The cheaper gas gets, the more people are calling for an increase in the gas tax, to limit consumption, promote energy independence and fund the development of fuel-efficient vehicles and other energy alternatives. A New York Times editorial mentioned the possibilities of either a variable consumption tax (so the price would never go below $4 or $5 a gallon, say) or a variable tariff on imported oil, to signal to automakers and drivers “that the era of cheap gasoline is not going to last.” “Car Talk” co-host Ray Magliozzi recently called on “all nonwussy politicians” to stand with his proposal for a 50-cent gas-tax increase to fund infrastructure improvements and new energy technology. “The other thing that the gas-tax revenue could fund is high-speed train infrastructure between major cities,” he said. “And who would build all of the new high-tech, high-speed trains we’d need? GM and Ford! We’d help them start a mass-transit division, convert some of those factories from building inefficient gas hogs to building high-speed trains.” The timing certainly makes sense, with some saying that gas is headed below $1 a gallon. But finding “nonwussy politicians” will be a challenge.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on ACORN stole election?
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- CapnAmerica on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Open thread 11/22
- writerdog on Health care reform would save state money
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/22
- george on Open thread 11/22
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
117 Comments
Pay it to ourselves now, or pay it to OPEC later, you decide.
The surcharge should be at a place that makes alternative energy develpment a reasonable prospect.
Nothing prevents Opec and other oil producers in raising the price of oil after the tax is started.
I’m sure the politicians would love it if the taxes are adjusted per barrel of oil costs.
I would suggest a blow torch to the genitalia of those suggesting such a tax.
Price would help keep a cap on foreign oil demand. With limited demand they’d either have to lower price to sell more, or continue to cut and keep supply low. Russia would pick up the slack production.
Price uncertainity is worse for business then a known quantity.
then-than
Another Lib idea that would stick it to the poor people the most.
Yup.
10-20 cents a gallon, or alternatively, a tax on imported oil. It could even be automatically be removed if oil/gasoline gets above a certain threshold. Proceeds to be used to fund basic researh into alternative energies.
As painful as it may be, and as much as in principle I may not like it, it must be done. The alternative is to do nothing. And now, when gas is cheap again, is the time to do it; the cheap gas will not last, and then we will be crying (again) why didn’t gov’t DO something!
Of course, the gov’t’s research program will be rife with political payoffs, kickbacks, and pork, but that’s just the price of any government program. It’s the nature of the beast. One just has to hope that in the end economic efficiency considerations come first rather than in who’s district the “X” plant is will win out.
“GMC70″ advocates –
“10-20 cents a gallon, or alternatively, a tax on imported oil. It could even be automatically be removed if oil/gasoline gets above a certain threshold.”
So much for “GMC70’s” faith in market forces.
“As painful as it may be, and as much as in principle I may not like it, it must be done. The alternative is to do nothing. And now, when gas is cheap again, is the time to do it; the cheap gas will not last, and then we will be crying (again) why didn’t gov’t DO something!
Of course, the gov’t’s research program will be rife with political payoffs, kickbacks, and pork, but that’s just the price of any government program. It’s the nature of the beast. One just has to hope that in the end economic efficiency considerations come first rather than in who’s district the “X” plant is will win out.”
—-
I always suspected you were reading challenged, MH. Now why do you have to go and prove it (again)?
Regular posted December 29, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Nothing prevents Opec and other oil producers in raising the price of oil after the tax is started.
————
The only viable, long-term way to reduce the cartel’s price control power is reducing global oil demand.
Note that OPEC’s recent production cut threat did not cause significant price increases — prices continued to drop, because global economic problems have lowered demand.
Gas and/or oil taxes would increase efficiency and encourage alternatives, which would permanently reduce demand.
“Gas and/or oil taxes would increase efficiency and encourage alternatives, which would permanently reduce demand.”
You forgot sticking into the poor people.
“GMC70″ –
Just another example of cafeteria CONservatism.
Just don’t try to adorn your policy positions with anything resembling principles.
The cheaper gas gets, the more people are calling for an increase in the gas tax, to limit consumption, promote energy independence and fund the development of fuel-efficient vehicles and other energy alternatives.
A New York Times editorial mentioned the possibilities of either a variable consumption tax (so the price would never go below $4 or $5 a gallon, say) or a variable tariff on imported oil, to signal to automakers and drivers “that the era of cheap gasoline is not going to last.”
ARE YOU PEOPLE CRAZY!!!???
