CountryPlans Forum

I was reading a thread in the General Forum which reminded me of an article I read a while back.  Since this is really off-topic, I figured I'd post here.  Here is the thread:

http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=9810.0


The article I read discussed the impact cap-and-trade would have on net pollution.  If the proposed surtaxes on coal, natural gas, and electric were passed, economists figured that many people would switch to wood, which is actually quite abundant and cheap. The spreadsheet Mt. Don posted from the Dept. of Engery confirms this.   People choose electric and natural gas because it is convenient and inexpensive.  Proponents of cap-and-trade have targeted electric and gas since it is easy to meter usage and tax.  Since there is no meter or utility bill for wood usage, the government would be unable to tax usage and CO2 output.  Wood is frequently harvested from forest land or purchased from the side of a road in NM.  It is similar in many parts of the country.  There is no taxing agency involved.  Coal stoves are very efficient, and anthracite is very clean burning, in contrast to regular black coal, but it can be taxed at the mining operation in the permitting process.  The economists speculated what might happen if just 15% of a given population chose to burn wood instead of cleaner electric, natural gas or coal.   Remember that there are still millions of old woodstoves that do not have a catalytic element - they determined that the net impact of cap-and-trade (from an environmental standpoint) could easily be negated if enough people switched to wood.   

Newer electric plants are actually quite clean, depending on generation method.  In the pacific NW, for example, there is clean hydro and nuclear power.  If people switched to wood, the net effect on the air quality and CO2 output would actually be worse, as people scrambled to move to a cheaper heating source.  Economics is really nothing more than the study of resource allocation.  It is more behavioral science than math, which the politicians always seem to forget.   Anyone who has owned a business knows that decisions are often made out of economic necessity rather than what is always the smartest or most logical thing to do.  Most families realize this also.  Decisions usually follow the path of least financial resistance, much like water.   Thinking another way, is it easier to capture pollution from one smokestack at a regional coal-fired plant than it is from millions of smokestacks on the roof of every house...hmmm.    If the true goal of cap-and-trade was to eliminate CO2 and pollution, then the government should be talking about subsidizing and LOWERING the cost of cleaner heating sources so that they could compete with less expensive, but dirtier wood and coal.  If there is no net benefit to the environment, then it is really just another revenue stream for the government.

Interesting article and interesting subject. 

I bet you thought that if you bought a house, you actually own it and can, with reasonable exceptions, do with it what you want. You probably think that if you want to live in a log cabin, with wood stoves that belch smoke into the air for heat, and an old washer and dryer that don't have those little EnergyStar stickers on them you can because it's your life and your property. You paid for it with money you earned with the sweat of your brow and what the heck is America anyhow if a body can't live in the home they want furnished with the appliances they want?

Ah, silly you. You didn't reckon on the Democratic Party's desire to control every miniscule aspect of your life.
Let me introduce you to a little section of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill called the "Building Energy Performance Labeling Program". It's section 304 of the bill and it says, basically, that your house belongs to the state. See, the Federal Government really wants a country full of energy-efficient homes, so much so that the bill mandates that new homes be 30 percent more energy efficient than the current building code on the very day the law is signed. That efficiency goes up to 50 percent by 2014 and only goes higher from there, all the way to 2030. That, by the way, is not merely a target but a requirement of the law. New homes must reach those efficiency targets no matter what.

But what does that have to do with current homeowners like you? Well, I'm glad you asked. You're certainly not off the hook, no way, no how. Here's what the Democrats have planned for you. The program requires that states label their buildings so that we can all know how efficient every building (that includes residential and non-residential buildings) is and it requires that the information be made public. To that end, the bill suggests a number of circumstances under which the states could inspect a building, including:


In NM, there is draft language that would effectively  put the owner-builder out of business if it were ever passed as law.  The goal is to ensure that every home, regardless of size , is an energy-star home.  That means that your small home would have to be built from plans that are approved, and finally that your small house would have to meet the stringent permit and inspection process to meet energy-star guidelines.

I'm a proponent of energy savings and also a strong supporter of the environment, but draw the line here.   Someday, the ability of the average person to build a small, affordable home will be eliminated.  Ironically, the people it will hurt the most are probably more environmentaly friendly and have a smaller carbon footprint than the couple living in a McMansion commuting to the city every day.

I don't know where the article is from, but I generally distrust any article that paraphrases and over simplifies a law without actually giving you what the language they are interpreting it from.  Also I generally discount any publication that blames either political party with straight fear mongering.  It sends up major red flags to me that someone is trying to take advantage of someone else's ignorance for political gain.  I generally give the information the same credence I do from used car sales people and infomercials.

The usual, "[insert political party of choice] is pure evil and you know it.  What they are trying to accomplish will bankrupt you, take your kids away, and kill you.  Trust me."

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454)

Good place to see status of all government bills, house and senate

Thanks don.  This bill died in congress last year.

I don't understand what state law you are referring to.  Also, I don't understand how by  increasing energy code requirements it prevents owner builders from building.  If anything, I believe it gives many an advantage.  Before I went down the path of building, I went shopping for a home.  Every house that I found that complied with increased quality and better insulation commanded a drastic premium over other new homes.  An owner builder can increase stud size and insulation values at a fraction of the cost of the total home construction, giving more savings than other new houses.  A 500 sq. ft. house requiring 2x6 or 2x8 walls instead of 2x4, doesn't prevent people from building it.

An interesting note, is some of the information in the article you reprinted was from a chain email debunked by snopes.com.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/captrade.asp
Was this a published article or a chain email?  I would love to know the source.

I think it's a given that politics only makes sense to politicians.

As to the matter of whether forcing people to burn wood due to the rising cost of traditional power sources would increase pollution, I think is highly debatable.

QuoteNewer electric plants are actually quite clean, depending on generation method.  In the pacific NW, for example, there is clean hydro and nuclear power.

I don't think there is any such thing as "clean" nuclear power. For starters uranium mining is a terribly dirty business, releasing radioactive waste that poses many known and probably many more unknown risks to anyone in the vicinity, and anyone else who happens to be downwind. Abandoned mines can emit dangerous levels of radiation for many thousands of years, making once usable land off limits more or less forever. Then there is uranium enrichment which requires vast amounts of electrical power (coal). Nuclear power plants also suck up an awful lot of water used for cooling. Finally the waste must then be buried deep in a mountain somewhere, which takes more power, creates more unknown health hazards, and violates good folks who choose to live in the middle of nowhere in attempts to escape the filth of cities.

When considering coal most people aim their focus on what comes out of the stack, which is bad enough, and forget about the environmental costs and power required to mine and transport the coal. Coal burning plants are often strategically located in minimally populated locales which then transport the power to cities hundreds of miles away, even if the source of the coal is right next to said city. Why? So as not to remind the residents that running their AC's is turning the air black.

The world (humans anyway) need power, I'm not denying that. There really is no source of power that comes without a price, and personally I think the best solution is for people to figure out a way to use less of it. I got no studies to back me up but I would bet that by collecting dead wood from on and around my property, and using very little fuel to do so I am having less of an impact on the environment than if I used electricity, oil or gas to heat with. Of course if everyone did the same the world would probably soon run out of dead wood, and then live trees might then join the endangered species list. No easy answers.

I'll leave the cap and trade politics to others fluent in that language, it's all jibber jabber to me.

Quote from: Squirl on February 15, 2011, 09:16:49 AM
I don't know where the article is from, but I generally distrust any article that paraphrases and over simplifies a law without actually giving you what the language they are interpreting it from.  Also I generally discount any publication that blames either political party with straight fear mongering.  It sends up major red flags to me that someone is trying to take advantage of someone else's ignorance for political gain.  I generally give the information the same credence I do from used car sales people and infomercials.

The usual, "[insert political party of choice] is pure evil and you know it.  What they are trying to accomplish will bankrupt you, take your kids away, and kill you.  Trust me."

Generally I agree with you.  I'm not much for fear mongering, from either side.  I read it on a blog that linked back to here:

http://www.10thamendmentfoundation.org/Cap_and_Trade.html

Section 304 is what had people scared.  While the House Bill is dead for now, there are plenty of other forces still at work.

It does pay, to pay attention to what the politicians are up to.

Quote from: Squirl on February 15, 2011, 11:46:23 AM
Thanks don.  This bill died in congress last year.

I don't understand what state law you are referring to.  Also, I don't understand how by  increasing energy code requirements it prevents owner builders from building.  If anything, I believe it gives many an advantage.  Before I went down the path of building, I went shopping for a home.  Every house that I found that complied with increased quality and better insulation commanded a drastic premium over other new homes.  An owner builder can increase stud size and insulation values at a fraction of the cost of the total home construction, giving more savings than other new houses.  A 500 sq. ft. house requiring 2x6 or 2x8 walls instead of 2x4, doesn't prevent people from building it.

An interesting note, is some of the information in the article you reprinted was from a chain email debunked by snopes.com.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/captrade.asp
Was this a published article or a chain email?  I would love to know the source.

I was not referring to specific legislation, I stated draft language.  Draft language is different completely than anything currently up for vote.

Think about this: The only thing that prevents you from building a small, energy efficient house today is owning a piece of land and the funds for some lumber.  You need a set of blueprints, which on this website are quite inexpensive.  Most states allow owners to self-contract their own home, and in many locations you don't even need to have the place permitted or inspected, for now....

While cap-and-trade on a national level is dead (for now), many states are now moving to enact their own versions of cap-and-trade.  Our outgoing governor in NM was a huge proponent of strict new laws.  You understand that much of the legislation that is introduced is the result of months of back-door jockeying.  Worse, much of the proposed language is not originated by local legislators, but by national, paid lobbyists who latch onto somebody they feel shares a common agenda.  They bring reams of boilerplate legislation to the table for discussion.  The language was written by some lawyer in a think-tank somewhere, and may not even be applicable in the state they are lobbying.  They don't care.  This works for both sides – Democrats and Republicans - at both the state and federal level.  Neither side is any better than the other in my opinion.  The language that finally makes to a Bill is independent of what was originally hashed about in conference, committee, or discussion.  When I refer to "language", it may not be language that has been introduced in official form, yet. 

My position and profession placed me in a position that allowed me to participate in some focus groups for potential legislation in NM.  One such proposal was a requirement that that EVERY new building in NM meet Energy Star compliance by some future date. On the surface, that sounds like a good thing - everybody wants us to be more energy efficient.  But the implications could be severe.  If the government decides that the average guy building his own home is not qualified to build an energy efficient home, he is never going to build his own home.  They will make the process so restrictive that the era of the self-builder is dead.  One idea proposed was that all plans submitted for permit (and EVERY new structure would require a permit) had to be stamped as Energy Star compliant.  They wanted to phase this in before the actual building requirement was in place.  The thinking was that if the plans were stamped as Energy Star certified, then the builder was more likely to build the home to Energy Star standards, even if the house was not specifically built as an Energy Star home.  In the case of John's plans, it might be a simple process to get them certified or stamped, assuming there was even a certifying agency.  The EPA, as far as I can tell, does not certify plans, it focuses on the final build.  Energy Star is a building process, not necessarily a design process.  In theory, any set of plans can be built to Energy Star standards.  If every set of plans suddenly needs a certifying stamp from a local energy engineer, or Energy Star partner (rater), the cost could be substantial.  All it really means as the chances that a small self-built place in rural NM burning wood is ever going to get an Energy Star stamp is zero. 

