Gas is TOOOOO cheap…
By dhunley • Jul 15th, 2007 • Category: ArticlesYeah, that’s the problem!It doesn’t get much more “in your face” than this…these yahoos at the NYT are saying we should be paying MORE for gasoline. They’re saying it is soooooooo cheap that we’re using toooooooo much. They want “politicians” to “educate” the public about why they should raise the taxes on gasoline. How can people who can’t think any better than this run a newspaper? Actually, they’re NOT doing a very good job…lol…the NYT has been a losing proposition for a number of years now.BUT…there may be hope. As socialistic as the NYT is…as clueless about capitalism and real science as the NYT is…EVEY THEY, for the first time, had to say “most scientists” when referring to global warming; always before, it was EVERY SCIENTISTS.This should tell you just how fast the whole global-warming-threat-scare is unraveling…lol.Anyway, here’s their bottom line: “Unless we — industry and consumers — are made to pay a significant price for doing so, we will never get anywhere.” And the whole story!06 July 07
EditorialGlobal Warming and Your Wallet
At long last, Congress is showing a willingness to confront global warming. The Senate’s recent approval of higher fuel economy standards is a constructive step and key lawmakers are promising comprehensive legislation this year that will, for the first time, limit the emission of greenhouse gases. But for all the talk about warming, leading politicians have yet to educate their constituents (and their colleagues) about an unpleasant and inescapable truth: any serious effort to fight warming will require everyone to pay more for energy. According to most scientists, the long-term costs of doing nothing — flooding, famine, drought — would be even higher than the costs of acting now. But unless Americans understand and accept the trade-off — higher prices today to avoid calamity later — the requisite public support for real change is unlikely to build. Energy is currently underpriced in part because its cost does not reflect the damage inflicted by fossil fuels. Underpricing leads to overconsumption. Worse, it leads to underinvestment in alternatives. As long as today’s energy is relatively cheap, there is little incentive for private firms to develop new fuels and technologies. When the market, on its own, fails to arrive at the proper price for goods and services, it’s the job of government to correct the failure. There are two ways to do so: higher taxes and new regulation. Over a decade ago, the
Clinton administration floated the sound idea of a tax on the carbon content of various fuels, like coal and oil. A tax on carbon, the main greenhouse gas, would cause energy prices to rise, thereby curbing consumption and providing a powerful incentive to invest in alternatives. The revenue from the tax could be used, in part, to subsidize the higher energy costs for low-income Americans. But the idea went nowhere, and new taxes remain a political nonstarter, at least for now.The approach preferred by influential senators — including Joseph Lieberman, John Warner and Jeff Bingaman — as well as many businesses and environmental groups, is to develop a cap-and-trade system. The government would impose a cap on the overall amount of carbon that could be emitted and at the same time allow regulated firms, like utilities and oil refiners, to buy and sell the right to those limited emissions. Firms that could easily reduce their emissions could sell their allowances to firms that could not. The big plus is that the nation would set an enforceable ceiling on carbon emissions, which would be lowered over time. Such a system has worked well to lower emissions of sulfur dioxide and other power plant pollutants and its proponents believe it can do the same for greenhouse gases.Because a trading system would not impose new taxes, some in Congress might try to portray it as a free ride. But it would work the same way higher taxes would work — by raising the cost of fossil fuels. The higher prices would encourage efficiency and spur investment in a range of clean-energy technologies, without which major reductions would be almost impossible to achieve. As the year rolls on, Congress will entertain several cap-and-trade bills: some more aggressive and costly, others offering various escape mechanisms should prices get too high. But one fundamental point must be kept in mind. We are now using the atmosphere as a free dumping ground for carbon emissions. Unless we — industry and consumers — are made to pay a significant price for doing so, we will never get anywhere.
July 15th, 2007 at 5:00 am
RATS! I wanted to use the “read more” tag…sorry…
July 15th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
In the 1970’s, early 80’s when fuel prices started to raise we were bombarded by tv and radio commercials claiming that “driving 55 instead of 70 saves me fuel” set to the tune of “energy, we cant afford to waste it”.
Today gas prices continue to climb and so does the speed limit. Were we being “had” back then or are we being “had” now?
Looks to me like the government would be lowering the speed limit back down to 55. -loss for words-
None the less, something fishy is going on, I just cant pinpoint what it is.
July 15th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
NO Link? is that a NYT editorial referred to?
The Black and white Lie-beral vs Neo-con metality limits y’alls’ perspectives. The Oil industry itself has been limiting refinery capacity to increase “margin” since the early 1990’s at least as severl exposed internal memos have been exposed on that one; go to yur favorite search engine.
The NYT is just as easily a puppet to this INSDUSTRY plan.