You know that the cheaper the gas means more money you have in your pocket and all that talk about the money being used to promote energy independence and fund the development of fuel-efficient vehicles and other energy alternatives is a OUT-RIGHT lie!!!
This isn’t about promoting energy independence, this about some small class of people living high on the hog wanting more money and you clowns need to stop pandering to an idealism that has nothing to do with you.
The end result of their objectives does not bear the fruits of your labor.
If if moves or breathes, tax it. Somehow I would like to give all politicians a taste of their own foolish proposels.
Just wait until Obama and he Democrats go back to the ban on drilling off shore and other domestic areas. Those supplies have just as much or more to do with the current price than demand. Just knowing that those supplies are available have an affect on the price.
With the demand down the government’s revenue is also down so it’s inevitable that taxes on all energy are going up.
Suprise! We’re all getting tax hikes after all! Hope and change….blah, blah, blah. You all we’re duped by the media frenzy. Let the tax hikes begin. They can disguise these however they like. Call them whatever you want to hear. But in the end, it’s more money to feed the giant government machine that looks out for the middle class like cracks in the sidewalk. This is just the beginning.
That’s funny the offshore oil that’ll impact markets a few cents in a decade, are of course responsible for the decline, hahahah.
Couldn’t be the worldwide bush recession going on, now could it?
Some people never learn, when gas does go back up, they’ll bemoan the lost opportunity, and sending petro bucks to people that don’t like us very much.
Con world goes round n round.
Sigh. You know nothing aside from being a prick, don’t you, MH.
Principle has always been, and will always be, laced with healthy dose of pragmatism. This is not a 100% “free market” economy; never has been, never will be. Such an animal does not exist. That does not mean those principles do not exist; rather, that other factors – and the practical realities of a particular situation – also play into any calculation.
Oh, and I wouldn’t worry your little head about principles, MH. You wouldn’t recognized a principle if it dropped on your pointy head.
“GMC70″ gives us —
“Principle has always been, and will always be, laced with healthy dose of pragmatism.”
In other words, if principle conflicts with expediency screw the principle.
That’s a handy system you CONs have set up for yourselves.
It’s called reality, MH. Something you obviously have no connection with.
Surprise! George Bush and the Republics have taken us on such a drunken irresponsible borrow-and-spend binge that we must somehow find a way to pay the bills they ran up. And another surprise! They will whine when we try to make up for their gross irresponsibility.
Like your perceived “reality” that your pissant little backwater county job is determined by market forces, “GMC70?”
I think I could track down a couple hundred dozens of equally-trained law school graduates who’d take your job in an El Dorado minute for a dollar less per year. You wanna bid for your job against all of them? Have at it.
You have your principles, after all.
Except when they’re not personally “pragmatic.”
Ooooooooooh! I’m picturing myself in a train going down the tracks at 200 mph. The train is built by the Ford Motor Company. (Shudder, shudder!)
I liked it when gas was over $3 a gallon…I think that’s the only way we’ll cut consumption and develop alternatives to fossel fuels…yes, it really hurts, but if you are a true advocate for change and our countries independance from Middle Eastern oil, then it’s not going to happen without some sacrifice on everybody’s part. Yes, it will hurt the poor…and the middle class…but cities will develop mass transit, which many poor already utilize anyway.
I loved taking the train to Buffalo, NY every summer to visit my relatives. I’d love to have the opportunity to travel like that again.
Once again, MH, you display an amazing, but not surprising, lack of understanding of basic economics. But you’re too busy being a prick to understand you’re just stupid.
Notice how the price of food isn’t coming down, even though gas is now less expensive? Seems like companies always keep the prices up even after the reasons to do so have gone. Just like all companies who have jumped on the bandwagon and used the economy as an excuse to not contribute to their employees 401Ks any more and are now withholding bonuses…even when the companiy has shown a profit and kept within their budgets the last quarter.
Just like 9/11…a perfect excuse to screw the employees and make things more profitable for those at the top.
Food prices never seem to go down Mary.
Unless of course, one purchases one of those ‘buy one – get one’ free deals after you purchase five pounds of prime rib eye or some such expensive item.
It’s been very hard for my clients who live on a fixed income…and Medicaid just gave the disabled a cost of living increase, then took it away by reducing their food stamp allotment and charging them more for their home and community based services. Many of them have less money to live on than they did before the “raise”.
“GMC70″ offers no refutation, only personal attacks –
“Once again, MH, you display an amazing, but not surprising, lack of understanding of basic economics. But you’re too busy being a prick to understand you’re just stupid.”
Ah! The “you’re just stupid” defense!
Yeah, that’ll work in court.
