six-dollar gas tax
Views: 684
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on
-
Do you have even the slightest clue what that would do to the cost of a huge percentage of the products you buy?
Hello short sighted solution. -
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Maher on
-
Nine dollar gas, if achieved via a $6 fuel tax used to create more efficient transportation, _might_ be good for the American economy in the long run. Nine dollar gas would _certainly_ be an economic drag during the years that people adjusted their consumption to reflect the new pricing scheme.
Nine dollar gas, if achieved via higher crude oil prices it would cripple the American economy for many years, with a transfer of wealth out of this country in the $Trillions.
While I applaud the motivation of the group, from an economic standpoint it is somewhat naive. -
-
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on
-
You can't be serious. If you're looking to pay 10 dollars for a gallon of milk that used to cost you 3 dollars, then just give the store 10 bucks for a 3-buck product! I'm sure they'll appreciate you just giving them money.
Say hello to skyrocketing Amtrak costs, airline costs (even worse than they are now), electricity bills, gas bills(natural gas), and many more that I don't want to think of right now.
"We’re so self-important. So self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned how to care for one another, we’re gonna save the fucking planet?
I’m getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I’m tired of fucking Earth Day, I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. They don’t care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great."
- George Carlin (italics mine) -
-
Permalink Reply by Michael A on
-
tell us how you really feel ryan
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:You can't be serious. If you're looking to pay 10 dollars for a gallon of milk that used to cost you 3 dollars, then just give the store 10 bucks for a 3-buck product! I'm sure they'll appreciate you just giving them money.
Say hello to skyrocketing Amtrak costs, airline costs (even worse than they are now), electricity bills, gas bills(natural gas), and many more that I don't want to think of right now.
"We’re so self-important. So self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned how to care for one another, we’re gonna save the fucking planet?
I’m getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I’m tired of fucking Earth Day, I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. They don’t care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great."
- George Carlin (italics mine) -
-
Permalink Reply by Duppie on
-
notoriousDUG said:Do you have even the slightest clue what that would do to the cost of a huge percentage of the products you buy?
Hello short sighted solution.
Hello short sighted answer.
The day the President signs this tax into law the race to develop and market more energy efficient transportation is on. Since this is an economic race more than a technological race (in other words, most technologies exist already, they just need more money to refined and become more cost efficient), overnight hundreds of billions of dollars of capital (VC as well as capital from existing publicly traded companies) will be directed to the development energy efficient technology. It will make the internet gold rush look like child's play.
This money will be used to develop and market more energy efficient products. Engines of course (combustion and, more likely electric), but also batteries will become more efficient. Other car parts will become much lighter and safer. Also energy management systems (think Google PowerMeter) will finally mature.
Why will that happen? The number one reason is that capital looks not only for a good return, but also a guaranteed return. A guaranteed high price of gas will make investments that may take 3-5 years to bring to market feasible. This has nothing to do with being a tree hugger or altruism, it's simply how capital works. Folks like Jeffry Immelt of GE are on record as stating this is exactly what will happen.
That is just the beginning. Other effects will be:
- The higher tax revenues can be used to better maintain our existing infrastructure and to fund tax credits for energy efficient products that are promising but not yet cost effective enough that the market will buy them
- It creates a large number of well paying jobs working on the development and production of the items.
- It will reduce carbon emissions significantly
- It will be bad news for petro dictators (Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia). Instead of buying loyalty from their citizens by giving them credits paid for by oil revenue, they will have to start to listen to them.
It's like Thomas L. Friedman said: Buy one, get four for free.
Of course, this would require some kind of carbon emissions cap legislation, otherwise the needed electricity will simple be provided by building more coal fired plants.
Why people even think that nothing would happen beside raising prices, is beyond me... -
-
-
OK, tell me a readily available fuel source, one that is not based on a staple of our food supply, that is going to be able to, in less than two years, replace diesel fuel because unless you have one every single consumer item you purchase is going to skyrocket in price.
The cost of taking the train, a plane or even using public transportation is going to do the exact same thing. People to poor to own a car, are unable to bike commute, are just barley making ends meet and rely on public transportation are going to end up getting screwed when the cost a monthly Metra pass triples.
Are really so dense that you can't wrap your mind around what a 200% cost increase in the transportation of consumer goods would do to the price you pay for stuff in stores? If a shortsighted plan like yours ever went into effect the price of pretty much everything in a store is going to at least double, if not triple because of the extra cost of getting it there. I don't know about you but I can't afford to live in that world.
jillnerkowski said:well, even the eighteen wheelers would not be overlooked, they too would need to turn to alternative fuels ,and carrying options. -
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Doom on
-
America uses ~21 million barrels of oil a day. There are 42 gallons in a barrel, which works out to 821 million gallons a day, or 321 billion a year. A $6/gallon tax would thus (assuming it didn't affect gas use) hoover up $2 trillion, about the same as current annual federal revenue.