For a home to become Energy Star certified, the builder works closely with the EPA during the entire design and building process.  One can verify the requirements at www.energystar.gov.  By some metric, builders have to prove that they are capable of building to the Energy Star standard. In Version 3 of the Energy Star process, EVERY builder has to undergo training and licensing. Every HVAC contractor has to be trained and licensed.  The builders and their projects are independently verified by the EPA or its partners (raters).  Many building their own small home work on their own schedule, as resources permit.  Sometimes designs are changed to match the wallet. Try that when you are building to a strict energy code.

I am an environmentalist; I am in the industry, yet when I meet with some of these folks, it scares me.  Impact fees in the thousands, permit fees in the thousands, and site fees in the thousands are collectively all restrictive.  One last thing – your home is viewed as a revenue stream to every taxing agency in the country.  The more your home is worth, the more tax they can collect.  In NM, there was discussion about how to increase the property values of property in poorer regions of the state.  The guy that builds his home on a piece of family land for $30,000 pays far less than his neighbor who hires a builder and builds a similar home for $130,000.  There was actually a discussion about hiring dozens of new "revenue agents" to visit EVERY home in NM and assessing if it was valued properly. Usually property taxes are the domain of local assessors. Suddenly the state cares about property taxes...scary.   When I heard that, all I could think of was another chain email about the last census, and the fact that they wanted GPS coordinates of every structure in the country.  Nothing either political party does is without some underlying reason.  Usually that reason involves a way for the government to dig deeper into your pocketbook.

I spent enough time dealing with this issue to write a book.  It spooks me.  Mountain Don has inspired many of us here, especially those of us in NM.  I have drawn up my plans a dozen different ways.  I have a dream of building a small place for weekend use now, and perhaps even retiring there someday.  In one discussion I was involved in, it was suggested that second homes or vacation homes should be taxed with a huge "environmental luxury" tax, because they are not environmentally friendly.  The owner uses excess resources to build the place, and then excess resources to commute or visit there.  Think about that and the implications, especially if applied retroactively.  Think what it would do to property values – the same property values cities are scrambling to increase.  Think how you would feel if your property taxes were based on how far you lived from the center of town (goal: increase population density), or based on how far you lived from mass transit(goal: increase mass transit), or if suddenly the property taxes on your hunting cabin were taxed an extra few thousand a year because someone thinks you are an environmental hog.  Think about paying fuel taxes based on miles driven, or how many people were in your family, or the mileage your vehicle gets.  All of these types of taxes or scenarios have been floated or introduced as real legislation.  That should scare anybody, even if they never made it to law, regardless of political affiliation.  Look at the Energy Star guidelines, and look at the tables on square footage, bedroom size, and BTU requirements.  If I make a million a year, it should be my business and right to build whatever I want.  If I make $25,000, it should be my right to build a small affordable house without excess government intrusion.  That is my concern and agenda.
I'm an Independent on most issues, left-leaning on the environment, but fiercely conservative when it comes to personal liberty. Oh, I hate lobbyists.

Quote from: dug on February 15, 2011, 12:49:42 PM
I think it's a given that politics only makes sense to politicians.

As to the matter of whether forcing people to burn wood due to the rising cost of traditional power sources would increase pollution, I think is highly debatable.

QuoteNewer electric plants are actually quite clean, depending on generation method.  In the pacific NW, for example, there is clean hydro and nuclear power.

I don't think there is any such thing as "clean" nuclear power. For starters uranium mining is a terribly dirty business, releasing radioactive waste that poses many known and probably many more unknown risks to anyone in the vicinity, and anyone else who happens to be downwind. Abandoned mines can emit dangerous levels of radiation for many thousands of years, making once usable land off limits more or less forever. Then there is uranium enrichment which requires vast amounts of electrical power (coal). Nuclear power plants also suck up an awful lot of water used for cooling. Finally the waste must then be buried deep in a mountain somewhere, which takes more power, creates more unknown health hazards, and violates good folks who choose to live in the middle of nowhere in attempts to escape the filth of cities.

When considering coal most people aim their focus on what comes out of the stack, which is bad enough, and forget about the environmental costs and power required to mine and transport the coal. Coal burning plants are often strategically located in minimally populated locales which then transport the power to cities hundreds of miles away, even if the source of the coal is right next to said city. Why? So as not to remind the residents that running their AC's is turning the air black.

The world (humans anyway) need power, I'm not denying that. There really is no source of power that comes without a price, and personally I think the best solution is for people to figure out a way to use less of it. I got no studies to back me up but I would bet that by collecting dead wood from on and around my property, and using very little fuel to do so I am having less of an impact on the environment than if I used electricity, oil or gas to heat with. Of course if everyone did the same the world would probably soon run out of dead wood, and then live trees might then join the endangered species list. No easy answers.

I'll leave the cap and trade politics to others fluent in that language, it's all jibber jabber to me.

By this metric, one of the cleanest overall energy source is gulf oil, which is essentially extracted by poking a straw in the sand, and shipping it by boat to a central refinery for processing and distribution.  As you noted, there are no easy solutions. 

I thought NM already had to adhere to the ICC building code.  This includes insulation requirements, inspections, graded lumber, septic etc..... I didn't think all you needed was lumber and land in NM.  I have a book on straw bale houses and NM was one of the first to codify them as an approved building method at the state level.  This leads me to believe there are still building codes that must be followed in NM.  Is there not currently a building code and inspections in NM?

Also I thought that the Supreme Court ruled that the supremacy clause prevents states from enacting individual emissions standards and that was the domain of the EPA in California v. EPA. Cap and trade seems like it would not be enforceable at the state level.

Thank you for expanding on the Energy Star Compliance issues.  I was not as familiar with the training and certification that is required of a builder to be allowed to build an Energy Star Home.  I can see how this can add a lot of cost to the building process.  No one wants to end up with a state like California in the inspection process.  I am for the current system of energy compliance and I wouldn't be offended if they upped that a little.  A quarter of the energy in this country is used to heat and cool our houses.  I like to look at these issues with the view of the environment and also the view of national security.

I completely agree that government needs a watchful eye.  I just have problems when people can't read a law or deliberately misstate it as in the article posted.

Most states have their own code, which generally incorporates the national buildings code(s).  NM is no different.  There are dozens of examples of people who built their own home with little more than a piece of land and a Home Depot credit card.  John's plans are perfect for the self-builder.  Energy Star calls for homes that are 30 to 40% more efficient than the current standard.  If code was good enough, there wouldn't be a push by certain groups to mandate that EVERY home be Energy Star certified. 

Nothing I posted was a misstatement, nor was that the intent.  Cap/trade is one of those bills that is so large and complex nobody really knows what it says. Guess they will just have to pass it so we can see what's in it.

States can pass their own laws. In NM, for example, some people want tougher arsenic standards than the Feds.  The incremental cost is expensive.

I'm glad to see governor Bill gone; he loved to spend my money. We'll have to wait and see how the next four years pan out under Martinez

We have as many codes as many states, more than some, not as bad as a few states.

Gov. Bill had a "thing" about wanting to be first, no matter the sense of it, no matter the cost, no matter the number of people against whatever it was. I will admit to approving of some of his achievements, but on the whole he spent too much.

I'm not opposed to spending when it benefits greater society or the public in total.  Regulation can also have a net benefit to the public.  There is a point of diminishing returns for regulation.  The incremental cost of implementing cap-and-trade for example, is estimated in the trillions, with a "T".  The additional net benefit is measured in the billions (at least finacially). 

The original post here addressed the unintended consequences of cap-and-trade, and was based on a report from some economists who recognize that everything is not black and white.  Politicians usually think short-term, but spend long-term.  A classic example is cigarette taxes.  Taxes were raised for two reasons:  one to curb usage and improve health.  The second was to generate revenue.  In the base year of any new tax, somebody makes a revenue projection.  The revenue stream is variable, based on the units taxed (in this case cigarettes).  In the same year, some politician decides to commit that revenue stream for the next 20+ years.  Assume that by year five, half the people quite smoking.  The revenue stream is now half of the base year, but the expense stream is fixed.  Next step - raise the tax even more.  By year ten, another half have quit smoking.  The revenue stream is now 25% of the original baseline.  To keep the revenue stream the same, the original tax rate would have to increase by a factor of four, or a 300% tax increase. 

I read much of the cap-and-trade bill.  There are lots of spending plans for that money.  Lets assume it passed and suddenly net energy usage fell by 25%.  I wonder how long it would take the Feds to raise the tax rate to fill the gap!   The legislation is about revenue first, and the environment second.  They could add a dollar a gallon surtax to gas today with one page of legislation, and it would help the environment more than the multi-thousand page cap-and-trade bill.

Quote from: MountainDon on February 16, 2011, 03:42:38 PM
I'm glad to see governor Bill gone; he loved to spend my money. We'll have to wait and see how the next four years pan out under Martinez

We have as many codes as many states, more than some, not as bad as a few states.

Gov. Bill had a "thing" about wanting to be first, no matter the sense of it, no matter the cost, no matter the number of people against whatever it was. I will admit to approving of some of his achievements, but on the whole he spent too much.

Choo choo, went the billion dollar train.  Now it goes "chew chew", right into the budget.

Quote from: Native_NM on February 16, 2011, 05:43:08 PM

Choo choo, went the billion dollar train.

Grrr, grrr, went Don.


How about GRIP.... Governor Richardson's Investment Partnership  =  Gov Richards Impressive Plane

Surprisingly unbiased article by Forbes...

Cap-and-Trade Fantasies In Disneyland
Feb. 15 2011 - 3:38 pm
By LARRY BELL
SUN VALLEY, CA - DECEMBER 11: The Department ...

California, marching to the beat of its own drum, is on the road to another economic minefield of its own making. On September 2, 2010, voters rejected an alternate Proposition 23 route, one that would have avoided the approved Assembly Bill 32 superhighway to disaster. Resulting cap-and-trade booby traps will be triggered in 2012 when the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 is implemented. This legislation authorizes unelected officials at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to establish a program enabling companies that cut greenhouse gas emissions to sell "allowances" to others that need them to meet reduction regulations targeted at 15% by 2020.

Well, there is still an outside chance that this won't happen. San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ernest Goldsmith has recently ruled that CARB will be barred from implementing the proposed ARB 32 plan because it didn't complete an environmental review required under the California Environmental Quality Act to determine if there are better ways to accomplish the same objectives. Want to hear the really funny part? Okay, get ready for this. According to Investor's Business Daily, one of the plaintiffs in the case that originally backed ARB 32 passage, the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, joined the suit because it determined the proposed implementation of the plan was "too friendly to business."

If ARB 32 goes forward CARB will give away allowances to the state's 500 largest greenhouse gas emitters, letting those that reduce them sell excess allowances to others that don't. CARB would later charge for those allowances to raise state revenues. They also seem inclined to allow up to 8% of the greenhouse gas reductions to be met through purchases of "offset credits" obtained from developing nations who purport to have realized emission reductions. Of course such transactions will lack transparency, and will most certainly be rife with fraud. In addition, they will not only increase energy costs, but also accelerate flows of capital and exports of jobs out of the state.

It's not as if the state doesn't have enough problems already. California has lost 34% of its industrial base since 2001, has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country (12.4%), and has run up unfunded pension liabilities for its state and local public employees that may be as much as $500 billion (roughly 17% of the nation's $3 trillion total). A recent study conducted by the Pacific Research Institute predicts that AB 32 will produce an additional 150,000 state job losses by 2012, growing to 1.3 million by 2020. A 2009 study commissioned by the California Small Business Roundtable estimates that the new legislation will "result in a higher cost to California households of $3,857 per year".

