Windfall profits tax, anyone?

You say that electric cars are not necessarily better for the environment, as you are shifting from tailpipe to smokestack. While it is true that you are just shifting where the energy originates, it should be noted that it is far easier to mitigate the environmental impact of a single large source of pollutants than many small sources.

Additionally, as you tangentially elude to, there is the benefit of flexibility. By shifting to other less polluting energy sources like nuclear, solar, or wind, you can make a very large difference in environmental costs.

It’s not that I oppose capital or infrastructure improvements. Quite the contrary. I’m a big supporter of large projects (from stadiums to LRT). I do not think that this money needs to come from a new tax when there are plenty of old taxes being misallocated now.

Along those same lines, it’s refreshing to hear other people complain about the tax rebate. Imagine we spent that rebate on LRT lines. We could pretty much pay for the CC for the amount of money to pay for stimulus checks in the metro area. Do the math. Roughly 3-3.5 million people x’s $300 = $9MM-$1.05B. Instead, we’ll ship it overseas by way of federal debt and cheap electronics.

Couple of other points:

1.) Glad others see the value in major gas tax increases offset by other cuts.

2.) Electric cars are not necessarily better for the environment (and are worse in states w/o much nuclear or renewable power), since they shift CO2 production from the tailpipe to the power plant (which usually runs on coal).

3.) Remember that the advantage of high prices is that it encourages innovation to new sources. For example, scientists have already figured out how to make unlimited gas using airborn carbon for rougly $4.50/gal. (and less with the right technology). Such a plan would be carbon-neutral and avoid engine conversion costs.

Hillary’s suggestion is particularly fatuous. She says she’ll pay for the holiday with a windfall profits tax on big oil. Well, two problems with that. 1) 49 Senate votes (at least) will kill any big tax on big oil, and 2) much of big oil is now off-shore of the US and the reach of the IRS. Think BP or Royal Dutch Shell would show much U.S. based profit it Hill’s idea were enacted?

Oh, by the way, to whoever suggested ANWAR - it’ll only ever supply a few percentage points of total daily BBLS of oil on the world market, so even full development of that field would maybe drop world prices a few dollars per BBL.

We MAY just want to keep that oil in the ground for a few more decades so that we have SOMETHING more of a strategic reserve left when we, the Chinese and the Indians have driven through all the rest of the world supply. (Our cute little official Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the salt domes of Louisiana is really only there to make some back-up jet fuel for fighters and some diesel for a few Abrams tanks in case the end-times bunker-defense takes a long time).

Sorry for the cynicism. It’s been a bad day for prudence in government (read about our Dem’s giving tens of millions to private developers in Bloomington elsewhere @ Strib)

I’m toying with the idea of putting solar panels on the roof & buying a neighborhood electric vehicle for commuting. In theory, for roughly the price of a high-mid range new car, I can eliminate fuel costs. Good idea or pie-in-the-sky?

When the heck is the Chevy Volt gonna come out? I bet I’d get one of those.

Electric cars come with neat concept: By powering your car with electricity, the energy source for your car is abstracted and can be changed. So today your car may be nuclear-powered, and tomorrow it may be fusion-powered.

I’ve long supported the political unacceptable solution of a steep increase in the gasoline excise tax, like increasing $0.50/year for 5 years! If we had started that 10 years ago perhaps we’d be 10 steps closer to transitioning away from gasoline for fuel and we wouldn’t need to subsidize ethanol production. It could stand on its own (or not) without the tax.

It is still hard for me to simply reject the “I feel your pain” BS of being a political candidate. I’m a citizen who has lived 3 years without a car, so I DON’T feel your pain - those of you who must drive 20,000/year to survive.

If higher fuel taxes are political deadends, and we still need to lower consumption to match supply, then the only other solution I know is rationing - via fuel coupons. It was avoided in the 1970’s, but I have to think it’s the only politically defendable solution now.

Give every person with a driver’s license vouchers for say 25 gallons/month for fuel, and let the free market take over. Not having a car, I’ll auction my vouchers on EBAY, or be a true-blue environmentalist and throw them away! Anyone who needs more can pay for it, and poor people who can live with less fuel, can also auction their surpluses.

I can see how it would be hard to properly scale how many vouchers to give out, and perhaps some regions of the country have higher driving needs. Rural Montana residents would have a higher gasoline need than NYC.

Everything is messy, and nothing is fair, but if we don’t face the coming liquid fuel crisis now, it’ll be that much harder later, assuming it isn’t already too late to make any difference.