That’ll work in any debate over issues.
You have nothing of evidence, nothing of logic, nothing related to rational thought, but “You’re just stupid” just might work.
Hey, “Boxlock20!” You’re just stupid! (Guess I just told you off.)
And “Regular?” You’re just stupid. I think I’ve neutralized any thing you’ve ever posted (under whatever sock-puppet nyms), just because I’ve adopted the “GMC70″ approach to debate.
Hey, “okobserver.” You’re just stupid. We won’t be needing any more contributions from you in the future. I’ve said it, “GMC70″ endorses that form of political debate, so I win.
“Parkay?” You’re just stupid. ‘Nuf said.
“Nathaniel?” You’re just stupid. Thanks to the “GMC70″ standard of WE Blog discussions, your contributions will no longer be needed.
Hey, “outlander.” You’re just stupid. I win. You lose.
Thanks, “GMC70,” for showing me the light. It’s such a liberating experience to realize I now know the secret to winning any debate that might show up on WE Blog!
I’ve spent too may hours discussing issues with you people. I’ve done too much research. I’ve invested too many hours in presenting facts and evidence and logic and rational thought to my posts.
All I needed was to say, “You’re just stupid.”
I win.
The rest of you all lose.
Because you’re just stupid.
Already been through that explanation some time ago, MH. And you know it, as you referenced same (“Like your perceived “reality” that your pissant little backwater county job is determined by market forces, “GMC70?””). Claiming otherwise is just – well, it’s pretty stupid. But you’re quite familiar with that state of mind.
Now if you’d like to attempt to deconstruct the previous post you so conveniently raise and then ignore, well, give it your best shot.
Sorry. You lose again. Don’t you ever get tired of having your ass handed to you?
Absolutely a stupid idea, typical of many of the worst liberals.
It would hurt everybody, the poor the most of course, but the effects would ripple over and over through the economy as it hits everyone along the production chain.
It would do nothing to stop or even discourage OPEC from increasing the cost of oil to offset the reductions, just as they are doing now by cutting back production by 2 billion barrels/day to raise prices.
Another lousy liberal gov. idea; to tax based on mileage using satellite technology. Wow, is that privacy invasion and big intrusive government! Liberals will do everything in their power to claim the money people earn completely as their own, and then decide how much to leave to the actual producer. Which of course kills production.
“Boxlock20″ –
Please address your objection to “GMC70’s” gasoline tax to him directly.
Otherwise, you’re just stupid.
Mary_Caruso, you are some piece of work. First you proclaim how much you liked high gas prices and give us your mumbo jumbo about high prices being necessary to force conservation and your pipe dream of alternative energy. Then on the same thread, you talk about how much high prices for energy were (are) hurting your clients who are on fixed incomes.
Here’s a novel idea. Lets cut motor fuel taxes on both the State and federal level. I’m sick and tired of taxation being used for social engineering. Taxes are for funding Government and nothing else.
And the bozos at the NY Times can kiss my you know what.
bawks posted,
It would do nothing to stop or even discourage OPEC from increasing the cost of oil to offset the reductions, just as they are doing now by cutting back production by 2 billion barrels/day to raise prices.
—————
It’s not supposed to. It’s supposed to cause demand reductions in the future, which will help reduce costs in the future.
OPEC cut back 2 billion barrels/day? bawk’s, that will be a neat trick!
Has everyone seen the affect of our ongoing Carbon Reduction ?
We have now reduced our GDP and hence our Carbon Footprint. But we need to reduce it much more to reach the Kyoto Goals. So much more unemployment will be needed and many many fewer airplanes need to be built.
And less cars are needed so bigger layoffs.
Now you can start to feel what the Kyoto levels will mean to start.
Then we get into the much bigger cuts later. So you can now figure out what will happen by trying to reduce YOUR carbon by 20% or back to 1990 levels.
The Euroweenies have NOT MET it at any time and likely have no plans to actually implement it. We are the only asshats stupid enough to listen to Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore etc.
Gonna be fun aint it.
Do you think Obama can kiss you and make it well still.
heh.
Ha ha, got’ya Monkey, didn’t I! Ya had a little conniption fit there. That’s because you know it’s true! And you are the stupid one, as always, and just showed it with your tirade.
comatose, er cosmos, that was a ‘million’ barrels a day, not ‘billion’….I was a little too much in a hurry as the company here, other than a few of you, not including you comatose, do not warrant my full attention.
A very good idea to tax gas while it is cheap to work against the day when it is not.