Cap-and-trade is typically promoted as an "environmental justice" initiative. This misleading claim is based upon three errant and deceptive premises: (1) that the legislation will help protect our planet from dangerous climate change and pollution; (2) that it is needed to wean California and the rest of the country and world away from excessive energy consumption; and (3) that it will incentivize energy technology and conservation innovations that will lead to independence from fossils and foreign oil.

The initial premise is wrong on two accounts. First, there is absolutely no evidence that any human-caused climate crisis exists. Second, there is no real likelihood that any attempts to reduce atmospheric CO2 emissions can be expected to have any measurable climate influence. Further, simply because the EPA, parroted by green marketers condemns CO2 as a "pollutant," that claim does not make it so. Such a declaration only misleads people, and confuses this natural and essential molecule with real pollutants that truly should be restricted.

The second premise, that carbon restrictions are necessary for energy consumption control, belies inherent logic of free market economic incentives to advance conservation economies. Further, it empowers government to pick and subsidize winners, restrict choices, and intentionally drive up costs. The burdens of this zero-sum-gain strategy will fall most painfully upon low-income consumers and small-profit-margin businesses who can least afford them.

The third premise, that carbon penalties attached to fossil-fueled utilities will incentivize alternative technology innovations, is misleading in several respects. Heavily funded green marketing promotions fail to inform the public about the limited-capacity potentials afforded by "renewable" energy sources, most particularly in regard to urgent time frames required to substantially offset demands. Unfounded technology promises provide excuses for other agendas: expansion of government control and spending, and unwarranted mandates and subsidies for those who play the system. When bureaucrats are empowered to reward politics and promises over performance, taxpayers and captive consumers are left to cover the costs.

Those costs under AB 32 will be substantial . California refiners will be forced to begin to comply with a low carbon fuel standard this year, reducing the "carbon intensity" of transportation fuels 10% by 2020.  This will most likely entail increasing the corn ethanol mix in petroleum, running up food costs, depleting water supplies, and causing environmental land damage while affording no net CO2 emission reduction.  It will also impose costly refinery modifications and require and necessitate increased importing of higher quality, non-California crude oil feedstock.

Since most Californians don't live in dense urban centers, the bulk of those extra expenses will be passed on to truckers, commuters and rural drivers. According to a December 20, 2010 Investor's Business Daily article authored by Chuck Devore, some analysts are forecasting a resulting gasoline price shock of 30% to 80% within five years.

And what about those alternative non-fossil transportation possibilities?  Environmental lobby resistance to oil and gas drilling doesn't bode well for the future of hydrogen-fueled cars, because the primary feedstock of hydrogen is natural gas. Actually, hydrogen really doesn't make any sense anyway. It requires lots more energy to obtain than it produces.

Then there are those nifty little electric cars. Unfortunately, they're not great for commuting and carpooling on California freeways, don't have much range, aren't cheap, and need to be recharged at night. But isn't that when the sun doesn't shine, and the wind can't be counted on to blow?  con't below

http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/02/15/cap-and-trade-fantasies-in-disneyland/

Quote from: Native_NM on February 16, 2011, 04:36:46 PM
 They could add a dollar a gallon surtax to gas today with one page of legislation, and it would help the environment more than the multi-thousand page cap-and-trade bill.

Brilliant.  Well written.

Quote from: Squirl on February 17, 2011, 10:24:07 AM

Quote from: Native_NM on February 16, 2011, 04:36:46 PM
 They could add a dollar a gallon surtax to gas today with one page of legislation, and it would help the environment more than the multi-thousand page cap-and-trade bill.

Brilliant.  Well written.

Can't determine if your response is sarcastic, but I am serious.  I'd support a tax like that. It would cost the average family $1500, which is less than the CBO estimates cap/trade would cost.  No new administration costs needed.  Everyone pays at the pump.  Taxes the underground economy a bit, and based on the gas price increases of 2008 would dramatically reduce demand, which is what the environmentalists claim is the reason for cap/trade.

Not sarcastic.  The easiest way to stop carbon is to tax it directly at the source.  Simpler than the other taxation system.  The cap and trade one is just another way for wall street to game it.  Also, it would help to quickly decline the trade deficit.  The only thing we import more of than Chinese goods is oil.  What you propose is the simplest and fastest way to reduce energy consumption, but I don't think Saudi Arabia would allow us to do it. 

Sassy,
Speaking of sarcastic, were you serious when you said that Forbes articles was "unbiased"?

Because that is one of the most one sided,  misleading,  articles I've read in a long long time.  But I think you were kidding right?

Why should Saudi Arabia get into it? They may not like the immediate reduced sales and revenue but they should be able to see the revenue will be stretched out over a longer period. But the problem there is India and Chinas increased use.

Europe has always taxed their motor fuels at a much higher rate than the USA.

The forbes article was laced with dramatic language and lots of facts with no citations.  I was surprised that they would publish something like that. Then I clicked the link and realized it was a political blogger on their site.  I treated it the same at the left wing stuff at huffpost.

Squirl,

I think you have hit on the solution to the problem with the gas tax.

But there is a much better and more fair and efficient way of doing it - it's a Revenue neutral carbon tax and rebate program.

It's explained at this website.  (See the youtube video at the 6th bullet point)
http://www.carbontax.org/

They explain how the "Cap and Trade" bill can't possibly work and propose and incredibly simple and efficient solution,  without hurting anyone's pocketbook.  Except maybe the Middle East oil dictators.

I wish this video would go viral.  If enough Americans got behind this idea we could solve many of our problems from the trade deficit,  to national security,  to the environment,  without having to hurt (and it may even help)  the economy.  Unfortunately,  the only people who will benefit are the American people,  so it probably will never happen.

Quote from: archimedes on February 17, 2011, 03:17:41 PM
Squirl,

But there is a much better and more fair and efficient way of doing it - it's a Revenue neutral carbon tax and rebate program.

I wish this video would go viral.  If enough Americans got behind this idea we could solve many of our problems from the trade deficit,  to national security,  to the environment,  without having to hurt (and it may even help)  the economy.  Unfortunately,  the only people who will benefit are the American people,  so it probably will never happen.

I'm not sure it is mathematically possible to lower the national debt or the defecit with revenue-neutral legislation.  The only way to do either is spend less than received, or increase taxes at a rate that exceeds spending.  I think Archimedes the mathematician would agree.   Maybe I misunderstood the website, but they make it sound like this would lower the debt or defecit.   Dubious. 

You might want to reread my post.  I never said this would do anything for the national debt .  Trade deficit yes,  budget deficit no.

Quote from: archimedes on February 17, 2011, 03:49:36 PM
You might want to reread my post.  I never said this would do anything for the national debt .  Trade deficit yes,  budget deficit no.

I actually updated my post at the same time you commented. I should have been more clear. 

 d*
The problem is that most of our trade deficit is caused by imported oil.  That's a problem that a carbon tax would go a long way to fixing.


http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2008/05/29/the_trade_deficit_has_turned_v/

But like I said,  no big corporate conglomerate will be able to profit from a Carbon Tax (like Wall St will with Cap and Trade or Big Oil will with the current status quo)  so unless American's insist on it,  it won't happen.

Quote from: Sassy on February 16, 2011, 11:40:19 PM
Surprisingly unbiased article by Forbes...

Either you're being sarcastic, or you didn't read the article

Quote from: Native_NM on February 16, 2011, 04:36:46 PM
I'm not opposed to spending when it benefits greater society or the public in total.  Regulation can also have a net benefit to the public.  There is a point of diminishing returns for regulation.  The incremental cost of implementing cap-and-trade for example, is estimated in the trillions, with a "T".  The additional net benefit is measured in the billions (at least finacially). 

The original post here addressed the unintended consequences of cap-and-trade, and was based on a report from some economists who recognize that everything is not black and white.  Politicians usually think short-term, but spend long-term.  A classic example is cigarette taxes.  Taxes were raised for two reasons:  one to curb usage and improve health.  The second was to generate revenue.  In the base year of any new tax, somebody makes a revenue projection.  The revenue stream is variable, based on the units taxed (in this case cigarettes).  In the same year, some politician decides to commit that revenue stream for the next 20+ years.  Assume that by year five, half the people quite smoking.  The revenue stream is now half of the base year, but the expense stream is fixed.  Next step - raise the tax even more.  By year ten, another half have quit smoking.  The revenue stream is now 25% of the original baseline.  To keep the revenue stream the same, the original tax rate would have to increase by a factor of four, or a 300% tax increase. 

I read much of the cap-and-trade bill.  There are lots of spending plans for that money.  Lets assume it passed and suddenly net energy usage fell by 25%.  I wonder how long it would take the Feds to raise the tax rate to fill the gap!   The legislation is about revenue first, and the environment second.  They could add a dollar a gallon surtax to gas today with one page of legislation, and it would help the environment more than the multi-thousand page cap-and-trade bill.

Several questioned whether I was being sarcastic when I commented on the Forbes article...  no, I was being serious...  either I can't read or don't understand the article or maybe you guys didn't really read it.  My take on it was basically saying the same thing as Native_NM said in the quote above...  I think Cap & Trade is just another way to tax & control & as Squirl said, give Wall Street a another way to "game it."  Just look at how much Al Gore has made w/his Cap & Trade company.

None of you quoted anything in that article that was so way off for the responses several of you made.  BTW, I certainly didn't see too many references in any of your statements...   ???

A little more explanation would be appreciated as I am & have been totally against any Cap  Trade legislation...   [waiting]

Quote from: archimedes on February 17, 2011, 04:18:07 PM
d*
The problem is that most of our trade deficit is caused by imported oil.  That's a problem that a carbon tax would go a long way to fixing.


http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2008/05/29/the_trade_deficit_has_turned_v/

But like I said,  no big corporate conglomerate will be able to profit from a Carbon Tax (like Wall St will with Cap and Trade or Big Oil will with the current status quo)  so unless American's insist on it,  it won't happen.

There is nothing wrong with a trade deficit per se.  A carbon tax might lower the deficit by reducing demand, but Americans will still be spending the same amount on fuel costs due to increaesed fueld taxes. 

I have read the carbontax.org site, and watched their video.  I still don't know how they claim a revenue neutral carbon tax can lower the deficit.  Then again, I don't know how the trillion dollar Obamacare program can lower the deficit.  If the carbontax.org folks said they were going to use the new revenue to pay down the debt or reduce the deficit, I might believe it could lower either, but since they propose to just tax the rich and credit to the poor, not sure what the point is.  The point of a tax in this situation is to curb demand.  I downloaded their spreadsheet and studied it, and I think it is fundmentally flawed.  Their models make many assumptions, and then extrapolate those out to 2034.   They project, for example, to collect almost $500 billion in new taxes by 2020 (Cell S122).  The total tax receipts today, personal and corporate, total just over a trillion.  Since the rich pay 75%, that means $750 billion is paid by the "rich".  They want to tax them another $500 billion...hmmm!

The problem I see with the carbonax.org model is it is just another tax on the rich, and it does nothing to curb demand.  Their premise is that rich people use more energy, so they should pay more.  Since poor people are, well poor, they should get rebates.  Rich people make up a small percentage of the population.  If 85% of Americans pay no carbon tax because of credits, what incentive do they have to conserve - none!  Even poor people drive F150's and Tahoes, so they should also pay.  When one applies for car insurance,  the premium is not based on income.  Poor people pay just as much as rich people.  The carbon tax, at least to me, is more progressive voodoo.  I'm not opposed to a flat buck at the pump, but I think every American needs to pay it, not just the "rich".  For the record, I'm not "rich".