Cars are 10 times what they were in 1971, you could by a average car for $3000 now its $30,000, gass was .33/gallon now its hovering near $3bucks.
Chaplin Lindsay Williams (”The Energy Non-Crisis”) says it should be $1.50 if it were not for all the taxes from the well to the pipeling to the nationalised oil co.s &refineries to the trucks and the finally the pump taxes adding over $1.25per gallon all totaled (~.37gal at the pump in KY/Kentucky)
Air resistance and drag resistance rises dramatically above 45mph so 55 is a good compromise. The interstates are the safest roads, statistically and orignally were designed and funded by the military during Eisehauer’s “operation”/adminstration/ government so they had a safe design speed of 85mph for evacuation of cities based on the Distant Early Warning DEW network giving folks a 15-30min chance to get away from “ground zero” ASAP. That really was part of the excuses to use military funds and input in the designs.
July 15th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Nighthawk, it’s all part of the desire to “control” us—and in a way I’m with Tech on this.
The modern liberals want to control us because they’re convinced we’re “mucking” up the planet and someone (and who better than themselves) needs to rein us in.
But, as in the recently ridiculous immigration amnesty nonsense, this time they’ve unwittedly (and how can they do anything except unwittedly
aligned themselves with big business—because big business wants to control our buying habits.
The answer, of course, is freedom…and the capitalism that is a part of it’s expression. It’s up to us as free acting individuals to make the choices that will keep ALL these guys in line.
Of course, we need to start by getting rid of the restrictive policies that prevent us from building new refineries…drilling in ANWR…and building nuclear power facilities.
The French get 75 percent of their electricity from nuke power. They’ve demonstrated it to be the cleanest, safest, and wisest choice of energy right now.
July 15th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Nuke power sounds resonable except for one thing
What do you do with the necular waste?
Maxey Flats II?
July 20th, 2007 at 3:46 am
Nighthawk,
My father-in-law, John Hay, was instrumental in bringing to light the problems at Maxey Flats.
Just like everything else in the world, there are no “perfect” circumstances…but if we weigh the dangers of nuclear power against the dangers and damages from coal mining, petroleum extraction—heck, even felling trees for firewood is dangerous—I think we’ll conclude that nuclear power is the safer option.
Oh…I know, I know…Japan recently had an incident at their most powerful power plant because of an earthquake—-so I’m NOT trying to minimize the dangers, I just think they’re manageable and the benefits of the clean energy is worth the risk.
And nuclear waste is a problem—but is it insurmountable? I don’t think so. Other people don’t either. Here’s a link with some possible solutions and I think there are other possibilities on the horizon.
If we were serious about solving our energy “crisis”—which I don’t buy in the first place—nuclear energy would definitely be on the table.
July 20th, 2007 at 5:15 am
I have to be a bit more conservative when it comes to
necular energy. Sure the waste can be contained, but
how many years does it take for the half-lifes to
die down to a non toxic level?
You and I would surely be in our graves before anyone
had to worry about Maxey Flats II, but what about our
grandchildren? or our great-grandchildren?
Id much rather go with wind and water turbines or
solar energy could offer part of a solution.
Heck, I have seen people strain old cooking oil
and use it to power diesel engines.
How about a “Wesson Oil” generator?
Dont the resturants have to pay to dispose of their
used cooking oil? Why not turn it into energy?
It’s a common misconseption that “something has to be
added to the cooking oil” or that “the oil has to be
refined in one way or another” and before someone
comes in here with those stories about the high cost
of turning vegetable oil into fuel, I want to point
out one simple fact… the diesel engine was
originaly designed to use peanut oil for fuel.
So we have choices. Hydrogen would also be a good
choice for fuel… Safer than propane and natural gas.
The Hindenburg didnt explode the hydrogen inside
of the blimp burned slowly. Natural gas or propane
would have exploded.
That being said, I really dont believe all of that
energy “crisis” hype myself.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Nobody lives near Chernobyl do they?
The military and space industrial complex need reactors running to have the fuels and DU available for their projects.
Certain small powerplant like in a trident nuke sub or carrier are perhaps the only practical solutions to those situations to project military power globally for months at a time but wide scale civilian warm fusion nuke power is just too costly and dangerous period.
There have been safer disposal techniques proposed like injecting solid reactor wastes into molten slag ingots from metal mills but after one report on CNN about 1988 I have never heard anything else about this miracle solution to what to do with the waste generated that is dangerous for THOUSANDS of years.
Then there is all the DU dust floating around the globe from GWI and GWII and other uses in the balkins and Afghanistan perhaps thousands of tonnnes of DU was “disposed” of this way?
Don’t worry nobody’s great gran’chillin will take us to the World Court to lein up our assets for poisoning their homeland for about near forever.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
not preaching to the quair hyre I hope but to anyone stumblin in a few sobering lists^
