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!)
I saw that clown in today's paper.
Funny how he can probably afford gas prices at 4-5 dollars per gallon, being a rich columnist.
I'd settle for home heating oil.
The REAL problem is that the natural gas they spew won't burn.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Howabout oil from COAL..and tar sands...already proven technology
Great. Behave like I want you to behave, or I'll use the power of the government to confiscate your wealth.
The market knows best. Leave it alone.
I'm all for more fuel efficiency, development of alternative energy sources, less dependency on foreign oil, and more reliance on domestic resources. I'm sure the technological genius of our country that has brought us so far can also deal with these issues.
Samuelson's plan means stealing bread from my children's mouths.
"At times, individual freedom must be compromised to improve collective security."
George Orwell agrees.
That's funny. I got a different message from Hurricane Katrina . . .
When you are faced with a potential disaster and have no more than 12-24 hours to get out of town, a minivan or big-@ssed SUV or pickup truck is one of the best things you can have at your disposal.
Samuelson's basic premise is wrong. Hurricane Katrina would have had a disruptive impact on this country regardless of what types of products we manufacture or import. And his point about our reliance on foreign oil is downright idiotic . . . Katrina's biggest impact wasn't on oil imports, but on U.S. oil extracted from the Gulf of Mexico.
ALASKAN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE
ALASKAN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE
More off shore drilling
More offfshore drilling
Exterminate Environmentalists
Exterminate Environmentalists
Build more Nukes
Build more Nukes
Coal, coal, coal
Coal, coal, coal
Now isn't that simple
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security --Benjamin Franklin
but but the high gas prices are bush's fault
These libs have to get the story straight, they want high gas prices, then when the gas prices are high they want lower gas prices. They also place the blame on Bush for high gas prices
The mental disease known as liberalism blows my mind sometimes
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!
"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!
"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/
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.
Moron.
He should check to see how many thefts of gas have occurred since the prices are going up. Raise taxes, raise prices and the stealing of gas will increase. DUmocrats need to take basic High School economics before they attempt to claim themselves as experts on anything.