The environment thread

[southsider2k5]

If we don't continue to redistribute the wealth to our corporate masters, we'll be punished.

 

Except in this case, this very directly hurts the lowest classes way more than it hurts corporations. Elasticity of gasoline is very low anyway, let alone for the poor. This is essentially a new tax on the poor if subsidies go away. It is the same thing with farm subsidies.

[StrangeSox]

Except in this case, this very directly hurts the lowest classes way more than it hurts corporations. Elasticity of gasoline is very low anyway, let alone for the poor. This is essentially a new tax on the poor if subsidies go away. It is the same thing with farm subsidies.

 

Must...give...the billionaires...more...money!

 

 

Alternatively, instead of subsidizing record corporate profits, we could simply subsidize the cost of gasoline with needs-testing!

[BigSqwert]

Figured it's time to bring this topic back into the environment thread:

 

A study from a few years ago found that the "probability of perceiving global warming as a threat increases with education among Democrats, but decreases with education among Republicans."

The probability of perceiving global warming a

s

a threat increa

s

e

s

with education among Democrat

s

, but decrea

s

e

s

with education among Republican

s

. Only two re

s

pondent

s

out of a thou

s

and de

s

cribed them

s

elve

s

a

s

"

s

trong Democrat

s

" or "

s

trong Republican

s

" with le

s

s

than an 8th grade education,

s

o the cro

s

s

over at far left in [the above figure]

s

hould not be over-interpreted.

The study's authors theorize that partisan echo chambers on the Internet are partially to blame.

 

via

[Balta1701]

Except in this case, this very directly hurts the lowest classes way more than it hurts corporations. Elasticity of gasoline is very low anyway, let alone for the poor. This is essentially a new tax on the poor if subsidies go away. It is the same thing with farm subsidies.

Except per capita gas consumption does go down quite a bit once you get to the poverty line. Cars are actually much more of a middle class luxury. Especially the urban poor...they don't own cars.

[Y2HH]

Except per capita gas consumption does go down quite a bit once you get to the poverty line. Cars are actually much more of a middle class luxury. Especially the urban poor...they don't own cars.

 

The other question I have about this oil amendment and the tax breaks/subsidies to big oil is why did democrats wait until they knew the bill couldn't be passed to propose it? Why didn't they propose this when they held clear super majorities and could have easily passed it? It's not like this is the first time in the last few years oil has been in the headlines, not even accounting for the BP fiasco...so it surprises me they wait until now to make such a proposition when they could have had their way in the house/senate just a year ago.

 

I think gas consumption will go down, across the board when it goes over 4$, just like it did last time.

[southsider2k5]

Except per capita gas consumption does go down quite a bit once you get to the poverty line. Cars are actually much more of a middle class luxury. Especially the urban poor...they don't own cars.

 

Total consumption goes down, but I am guessing energy consumption as a portion of income doesn't. Per capita is a worthless number and misleading in this case. Even leaving out those who don't own cars, they still suffer the multiplier effects of this.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Total consumption goes down, but I am guessing energy consumption as a portion of income doesn't. Per capita is a worthless number and misleading in this case. Even leaving out those who don't own cars, they still suffer the multiplier effects of this.

 

So subsidize that impact on those who need it, not corporate profits.

[Y2HH]

So subsidize that impact on those who need it, not corporate profits.

 

That's part of the problem, it's hard to target exactly how much you'd have to subsidize without subsidizing corporate profits. Reason being, when oil prices spike, delivery costs spike on everything from food to electronics, etc...which poor people, including poor people below the poverty line, buy and/or consume. The higher oil prices lead to higher gas prices, which leads to higher cost everything, which ... lands on them just as hard as it lands on everyone else in terms of how much their groceries cost, etc.

 

Besides, our government doesn't move fast enough to subsidize those people in matters like this...it'd take them months to decide how much to subsidize, and then months to distribute the added benefits, and by then...the crisis is usually over.

[Balta1701]

Everything discussed so far of course essentially argues that the only solution is a large, nation-scale effort to stop using fossil fuels.

[Y2HH]

Everything discussed so far of course essentially argues that the only solution is a large, nation-scale effort to stop using fossil fuels.

