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 ...
D'oh!
:-)
I hate world-savers with a perfect passion.
And coal is a fossil fuel, but doesn't burn nearly as good or clean as petroleum. In fact, that's why we shifted TO petroleum and AWAY from coal in the early 21st Century.
Ever heard of SASOL? The Fisher/Tropsch process?
In general, they have significantly better mass transit options than the U.S.
Nuke power was environmentally "sensitive" (idiotic), and biofuels weren't economically competitive. With oil at $70+ a barrel and gas at $3.00+ a gallon, they are much more competitive.
The boating industry will change, just like the airline industry is changing now. Fuel-intensive industries will be forced to adapt and pass on necessary costs to the consumer.
Regarding your trips: order in and have them deliver to you. Some areas have a "Takeout Taxi" that can deliver from several restaurants. And most Barnes + Nobles I know of are located in close walking proximity to at least some places to eat.
Or go with friends. Four in a car is a lot less fuel-intensive than four friends in one car.
I don't really want to defend Samuelson's technique, but the goal of reducing the economic shock of a substantial cessation in oil supply is laudable and in my opinion, necessary. The cost to impoverished and low-income people of a substantial fuel cost hike due to catastrophe could mean the difference between keeping and losing a job. Samuelson is really saying we need to have national economic incentives to change our fuel use structure, as the present course makes economic difficulty more likely.
What you're missing is that a substantial cut in oil supply to Western European nations would not have as big an impact on their economies as ours. Yes, their economies aren't as big, but their energy use structure is also different. They'd feel a hurt, but not as big as the hurt we'd feel.
There is a good reason that a lot fewer Europeans drive SUVs than Americans. I don't care if that's good or bad, but there's definitely a reason.
The only good thing about such a disaster, would be that this writer would be out of a job. Unfortunately so would the rest of us.
They drive fewer SUVs because they don't camp as much.
Summarizing your other posts, you expect high gas taxes to give us a moribund economy, but with more mass transit. What a vision for America!
Ordinarily I'm a fairly strict libertarian/capitalist on economic issues, but when it comes to energy I think there is a role for govt. intervention (though limited). Nobody can claim that Oil is a free market... OPEC has more power than they did even in the 70's. The only way to challenge the cartels power is to curb demand, and the most market-friendly way to do that is gas taxes.
Increasing non-OPEC production is not an option?
Ah, Robert Samuelson: putting the ass in dumbass.
I don't think that's a fair characterization of what I have advocated. I think you missed my advocacy of increased development and use of nucler power, and part of the use of nuclear power would include biofuel production. There are ways of maintaining our energy use while still reducing foreign oil dependence. But we have to get reliable energy from somewhere.
"Increasing non-OPEC production is not an option?"
Yes. It is. I phrased that wrong. I meant that the best way to do that on the demand side is by a tax.
~~~~~~~~~~~
That one sentence told me all I need to know to shun anything this surrender-weasel writes...
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
Benjamin Franklin
~~~~~~~~~~~
Samuelson has his head where he need never fear getting sunburn on that shiny forehead. As for me, I'll stick with ol' Ben...
You're absolutely right about Europe being different. Last I heard, France currently gets around 2/3 to 3/4 of its power from nuclear. No wonder they have so much experience left over to build reactors for other countries (coughcough THE MIDDLE EAST coughcough).
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.