$10 per gallon gas

[NorthSideSox72]

Extracting some oil from a few fields in the US may not be the worst idea ever, if it can be done in a controlled fashion, without doing irreparable harm to the environment.

 

But the idea that doing such a thing would make the US energy indepedant is a joke. Oil is not the answer. Oil is limited, in a big way, and if we keep trying to extract more on the back side of the resource peak, that will be a huge mistake. Alternatives are needed, and the price of oil needs to stay high for that to come to fruition in a timely manner. If it doesn't happen in a timely manner, we are dooming this country economically on an enormous scale.

 

If you want the US economy to be strong for generations to come, you HAVE to emphasize alternative energy.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Edited June 5, 2008 by Alpha Dog

[NorthSideSox72]

It will take 10 years to develop ANY new energy source in a big way, give or take. It might as well be something that won't bankrupt the country's future.

 

[EvilMonkey]

It will take 10 years to develop ANY new energy source in a big way, give or take. It might as well be something that won't bankrupt the country's future.

OK, let me change that

 

But I agree with you, we ALSO need to aggressively pursuit alternative energy. You can sell it to conservatives as a way to f*** over Chavez and the Arabs. Trying to ram it down people's throats with guilt won't work.

[NorthSideSox72]

OK, let me change that

 

But I agree with you, we ALSO need to aggressively pursuit alternative energy. You can sell it to conservatives as a way to f*** over Chavez and the Arabs. Trying to ram it down people's throats with guilt won't work.

Better than guilt or the f***-the-mid-east arguments, IMO, are the economic arguments. Not only would independence from foreign oil have hig positive effects on keeping inflation down, but it would spur all sorts of new technologies that can be sold all over the world. The environmental benefits, f***ing over some nast countries, etc., are just nice side effects.

 

[Balta1701]

OK, let me change that

 

But I agree with you, we ALSO need to aggressively pursuit alternative energy. You can sell it to conservatives as a way to f*** over Chavez and the Arabs. Trying to ram it down people's throats with guilt won't work.

Let's put it this way...I'd have been willing 8 years ago to trade drilling in ANWR to the Republicans in exchange for a real, solid, alternative energy program. I'd make that same trade today, although now I'd demand a carbon pricing system in addition.

[EvilMonkey]

Let's put it this way...I'd have been willing 8 years ago to trade drilling in ANWR to the Republicans in exchange for a real, solid, alternative energy program. I'd make that same trade today, although now I'd demand a carbon pricing system in addition.

I would go for the alt energy program, but no way or creating acarbon pricing system. The little guy who can't afford the options is the one who will be screwed, not the rich who can afford pay to erase their guilt. Rising energy prices regulate carbon emissions pretty darn good all by themselves.

[lostfan]

Carbon pricing system? Is that like in Europe, where people have to pay penalties based on their carbon output?

[Balta1701]

Carbon pricing system? Is that like in Europe, where people have to pay penalties based on their carbon output?

It's going to have to happen, and it's going to have to happen soon. Depending on what you do with the profits, it's also possibly done in a way that benefits everyone, i.e. you spend some of the money to offset the costs to the lowest-income people, you spend a good additional chunk developing mass transit options and renewable resources, and suddenly you've dramatically improved the future of the country.

 

Europe's problem is they didn't do it very well...they sort of went with the plan McCain is proposing. And I'm serious...the biggest flaw in their setup is the key part of his plan.

[lostfan]

I don't think I really like that idea. Maybe if solar panels and wind generators were cheaper than they are now. Otherwise it's just another burden on the middle class.

[EvilMonkey]

It's going to have to happen, and it's going to have to happen soon. Depending on what you do with the profits, it's also possibly done in a way that benefits everyone, i.e. you spend some of the money to offset the costs to the lowest-income people, you spend a good additional chunk developing mass transit options and renewable resources, and suddenly you've dramatically improved the future of the country.

 

Europe's problem is they didn't do it very well...they sort of went with the plan McCain is proposing. And I'm serious...the biggest flaw in their setup is the key part of his plan.

This does NOT have to happen, and will kill this country if it does. If you want to target the biggest polluters with extra fines, etc., fine by me. But making it so Joe Sixpack has to pay a tax to drive his car to work or grill a hamburger is just wrong, and will never pass.

