Posted on 12/08/2005 6:09:35 PM PST by SmithL
SACRAMENTO -- California should impose a transportation fee — perhaps an added tax on gasoline — to reduce consumption of petroleum products and pay for measures to cut greenhouse gases, top advisers told Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers on Thursday.
A so-called "public goods charge" on gasoline would be similar to the fee on electricity bills that pays for energy-efficiency programs. If a proportional fee was imposed at the pump, consumers would pay about 2.5 cents more per gallon.
The draft recommendations by top administration officials are the first attempt to say how California can meet Schwarzenegger's ambitious pledge to cut pollution believed to contribute to global warming.
On June 1, Schwarzenegger set goals of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. He wants emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, with intermediate benchmarks in 2010 and 2020.
The 130-page draft report by his Climate Action Team says the best way to reduce emissions is to tax gasoline as a way of cutting consumption. The revenue also would pay for methods to reduce or clean up the environmental damage caused by burning petroleum.
"Petroleum — particularly petroleum used for transportation — is
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
A couple o' million deported should free up some green house gases.
If gasoline is the problem, why don't they just make gasoline use in Kalifornia illegal. While they're at it, make tobacco illegal too. But, they can keep MJ legal, that's OK.
everytime california sabotages and scares away business, it is like a windfall for nearby states. Unfortunately it is also a windfall for places like china.
Ping -- FYI.
It will have zero effect on consumption. People pay whatever is asked to have the freedom to work and travel. This is just lining the pockets of the politicians. It is likely that such a tax will find its way to the "dedicated" purpose while the slimeball politicians reallocate the same amount from the target to something else. Tax revenue is fungible. Politicians are always running out of other people's money.
Dopey Ahnuld will sign on. There's no one more dangerous than a cerebrally-impaired RINO trying to look smart.
Watch you wallets. This one will cost us big (while making a select few very, very rich).
California should also invest its public pensions and other money in technology aimed at reducing emissions of harmful pollutants. Developing that kind of technology also should be a priority for the state's universities.
Funny. I thought the priority of universities was to educate and the priority of pension fund managers was to maximize profits. Silly me!
Global warming? Hell. Europe is about ready to go into an ice age. Who is kidding who.
If those idiots managed to get every car off the road they would immediately start screaming for a horse fart tax.
One word for this one: UNDAMBELIEVABLE!
And, to think people even dare ask me why we left Coronado?
HA!
Kalifornia seems destined to shoot itself in its collective foot every time an opportunity arises.
Maybe. More likely, the additional taxes will not even reach the "dedicated purpose." Existing gasoline sales taxes are supposed to fund transportation -- not just roads, but also inefficient wastes like buses -- but instead the money just pads the general fund for more pork-barrel spending. Why would new taxes be any different?
The 130-page draft report by his Climate Action Team says the best way to reduce emissions is to tax gasoline as a way of cutting consumption. The revenue also would pay for methods to reduce or clean up the environmental damage caused by burning petroleum.
How about the liberal elites decide how to eliminate 50% of Californians? The roads will be wide open, so the other half will be able to drive more efficiently and therefore reduce much more than 50% of the gas consumption (and emissions).
Better yet, if 100% of people in CA were eliminated, we could achieve emissions utopia in CA.
If the oil companies tried to pull this crap, everyone would be screaming about "gouging." Especially 'RAT politicians.
Why just 2.5 cents/gallon of gas? Why not $2.50/gallon? If the goal is to cut gas consumption then why tip-toe around the subject? If "global warming" is such a danger then why aren't draconian measures being taken by its proponents? The answer to that is that this has nothing to do with "global warming" and everything to do with fleecing people of their money. "Global warming" is the biggest con job ever perpetuated since Social Security. At least with SS your getting something back; "global warming" promises nothing in return. Nothing. Nada. Nada III.
Is Al Gore out there spreading this BS?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.