Posted on 04/13/2007 5:05:31 PM PDT by Kitten Festival
Energy Policy: Those who want to end global warming and our reliance on foreign oil often propose a massive "carbon tax" to make crude less appealing. Don't look now, but you're already paying it.
By heavily subsidizing the use of ethanol, a fuel additive less efficient than gasoline and costlier to produce, Congress has, in effect, enacted a tax hike.
No, it's not the kind you see at the pump each time you fill up — like the current 18.4-cents-a-gallon federal levy on gasoline. Rather, it's the kind of tax you pay quietly, without even realizing it.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
Thanks for the ping!
Just a heads up for ethanol- It doesn’t cut the CO2 emissions much, therefore the left will come after it soon enough (Or the left will just ban the internal conbustion engine and shooting ammo to “protect the enviroment”).
Uh, that's why it's blended or fed with other components. Have you looked at the prices of protein powders in your local health food store.
But you're obviously a ranting moron who knows zip.
And don't forget that by reduced milage, everyone's going to be burning MORE fuel, which means more CO2...
Mark
So next time I buy a hamburger from a place like Hardee’s, will I have to pay for a “meat offset,” too?
As to the second question: if we are serious about kicking our oil dependency, ethanol is the first and the closest to commercial viability of the alternatives. Corn ethanol can supply 10 percent, perhaps a bit more, of our gasoline needs. If that's where ethanol peaks out, it will continue to be used primarily as an additive. If cellulosic ethanol can be made price competitive, ethanol can supply upwards of a third, and perhaps much more, of our fuel supply. If ethanol from algae works out -- well, I had a brief conversation with someone in the field yesterday who very casually mentioned 10,000 gallons an acre. That wasn't the point of our discussion so I didn't pursue it, but the point is, corn ethanol is just the tip of the iceberg.
Ethanol may not be the ultimate solution. Maybe we will perfect hydrogen fuel cells and build lots of nuclear power plants to make the hydrogen. Or find a biological pathway to commercial scale hydrogen production. Or put a windmill on every spare spot of ground and drive plug-in hybrids. There are lots of possibilities. Enough that one can always find over-the-horizon reasons for doing nothing today.
With regard to energy security, doing nothing today is what we've been doing for 30 years, which is why we're in the mess we're in. Now ethanol is breaking out. The reaction of some is "kill it quick before we actually accomplish anything." I disagree.
The current ethanol subsidy is an anachronism. IMHO it should be replaced by a technology neutral floor under the price of oil. This could be done with an adjustable tax on oil, which should be rebated to taxpayers. (Yes, I know the dems would want to spend it instead, and that's a battle we'd have to fight.) We've demonstrated that the U.S. economy can perform quite well with $60 oil. That gives us a pricing environment that allows us to bring the alternatives online. Let's do it.
And Hungary, per the Wall Street Journal.
Yeah, I wonder how long that would keep in the refrigerator?
Unfortunately redstaters have to eat too.
angel
They’re really pushing this lifestyle fascism in time for 2010, aren’t they? Did you know that Codex Alimentarius is set to be international law starting on December 31, 2009? Just in time for 2010. And guess who’s pushing for Codex? The liberals. Just look at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). The CSPI is a sitting member on the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The CSPI is nothing but a liberal front group for Big Pharma.
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.