[Balta1701]

This does NOT have to happen, and will kill this country if it does. If you want to target the biggest polluters with extra fines, etc., fine by me. But making it so Joe Sixpack has to pay a tax to drive his car to work or grill a hamburger is just wrong, and will never pass.

Just like it's killed Europe's economies over the last few years (even though, again, they did it the wrong way by handing out credits to polluters).

 

Um...Don't people pay taxes to have to drive a car? I pay a car tax, I pay a tax on gasoline, I paid a pretty hefty sales tax when I purchased my car.

[EvilMonkey]

Just like it's killed Europe's economies over the last few years (even though, again, they did it the wrong way by handing out credits to polluters).

 

Um...Don't people pay taxes to have to drive a car? I pay a car tax, I pay a tax on gasoline, I paid a pretty hefty sales tax when I purchased my car.

Add yet another tax and see what happens. Revolt! Well, maybe not in the revolutionary sense, but people are taxed out. It would be easier to raise an existing one than to create a new one. But even that would be met with as much resistance as possible.

 

And for the moment, the only tax I have on grilling is the effect on my intestinal tract if I cook the meat rare like I like it.

Edited June 5, 2008 by Alpha Dog

[Balta1701]

Add yet another tax and see what happens. Revolt! Well, maybe not in the revolutionary sense, but people are taxed out. It would be easier to raise an existing one than to create a new one. But even that would be met with as much resistance as possible.

People are taxed out? You do realize how much higher the tax rates were even just a few years ago, let alone a few decades ago?

[Balta1701]

And for the moment, the only tax I have on grilling is the effect on my intestinal tract if I cook the meat rare like I like it.

Oh, and you do know that Charcoal is a renewable resource correct? That it's mostly made from wood?

[EvilMonkey]

People are taxed out? You do realize how much higher the tax rates were even just a few years ago, let alone a few decades ago?

Yes, taxed out. And priced out. Food is more, gas is more, everything is more. Make taxes more and you are just adding to the average persons problems. Government needs to be smaller, not create new carbon monitoring agencies with the authority to levy and collect taxes. And yes, I know that congress will to the actual taxing, and the IRS will do the actual collecting (or will they?) but I think you get my point. This will just be creating another monster that will never go away and will require endless amounts of food (and by food I mean tax revenues), and provide endless job opportunities whose utmost concern will be self-preservation. Next you will say that carbon taxes need to be global, and feed into a global fund to protect the planet. No thanks.

[lostfan]

I see where Alpha is going with it though. Tax rates are one thing, but taxing regular people on their carbon output for everyday activities would seem frivolous and people wouldn't go for it.

 

In the other direction, tax incentives for installations of energy-friendly equipment, solar panels, etc. is a great idea and I'm glad the all levels of gov'ts are taking it seriously.

Edited June 5, 2008 by lostfan

[StrangeSox]

Tax incentives for energy-efficient and environmentally-friendly technology and construction is a great idea. Adding more taxes for carbon is an extremely bad idea.

 

Even if we were to agree that we need to reduce "Joe Sixpack's" carbon output so that he stops grilling, driving, having bonfires, etc., why the hell should government be the one getting all that money? Government tends to be horribly inefficient at most things, and I don't see this being any different. I think the idea of carbon pricing and trading is pretty ridiculous anyway, but growing the government through environmentalism is even worse.

 

And like Alpha pointed out, the rich will just pay to cover their carbon outputs on their yatchs, Leer jets, mansions, etc. Those who would be hit the most would be the middle class. With energy prices increasing the way they are, natural market forces will curb carbon output. No need to grow government to do it.

Edited June 6, 2008 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

And like Alpha pointed out, the rich will just pay to cover their carbon outputs on their yatchs, Leer jets, mansions, etc. Those who would be hit the most would be the middle class. With energy prices increasing the way they are, natural market forces will curb carbon output. No need to grow government to do it.

This is actually a large part of the point, in my eyes, of these sorts of cap and trade and carbon tax systems. Because the rich will be able to pay for it, they'll continue to do so. That raises the funds that the government can put in for research and to pay to reduce the impact on the middle class.

 

Make no mistake though, there has to be pain on all parts if we're going to fix this problem rapidly enough to avoid much, much worse pain. But the good news is...the lowest of the low hanging fruit are often still out there, because there's been very little monetary incentive to fix the problems (i.e. oil companies, coal companies, energy companies outside of california...they all make money by selling you more energy and releasing more carbon, and since there's virtually no economic incentive for them to change their behaviour, they haven't).

