Green Daily

And get rid of subsidies to oil companies!

When something is cheap, it is easy to waste it.

Reply

With today's headlines including Obama looking for a few hundred billion in tax cuts, it looks like Forbes has a case of bad timing...

Reply

I agree with the columnist from Forbes. We can't go back to our old ways and promote purchasing gas guzzling vehicles. The US needs to put a hard stake in the ground and put a commitment towards the next gen fuel. Otherwise, we're no better off than keeping Bush for president, ignoring the problem and assuming everything will continue to be like the good ole days. Why is our fuel one of the cheapest in the world? Are we that special? I understand that low fuel costs are giving the majority of people a break right now but it should be a short term solution to several major problems.

Reply

I agree with the columnist from Forbes. We can't go back to our old
ways and promote purchasing gas guzzling vehicles. The US needs to
put a hard stake in the ground and put a commitment towards the next
gen fuel. Otherwise, we're no better off than keeping Bush for
president, ignoring the problem and assuming everything will continue
to be like the good ole days. Why is our fuel one of the cheapest in
the world? Are we that special? I understand that low fuel costs
are giving the majority of people a break right now but it should be
a short term solution to several major problems.

Reply

Of course they should raise it. This country needs to realize that not everything in the world is easy.

Reply

The high cost of gas this past year has seriously destroyed every budget from the average family to the largest of municipalities.The average family went broke at the pump alone, then added to the misery the higher cost of manufacturing and shipping was passed on to us at the checkout for every consumer product. School districts went broke keeping the busses on the road.One police dept in my area required officers to park their car for 15 minutes of every hour just to conserve .Lower prices are not here to stay.OPEC just announced another production cut.With all these bailouts in the billions why doesn't our nation see the need to bail us out of our dependence on foreign oil? I just read a really interesting new book called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now by Jeff Wilson.I never realized it would only cost the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon to charge and drive an electric car. Also,The electricity to charge the car could come from solar or wind generated electricity. If all gasoline cars, trucks, and suv's instead had plug-in electric drive trains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota.What powerful resources we have been neglected. The last economic stimulus package cost 168 BILLION and did absolutely nothing to stimulate our economy or create jobs.
Bail America out of its dependence on foreign oil. Wouldn't that make more sense? http://www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com

Reply

The problem with raising the gas tax is that, unlike raising income taxes and the like, the gas tax does not take socio-economic status into account, and will hurt the poor a great deal.

I agree with what everyone's saying, that we need to find a way to force the issue of fossil fuel waste, and making more efficient vehicles... but I don't think this is a solution. For one thing, the people buying the gas-guzzling SUVs are more likely to have more money, and therefore not be as affected by a gas tax. Meanwhile, people barely able to scrape by on their current incomes will be forced to reckon with even LESS money.

How about a tax on cars, based on the fuel efficiency of the car, making gas-guzzlers a true luxury item? I'm sure there are other ideas out there, too. But while I love the thought of becoming more aware of gasoline issues, I shudder at the idea of hitting the US's poor even harder than they're already hit.

Reply

I think (but not sure) that a gradual increase in the gas tax is the right approach. This is based on my beliefs:
1. low gas prices support more wasteful behaviors
2. raising the price of fuel forces many people to conserve and ultimately buy more fuel efficient vehicles, drive less, etc.

However there are painful costs:
1. the price impacts lower income folks more
2. the impacts to businesses that rely on transport will pass those costs to the consumer

I think the long term results of reducing national fuel usage is worth it. Perhaps a gradual increase will allow all most people/business to survive making the adjustment. Perhaps also a coordinated reduction and federal income tax at the lower income levels could help address that pain.

I also feel those taxes must be used to directly help the US economy. Either through spending on domestic infrastructure, industry, or goods and services - ideally those that can develop clean domestic alternatives to foreign oil.

Reply

I propose that every tax-payer who works not from their home receives a tax credit equal to 2 gallons of gas per working day.

This results in tax savings for those who drive efficient cars, live close to work, or walk and bike to work. It should result in a tax credit if you use public transportation. It also results in no savings for those who choose to live far from work, or drive vehicles that are unsustainable. If you do it right you could make money just getting yourself to work.

So, rather than making it more expensive to drive for everyone, you are making it less expensive for those who adjust and do the right thing. The more eco-friendly your behavior and life-style, the more you save. It feels better than paying more for using more - you focus on the positive change instead. It also encourages eco-wise decisions.

The problem with this system: Gas prices fluctuate and differ depending on where you live.

Of course we are only talking about increasing costs for gas since the gas prices are low again. Last summer we talked about how to make it less expensive.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com

Reply

This is arguably a good idea, but only once there's a realistic alternative in place; otherwise you're just punishing blue collar and poor people as we all remain trapped in a mono-fueled world that is still locked into oil.

The alternative would be to mandate that all new cars sold in America (not just made, sold, to include the imports) have flex fuel capability, able to run not just gasoline, but also any alcohol fuel. In 3 years we'd have 50 million alcohol capable cars on the road, enough of a critical mass for alcohol pumps to begin appearing in gas stations.

With a choice of fuels available, people will often go for the cheapest fuel, and thus to prevent the oil cartel from destroying the alcohol industry by temporarily flooding the market to crash the price of gasoline, we should THEN tax (tariff) foreign oil if it drops below the price that gives alcohol an advantage.

Reply

Speaking of the U.S. Congress:

The U.S. Congress does not like George W. Bush—Bush committed too many crimes.

George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).

George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.

And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention.

Many people know what Bush did.

And many people will know what Bush did—even to the end of the world.

Bush was absolute evil.

Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.

Bush is a psychological prisoner.

Bush has a lot to worry about.

Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.

In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

“GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
_________________
I am not sure where I had read it before, but anyway, it goes kind of like this: “If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded.” Oh wait—off the top of my head—I think the quotation came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

Reply