 

I think we are in the midst of doing exactly that.

[Balta1701]

I think we are in the midst of doing exactly that.

I think we're doing exactly the opposite.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think we are in the midst of doing exactly that.

But not quickly or aggressively enough to reap the big job benefits of being in front of the technologies.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I think we're doing exactly the opposite.

Oh come on now, I generally agree with you about the need for this, but let's not be ridiculous. More money has been spent on these efforts in the past few years than ever before. Its not enough, but we are not doing "the exact opposite".

 

[Balta1701]

Oh come on now, I generally agree with you about the need for this, but let's not be ridiculous. More money has been spent on these efforts in the past few years than ever before. Its not enough, but we are not doing "the exact opposite".

Although more money has been spent on transit development...consumption of fossil fuel energy has gone up, not down.

[Y2HH]

Although more money has been spent on transit development...consumption of fossil fuel energy has gone up, not down.

 

Give that time, you cant get nor expect these results overnight...but to claim we are doing the opposite is just untrue in every regard. We ARE making progress in this regard, from wind to solar power to hybrid vehicles, and it's catching on fast.

[southsider2k5]

That's part of the problem, it's hard to target exactly how much you'd have to subsidize without subsidizing corporate profits. Reason being, when oil prices spike, delivery costs spike on everything from food to electronics, etc...which poor people, including poor people below the poverty line, buy and/or consume. The higher oil prices lead to higher gas prices, which leads to higher cost everything, which ... lands on them just as hard as it lands on everyone else in terms of how much their groceries cost, etc.

 

Besides, our government doesn't move fast enough to subsidize those people in matters like this...it'd take them months to decide how much to subsidize, and then months to distribute the added benefits, and by then...the crisis is usually over.

 

Not to mention the bureaucracy that would have to be put into place for management and distribution of said subsidies.

[StrangeSox]

Not to mention the bureaucracy that would have to be put into place for management and distribution of said subsidies.

 

Damn it, you're right. I guess we just need to keep shoveling money to the very wealthy so they can pass back a small percentage on to consumers with lower gas prices!

[Balta1701]

Not to mention the bureaucracy that would have to be put into place for management and distribution of said subsidies.

That bureaucracy already exists. Hell, one of the cuts that everyone in Congress agreed to was energy assistance for low income households. That was a couple billion dollar cut.

[Y2HH]

Damn it, you're right. I guess we just need to keep shoveling money to the very wealthy so they can pass back a small percentage on to consumers with lower gas prices!

 

Nah, we need to continue growing a government we *already* can't afford, instead. Right?

[southsider2k5]

That bureaucracy already exists. Hell, one of the cuts that everyone in Congress agreed to was energy assistance for low income households. That was a couple billion dollar cut.

 

BS. To do something like you guys are talking about, there would be a whole new agency created.

[NorthSideSox72]

BS. To do something like you guys are talking about, there would be a whole new agency created.

Well that wouldn't be necessary. This is pretty clearly DOE-centered.

 

[Balta1701]

BS. To do something like you guys are talking about, there would be a whole new agency created.

Cutting off every cent in energy company subsidies would require a new agency?

[Y2HH]

Cutting off every cent in energy company subsidies would require a new agency?

 

No, to distribute the subsidies to low income people.

[StrangeSox]

Nah, we need to continue growing a government we *already* can't afford, instead. Right?

 

Grow?

 

If the problem is "we need to reduce fuel prices because it would impact the poor and middle class too much," why does the solution have to be "give money to the super-wealthy so that they can reduce costs slightly while still making record profits?" Why does that require less government than "give money to the people who need it?"

 

I'm not talking about spending any more money here. I'm talking about not subsidizing profits for the wealthy.

[StrangeSox]

Well that wouldn't be necessary. This is pretty clearly DOE-centered.

 

Even if it would require a new department within the DOE, so what? Is someone actually going to try to argue that this new agency and giving the necessary fuel subsidies directly to the poor and middle class would somehow be more expensive than subsidizing profits enough to reduce fuel prices? It's not like these corporations are just passing through these tax breaks to the consumer.