 

Even if we were to agree that we need to reduce "Joe Sixpack's" carbon output so that he stops grilling, driving, having bonfires, etc.

 

How many times do I have to point out that burning wood products is actually carbon-neutral as long as you're replanting trees in the process?

[StrangeSox]

How many times do I have to point out that burning wood products is actually carbon-neutral as long as you're replanting trees in the process?

 

It's carbon-neutral either way. That carbon will be emitted by whatever digests the wood or by burning it. Will that stop all-knowing government from taxing it? Probably not. Belgium passed a BBQ tax. They fly around in helicopters with IR cameras to make sure people have their permits. I think they repealed it because they realized how stupid it was, but I put no level of stupidity past misinformed and politically opportunistic politicians.

 

I car pool to work to save me about $450/ month in gas (plus mileage on my car). I make sure my lights are shut off at work. We keep the heat set low and the A/C high. I replaced almost all of my lights with CFL's. My power bill is below $30/ month in the winter. I managed to do all that without needing big government to come in and tax me.

Edited June 6, 2008 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

It's carbon-neutral either way. That carbon will be emitted by whatever digests the wood or by burning it. Will that stop all-knowing government from taxing it? Probably not. Belgium passed a BBQ tax. They fly around in helicopters with IR cameras to make sure people have their permits. I think they repealed it because they realized how stupid it was, but I put no level of stupidity past misinformed and politically opportunistic politicians.

See, if you design the tax right and have it based on units of carbon actually emitted...then things like that won't happen, because it'll cost too much to use the gas to fuel the helicopter.

 

But again, I'll be the first to admit...Europe screwed their system up...because they didn't do it like a tax. The big problem was that they simply handed out the permits for free to the companies that were already polluting. While this is better than nothing because it rewards them if they cut their production, it also removes any penalty for having a high carbon emission system like a 40 year old coal fired power plant. The better way to do it is to auction off the emissions permits to the companies producing the fossil fuels. The price for the permits gets absorbed in to the price of the fuel that way, and the price of high carbon energy (like coal) goes up relative to the cost of lower carbon energy (Natural gas or renewables).

[lostfan]

I can BBQ all I want regardless. There is a big ass flood plain filled with trees right behind my house.

[StrangeSox]

See, if you design the tax right and have it based on units of carbon actually emitted...then things like that won't happen, because it'll cost too much to use the gas to fuel the helicopter.

 

But again, I'll be the first to admit...Europe screwed their system up...because they didn't do it like a tax. The big problem was that they simply handed out the permits for free to the companies that were already polluting. While this is better than nothing because it rewards them if they cut their production, it also removes any penalty for having a high carbon emission system like a 40 year old coal fired power plant. The better way to do it is to auction off the emissions permits to the companies producing the fossil fuels. The price for the permits gets absorbed in to the price of the fuel that way, and the price of high carbon energy (like coal) goes up relative to the cost of lower carbon energy (Natural gas or renewables).

 

...and government gets bigger, everyone's energy costs soar, and the economy drops. Yipee!

[Balta1701]

...and government gets bigger, everyone's energy costs soar, and the economy drops. Yipee!

Except...maybe, just maybe...we finally get out ahead on renewable energy, instead of behind, and we wind up in a much more solid position long-term economically by getting ourselves away from shipping $300 billion to the middle east every year.

 

Like it or not, energy costs are going to keep going up if we do nothing, so the economic hit you're talking about is going to happen. I think we should benefit from this if we can.

[StrangeSox]

Except...maybe, just maybe...we finally get out ahead on renewable energy, instead of behind, and we wind up in a much more solid position long-term economically by getting ourselves away from shipping $300 billion to the middle east every year.

 

Like it or not, energy costs are going to keep going up if we do nothing, so the economic hit you're talking about is going to happen. I think we should benefit from this if we can.

 

People are already turning towards higher efficiency and green energy. I'm not debating the need for that. I'm saying that bringing the government in to it via taxes is not the best way to get on top of the alternative energy game because the government is almost always horribly inefficient with money. We have a lot of private ventures investing money into alternative energies right now. Yes, we still have a lot going into oil and coal, but we still need those right now and will need them for a while to come. I think adding more taxes will just force more companies out of the country, hurting the economy and lessening our ability to invest in alternative energy.