Pretty sure you don't need to raise as much money as the federal government takes in every year to encourage green development, whatever that is. Just to give a sense of scale the Manhattan Project cost about $20 billion in 2010 dollars—about 1% of what a six dollar gas tax would raise in a year.
Looked at that way, agitating for a .06/gallon tax might not be a bad idea. That would fund a Manhattan Project's worth of pure energy research every year... -
-
-
I didn't point anything of the sort out; do not put words into my mouth or in anyway imply I am on board with a scheme this hair-brained.
If there was a way to do this stuff more economically don't you think it would be here already?
jillnerkowski said:well, the plan would be based on a similiar plan of obamas environmental regulation fees, that are then put back into green companies.
In this way, the tax would immediately go back into green transportation research and development, and with so much pressure from people who don't want to pay high prices to drive, which is ultimately what they want to do, not so much use petroleum, cars would be developed rather quickly, that would be comparably priced to gas cars of today, even like notorious dug pointed out, freight carriers too would become competively priced with gas ones of today.
Without the tax, and high prices , there is no incentive to turn to alternative fuels, and doing the right thing is just not enough when its expensive, like alternative transportation is today.
think about how easy it would be to enclose a three wheel motorcycle with a light frame for weather, and how little gas it would use compared to even a 4cylinder auto.
Or how welcoming would be roads that had a bike lane capable of riding side by side with another bike. especially if motorized bikes are easy to come by. these things are already here, not to mention electric cars.
we already have options, just not enough incentives. -
-
-
Also... there really is no way to replace oil. This isn't a problem you can throw money at. The invisible hand isn't going to come up with a cheap, easily transported, easily stored, stable and extremely dense energy source just because Congress gives it an incentive to do so.
-
-
-
Agreed. I think that a 6 dollar gas tax a silly number, not based on any economic calculations. A much lower gasoline tax would achieve the wanted results. Even in countries like the Netherlands, which has anotoriously high gasoline tax, this tax is more equivalent to $3.5 per Gallon
Dr. Doom said:America uses ~21 million barrels of oil a day. There are 42 gallons in a barrel, which works out to 821 million gallons a day, or 321 billion a year. A $6/gallon tax would thus (assuming it didn't affect gas use) hoover up $2 trillion, about the same as current annual federal revenue.
Pretty sure you don't need to raise as much money as the federal government takes in every year to encourage green development, whatever that is. Just to give a sense of scale the Manhattan Project cost about $20 billion in 2010 dollars—about 1% of what a six dollar gas tax would raise in a year. Looked at that way, agitating for a .06/gallon tax might not be a bad idea. That would fund a Manhattan Project's worth of pure energy research every year... -
-
-
No way to replace oil? That makes me sad.
I'm sick of having to use grease to service my hubs and bottom bracket, and use chain lube to keep my drivetrain quiet and running smoothly.
If we replace oil, I'll never have to do these tasks again. My bikes will also slowly deteriorate, but I'm ok with that because I like to blame the auto industry for all of America's oil use and refuse to look at the reality that I use petroleum products too.
Dr. Doom said:Also... there really is no way to replace oil. This isn't a problem you can throw money at. The invisible hand isn't going to come up with a cheap, easily transported, easily stored, stable and extremely dense energy source just because Congress gives it an incentive to do so. -
-
-
Don't worry - crude oil will be pumped out long after all of the easy to get oil is gone. There are uses for petroleum that have a higher economic value than burning it to propel transport. For example - those 20 syllable shampoo chemicals are made from old stegosaurus sweat.
Even when it takes more than a barrel of oil worth of energy to get a barrel of oil out of the ground, for some uses (Ryan's lube needs) it will be worth it. At least I hope so. I would hate to see how cranky Ryan might get if he wasn't well lubed.
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:No way to replace oil? That makes me sad.
I'm sick of having to use grease to service my hubs and bottom bracket, and use chain lube to keep my drivetrain quiet and running smoothly.
If we replace oil, I'll never have to do these tasks again. My bikes will also slowly deteriorate, but I'm ok with that because I like to blame the auto industry for all of America's oil use and refuse to look at the reality that I use petroleum products too.
Dr. Doom said:Also... there really is no way to replace oil. This isn't a problem you can throw money at. The invisible hand isn't going to come up with a cheap, easily transported, easily stored, stable and extremely dense energy source just because Congress gives it an incentive to do so. -
Groups
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
-
British Bicycles of Chic…
172 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
