as a result of the people and companies further spending at least a portion of the initial direct spending. Per Moody’s Economy, a multiplier of 1.59 is applicable to infrastructure projects (which this very-much is). Thus, just the direct $48,000 spend would lead to about $76,300. GDP resulting from the $7500 tax credit, the additional mortgage interest tax deduction (about $460/yr), and $106/month ($1,272/yr) home-ownership savings wouldn’t have as high a multiplier because the homeowner (a) wouldn’t be forced to spend it and (b) might have gone into personal debt for their out-of-pocket costs… yet an additional $4,000-$5,000 in GDP would be reasonable… for a total GDP boost in excess of $80,300.

The added benefit of all this new economic activity would be additional jobs that can’t be exported, particularly in the hard-hit construction industry. This proposal will be especially beneficial in areas of the country that have suffered the most due to the collapse of the housing market (where prospective users of renewable power are unlikely to be eligible for a conventional home equity loan), where electricity usage and/or electricity rates are high, and which benefit from an abundance of sun (California, Arizona, Southern Nevada, Florida). There is a substantial relationship between GDP growth and job growth... particularly when the GDP growth occurs in an industry where there is substantial excess capacity (like construction). In 2012, US GDP per employed person was about $105,500. So, for every Mr. Jones that can renovate his house, about 0.72 jobs is likely to be created. If there are one-million Mr. Jones that take advantage of this proposal... that’s 720,000 jobs, and $1.27 billion per year in additional discretionary income in the energy-saving households.

The reduced cost of home ownership should reduce the credit risk to the holders of these mortgages.

Fiscal Impact

The only Federal outlays that would be required under current law are (a) a 30% tax credit (through 2016) for Section 1122 improvements and (b) a mortgage interest deduction for interest upon the amounts financed. Those outlays almost certainly would be offset by Federal receipts resulting from the economic activity and reductions in Federal outlays for unemployment benefits and other welfare programs.

Suppose 1,000,000 “Mr. Jones projects” occurred as a result of the proposal (less than 2% of America’s single-family homes). The fiscal breakeven point would occur if the $48-billion worth of projects (a) yielded $80.3-billion in GDP growth {a very reasonable estimate}, (b) resulting in almost $11.65-billion in additional federal receipts {or about 14.5% the added GDP... currently federal receipts are about 15.5% of GDP} and (c) 720,000 new full-time non-exportable jobs {reasonable} resulting in 50,000 families no longer receiving Food Stamps assistance {also conservative}.  Should these projects result in higher GDP growth, higher federal receipts or additonal employment/further reductions in government benefits, enacting the proposal would reduce the national debt... perhaps by $1-to-$2-billion. If 1,000,000 projects occurred each year, the job gains would be permanent.

Historically, the price of solar panels has come down 20% each time worldwide usage of them doubles. I have not considered the economic or fiscal impact of any future price decreases, but, all things being equal, any further cost decreases would be fiscally positive.

Environmental Impact

The energy-related improvements in the Mr. Jones example would reduce his household’s grid-energy consumption from an average of 2,500 kilowatt hours per month to about 500 kilowatt hours per month... a reduction of about 2,000 kilowatt hours per month, or 24,000 kilowatt hours per year.
If electric utilities offset this reduced demand with a reduction in supply, this single project would prevent about 28,400 lbs of carbon dioxide pollution each year.[7]  If one million homes around the country received these results, this would reduce America’s annual carbon dioxide output by about 14.15 million metric tons.[8]  If all of the reduction in grid supply comes from shutting down coal-fired plants, the CO₂ reduction would be as much as 25.3 million metric tons. [9]

Now, lets dream a bit bigger. Suppose this program can achieve an average electrical-energy energy savings/renewable-energy production of just 13,000 kwh per household in 73.1-million US households (not quite 70% of all households and about 90% of single-family-home households). That would be around 950-billion kwh. Now, suppose the average street-legal vehicle in the USA were 8% more energy efficient[10] than today’s fleet {attainable}. With the amount of electricity saved in the households, you could power half of all American vehicles in all vehicle classes with electricity without generating any additional electricity from a coal, gas or nuclear power plants. These transportation changes would cut annual CO₂ emissions by 777 million metric tons[11]... more than ⅛ of what the US puts out in a year.

There is no magic bullet to solve America’s and the planet’s economic, energy, and environmental challenges. It will take great minds formulating great ideas and courage among our nations leaders to adopt them. The proposal I’ve put forth in these pages will help the US and the world on all of these fronts with no obvious downside.

Click Here to go back to Part 1, Part 2 or Part 3.

---

[6] The extent of the tax credit depends upon the nature of the local incentive.

[7] Based upon the carbon footprint of Arizona’s fuel mix for electricity per carbonfund.org

[8] Based upon the carbon footprint of the USA’s fuel mix for electricity per carbonfund.org;

[9] 24 B kWh x {2.86 mt CO₂ / mt coal} ÷ {2,712 kWh / mt coal}.

[10] Not to be confused with fuel efficient. Fuel efficient = less fuel in the tank, battery etc. for the same work. Energy efficient = less power required at the axle to move people and cargo the same distance.

[11] 719 million from the conversion to electricity; 58 million from the remaining gas/diesel vehicles being more efficient.