My understanding is that a percentage of the credits go to the poor countries.  You & I know where most of the money we send to poor countries goes...  to the unscrupulous leaders - so the poor stay poor - we've just once again subsidized the dictators & oppressive leaders.

China isn't even part of the mandate to curb pollution. 

I've read quite a bit about the carbon tax plan - you'll just have the super wealthy trade carbon credits so they can pollute more - look at Al Gore - he's not only become a multi-millionaire w/his carbon trading company, he just buys more credits so he can live in his mansions & fly around the world.

Look at Pelosi - she spent $2.5 million of the taxpayers money in the past 2 yrs flying around in an Air Force jet - so much for curbing her use of carbon!
www.judicialwatch.org

And the businesses/corporations that can't make it here w/all the taxes & regulations will either go bankrupt or move to a foreign country that is more friendly.

Sassy and Native NM,

I think you're confusing "Cap and Trade"  and Carbon Tax.Org.    They are completely different things.  I agree (and so do the Carbon Tax .org people)  that Cap and trade won't work,  and that some people will game that system for profit.

The Carbon Tax would reduce the trade deficit because we import so much oil from abroad.  If there were a carbon tax that oil would be more expensive and demand would move to cheaper domestically produced alternatives,  such as wind,  solar, hydro, conservation,  or a yet to be discovered alternative  which would be driven by the increase in the price of carbon - all of which are domestically produced thereby reducing the outflow of cash to foreign countries (and creating jobs here). 

I disagree that there is nothing wrong with a trade deficit.  A trade deficit is bad because that means we are shipping jobs,  and wealth,  out of the country.

I'm not sure why you keep thinking that the Carbo Tax people claim it will reduce the budget deficit - it won't and they don't claim that it will.  So I'm a little puzzled there.  Maybe you can clarify for me.

This is not a tax on the rich with the poor being exempted.  It is a tax on all carbon for all people and will be rebated to all equally.

From the carbontax.org website:

A carbon tax, like any flat tax, is regressive — by itself. However, the regressivity of a carbon tax can be minimized, and perhaps eliminated altogether, by keeping the tax revenue-neutral in a way that protects the less affluent.

The operative fact is that wealthier households use more energy. They generally drive and fly more, have bigger (and sometimes multiple) houses, and buy more stuff that requires energy to manufacture and use. As a result, most carbon tax revenues will come from families of above-average means, along with corporations and government.

That is why the two "return" approaches discussed above — carbon dividends or tax-shifting — can turn the carbon tax into a progressive tax. Because income and energy consumption are strongly correlated, most poor households will get more back in carbon dividends than they will pay in the carbon tax. The overall effect of a carbon tax-shift could be equitable and perhaps even "progressive" (benefiting lower-earning households).

My question to you:

If the carbon tax is revenue neutral, and they intend to raise hundreds of billions, and it is not going to be regressive, and the "less affluent" households may actually get a dividend, who is going to pay the tax?  An honest answer, please.

As to the trade deficit and the budget deficit, I understand the distinction.  If you read through the website, including the PowerPoint presentation, they indicate a carbon tax (not cap and trade) could be used to lower the deficit.  They also indicate it is revenue neutral.   How can a revenue-neutral tax lower the deficit?

Quote from: Sassy on February 17, 2011, 10:59:40 PM
Several questioned whether I was being sarcastic when I commented on the Forbes article...None of you quoted anything in that article that was so way off for the responses several of you made.  BTW, I certainly didn't see too many references in any of your statements...   ???

You stated that the piece was unbiased, yet the first paragraph contains this

"On September 2, 2010, voters rejected an alternate Proposition 23 route, one that would have avoided the approved Assembly Bill 32 superhighway to disaster"

And later we get this gem

"The initial premise is wrong on two accounts. First, there is absolutely no evidence that any human-caused climate crisis exists."

The first quote can hardly be called unbaised and the second one is just ridiculous.

Quote from: Sassy on February 17, 2011, 10:59:40 PM
Just look at how much Al Gore has made w/his Cap & Trade company.

Two questions.  What was/is Gore's Cap and Trade company?  And how much money did he make from it?

I'm not sure I understand what your argument is,  that we should tax low carbon users more  and tax high carbon users less?Of course high carbon users will pay more tax and low carbon users will pay less,  that's the whole point to the plan.    d*

The point of the plan is to create a financial incentive to use less carbon by whatever means the consumer deems best.  It's in our national interest for;
1) economic reasons
2) national security reasons
3) environmental reasons
4) health reasons.

This is the simplest fairest proposal that I have ever seen.  Much better than Cap and Trade and infinately better than doing nothing.
This proposal has been support by some forward looking fiscally Conservative Republicans  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/05/13/68130/republican-lawmakers-back-carbon.html


There is no perfect solution.  This is the best that I have seen.

What's your solution?

"The initial premise is wrong on two accounts. First, there is absolutely no evidence that any human-caused climate crisis exists."  First it was "global warming" now they're calling it "climate change" - the history of the earth is all about climate change...   ???  Yes, humans have polluted but normal everyday pollution has not changed the weather - volcanoes cause more pollution.  Now w/weather modification in the troposphere & HAARP experiments in microwaving the plasma in the ionosphere & sending out ELF & ULF waves, I guess I have to say we are affecting the climate...


Welcome to the TAP Home Page!

Much of the science that had been planned for the Tropospheric Aerosol Program (TAP) will in the future be conducted under the Department of Energy's Atmospheric Science Program, which, beginning in Fiscal Year 2005, will focus on radiative forcing of climate change by atmospheric aerosols. Interested readers are referred to the ASP web site and to the documents accessible from that page.

Because much of the science that had been planned for TAP coincides with planned research in the Atmospheric Science Program, this page is being maintained to provide background technical information.
http://www.asp.bnl.gov/tap.html

HAARP  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAARP  
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/bj1203.html

When Gore left office in January 2001, he was said to have a net worth in the neighborhood of $2 million. A mere eight years later, estimates are that he is now worth about $100 million. It seems it's easy being green, at least for some.

Gore has his lectures and speeches, his books, a hit movie and Oscar, and a Nobel Prize. But Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., was curious about how a man dedicated to saving the planet could get so wealthy so quickly. She sought out investment advice we all could use in a shaky economy.

Last May, we noted that Big Al had joined the venture capital group Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers the previous September. On May 1, 2008, the firm announced a $500 million investment in maturing green technology firms called the Green Growth Fund.

http://www.kansasprogress.com/wordpress/index.php/2009/05/09/cap-and-trade-al-gores-cash-cow/

Fuelling controversy that Gore lied about his profiteering from cap-and-trade
Al Gore invests millions to make billions in cap-and-trade software

By Steve Milloy  Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Al Gore's venture capital firm has invested $6 million in a software company that stands to make billions of dollars from cap-and-trade regulation — further fueling controversy that Gore lied about his profiteering from cap-and-trade to Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee during testimony in April.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11607

Quote from: archimedes on February 18, 2011, 01:41:26 PM

The point of the plan is to create a financial incentive to use less carbon by whatever means the consumer deems best.  It's in our national interest for;
1) economic reasons
2) national security reasons
3) environmental reasons
4) health reasons.

This is the simplest fairest proposal that I have ever seen.  Much better than Cap and Trade and infinately better than doing nothing.
This proposal has been support by some forward looking fiscally Conservative Republicans  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/05/13/68130/republican-lawmakers-back-carbon.html


There is no perfect solution.  This is the best that I have seen.

What's your solution?

A guy who makes $15/hour and drives 12,000 miles a year has the same carbon footprint as the guy who makes $100/hour and drives 12,000 miles per year.  If the $15 guy gets a carbon dividend that was paid by the $100 guy, what incentive does he have to drive less?  The only difference between carbontax.org and cap-and-trade is the name.  The principle is fundamentally the same.   The really rich people are not going to suddenly consume less, becasue they are really rich.  I pointed out that their Excel model was flawed.  The demand elasticity for energyl is not static across all economic levels.  The underlying premise of carbontax.org is that the rich or affluent have a larger carbon footprint.  We tax them more, but since they are rich, they can afford it. Their net energy usage might not change at all.   Their footprint is not going to change as dramactically as the $15 folks. I would model the carbon dividend might actually increase the carbon footprint of the lower income people as they started receiving their dividend, which is effective income.

A revenue neutral plan is a carbon-neutral plan.  My solution is to tax everyone at the pump equally based on usage.  Everyone.  That will have an environmental impact, which is really the intent.  

Maybe the $15 guy should get a food dividend from the $100 guy because he pays more of his income as food?  The carbon tax is nothing more than a feel-good program to redistribute wealth.  I'm all for a cleaner environement - most of us are.  That means sacrifices from everyone, not just the affluent, and I'm not affluent.  I am pragmatic and logical.

Lets discuss the viability of the numbers also.  How can they raise $500 billion by 2020?    

Quote from: Native_NM on February 18, 2011, 03:10:02 PM

Quote from: archimedes on February 18, 2011, 01:41:26 PM

[/i]  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/05/13/68130/republican-lawmakers-back-carbon.html


A revenue neutral plan is a carbon-neutral plan.  My solution is to tax everyone at the pump equally based on usage.  Everyone.  That will have an environmental impact, which is really the intent.  

The Carbon tax does tax everyone equally based on usage.  I don't see where we disagree.  

Cap and trade and the Carbon tax are totally different.  There is no comparison whatsoever.

Essentially what you're saying about the revenue neutral part is represented in this analogy;  "  if we started to tax people $1 a gallon for tap water,  that they would still run the water while brushing their teeth"   (if they got a rebate check for the additional tax that caused the water to be $1 a gallon)
I think the natural reaction for most people would be to turn the water off while brushing their teeth,  and keep the check.  Now rich people might say "I don't give a damn, I'm not gonna change my behavior"  and they would have that right,  but most people would change their behavior and thereby reduce energy consumption.

And frankly,  I personally,  don't care whether it is revenue neutral or not.  But I think you would have an impossible time getting any law passed the had a net revenue increase.  In my opinion both ways would work and I would support either.  But only one stands a chance of ever becoming law.

If it taxes everyone equally, how is it revenue neutral?  It would be a net revenue generating program.  The carbontax.org site clearly states that there would be revenue shifting from the affluent to the less affluent.   They talk about dividends to the poorer people, even credits.  

The most successful laws are ones that are applied to all people fairly, regardless of socio-economic status.  Fairness, in fact, is the basis of common law.  Your average rich guy doesn't mind following a law that applies to everyone equally.  The average poor guy feels the same way.  When a group is singled out, it plays against an inherent sense of fairness that all Americans are raised with.  We are a nation born out of equality and justice for all.  When the poor guy feels the rich guy is getting away with something, there is "class envy".  When the rich guy feels he is paying more than his fair share, he develops a sense of entitlement ("I'm paying for them, so I deserve a little more or the rules don't apply to me").   If the speed limit sign said "Rich people, 55, Poor people 75", we both know who is going to follow that law.

Tax everyone a buck a gallon at the pump.  The government does not need to create a new agency to administer a new program.  The existing system is in place to collect the tax.  Invest the proceeds in new energy technology, reduce the deficit, or fund a national lotto.  Either way, it will immediately reduce energy usage, which should be the real goal.  All the other plans proposed try too hard to be fair, and don't really address the environmental concern.  