For those who think every tax is bad, I remind that there was an effort to tax gas in the nineties.
To subsidize US domestic stripper well production?
The tax failed and bye bye went all those stripper wells. You can seen the grave marker, dead pumpers all over the landscape.
A good, hefty tax on cheap gas now is a CAPITAL idea.
Europe has high taxes on their “petrol.’ One result: even “American” brand cars in Europe get 50% – 60% better ‘kilometers per litre’ than our’s do here.
“Europe has high taxes on their “petrol.’ One result: even “American” brand cars in Europe get 50% – 60% better ‘kilometers per litre’ than our’s do here.”
Reference that statement or it does not exist as factual.
That IS intriguing David. I’d like to see more.
But bawksy is the LAST person who should be asking for accountability!
This is way too easy, boxboy: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17344368/
Good catch, “JMWalker” –
Poor ol’ “Boxlock20″ gets nailed again.
MSNBC. Come on JM. You got any thing with credibility? MSNBC after all is the network that employs Oberman and Matthews.
Starting to look like when “pwned” DOES get into the dictionary, bawks will be one of the definitions.
“Adding insult to injury is the fact that nearly two-thirds of the 113 highly fuel-efficient models that are unavailable to American consumers are either made by U.S.-based automobile manufacturers or by foreign manufacturers with substantial U.S. sales operations, such as Nissan and Toyota.
“These cars sold in Europe meet or exceed U.S. safety standards, so there is no reason why they shouldn’t be made available to U.S. consumers,” said CSI President Pam Solo.”
What part of proof don’t cons get?
Notice how it doesn’t matter what you put up as proof of anything, the cons will denigrate it. They offer nothing but negatives; never anything positive. Read anything by coulter or limbaugh and it’s always a negative. No wonder they can’t keep seats in congress or the White House.
I agree totally, Walker. If they aren’t hateful and pissed off, they have nothing to live for.
If they aren’t hateful and pissed off, they have nothing to live for.
You just described, Mary, the left wing of the Democratic party. To a “T.”
What a substantive addition to the discussion there GMC!
“I’m rubber, your glue. Everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you!”
“This is way too easy, boxboy: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17344368”
“These cars sold in Europe meet or exceed U.S. safety standards, so there is no reason why they shouldn’t be made available to U.S. consumers,” said CSI President Pam Solo.”
What part of proof don’t cons get?”
From the article
“Most European vehicles cited in the CSI study run on diesel engines, which tend to achieve greater fuel efficiency than gas engines. Selling those cars in the United States is difficult because of emission standards, notes Walter McManus, a fuel economy expert at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
“For the most part, European diesels don’t meet U.S. emission standards,” McManus said. “Everyone is working to develop a cleaner diesel technology because the (Environmental Protection Agency) standards require gas and diesel engines to be equivalent in their emissions. That’s good news for the environment, but it means it’s harder to bring those vehicles over here.”
and
““For years they have not been able to bring vehicles here that are going to displace their workers — this is a competitive challenge for the Big Three,” McManus said. “The unions have influence over the Big Three, and they can’t afford not to have the unions with them as they go through their restructuring. It’s hard to get the unions to agree to import vehicles when you are laying workers off. Overseas car companies like Toyota don’t have the same restrictions — they’ve been able to bring vehicles here from Japan to respond to consumers’ growing taste for more fuel-efficient cars.”
#
DavidB
Posted December 29, 2008 at 9:27 pm | Permalink
Europe has high taxes on their “petrol.’ One result: even “American” brand cars in Europe get 50% – 60% better ‘kilometers per litre’ than our’s do here.
————–
That is just simplistic bull. The same cars get better gas mileage because of higher taxes? Or is it just that the Euros are driving little death traps you wouldn’t let your family drive? Or that they use mostly diesel engines, which we don’t use over here because of emissions standards?
“You just described, Mary, the left wing of the Democratic party. To a “T.”
Name some, G…no Democrat as angry or as nasty as Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh comes to my mind.
Typical fraidy cat con sentiment outie.
What do YOU drive? A Sherman tank?
This con thing with bigger is safer. I guess they are all lousy drivers.
http://www.dhonline.com/articles/2008/12/28/news/local/1aaa02_road.txt
Tax Reality. It’s all about the money, not the environment.
“Name some, G…”
How ’bout this from blowjay:
“With rare exception, there ARE no good people among the cons. Ya don’t get anywhere making nice with them.”
I’m talking about those in the public eye who have influence. BJ doesn’t count.
Name some….
