Gas Tax

Ophelia · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:02 am Post subject:

President Carmacho wrote:

President Camacho · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:14 am Post subject:

Yeah, environmentally friendly coal really seems like pure propaganda. I'd sooner see bigfoot than clean-coal. It seems just a ploy.

France is one of the most forward thinking countries with respect to energy. I wouldn't want to deny France the right to nuclear power.It's difficult to deny the citizens of any particular country access to such a cheap and environmentally friendly source of power.

Why do we need it in the short term? Not everyone in America will be able to run solar power. It will also take several years for those that are able to use solar/wind to install the necessary gadgetry. Nuclear may be the most realistic short term solution the US has. It is SAFE, clean, and cheap energy. Smile

DWill · Senior Joined: 31 Jan 2008 Posts: 383 Gender:

President C, you don't acknowledge that non-environmentalists have caught on to to the need to put the brake on greenhouse gases? Candidate McCain says he's on board; GWB says we need to have no net growth in greenhouse emissions by 2025. Some of the most active participants in cutting CO2 are the corporations themselves. My point is only that this isssue has had a break-out. We have an enormous way still to go.

You may have misunderstood my reference to coal. I'm not for it or for any particular energy source. It is dirty, destructive, and has caused more deaths--from accidents-- than nuclear power may ever do. My point there was that I think you are greatly overestimating how much energy needs can be supplied by renewables, especially in the short-term (next 50 years). If we deliberately moved away from oil this suddenly, we'd need increased reliance on coal-fired power plants. You do admit that we would have to start building nuclear plants again (maybe hundreds of them). No one really wants to see this happen, but what is the choice?

Another forced choice is doing a lot more oil exploration and drillling domestically. No one except oil companies wants to see this happen. But I wonder if it is really responsible to be against it.

My bad on the OPEC figure.

We need to pay down the national debt--you're so right about that. We need actual structural changes made, not just new taxes, so that we'd have a chance of keeping the debt down. That is why it is so important to fix Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

We haven't said anything about conservation. How many millions of barrels of oil has it been calculated would be saved if we brought back the short-lived 55-mph speed limit? (Just out of curiosity, I wonder how it compares to your $1.00 tax). We hate mandating anything in the U.S. if it will cause us some inconvenience. We like to free to do what the hell we please.

President Camacho · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: responsiness

I've had a couple beers and now feel ready to answer these most respectable and intelligent disputes!

Dwill,

Any politician that says I will do something "tomorrow" is pleasing both sides of the table and should NEVER be taken seriously except by the side that is benefiting. 2012 was the first date set by Bush for fuel efficiency standards that are achievable today without any significant economic loss to the car manufacturers and now we see 2025..... riiiiiigggghhhtttt. Break out? Break out is let us get something accomplished today... not 10 or 15 years from now. 2025 is as good as saying kiss my ass. Remember, this is the president that said no to the very humble Kyoto protocols.

The gas tax in my hypothetical situation is what the market is going to do in the future, regardless! Whatever happens as a result of this is inevitable anyway! At least now we have a way of cushioning the blow.

More drilling and more exploration means to me that you want to burn the oil. I've already said that oil is used to make numerous goods. It's used to make plastic and rubber and you know how many goods are composed of those two materials alone? You are suggesting that we drill so that we can burn it in our engines? That is quite out of the question.

Nothing about social security and medicare/aid are going to pay down the national debt. Relying on these two issues is a huge gamble as i have enumerated elsewhere. I think that you need to seek less government expenditures or MORE TAXES. These two solutions are the only way of paying back the national debt.

Conservation, again, is delaying the inevitable. This is the reason for the gasoline tax. Cheaper gas means leaving the solution for tomorrow. That is irresponsible, that is what republicans want to do, and I am not for it.

DWill · Senior Joined: 31 Jan 2008 Posts: 383 Gender:

President C.,
The beer didn't seem to hurt you. Maybe I will try that....I had a feeling you might jump on my assertion that gloabal warming has political legs. But remember, it was only that that I was claiming (except for the real work being done by business). Politicians yakking is at least a preliminary to doing something about a problem. The U.S. will continue to feel the pressure from the other developed countries for its backwardness on global warming--and it looks as though the next president will try to respond.

More drilling and more exploration means to me that you want to burn the oil. I've already said that oil is used to make numerous goods. It's used to make plastic and rubber and you know how many goods are composed of those two materials alone? You are suggesting that we drill so that we can burn it in our engines? That is quite out of the question.
[quote]

Okay, yes, I do "want" to burn the oil! That is because any realistically conceivable energy future is one in which many sources are contributing. Not having an oil-based economy will still mean--for any country in the world--that oil is a major player. All I'm saying about drilling and exploration is that unless we all decide to scale back drastically on our standard of living, we need to have that oil for our total energy needs (not just to power our cars). I don't see any signs of a mass movement to travel and consume much less, do you? I hate having to advocate for such choices. Many of us North Americans just continue to enjoy our high-energy lifestyles while blithely dismissing any call to increase energy production. There is a term for this, cognitive dissonance.

Conservation, far from being a harmful delaying tactic, has to be an integral part even as move toward the type of energy future you forsee. That is what makes this all so hard, that we have to conserve and continue to develop all possible energy sources at the same time. We have to get the timing right, too, which means a transition period. You seem to advocate shock therapy. (I do favor an increase, though not a dollar all at once, on gasoline tax, but I point out that the political difficulty is as least as great as that of fixing my pet issues!)

Just out of curiosity, have you come across the numbers that back up the replacement of gasoline-powered vehicles with electric? I know that some states have seen large jumps in electricity costs, so plugging in cars might well cost more than gasoline. The point is not to cost less, I realize, but public acceptance is a key. And we still have to be concerned about how the electric generating plants are powered.

Nothing about social security and medicare/aid are going to pay down the national debt.[quote]

I suggest that avoiding scheduled, catastrophic cost increases is just as important as paying down what we already owe.
Dwill

Saffron · Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:17 am Post subject:

DWill:

Ophelia · Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:59 am Post subject:

Saffron wrote:

DWill · Senior Joined: 31 Jan 2008 Posts: 383 Gender:

President Camacho · Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 10:36 pm Post subject: words

D,

I agree that we will need several energy sources to cushion the blow as we transfer from oil, to say, electricity. It’s the cars, minivans, and urban SUV’s that need to be permanently changed. Trucks, recreational vessels, and airplanes aren’t under immediate consideration.

I haven’t come up with any numbers or found any concrete evidence. It’s very difficult to find any evidence on this subject that isn’t highly contested. Electricity, right now, is the only form of energy cheaper than gasoline. Gasoline is still pretty inexpensive, unfortunately. But, we are thinking of the future!

I’m not really promoting a catastrophe. I’m promoting an increase in taxes to avoid the inevitable catastrophe that is sure to come when gas becomes increasingly scarce. I want to help, not hurt.

God help me for this analogy – but it’s like a gradual diet 6 months before the big date, rather than the crash diet the night before.

Alright, now that I’ve said that, I am not for conservation! The above analogy was meant to communicate how the tax plan is gradual and less painful.

The third and fourth paragraphs in your post started off like 3 other posts about conservation. I want to make it clear that I am not for conservation. I am totally against it. I’m opposed to the idea and I don’t think that anyone should be forced to conserve. This is a problem of population and resources. If there were less people, there would be no need to conserve. Why should I have to suffer someone else? I know that I may be that “someone else” I’m talking about. My stance remains firm, regardless. There needs to be policy made in this regard. We need population control, not resource control! Would we even have a gas crisis right now if there weren’t so many people?

Saffron · Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:50 am Post subject: Re: words


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT