Posted on 09/14/2005 10:49:53 AM PDT by cogitator
What this country needs is $4-a-gallon gasoline or, maybe, $5. We don't need it today, but we do need it over the next seven to 10 years via a steadily rising oil tax. Coupled with stricter fuel economy standards, higher pump prices would push reluctant auto companies and American drivers away from today's gas guzzlers. That should be our policy.
...
Hurricane Katrina's message is clear: We are vulnerable to any major cutoff of oil. This cutoff came from a natural disaster, but the larger menace is a political cutoff.
...
Government needs to foster a market for fuel efficiency. ... One way or another, Americans should know that the era of cheap gasoline is history. Some drivers will want hybrid versions of their present vehicles; others will downsize. It's not a national tragedy for someone to trade an Expedition for a Taurus.
At times, individual freedom must be compromised to improve collective security.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
And not someone living in rural southwestern Virginia (or pick your place of choice) who commutes (with his three or four riders) a hundred miles or so every day.
Yeah, I know what some will say. Living where he does is his choice. He can pack up and move to be closer to his job--just so he can afford to get to his job.
Or, he can become a true individual, a really self-reliant man, by quitting his job, staying put, and going whole hog into subsistence farming and bartering. That'll work.
But, what we really get . . . eventually . . . are whole sections of the country massing on their politicians' front porch, screaming bloody murder for relief. Price controls . . . with all their failings . . . immediately come to mind.
Cheap gasoline at the pump is good for American business.
Here's how it would work: At the pump, punch in your social and at the end of the year get a 100% refund from the govt.. In the short run the incentive will work to encourage conservation of fuel and alternative energy, and in the long run it won't put a damper on the economy.
Taxes should never be used for social engineering.
Next!
I've slept outdoors in near-zero weather, so my pipes would freeze before I would. LOL.
Carpools are hard to arrange due to different work and home schedules. I always wondered if we could do neighborhood "errand pools" -- like one person picking up the dry cleaning for everybody in the neighborhood instead of 10 people doing it themselves. Even if two people shared a car to go to Home Depot, that would start to add up. There was a study a few years ago that showed air pollution was higher on weekend days than weekdays because more people were using their cars over a longer period on the weekend days.
Tell you what. Loan me $10 billion for ten years, and by golly you will be able in ten years to buy oil made from coal and oil made from oil shale straight from a shiny new plant. Or two plants, one of each kind. For $200 a barrel.
"And if I may beat a drum that I've banged before -- another tactic is to increase the development and production of nuclear power and to use the extra nuke power to process biofuels, notably switchgrass into cellulosic ethanol. A economically advantageous by-product of doing that would be a new agricultural market, especially good for the South where switchgrass grows particularly well. (And nuke power can also be used for thermal depolymerization, which takes care of a lot of excess waste!)"
Please beat that drum! Nuclear energy is a linchpin to ending energy dependence on foreign oil ... See:
We can secure energy for the next 100 years doing these simple things:
1) Tax gas at the pump. 50-70 more cents
2) Add an oil import fee of $5/barrel.
- as sameulson notes, it would encourage conservation
- It would also encourage domestic sourcing;
we have oil shale resources of 500 billion barrels, that
BP says can be extracted for $35/barrel. If global price+ oil import fee is above that price, it is competitive.
This is enough oil for 100+ years, if we reduce use.
Here is how to further reduce use:
3) Build 400 more nuclear power plants, so that 80% of base load is nuclear (as in france) and we use wind, coal, hydro for rest, avoid nat gas for rest.
4) nuclear power costs of operation can be much lower, so long as construction costs are lower; this is possible with standard designs; lower cost electricity will mean it will be cheaper to use electricity than gas for transportation.
5) Plug-in hybrids could reduce oil fuel used by about 50%. Higher mpg from hyrids can cut oil fuel used by another 20%. Result: oil use is reduced by 2/3rd
6) switch transit busses and others from oil to nat gas in transport
Do all this and we will have:
- drastically lower oil use, meaning no oil imports
- corresponding reductions in trade deficits
- far fewer carbon emissions
- no more fears of 'running out of oil' because will have
100+ years of such oil in the US!
"And not someone living in rural southwestern Virginia (or pick your place of choice) who commutes (with his three or four riders) a hundred miles or so every day."
Typically, the wear and tear on a car is more expensive than the fuel, ie, 20 cents a mile. Someone driving 100 miles a day is making a $20 trip each day.
"I've slept outdoors in near-zero weather, so my pipes would freeze before I would."
To protect your pipes, wear long underwear. LOL.
Nuke now, burn forever. (Or something like that.)
Your idea makes perfect sense.
I remember the seventies gas shortage and it was amazing how careful we all were before getting into the car.It wasn't the price,it was the fact that you might reach "EMPTY" and not have anyplace to fill up.
"We don't need it today, but we do need it over the next seven to 10 years via a steadily rising oil tax."
Raising the tax is always the wrong answer. The market will adjust the price automatically as the supply tightens.
His "Solution" would work, if everyone in Congress decided they no longer want to be employed in their current job after 2006.
Also what he forgets is that when you plug-in to charge the batteries the electricity has to come from somewhere. That means unless you get your power from a nuclear plant, your still burning fossil fuels, you just feel better about it.
FYI. I have a cheap gas post, but I'll include the URL here.
Looks like this is more in your area than the others. I think your readers would like this site.
http://www.gasbuddy.com/
Reclaiming oil from tar sands in viable, functioning technology. Forget about liquid fuels from coal - use the coal to fuel power plants and save the oil for other applications like vehicle fuel. Add nuclear power generation to this and produce low cost electricity anywhere in the country. Then develop alternatives to gasoline and diesel for powering vehicles.
Let's not forget about thermal depolymerization. It can render just about any organic material into oil.
Can you imagine if America replaced every sewage treatment plant with a thermal depolymerization facility? Oil from sewage...
A problem with Samuelson's approach is that government would get more $ and increase spending even more. Then consumption of gas would decline, revenues would go down but spending would not go down.
A significant increase in the gas tax must not occur without a corresponding elimination of another tax such as the income or captital gains tax.
"Higher gasoline prices would make me sit up and pay attention."
And indeed they will... when they occur naturally because of decreased demand. NOT because the gvt slapped a few bucks a gallon tax on it, as he suggests.
Moron.
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.