Quote from: Native_NM on February 18, 2011, 11:42:42 PM
If it taxes everyone equally, how is it revenue neutral?

With all due respect,  this statement makes no sense.  "Revenue neutral"  means that the gov't does not generate any additional revenue (profit) from the tax.  Revenue neutral and "taxing everyone equally" are two completely different issues.  It's like comparing apples and oranges.   ;)

Taxing people more who create more of the problem is not "unfair".  It is by definition equitable.  Burn more carbon,  pay more tax.  Burn less carbon pay less tax.  You could do whatever you want with the proceeds from the tax.  The most politically acceptable plan would be to rebate the proceeds.

We do agree on taxing carbon though.  We just differ on how best to do it.  And which policy has the best chance of actually becoming law.  I'm not opposed to a gas tax,  I just don't think you can get it passed.  I also don't think it will have all the benefits of a carbon Tax.

Quote from: Native_NM on February 18, 2011, 11:42:42 PM
 When a group is singled out, it plays against an inherent sense of fairness that all Americans are raised with.  

I believe that is so true!

Everyone has a carbon footprint, including the poor. Many rural, poor people might actually have a larger carbon footprint than their wealthy, urban counterpart.  Rural families drive twice as many miles as their urban peers, and are more likely to heat with dirtier energy sources.    Regardless, since everyone has a footprint, there can't be anything to redistribute or rebate. 

The only way a tax can have the desired effect is if everyone pays it. You assert that everyone will pay equally based on usage, and at the same time assert that it will be revenue neutral.  I assert that everyone has a carbon footprint.  Accordingly, if everyone is paying proportional to their use, a carbon tax will result in net revenue generation.  The only was it couldn't is if the revenue generated was rebated to those who had a zero carbon footprint.   Nobody has a zero carbon footprint.  Carbontax.org has a political agenda as opposed to an environmental agenda. 

What metric do you propose we utilize to measure our individual carbon footprint?   The average American drives about the same number if miles, pays about the same to heat and cool his home, and consumes about the same number of calories (food production footprint). From a pure usage standpoint, a middle-class family with two kids has a larger footprint than a retired rich couple.  I'm sure you would support taxing a struggling soccer mom and rebating the surplus tax to the wealthy couple living in a high-rise on Park Avenue who don't even own a car....

Actually the "wealthy" have a larger carbon footprint than the average middle class family. Think about it. Wealthier families usually have more cars, i.e. daily driver for each adult, "vacation suv", sports car, etc. Plus boats, atv's, jet ski's, motor homes, etc. Higher income families are more likely to have second homes, vacation homes, rental properties. Wealthier people travel more, and are more likely to fly in private planes. Very heavy carbon footprint. Plus their primary homes are usually bigger than middle class, which uses more energy.

This whole carbon footprint scheme is a farce. In fact it is nothing but a large Ponzi scheme that allows the Federal gov't, corporations and the power elite to profit at the expense of the American peoples economy, jobs, property, and sovereignty. It fosters class and economic warfare, based on a failed "new religion" of global warming, climate change, whatever.

We place a tax on carbon.  The tax generates $300,000,0000.   Every citizen in the country gets a check for $1 (the US population is roughly 300 million).  A family of four gets $4.  

How is that NOT revenue neutral  They only way you can say that that is not revenue neutral is if you don't know what the term means.

Doing this raises the cost of all carbon fuels.  Basic economics tells you that as price increases demand decreases.  

You're arguing that people will not reduce their consumption as price increases.   The entire science of economics is against you on that point.
Even if you rebate back the tax (in the form of a check or by cutting income tax rates)  people will still reduce their consumption - it's basic economics.  

It's just like if you assessed and gas tax and simultaneously cut income tax rates.  People would use less gas because it was more expensive,  even though they were paying and equivilent amount less in income taxes.  People would choose to allocate there income more efficiently .  Again basic economics.

I don't know why people are injected a class warfare issue here.  Every income class pays the same tax rate and each individual gets the same amount of money returned.  Of course if you use more carbon you'll pay more tax,  that's the whole point.  I has nothing to do with class  There are no tiers of tax,  like the income tax,  or exclusions,  or deductions.  Use more pay more,  regardless of how wealthy you are.   It's a use tax  irrespective of wealth.

Sounds like an accounting nightmare to me!   [scared]

Looking at the curve in aggregate, taking $300 million out of the economy and then putting it right back in again will have zero impact in total.  Fuel prices might be higher, but since the money supply for the less afluent is now artificially inflated through wealth redistribution, demand in total is the same.  There is not a single example of a price floor or ceiling that has achieved the stated goal.  Thinking housing bubble. 

Of your hypothetical $300 million in revenue, what percentage of it is collected from the "rich"?   

What's a nightmare is borrowing 1 trillion dollars to fight a war in the middle east over oil.   ;)

Never content, I read the entire carbontax.org website, studied their spreadsheet, and researched their agenda.  It is clear that they have a social agenda, not an environmental agenda.  Like most of their type, their heart is in the right place, but they are bad at math.  

Anyone can download the taxpayer statistic file from the IRS in Excel.  It has statistics of all tax returns filed.  I downloaded it, and plugged a few numbers from it, as well as used the numbers in the carbontax.org Excel spreadsheet to see how the two lined up, as well as see if I might be missing something.

There were just under 143 million personal returns filed in 2007, which generated $1.1 trillion in personal taxes.  Population was estimated at 300 million, and the census indicates that 25% were under age 18, and 15% were over age 65, which results in 180 million available in the workforce.  Tax returns are filed by those over 65, and in some cases children.  I'm going to throw the kids out of the carbon equation, even though they have a carbon footprint. I'll assume they don't drive much.   Americans used 137.8 billion gallons of gas in 2009, which represents about 25% of all greenhouse gases.  Electricity is the largest contributor according to carbontax.org.  Based on their numbers, the affluent have a total carbon footprint that is 20% larger than the average American, and, according to them, should pay more of their proposed carbon tax, which would be rebated back to the less affluent.  

Affluent is never actually defined anywhere.  I did find data at a cap-and-trade site which provided miles driven per capita by income segment.  Interestingly, there was no real difference from about $30,000 a year up to over $250,000, which was the highest income on their scale.  The variance was small - the "poor" drive about 3,500 miles per year less than those earning over $30,000.

Tax filers under $30,000 represented 37% of total returns in 2007, but represented just 4% of the income tax generated.   Since the stated goal of carbontax.org is tax equally according to usage, and by their own data there is little difference in gasoline consumption per-capita by income segment over $30,000, I will define anyone earning over $30,000 as "rich" for the gasoline component of the tax.  The average MPG was 21.6 in the analysis year.  I'll use that as a constant.    Lets assume $1 a gallon carbon tax per gallon, which would generate 137.8 billion in new revenue paid equally by usage.  Plugging the numbers into Excel, of the 137.8 billion gallons used, 40.8 billion were used by the "poor", with the "rich" using 97.0 billion.  Everyone pays a buck per gallon.  The total tax is 137.8 billion.  The "extra" 56.2 billion collected from the "rich" is now rebated to the "poor", since this plan is revenue neutral, and the tax is based on usage.  Every "poor" taxpayer gets about $850 rebated to him from the "rich" guy, who used 20% more than him.  Since many in the under $30,000 segment have zero tax liability, I assume the tax would have to be refundable.  

Now we have to look at the effect on demand by income segment to see if there is any ENVIRONMENTAL impact, which is the intent of their tax...I think.    I'll assume that for those earning over $200,000, the extra tax will not reduce their gas consumption. A rich family driving the average miles for a family would be taxed an extra $100 a month.  Hardly a deterrent to their ski trip or weekend at the lake.   They represent 10% of the filers, but 30% of the "rich" segment due to the skewed income dynamics.  By the math, those few families will now pay 1/3 of the new tax, and will probably not reduce their demand.  

The middle class once again gets scr**ed!  Based on the gas prices of 2008, demand in the middle class segment fell about 5% when gas prices rose a dollar.  Each incremental dollar will reduce demand more, as incomes are fixed, and the budget can only get stretched so much.    The middle class (but still "rich"), consume about 67.8 billion gallons of gas.  Lets assume their demand falls by 5%, or 3.4 billion gallons with the new tax.  

The "poor" consume 40.8 billion gallons.  Gas now costs a buck more.  They drive 10,000 miles a year, at an average of 21.6 MPG, burning 463 gallons of gas.  The tax costs them $463 extra a year, but they get a rebate check  (or reduced tax bill) of $850.  I wonder how much less they are going to drive!   We have now implemented a new program, redistributed $56.2 billion in wealth, and lowered demand by maybe 3.5 billion gallons a year out of 137.8 billion gallons used.  Hardly a program that will ever get passed.  There is no real environmental benefit.

Tax everyone a buck at the gallon, and use the proceeds to research new energy sources.  Forget the rebates and wealth redistribution.  The rich are still going to drive the same number of miles, and yes, the tax is regressive.  So what.  It sucks to be poor, and it's good to be rich.  The rich do lots of things we don't do.  I make more than $30,000, but am a long way from $200,000.   In my family, we drive 25,000 miles a year at 20 mpg average, which would cost me about $1,250 a year.  I think I'd pay an extra $100 a month if I knew EVERYONE was doing their part, and tax revenue was actually used to develop new energy sources at not just some ponzi scheme or alternative form of welfare.

LOL. Sorry to laugh at this but did anyone stop to consider that global warming is a scam and the carbon taxes nothing more than theft? Just because the government says so does not make something true. We broke the all time coldest tempature record this winter. We also broke the all time snowfall record. Last winter wasn't much better. I'm sorry but it's going to take more than "Al Gore says so" to get me to belive this nonsense. I oppose all carbon taxes, period.

By the way, I live in a 400 sq. ft. house with a woodstove for heat and all CFL lights. So stick your carbon footprint.

Thoughtful response and interesting numbers.    I,  of course disagree  ;) .  There are several errors in logic and economic basics that you have fatally overlooked.

Don't really have time at the moment to full reply.  But a couple of quick points.

1)  How can a gas tax that only affects (by your numbers) 25% of the energy consumption market have the type of effect on consumption that it necessary?  I'll answer that for you - it can't

2) $1 trillion dollars in middle east wars for oil,   divided by 300 million Americans is $3,333 per person or $13,333 for a family of four.  (not to even mention all the casualties,  of course).

3) It doesn't matter whether climate change is real or not.  Our dependence on Carbon based energy has an enormous,  and deadly, cost.

4) It isn't about income redistribution.  The rebate part of the plan is irrelevant to it's effectiveness at reducing carbon consumption and fostering the growth of alternative energy sources.   The rebate part only makes it more politically palatable.  You could simple reduce everyone's income tax rate and/or payroll tax rate,  it really doesn't matter.

5)  I think you're projecting a social agenda where none exists.

I know I'll probably take a lot of heat (har har) for this but I suppose I really don't care.

I think a lot of people have taken a cynical attitude towards global warming, climate change, whatever because dishonest politicians (is there any other kind?) world wide hellbent on establishing a New World Order have exploited this potential disaster to their advantage. While I can understand the overall disgust in this regard, and I share it, it should come as no surprise to anyone that any disaster- real or perceived, as well as any great triumph have always been used and abused for political gain.

Many folks get a good laugh out of all the chicken littles claiming that the sky is falling citing a particularly cold winter as evidence that climate change is not happening, but of course climate change is happening. It always has and always will change, just as entire species and ecosystems have come and gone in unison with the changes.