Michael Moore is the only one who I can think of…but still he comes across as a big teddy bear compared to Limbaugh and Coulter. They just ooze hatred..to the point, in my opinion, that they need therapy.
“BJ doesn’t count.”
Ditto that.
Even during the campaign, McCain was so nasty, angry, and hateful…you could see him seething with clentched teeth during the debates. It’s one reason Obama won by such a large margin…Americans are so tired of the animosity and hatred. Even my husband and sister..who are both Republicans..voted for Obama based on what they watched during the debates. Many Repubicans are sick of what their party has turned into. And you have the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter, and the religious right who are responsible.
Funny how the cons run from the room when asked to put up or shut up…they generally choose to shut up….which is fine with me.
“It’s one reason Obama won by such a large margin…”
???
Oh come on Mary. Limbaugh and Coulter are entertainers, not leaders. They tweek the left and get your goat and make millions doing it.
And Limbaugh is almost never nasty or mean. He skewers and hold up mirrors so the left can see themselves. It’s not his fault they don’t like what they see.
“Even during the campaign, McCain was so nasty, angry, and hateful..”
You can call McCain many things, but not that.
You are sounding hateful yourself.
He sure seemed like he was seething to me and many others who watched the debates felt the same way. He refused to make eye contact, was very condesending, addressed Obama as “that one” and rolled his eyes and smirked while Obama talked. His mean spirit turned off a lot of people…including Republicans who changed their minds and voted for Obama.
And you may see Coulter and Limbaugh as entertainers…but they have a big influence as do many of the political pundits. Many conservatives take their words as gospel and shape their political beliefs based on what they say. Just one example of many:
Calling Obama a “magic negro” was not only insulting and insensitive…it gave validation to racists and bigots.
“Calling Obama a “magic negro” was not only insulting and insensitive…”
The ultra-conservative LA Times did that.
I don;t listen to talk radio, but I do recall the flap. Wasn;t that Limbaughs point? Wasn’t he in reality making fun of the LA TIMES? By using THEIR OWN WORDS!?
Exactly fleettwood. And Limbaugh held the mirror up.
The LA Times coined the phrase.
They did NOT parody “Puff the Magic Dragon” with “Barack the Magic Negro”.
Rush toady and hack Paul Shanklin did that.
And it was brilliant political satire. Skewering the left with their own words.
“And it was brilliant political satire.”
Brilliant? How so? Was Ann Coulter referring to the 9/11 widows as “self-obsessed” and enjoying their husbands’ deaths brilliant satire also? This is exactly what I’m talking about…and Americans are sick of it.
The term “magic Negro” is racist at its core but not in a derogatory way. Think about that for a second. It’s an obvious oxymoron and not without irony. It how Hollywood describes actors such as Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, Will Smith….
In broadest of terms, the term is used to describe an actor who could not be believable as a villain.
The context of the LA Times commentary came when the Republic Party was struggling with its message to demonize Obama. Lord knows they tried.
“Obama = Osama”
“Barack HUSSEIN! Obama”
“Terrorist Fist Bump”
“Born in Kenya”
“…pals around with terrorists”
“…doesn’t know the words to the Pledge of Allegience”
“…hates fluffy kittens….”
Only the dolts (albeit, an important wing of the Republic Party coalition) believed any of that Rovian crap this year. Because the mud didn’t stick. People didn’t buy Obama as a villain any more than Morgan Freeman (great an actor as he is) could have been the voice of Darth Vader.
The term “Magic Negro” is insider jargon in the movie business. The use of the term for the Limbaugh-tomized Masses was overtly racist but even worse, it was clueless. It’s like hearing a nun reciting a Sarah Silverman routine.
Imagine your grandmother saying “I’m gangstah wit’ that!” She might know the words but doesn’t know the music.
Limbaugh glommed onto an opportunity to say “Negro” on the air while “not making race an issue.”
Finally, its use as a campaign tool is simply ignorant. It’s stupid politics. The Republic Party has been pretty good at stupidity, lately. Keep it up, guys.
The Republican party has been deeply hurt by these people..you should be outraged that the likes of Coulter and Limbaugh and the religious right have become self appointed spokepersons of the party. It cost you the election.
Excellent point, Monkey.
Wow…
It is always funny how the liberals start talking about things like this after the election… ha ha ha
No, please go right ahead and try to pass a gas tax.
You will only ensure that you are handing an issue to the Republicans on a golden platter for the taking.
Why don’t you start talking about banning guns too!
That will really ensure a quick end to the Democrats control of Congress after 4 years.
LOL
Name some, G…no Democrat as angry or as nasty as Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh comes to my mind.
