Global Warming Bill=$9/gallon gas

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by madanthonywayne, May 16, 2008.

  1. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Democrats are considering a carbon cap/trade system which could, in addition to increasing the cost of practically all forms of energy, result in an increase of $1.50 to $5.00 per gallon above the $4 per gallon we're paying now. Great idea!
    This should be great for the economy! What could help an economy staggering under the weight of $4/gallon gas more than taking the lousy 4 bucks a gallon and making it 8 or 9?

    Inhofe also has a good idea of why we're sitting at $4/gallon already:
    http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080515172437.aspx
    Now, obviously, things like increased demand for oil in China/India; the falling dollar; and war in the middle east also play a role. But how can anyone deny that the constant resistance to doing anything to increase domestic oil production is also playing a significant part in our present difficulty?

    And surely this is not the time to pile on regulations that will cause further increases in the cost of energy.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,209
    Lessee: the Dems have a tie in the Senate and a slim majority in the House, for a year and a half.

    After many years of Rep control of Congress, and several of complete Rep control of all three branches of the Government.

    And the Rep executive branch is dominated by oil executives and contractors.

    And all these Rep and Rep allied folks are making money hand over fist in this situation involving oil that Rep oil executives created.

    And it's the Dems fault. For not drilling ANWR.

    Inhofe is a genius.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,699
    The UK's petrol prices are mostly tax. We currently pay $8.84 for a gallon of diesel.

    Such a high price for gas means a lot more people are shifting to fuel efficient cars, car pooling etc. And our petrol is already a lot higher grade than the US. The two petrols I can get at the pump have octane ratings of 95 or 98. It's usually mid 80s in the US.

    If everyone pays more for fuel, it'll speed up changing to better/cleaner/more efficient fuel sources. Make no mistake, if we do nothing, the price of gas will hit $9/gallon in the US (and about $20 here!) eventually. At least if it's done now due to taxing those taxes can be put to good use in developing other energy sources/forms, while we still have 'enough' gas. If we wait till it's a Benjamin for a gallon, then there'll be less head room for large economies to change to other fuel systems and there'll be much less money to do it because everyone is spending it on fuel!

    Spend $10/gallon now and save tons of money in 20 years when we're greener and more stable. Or spend $4/gallon now and in 20 years it's $30/gallon and we're running out of options...

    It's one of those "Tighten your belt now for a brighter tomorrow" things. Unfortunately that's often political suicide for a ruling party because everyone in the West wants it to be brighter now, forget tomorrow.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Right. We can trust to government to invest all that extra money into alternative energy. Just like all that money they have stashed away in the "social security trust fund". None of that money is used for any other purpose, is it?

    BS. The more money they have, the more they waste. This leaves the private sector (who might actually develop some alternative energy sources) with less cash with which to do so.
     
  8. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    In principle it might not be such a bad idea, but it depends on how the money that is raised is spent.
    For example if the additional taxes raised go towards cheap carbon neutral energy sources like renewable and nuclear power, it could drive the overall costs of consumer energy down in the long term.

    Likewise if some of the money goes towards giving people a genuine transportation choice for both personal and freight transit- like investing it in a genuine 21st century public/rail freight transportation system that was efficient and cheap enough to drive commuters and freight off the roads.

    Certainly the investment in new infrastructure would help stimulate the economy - although admittely at the cost of increased inflation - but perhaps that's a price worth paying?
     
  9. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    You have a point - we've had similar initiatives and proposed initiatives in the UK - a recent (proposed - not yet implemented) one was charging motorway users with only one person in the car a premium toll for road use - which of course was widely criticised.
    The government missed a trick - if they had proposed to put all the money raised into a publicly accessible fund that - for example - people who took the train or bus to work for example - could access to get a discount on their travel expenses, then we could see some kind of positive effect for our tax pounds and they would have dodged much of the criticism.

    You do make the assumption though that because its public money, it's not going to find its way to the private sector - why not get the private sector involved in helping to find the solutions - in effect offsetting the addtional energy costs to business with increased govt contracts to the private sector - it works pretty well for defence contracts after all.
    It could be a great business opportunity - not necesarily a money pit.

    So in summary, provided the money goes towards developing ways that give people and business a genuine choice in terms of their energy consumption, and is at least in part dealt with in partnership with the private sector, I see no fundamental contradictions with a conservative, libertarian, or liberal fiscal or social agenda
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2008
  10. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,109
    leaving the private sector to take care of the public good is well a highly flawed plan at best. and i believe the first president to really make dipping into the social security funds a everyday thing was Reagan a man most republicans have a mad hard on for.
     
  11. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    I think it depends on how its done - if its in GWB style - contracts for his buddies and family then yes - its prone to corruption - if you get the central government to set basic guidelines for investment and then allow local executive powers in states, cities, districts etc decide how they implement it, and how they award contracts, it takes the power to manipulate spending for political reasons out of the hands of central government - over here we call it devolution of power - and its something I wholeheartedly support.
    For sure there might still be some partisan decision made, but at least at that level you'll get partisan decisions made from more than one political perspective.

    Just a thought like.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2008
  12. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Yes, people need to pay even more for gas so that those in power can take it and spend it on their friends and partners.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I am not even going to post how much we pay already over here...
     
  14. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Inhofe is a moron. ANWR is a cocksuck. Higher gas taxes are useless without a retooling of our society. This should have been started long ago, but corporate America was having too good a time.
     
  15. Mickmeister Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    812
    I absolutely agree! I more than welcome $6+ a gallon for those reasons you listed. I just love hearing all the little stories on the media of how horrible this is. If it is so horrible, then why don't more do something about it??? It's a bunch of talkers....
     
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    $9 sounds good, it will shift emphasis to public transport and ease off on two cars per family and unnecessary use of cars. Get more people walking and using bikes. Good for the environment, good for the future.
     
  17. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    An even 10 would be nice too.
     
  18. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    It depends. If you are in a position to get along without a car or truck, it's a good thing. If you depend on gas for your job, it could be disasterous. How about nationalizing gas to remove the profits?
     
  19. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    I doubt the oil companies would be happy with that, but yeah that would work. Put it on the list after healthcare.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    We should have been putting the billions we wasted in Iraq into rebuilding our non-automobile infrastructure and local energy production.
     
  21. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,760
    c'mon, spider. Everyone in the city is going to start growing their own food? No. We all depend on gas for our "jobs".
    And name one service that the government has improved by taking it over. You can't.
    Fuck, at one time you could write a letter to someone accross town and know it would be delivered within the day. Now you're lucky if it makes it there in three days and in one piece.
     
  22. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Mail within the city takes one day from my experience.

    Food can be transported in other ways besides diesel trucks.

    Social security has provided a safety net for the poor, disabled and elderly. There are many services that could not be accomplished without government, the legal system for instance, the military, the EPA.
     
  23. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Sure. Great idea. Have the government seize the means of production, thus freeing the Proletariat from the clutches of the running dog bourgeoisie.

    Alternatively, we could just keep letting prices go out of control and raise taxes at the same time, which is pretty much Hillary and Obama's plan. Interestingly, it reminds me of a plan I've heard before.........................
    The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation
    --Vladimir Ilyich Lenin​
     

Share This Page