A records indicate that average surface and ocean temperatures have risen significantly for the last 90 years or so and reliable scientists have a good indication of what might happen if the trend continues. The fact that the rising temperatures and Co2 levels correlate rather precisely to the industrial machine revolution seems solid evidence that there could be a connection, and that maybe humans do have a part in it.

I am not 100% convinced that climate change at this time is human caused, maybe hovering around 50%. A toss up. But I do feel it is a serious enough threat and there is sufficient evidence that politics aside, we owe it to our children to give the matter serious weight.

Quote from: dug on February 21, 2011, 12:42:12 PM
I am not 100% convinced that climate change at this time is human caused, maybe hovering around 50%. A toss up. But I do feel it is a serious enough threat and there is sufficient evidence that politics aside, we owe it to our children to give the matter serious weight.

Dug,  I couldn't agree more.

It doesn't matter whether Climate change is,  or is not happening.  It's really irrelevant.  There are people who feel passionately on both sides,  and they will not be moved from their position.  If this thread turns into one of those arguments about whether it's real or not,  an argument that never goes anywhere,   I'm outta here.

There are ample enough reasons for us to break our dependence on carbon based fuels without considering climate change.  And if human caused climate change turns out to real then that's just a bonus benefit.

Right now our countries primary source of revenue is income tax.  Which makes no sense since we want to encourage people to make as much money as possible.  If we want to reduce carbon,  which will benefit the country in numerous ways,  then we should tax carbon and un-tax income.  That shift would have to be gradual over time but it's simple enough to do.

As an added bonus,  most of the potential replace fuel sources would come from here in the US - creating domestic jobs.  What ever source of energy was able to compete most efficienctly against the newer higher price carbon would flourish.  It's a market based solution.

Because of some left wing politicians association with the issue of climate change many people have a knee-jerk reaction against any attempt to curb carbon emmisions.  But this is to the detriment of the country and our children and grandchildren.  It's not a political issue

I encourge people to read this brief article.  It states that the carbon tax is supported by fiscally conservative Republicans,  including Art Laffer,  who was Ronald Reagans economic adviser and one of the most economically conservative people in the country.
www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/05/13/68130/republican-lawmakers-back-carbon.html

First I don't believe in human-caused climate change/global warming. In fact I have been to presentations where a atmospheric physicist makes the argument that temperature increases PUSH Co2 levels higher, rather than Co2 INCREASING temperature.

But I do think that it is important to research and implement alternative energy. The research and development of new energy sources is going to be expensive and take years (decades). The three sources of renewable energy we have in place now are not good enough to fully take over powering the Nation's electric grid.

Solar---unless your in the desert Southwest, Hawaii, Florida, not a real viable option for powering high giga-watt grids

Wind---more suitable and widespread than solar, high level of maintenance per mega-watt (compared to coal, natural gas fired plants), takes thousands of windmills to equal the output of a large coal or gas fired plant, each windmill takes around one acre each; in a lot of areas this is valuable and productive farmland, higher rate of gov't tax-payer subsidies.

Nuclear---highest level of output, highest level of energy versus land use, comparable maintenance to coal and natural gas plants, potential for major safety issues while operating, problem with storing spent "fuel" rods----nobody wants them in their back yard...with good reason.

What's the answer? Maybe some kind of Hydrogen plant capable of producing high mega-watts. Would it be safe storing this much Hydrogen to run a plant this big?

I personally don't see any alternative energy option that is currently in the "public spotlight" replacing coal or natural gas fired plants in providing the majority of the Nation's energy needs for many, many decades.

The grid itself will probably fail, before the current energy sources do. Keep in mind there is something like 300 years worth of coal in Montana and Wyoming alone.

Right now and for the foreseeable future the "economy" could not withstand any new energy tax, especially gasoline or diesel tax. The proposed $1/gallon tax would put things worse than they were at the end of 2008 early 2009. Remember a gasoline or diesel price increase trickles down through the whole economy, and some of the increase is felt immediately some takes a full 12-18 months to trickle down.

While your suggestions of researching & implementing alternative energy are great, did you or anyone else look at the links I posted?  There's a lot of manipulation of the weather going on that is causing changes throughout the world.  What about that?

Quote from: Sassy on February 18, 2011, 02:09:32 PM
"The initial premise is wrong on two accounts. First, there is absolutely no evidence that any human-caused climate crisis exists."  First it was "global warming" now they're calling it "climate change" - the history of the earth is all about climate change...   ???  Yes, humans have polluted but normal everyday pollution has not changed the weather - volcanoes cause more pollution.  Now w/weather modification in the troposphere & HAARP experiments in microwaving the plasma in the ionosphere & sending out ELF & ULF waves, I guess I have to say we are affecting the climate...


Welcome to the TAP Home Page!

Much of the science that had been planned for the Tropospheric Aerosol Program (TAP) will in the future be conducted under the Department of Energy's Atmospheric Science Program, which, beginning in Fiscal Year 2005, will focus on radiative forcing of climate change by atmospheric aerosols. Interested readers are referred to the ASP web site and to the documents accessible from that page.

Because much of the science that had been planned for TAP coincides with planned research in the Atmospheric Science Program, this page is being maintained to provide background technical information.
http://www.asp.bnl.gov/tap.html

HAARP  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAARP  
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/bj1203.html

When Gore left office in January 2001, he was said to have a net worth in the neighborhood of $2 million. A mere eight years later, estimates are that he is now worth about $100 million. It seems it's easy being green, at least for some.

Gore has his lectures and speeches, his books, a hit movie and Oscar, and a Nobel Prize. But Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., was curious about how a man dedicated to saving the planet could get so wealthy so quickly. She sought out investment advice we all could use in a shaky economy.

Last May, we noted that Big Al had joined the venture capital group Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers the previous September. On May 1, 2008, the firm announced a $500 million investment in maturing green technology firms called the Green Growth Fund.

http://www.kansasprogress.com/wordpress/index.php/2009/05/09/cap-and-trade-al-gores-cash-cow/

Fuelling controversy that Gore lied about his profiteering from cap-and-trade
Al Gore invests millions to make billions in cap-and-trade software

By Steve Milloy  Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Al Gore's venture capital firm has invested $6 million in a software company that stands to make billions of dollars from cap-and-trade regulation — further fueling controversy that Gore lied about his profiteering from cap-and-trade to Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee during testimony in April.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11607

BTW, we've done our part in reducing our use of carbon - although what is the cost of producing the solar panels & wind generator?  We are totally off-grid, use solar & wind generator.  Our cabin has been built w/bug kill logs, http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=151.0  Glenn milled all the boards himself, most of our floors are made w/clay, sand & straw, although we are going to the CBRI floor http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=10293.0 which uses significantly less cement.  We have built into the ground to reduce heating costs (wood stove) & do not use air conditioning in the summer, just a fan.  We have our own vegetable gardens, fruit & nut trees & are raising our own chickens for eggs & the cows keeps the grass on the property well mowed which reduces fire damage & also fertilizes the ground.  

But, in order to get to this stage it took machinery to dig the hole & make the roads.  I have no idea what the manufacturing of solar panels entails - the "carbon footprint" I hate that phrase  [yuk]  And BTW, China is cracking down on the exportation of "rare earth minerals" that so much of our technology is reliant on.  A couple years ago I posted a link to the extensive pollution caused by the mining of these minerals - here's a link  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec09/china_12-14.html - there's a lot more articles than just that one.

Quote from article LINDSEY HILSUM: It doesn't look very green. Rare earth processing in China is a messy, dangerous, polluting business. It uses toxic chemicals, acids, sulfates, ammonia. The workers have little or no protection.

But, without rare earth, Copenhagen means nothing. You buy a Prius hybrid car and think you're saving the planet. But each motor contains a kilo of neodymium and each battery more than 10 kilos of lanthanum, rare earth elements from China.

Green campaigners love wind turbines, but the permanent magnets used to manufacture a 3-megawatt turbine contain some two tons of rare earth. The head of China's Rare Earth Research Institute shows me one of those permanent magnets. He's well aware of the issues.

We still have the effects from the sun, the volcanoes - one just erupted in the Phillipines - the changes in the magnetic poles over time - all natural phenomenon and then as I posted earlier in the rant, the human manipulation of the troposphere & ionosphere...  

If we got rid of the Federal Reserve we wouldn't be paying them interest to print money out of thin air & we'd have trillions of dollars to do research on alternative energy.  Why not unclassify Tesla's research for implementation - he did some amazing things besides discovering AC/DC electricity.  

One more time so no one misses it. Carbon taxes are a SCAM! Global warming is a SCAM! debating who should be taxed what is pointless and a total waste of time and likely a hoped for response to keep attention away from the SCAMMERS! There is an agenda. That agenda is global governance. Carbon taxes will fund that agenda not help the enviroment. The council of rome anounced exactly this plan back in the 1970's. Anyone who belives this nonsense is brainwashed.

There is no oil shortage, there never was. The whole oil shortage BS was a scam to keep energy prices high. The scam started 30 years ago and continues to this day. There is no peak oil blah blah blah. They did not invade the middle east for the oil they invaded to keep the oil off the market. There is too much oil, that's why they want it off the market. The US has within it's borders enough oil to last for over 100 years but they won't let anyone drill for it because they want to keep the prices up so the Arabians can buy our debt. That's what funds the federal deficit. That's what has funded it for the last 20 years.

WAKE UP!~

QuoteThe US has within it's borders enough oil to last for over 100 years

What then?   Easily recoverable, as measured in dollars to extract, is diminishing. Nothing on or in the earth is infinite. It is my understanding that a huge amount of the oil the US has is contained within shale. I for one would not look favorably upon grinding up vast portions of CO and WY to extract the resource from the shale. IIRC, the process of retorting oil from shale somehow expands the volume of the waste to almost twice the volume of the rock extracted. I guess we could pile that up to make some new mountains.

Let me put it in simpler terms. If oil was so scarce why is it so cheap? Why does carbon need to be taxed to dicourage it's use? If it really was so scarce the price would limit it's use and there would be no need for the government to get involved. The simple answer is that it's not scarce at all. The current price is a result of the governments intervention in the middle east. How much Iraq oil is on the market? Not much. If we where there for the oil they would be pumping it by now. They aren't.

QuoteCarbon taxes are a SCAM!

Agreed!

QuoteGlobal warming is a SCAM!

Maybe just part of earth's natural cycles, and definitely it is abused for power and profit but how can you deny that the earth is currently getting warmer?

QuoteNothing on or in the earth if infinite

An obvious, but ignored truth.

I am sure that oil prices and stated availability are, and always have been artificially manipulated for fun and profit but the current trend of infinite expansion coupled with a world that is not (expanding) does not jive with any math I am familiar with. My gripe is that in our world oil = money and power- it is literally what makes the world function. Understandably there are people who would very much like this to continue for as long as it can be milked, repercussions be damned.

I agree there is no current viable alternative for power to run our modern world, but I think there could be, or could have been if it were pursued with any sort of genuine gumption instead of dismissed and presented as some green hippy pipe dream. I think if you would have told people living 300 years ago that black goo was going to make machinery come alive and do our work for us it would have sounded pretty far fetched even to the most visionary scientist.

I feel that we humans would be capable of much better if money/ power/ politics were not the pinnacle of achievement.