Pick any random day on DailyKos. Or DU. They make Limbaugh/Coulter look like pikers. And note, these are not entertainers, looking to sell books or build an audience (or in JR’s case, ‘monitors’); these are the rank and file, the “netroots.”
Lovely.
BJ doesn’t count.
You can say that again.
You still haven’t named any individuals. I can refer you to any con link also..but I want names in TV, radio, or the news.
It makes me sick how gullible people drink up and parrot everything limbaugh, hannity, coulter, and all the other radical conservatives spew.
#
Mary_Caruso
Posted December 30, 2008 at 10:57 am | Permalink
“And it was brilliant political satire.”
Brilliant? How so? Was Ann Coulter referring to the 9/11 widows as “self-obsessed” and enjoying their husbands’ deaths brilliant satire also? This is exactly what I’m talking about…and Americans are sick of it.
—————————
What does one have to do with the other? I know, lumping things together is easier than thinking.
“Let’s you and her fight?”
Thanks GMC and fleetie. I’ll pass.
Olbermann. Al Franken. Sean Penn. Alec Baldwin. Susan Sarandon. Rosie O’Donnell, etc…
“What does one have to do with the other? I know, lumping things together is easier than thinking.”
My original statement was about the damage done to the Republicain party by the political pundits like Limbaugh and Coulter. I was only citing one example when I brought up the “magic negro” parody by Limbaugh…I have many more I can share.
My point was that most Americans are sick of it and that was one reason Mccain lost the election. Sorry if you can’t track the discussion…I know it requires thinking :)
Ya forgot Tina Fey there outie.
SHE’S the one who really sunk ya!
OK. I’ll give you Rosie O’Donnell, it’s obvious she needs therapy…but the others pale in comparison to Limbaugh and Coulter. They simply don’t spew the hatred.
“GMC70″ –
“You are just stupid.”
I win!
So true, BJ..I thought when I watched Tina Fey that the whole routine was a parody…only to find out she had parroted Palin word for word. That DID sink Palin and McCain’s chance to win the election. Funny how the cons threw Palin under the bus afterward. But it was McCain’s stupidity and ineptness in choosing such a bimbo in the first place that proved he was unfit to be prez….Americans just aren’t that stupid…thank God. I know my confidence had been restored in the American people..for a while I was really worried about us.
This oil man favors a gas-tax hike
If the government raises the cost of driving, it surely would be bad for the energy business. So what’s the CEO of Western Refining thinking?
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/30/news/companies/western_refining.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008123009
“Gas and/or oil taxes would increase efficiency and encourage alternatives, which would permanently reduce demand.”
Absolutely no proof of the above claim. None. Zip. Nada.
If the price stays high, then demand will be down and there will be a greater attempt to find alternative energys. Americans react when it hits us in the wallet.
#
Mary_Caruso
Posted December 30, 2008 at 11:45 am | Permalink
OK. I’ll give you Rosie O’Donnell, it’s obvious she needs therapy…but the others pale in comparison to Limbaugh and Coulter. They simply don’t spew the hatred.
————–
Oh, and any of the battle axes on “The View”. Excluding the cute little conservative Elizabeth, of course.
Ann Coulter makes me cringe. But she is more than made up for by sheer numbers of hate spewers… I don’t like to use that word hate… strong dislike spewers on the left.
I think we should all try not use that word, hate. It is overused, mostly by folks in describing those that merely disagree with them. It does nothing but inflame passions. People can disagree without one pulling the “hate” card. That means you lose, BTW.
For the sake of civility, there are other inflammatory words that I think should be avoided. You know what they are. There are less strident words that can convey your meaning for you.
Are your word-smithing skills up to it?
American_Way posted December 30, 2008 at 2:47 pm
“Gas and/or oil taxes would increase efficiency and encourage alternatives, which would permanently reduce demand.”
Absolutely no proof of the above claim. None. Zip. Nada.
——————-
Except for the common-sense ideas, such as presented in the header. And also what CAFE mpg standards did, until Reagan rolled them back in 1985.
“Gas and/or oil taxes would increase efficiency and encourage alternatives, which would permanently reduce demand.”
Gee, when I took Economics (past 101) getting my MBA we discussed a lot of that. The whole idea of elasticity of demand with price indicates that a long-term price increase will result in a long-term demand decrease.
Gasoline demand may be rather inelastic in the short-term but it becomes much more elastic in the long-term as people choose more fuel-efficient vehicles.
And it’s not just the higher price of fuel. The taxes would fund development of higher mpg vehicles, and alternatives.