Correct on all counts Dug. People, all people are being suppressed by those in power so they can stay in power. There are viable alternatives to oil but they won't see the light of day so long as there is money to be made selling oil and by extention gaining power. The human race is capable of so much better if we where allowed to evolve in a natural way but we aren't. We are manipulated and brainwashed at every turn. Who gave us the present system that is deemed to be so evil? The same people who are telling you we are all evil and need to pay to fix it.

Scott I agree with your post about the Council of Rome. According to Lindsay Williams there is enough oil in Alaska to last the U.S. 200 years. In Eastern Montana, N.W. Wyoming, and Western Dakota's there is a oil formation know as the Bakaan (sp) with another 100-150 years worth.

I wish the U.S. would be more like Canada in it's natural resource use. The Canadians are not scared to go after and use their oil, gas, coal, trees, etc. Why should the U.S. let a soft socialist nation like Canada lead it in energy production ? Nothing against Canada I like visiting up there in Alberta.

What about coal gasification ?

In the Bakkan oil shale fields there is a large discrepancy between the amount of oil there and the amount that is recoverable. There are very few untapped sweet spots in this vast area and most of the oil can only be extracted using hydraulic fracturing, a process that is handicapped from the get-go with a very low EROI (energy return on investment). Fracking  also uses millions of gallons of water (soon to be more valuable than oil IMO) laced with lethal chemicals including benzine to accomplish it's task at the expense of every living creature in the vicinity. Not quite the same as sticking a straw in the sand as it is done in Saudi Arabia.

Most sources I have read quote in the neighborhood somewhere south of 4 billion barrels of recoverable oil in that area, or about enough to supply the US for 6 to 8 months.

Not worth it.

I guess the oil companies and oil dictators must have heard this conversation.  They decided to impose a $1 (or $2) a gallon "tax" on gas for us.

Of course all the proceeds of that "tax" will go to them rather than us.   The price goes up and the country gets no benefit (it actually hurts our economy).  Funny how things seem to play out that way over and over again,    oh well.  d*

If it lowers demand it helps the environment, right?

Back in the 80's I used to hang around with some well drillers. All they did was drill wells, measure the output and cap them. I asked them what was with capping them. They told me that the company just wanted to know how much oil they had and didn't care about pumping it because they didn't need it. There are thousands of well like this all over Oklahoma. I'm sure the same is true for other states. All the babble about fracturing is just to make people go along with the slow drilling in the US program the EPA has had going for a long time. The real name of the EPA is the "Extraction Prevention Administration".

Quote from: archimedes on February 21, 2011, 11:03:42 AM

1)  How can a gas tax that only affects (by your numbers) 25% of the energy consumption market have the type of effect on consumption that it necessary?  I'll answer that for you - it can't

2) $1 trillion dollars in middle east wars for oil,   divided by 300 million Americans is $3,333 per person or $13,333 for a family of four.  (not to even mention all the casualties,  of course).

3) It doesn't matter whether climate change is real or not.  Our dependence on Carbon based energy has an enormous,  and deadly, cost.

4) It isn't about income redistribution.  The rebate part of the plan is irrelevant to it's effectiveness at reducing carbon consumption and fostering the growth of alternative energy sources.   The rebate part only makes it more politically palatable.  You could simple reduce everyone's income tax rate and/or payroll tax rate,  it really doesn't matter.

5)  I think you're projecting a social agenda where none exists.

2) Your view on the war is a political, and independent of the intent of this thread or discusssion.  Anyone who believes the war is about oil should be marching on the Capitol and demending for higher gas taxes, which would lower demand and our dependence on foreign oil, and eliminating the need to go to war for it.

3)  Climate change is real.  The cause of it is not certain.  Hard science tells us that 10,000 years ago much of northern North America was under a sheet of ice.  New Mexico and Texas were once under water, as were large parts of Utah and Arizona.  A good 99.9% of of this change ocurred before the industrial age and burning of fossil fuels.

4) If you have to pay people at the expense of others to make it palatable, it is not equitable.  Spin it how you want, it is about income redistribution.

5) My agenda is environmental, and applies to all people regardless of socio-economic standing.  Every human has a carbon footprint. 

Quote from: ScottA on February 25, 2011, 05:43:51 PM
Back in the 80's I used to hang around with some well drillers. All they did was drill wells, measure the output and cap them. I asked them what was with capping them. They told me that the company just wanted to know how much oil they had and didn't care about pumping it because they didn't need it. There are thousands of well like this all over Oklahoma. I'm sure the same is true for other states. All the babble about fracturing is just to make people go along with the slow drilling in the US program the EPA has had going for a long time. The real name of the EPA is the "Extraction Prevention Administration".

Nobody really knows the true supply, not even the oil companies.  Bill Gates probably does not know the true extent of his wealth.  That doesn't mean he should be wasteful.  Water is cheap - but I still try and conserve.  My water bill indicates that I am below the average residential water usage, and I have kids.  If we have 100 years of oil, and we could cut our use in half without any real impact on our lifestyle, we have 200 years.  I could afford a nicer car, but the one I have is just fine.  That is my mindset.  Everyone is different.  Taxes are designed to raise revenue or promote a social or political agenda.  Think cigarrette taxes.  I believe that if the government wants to promote an environmental agenda by taxing carbon, then it needs to do so equally.  If it penalizes the rich at a rate proportionally higher than their usage, it is a social agenda, not environmental, and is unfair.  Since everyone has a carbon footprint, there is no way for anyone to NOT pay if the goal is environmental.  I'd rather have no tax than another unfair, progressive program.     

Quote from: Shawn B on February 21, 2011, 11:39:56 PM
Scott I agree with your post about the Council of Rome. According to Lindsay Williams there is enough oil in Alaska to last the U.S. 200 years. In Eastern Montana, N.W. Wyoming, and Western Dakota's there is a oil formation know as the Bakaan (sp) with another 100-150 years worth.

I wish the U.S. would be more like Canada in it's natural resource use. The Canadians are not scared to go after and use their oil, gas, coal, trees, etc. Why should the U.S. let a soft socialist nation like Canada lead it in energy production ? Nothing against Canada I like visiting up there in Alberta.

What about coal gasification ?

What about nuclear? 

QuoteWhat about nuclear?

Ecologically unacceptable for myself as well as millions of others. Spent fuel will remain lethally toxic for undetermined millennia and there is not even a viable short term solution for safe storage, much less a plan to cover the unfathomable chasm of several million years. Mathematics proves that accidents are unavoidable, chaos theory will have more than ample time to prevail and while certain losses may be acceptable to further a societies greater good, nuclear power's  potential to exterminate an entire city or much worse is too high of a price for my blood.

But looking at it from a more practicable, business-like point of view it makes no sense either- at least not yet.  A quote from Dr Frank Clemente -

QuoteI performed net energy analysis for MITRE for NSF and DOE back in the '70's with consultants such as Edward Teller, Marcel Barbier, and others on all known energy technologies at the time.

Our earlier work at MITRE was buried by DOE during the Reagan years. Our findings about ethanol, photovoltaics and nuclear power were not well-received. All have negative energy ROI. It takes more energy to build, operate, and retire these facilities than they produce during their lifetimes. No one has yet successfully torn down a nuclear plant and fully disposed of the carcass of the nuclear generator and its waste materials and spent fuel. No one. Not a single nation has yet to finish out its Faustian Bargain. The closest is the Germans who are tearing one down along its northern coast. It has taken 15 years so far and 5 billion euro. It's about 2/3 done. The US has a nuke disposal fund with $23 billion to close down the 104 nukes in our fleet. They average 35 years of age. Think that'll be enough?

In reality nuclear power is at this time a negative drain on the economy as is most of our other energy sources. The heavily promoted fracking for natural gas and oil is also an economic drain as well as an ecological disaster. Trading clean air and water for a short term power solution that would not even be viable if not for heavy government subsidization is nothing short of criminal in my opinion, and to knowingly support it is a selfish and reprehensible act. A sell out. Where are all of our "patriots" crying foul? They certainly are aghast about private companies getting bailed out with government funding, yet turn a blind eye to the corporate power giants who receive a myriad of perks financial and otherwise- the biggest one of all being the endless Gulf war and over a million human lives. The Energy Act of 2005 enabled Cheney and Halliburton to rake in millions (billions?) while poisoning half the groundwater in the West, all on the taxpayer's tab.

Surprisingly to me, if we really did level the playing field economically I think we would utilize the most ecologically sound power sources currently available, which I reluctantly have to admit includes coal and imported oil, as well as wind and some solar facilities. These are viable because of their high EROI's, meaning that you actually get more energy from them than the energy expended to get it. Another quote from the article I referenced above-

QuoteMost net energy analyses are quite conservative in that they do not consider the energy used by the workers who created the equipment and installed it, their families, the energy used by the workers who support the logistics of the people who are directly involved, or the entire multiplier effects of non-manufacturing jobs which stand on the shoulders of the folks doing the work. When all the beans are counted, if the EROI is less than 8:1, the economy shrinks when that technology is chosen. Examples of those choices are nuclear (5:1), fracked natural gas in the US (7:1), oil and tar sands (5:1), geothermal (5:1), photovoltaics in the sunbelt US (3:1) and elsewhere (1:1), ethanol based on non-ag sources (3:1) and ag (1:1), biodiesel (4:1), algae (4:1), and secondary oil in the US (5:1).

These are all losers. Not one nickel should be wasted on any of them.

Sadly, that's where all the money was and is being spent.

QuoteThe best choices are those with an EROI significantly higher than 10:1 — offshore wind, land-based wind in class 5 areas or better, ocean thermal in the tropics, and solar thermal in high insolation areas, receive almost no help.

As for electric vehicles, they depend on a backbone of antiquated power plants and a distribution network dating back over a century. They also depend on non-existent materials and manufacturing processes for the nextgen batteries and very limited rare earth elements that do not have a large supply. Depending on these selections reflects poor judgment.

And yes, ammonia is the only answer left for transportation fuels. It can be made from air and water and ANY SOURCE of heat and electric power. If you're smart, you'll use one that has an EROI higher than 8:1. Right now that is the short list of renewables above, imported gas from cheap international sources, and coal. If you care about the environment it's a really short list.

Although coal is one of the best energy sources we currently have, the "clean coal" propaganda campaign should be terminated. I am confident future generations will view the clean coal campaign in much the same way we see cigarette ads from the 50's and 60's- "8 out of ten doctors recommend Camel cigarettes!". Funny, but sad. Tell it like it is and let the people decide.

And what of the not so distant future, say 20 years or so, when we will be requiring 50% more juice than now? Not so rosy. More people with less room digging up more fossils and excreting more poison into what we have left. The only real energy solution IMO is to find a way to reduce and then limit our world population. The white blindness takes care of the rabbits when they get too many to sustain, but what will take care of us? Of course that would be impossible under our current economic system which requires infinite expansion to survive but unless we find a way to the stars, and soon, we are lemmings heading for the cliff. We are just not sure how far away the edge is. Yet.  [waiting]

Quote from: Native_NM on February 28, 2011, 12:23:09 PM

Quote from: archimedes on February 21, 2011, 11:03:42 AM

2) Your view on the war is a political, and independent of the intent of this thread or discusssion.  Anyone who believes the war is about oil should be marching on the Capitol and demending for higher gas taxes, which would lower demand and our dependence on foreign oil, and eliminating the need to go to war for it.

3)  Climate change is real.  The cause of it is not certain.  Hard science tells us that 10,000 years ago much of northern North America was under a sheet of ice.  New Mexico and Texas were once under water, as were large parts of Utah and Arizona.  A good 99.9% of of this change ocurred before the industrial age and burning of fossil fuels.