Some info re prices, etc.
‘Economic news drowns out geopolitics in oil market’
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081230/oil_prices.html
“Except for the common-sense ideas,”
Whoa….what is this, cosmos talking about using common sense???
Yet when anyone does so about AGW cosmos goes ballistic with demands for peer reviewed science and documented data.
Hum, pick and choose for our faux scientist.
cosmos, how about using a little common sense with respect to AGW and people living in these dangerously cold climates.
Bitter cold moves in to Interior
Temperatures could drop to 50 below zero in parts of Alaska
The Associated Press
FAIRBANKS – Bitterly cold weather slid over from Canada and settled into Interior Alaska with forecasters saying temperatures could continue to slide to nearly 50 degrees below zero in coming days.
Over the weekend, the mercury at Fairbanks International Airport dropped to 39 degrees below zero. Areas in the Interior outside the city were even colder; 46 below on the Yukon Flats, 41 below in Fort Yukon and 44 below in Central, according to the weather service….
In Southeast Alaska, at least 20 inches of snow fell in Ketchikan, forcing the shut down of the Ketchikan International Airport for a few hours. The airport shut down at about 1:30 p.m. Sunday due to the heavy snow.
“We’ll stay here all night and dig out,” airport manager Mike Carney said.
This is bullcrap, raising taxes on gasoline so the price never gets below $4 or $5/gal. This would absolutely kill any kind of travel industry, i.e. rving, airlines, vacation travelers, etc. We already have a wonderful alternative to diesel, called bio-diesel made from landfill refuse. The company is called Green Power, inc. and has a refinery already built in Washington state and they can produce this diesel for peanuts. About $.60 – .70 cents a gallon if I remember correctly. Why in the world our energy department isn’t jumping on this idea with all fours is beyond me. This would kill 2 birds with one stone. Reduce our use of diesel (semi’s, school buses, commercial buses, trains, etc.), and get rid of the landfill in the country. We have the wherewithall, if we could just get those fools in Washington to get on the bandwagon. Just google green power, inc and you’ll find out about this phenomenon.
What a stupid thing to comtemplate. If anything, this is the time to further cut fuel taxes. Whether you hateful liberals like it or not, our nation is run by petroleum – it has been so for 100 years and will be so for at least another 50 or 60. There IS enough oil for 60 years and this will be the year that will later be viewed as the turning point, when man-made global warming is debunked and the tide turned.
All government is bad and all taxes are bad. Thank goodness we have the right to arm ourselves against this government!
“this will be the year that will later be viewed as the turning point, when man-made global warming is debunked and the tide turned.”
uh huh. Good luck with that.
America’s lifestyle is not sustainable for even America, let alone the world. That lifestyle must and WILL change to a more eco (that’s eco of ecology NOT economy) friendly one. This will begin in earnest this year.
The age of keep doing the same thing is OVER.
Gas is down to $1.37 today.
$1.37.
Good thing we didn’t go willy nilly with the “drill baby drill” thing huh?
GenericPatriot
Posted December 30, 2008 at 8:31 pm | Permalink
“What a stupid thing to comtemplate. If anything, this is the time to further cut fuel taxes. Whether you hateful liberals like it or not, our nation is run by petroleum – it has been so for 100 years and will be so for at least another 50 or 60. There IS enough oil for 60 years and this will be the year that will later be viewed as the turning point, when man-made global warming is debunked and the tide turned.”
A great example of why Collin Powell was right when he said it’s time for the younger generation to take over…we can’t endure being run by the old farts that compare everything with WWII and “how it was 60 years ago” anymore. It’s time for a change in ideology. The old one is no longer useful or productive.
“desuhu
Posted December 30, 2008 at 7:51 pm | Permalink
This is bullcrap, raising taxes on gasoline so the price never gets below $4 or $5/gal. This would absolutely kill any kind of travel industry, i.e. rving, airlines, vacation travelers, etc. We already have a wonderful alternative to diesel, called bio-diesel made from landfill refuse. The company is called Green Power, inc. and has a refinery already built in Washington state and they can produce this diesel for peanuts. About $.60 – .70 cents a gallon if I remember correctly. Why in the world our energy department isn’t jumping on this idea with all fours is beyond me. This would kill 2 birds with one stone. Reduce our use of diesel (semi’s, school buses, commercial buses, trains, etc.), and get rid of the landfill in the country. We have the wherewithall, if we could just get those fools in Washington to get on the bandwagon. Just google green power, inc and you’ll find out about this phenomenon.”
Simple solution that would also kill two birds with one stone. Tax gas/diesel from oil but exempt that made from garbage. As for your question ‘why energy dept not doing it?’ might I suggest it might have something to do with the petroleum industry? (Of course, there also just might be some question as to whether this technology is as good as you claim)
Generic – actually, 2009 might just be the year that science wins out over the ditto-heads on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
2009 will begin a new era where science is, once again, respected!
———–
“…At the same time—and perhaps not coincidentally—the fortunes of the nation have suffered and the prospects of many Americans, of the American Dream itself, have diminished. From bridge collapses to the failure to protect New Orleans (both before and after Katrina), these days the country can’t even seem to deliver upon the most basic of promises to its citizens—to ensure their safety. Along with the neglect of science has come a broader neglect of expertise, competence, and even functional government. These are, perhaps, matters not so disparate. For science doesn’t merely provide a way of expanding knowledge of the world. It doesn’t just provide answers to pressing questions; it changes the conversation itself. Science—and the broader way of thinking that comes with it—trains its adherents and practitioners to relish the very act of questioning for its own sake, of figuring out what’s true and false, of determining what works and what fails.”
http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/10/dr_president.php
#
BlueJay
Posted December 30, 2008 at 8:44 pm | Permalink
Gas is down to $1.37 today.
$1.37.
Good thing we didn’t go willy nilly with the “drill baby drill” thing huh?
———–
Demonstrates that there is plenty of oil. There was a price bubble because of speculation. Same stuff we were paying $140 a barrel for is now, $40. Real estate prices are also deflating, big time.
Nothing like a good recession to let the air out of the bubbles. Now, if the government would quit trying to keep the recession from bottoming out and let the painful (short term) cleansing by fire finish. Then we can get back to moving forward.
I don’t know Ben. Hard to sell ice to an Eskimo. Hard to sell long term global warming when it’s cooling.
“Demonstrates that there is plenty of oil.” — outlander
—–
but, but, I thought we had to “drill baby drill”! Wasn’t the only way out of high prices to drill in new places? Guess not.
outlander posted December 31, 2008 at 11:24 am
I don’t know Ben. Hard to sell ice to an Eskimo. Hard to sell long term global warming when it’s cooling.
————
outlander, this seems to be written for you.
‘Stupid is as stupid does‘
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/stupid-is-as-stupid-does/
Anyone want to play global warming copy and paste with Cosmos today? I have about 4 articles for Cosmos but I think I’ll save them for later.
So Cosmos, I challenge you to find a spec, a germ of untruth in my statement that you quoted above.
I’ll wait.
cooling?
“The planet continued to stay extremely warm in November, recording its 4th warmest November on record, according to statistics released by the National Climatic Data Center.”
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/
And this during a La Nina which would be expected to cause significant short-term cooling.
It appears from this graph Ben, that the short term trend is sharp cooling.
http://www.globalwarming.org/node/2754
outlander posted December 31, 2008 at 11:35 am
So Cosmos, I challenge you to find a spec, a germ of untruth in my statement that you quoted above.
—————-
Your statement is true. The point is that you don’t seem to understand that AGW is long-term. A warm spike in 1998, or a cool spike in 2008 is just “noise”.
I challenge you to refute the science of AGW. But you can not do it.
As they say Cosmos, the proof is in the pudding. While I cannot refute the science, it appears that the planet may be doing a pretty good job.
outlander,
Earth is doing a good job of warming, because of our GHG’s. Especially the Northern latitudes.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif
outlander – a couple of years – especially with a La Nina – hardly constitute a trend.
“There is no reason at present to suspect that 2008 represents the start of a global cooling trend. Much of the relative coolness of 2008 can be attributed to the presence of a La Niña event in the Eastern Pacific early in the year, plus the fact we are at a minimum in the sunspot cycle. A significant La Niña event can cause a 0.1 to 0.2°C cooling of global surface temperatures, and a sunspot minima can cool global temperatures by about 0.05°C. It is of interest to note that the coldest year in the past decade (2000) had a similarly sized La Niña event, but was considerably cooler than 2008. Realclimate.org has a more in-depth summary of how 2008’s temperatures compare to those in recent decades.”
Ben,
This also covers the temperature trend issue.
‘Stupid is as stupid does‘
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/stupid-is-as-stupid-does/
The 2-year trend graph is funny!
It’s colder today than it was yesterday. GLOBAL COOLING!!!!!!!!!
NOT!
Minus 50 F. in interior Alaska. The global ICE AGE is coming!!!!!