4) If you have to pay people at the expense of others to make it palatable, it is not equitable.  Spin it how you want, it is about income redistribution.

5) My agenda is environmental, and applies to all people regardless of socio-economic standing.  Every human has a carbon footprint.  

1)  I guess that since you didn't respond to #1 that you agree with the point.
2)  My statement is not political,  it is reality.  Our energy policy is inextricably wrapped up in our foreign policy.  The two are inseparable.  Would we have cared if Sadaam had invaded Kuwait if there were no oil there?  Of course not.  The fact that we depend on low world oil prices forces us to make bad,  and compromising,  foreign policy decisions.  At extremely high cost.
3)  I agree climate change is real.  So we,  at the very least,  should hedge ours bets to avoid the consequences from it by implementing a rational energy policy.
4)  You're very caught up in the rebate part of the Carbon Tax plan.  The rebate is NOT required whatsoever for the plan to work.  The only negative with a carbon tax is that it disproportionately hurts lower income people.  To mitigate that,  some have suggested the rebate.  The rebate is NOT essential OR necessary to achieve the goals of the plan; a) economic security  b) national security  c) create jobs  d) reduce the trade deficit  e) help the environment  d)foster innovation f) de-centralize our energy sources.


Putting a price on carbon is the best market based approach.  Many of the earlier posts are trying to figure out what would replace carbon fuels.  With a Carbon Tax you don't have to know the answer to that question or have the gov't picking winners by subsidizing specific industries (i.e. ethanol.  nuclear,  solar).  With higher carbon prices the market will find a solution.  That's the beauty of the plan.  Think of  300 million minds seeking a common goal - a cheaper replacement fuel.  Somewhere there is a Steve Jobs of energy just waiting for the opportunity that higher carbon prices present

Plus since you can schedule the increase gradually over time it's predictable and forseable,  so everyone can prepare for it without it being a shock.  Unlike what is going to be forced on us with the current oil crisis.

I have an economics background,  so I see solutions in economic terms,  not political.

Quote from: dug on February 28, 2011, 05:21:09 PM

QuoteWhat about nuclear?

The only real energy solution IMO is to find a way to reduce and then limit our world population.

So you are in favor of the gov't deciding on how many children you and your wife have? What their sexes are, which ones can live? That goes against everything this Nation was founded on. If the U.S. tried to enact a plan like this (which is what China is doing) it would result in the Second American Revolution real fast. It seems you are buying the N.W.O agenda hook, line and sinker Dug. This is the same bull shit that the Georgia Guide Stones prescribes. 

I believe it is a big leap to go from someone saying they think part of the solution to world environmental problems is to limit population, to implying that means government intervention, a la China. That's my opinion and may not reflect that of dug.  I agree there are too many people on earth. The people we already have are going to be using more and more energy. If our world population continues to increase we're just digging a bigger hole, creating a bigger problem. How to limit population growth is a sticky question. What do we do? Or is population not part of the problem?

I agree with Don.  Education and access to birth control can be greatly effective without having to get to the Chinese solution.  The Chinese solution is an extreme solution for an extreme problem.  Currently our entire industrialized society has the foundation on fossil fuels, this includes food production, housing, etc... Price shocks or shortages leads to difficulties and strife.  I'm not sure if the world could sustain its population without it.  I certainly don't think it would be sustainable with the exponential population forecast when it runs out.  No one seems to debate that one day it will run out, they just debate on when.

QuoteSo you are in favor of the gov't deciding on how many children you and your wife have? What their sexes are, which ones can live?

Wow! Did I say that?

Actually I was thinking of something like financial incentives (tax breaks) for those who choose to have less children, which is the opposite situation of the system we have now. Seems to me that lowering our population to a reasonable level would be the only sensible way to avoid an eventual "New World Order".

Available resources inflict a natural carrying capacity for all species (yes, we are a species too) and when it is exceeded something has to give. Wolves have fewer or no pups when game is scarce or during a particularly hard winter, while other animals dive headlong into famine or disease when overpopulated. For all of our mastery of technical skills and mathematical genius we humans seem to be seriously challenged as far as common sense goes, though I don't think we will ever find ourselves in a short supply of arrogance.

Less people would result in a healthier quality of life, more for all, and a brighter future for our children. Un-American? I think not. Yes, there was the issue of tyranny but one of the reasons our ancestors risked their lives and crossed an unknown ocean was to escape the disease ridden and overcrowded life in Europe and start anew in a land with promise and sufficient elbow room.

You needn't worry yourself with my communist ramblings though, because I am sure that our short sightedness and dedication to a Wal-Mart economy will ensure that we continue our way blindly and blissfully along our current path. Sooner or later the Earth will take care of our population problem herself.

What this comes down to is freedom versus gov't control......I'll side with freedom every time.

The overpopulation myth was started by top Eugenicists. The information is out for those who will take the time to research. A good place to start is Margaret Sanger.

Dug...I never implied you were/are a communist. BTW, I try not to support the Wal-Mart economy.....but I have been know to buy a few things there.

QuoteWhat this comes down to is freedom versus gov't control.

I don't think so. I certainly never suggested any form of government control, though I wouldn't object to some sort of government supported incentive.

QuoteI'll side with freedom every time.

Me too! An elusive side to locate however.

Almost 7 billion people on Earth a myth (conspiracy theory?) propagated by top Eugenicists?  ??? Does the sun not rise in the East? I have only been breathing air for not quite half a century and have seen the population more than double with my own eyes. 

I must confess I did not know of Margaret Sanger but a quick Wikipedia search revealed her to be somewhat of a visionary in my opinion, though I suppose that may ruffle a few feathers. A touchy subject where only fools  ( d*) will tread. I'm not sure what she has to do with the "overpopulation myth" and I'm confused as to whether you are for or agin her but I'll assume that you are for, because she was on the side of freedom. *Disclaimer! I only gleaned information from a 1 page biography so I am not fully endorsing, nor condemning her views.


I was referring to the Wal-Mart economy in a little broader terms, and we are all entrenched in it and have little to say in the matter, it will just have to play itself out IMO.

I'm sorry if I side-railed this thread, I really didn't mean to. It's just that the discussion of the energy problem usually revolves around how to get more, or how to use less. I was only trying to suggest an honest alternative that could cut demand, a pointless endeavor I realize- in more ways than one.

The population issue is a matter of opinion. Who can say with any certainty how many is too many? Maybe too many living in one place but there are other places with very few. I once read that the entire population of the world could fit in an area the size of Texas and everyone could have an average size house with a yard. I don't think that's too far fetched. The real issue is efficency. Our current system encourages waste at every level. Add to this the issue of hording of land and resources by the wealthy and the governments and there's not enough to go around...or is there? The US government has gone out of it's way over the last 50 years to kill farming, kill oil drilling, kill manufaturing, kill lumbering, kill small business...the list goes on and on. Not only that they pay people not to work and pay to keep kids out of the workforce. If there is such a shortage of everything why are they trying to stop people from producing? Maybe it's because there is no shortage other than the one they are trying to create.

BTW Texas has  171,904,640 acres. Divided by 7,000,000,000 people in the world.  This would be a 1069 square feet per person including deserts and land underwater.

Quote from: Squirl on March 01, 2011, 05:02:05 PM
BTW Texas has  171,904,640 acres. Divided by 7,000,000,000 people in the world.  This would be a 1069 square feet per person including deserts and land underwater.

Thanks for the math lesson and the lesson in reality. Maybe we'd all fit into Texas if the world was not overpopulated.

Thanks. I did Goggle Margaret Sanger. Seems to me I had heard of her before.  I found this link... http://feministsforchoice.com/was-margaret-sanger-a-racist.htm (http://feministsforchoice.com/was-margaret-sanger-a-racist.htm).

Unlike most eugenicists, Margaret Sanger did not advocate for birth control because she felt that certain groups of women should have babies, while others should not. Sanger believed that birth control should be available to all women, particularly those who were poor, because limiting their number of children would help mothers provide a better quality of life for their families, especially when resources were limited. Sanger believed that reproductive decisions should be made by the individual woman, and not on a social or cultural basis, and she consistently argued against the racialized application of eugenics principals. Margaret Sanger eventually abandoned the eugenics movement, and her reasoning is very clear from a statement that she made in 1919:

Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that is is her right, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother . . . Only upon a free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment. (Source: The Birth Control Review, February 1919)

Seems to me she was a smart woman.

Of course if birth control means preventing conception as well as the right to abortions that can disturb some people and is another topic.

Scott you are right in that optimal population is a matter of opinion. It's already way too crowded for my tastes but there are others who feel completely vulnerable without another human being within shouting distance. I disagree that there are places that have to few humans, at least they are very rare. There is a big difference between how many sardines you can fit in a can and how much space a sardine needs to survive without artificial aid.

Most every state west of the Mississippi is severely beyond that land's natural carrying capacity, surviving only by means of ancient water deposits and stealing the rest from other sources. Plans have been introduced to pipe water from the Yukon or the Mississippi river when the time comes necessary, consuming an unfathomable amount of power. Is this a viable appropriation of our resources? Sure, I guess it would "create" jobs but I see that kind of like printing money. LA and Las Vegas are as artificial as astroturf.

I am not a hermit, I actually like people, at least some people, but why is it necessary to have so many of them? Why not leave some room for other things- birds, lizards, deer, rabbit, redwoods, mountain lions, coatimundi, javelina, all need, and I feel deserve space and water to exist. I guess we could survive without some of them, but I'd rather not. And how many links can we remove from the chain before disaster results? To those who think we are isolated from the natural world- try removing a single species, plankton, and see how we get along.

If the population has doubled in my lifetime alone what is to indicate that that trend will stop? ScottA may be right, and we have plenty enough of every needed resource right now but I think everyone would have to admit there has to be some end. More and more humans exponentially consuming a finite amount of resources  can not continue infinitely. There is most certainly an edge to the cliff, and I don't see the harm in starting to apply the brakes now until waiting until we are careening over it.

I'm a little weird, I admit that, but its hard for me to understand why that is such a controversial concept.   ???

You guys miss Scotts point. So it would take Texas and New Mexico to hold the worlds population. That would leave the rest of the world for energy, food, resources, etc. As was pointed out already, the Earth will take care of human populations at some point. Probably with disease and sickness, think Middle Ages. Also keep in mind societal resets like the fall of the Roman Empire, which led to the Dark Ages. This caused at least a 500 year setback in technology.

http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm

Hitler was a student of American eugenics, It lead to his "final solution" problem:

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/02/nazis-murder-of-jews-communists-and.html

Eugenics merge with Environmentalism:

http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=25263&comments=20

IBM and the Holocaust:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfevjFskGJA

 ???

I think Shawn could start a thread on eugenics and overpopulation, etc. if he wishes to pursue that topic. I don't see the relevance to anything in this thread. It grew out of dug's mention of overpopulation and by his own words he did not mean government action as in China. We've gone so far astray on this topic already. Sometimes it would be nice to not wander so far afield.

That's just an opinion, a suggestion; has no legal or moral bearing.

I'm not against having less people, I'm against having some bureaucrat get to decide which of us are the too many.

Biofuels - advantages/disadvantages   http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-true-cost-of-corn-ethanol/  

Thousands of small family farms have gone out of business in the US.  I have many relatives in Nebraska who have had to sell their family farms due to the underhanded practices of many banks.  There is a major on-going lawsuit still pending by countless farmers who lost their land - I'll get the info from my cousin as I can't recall the class action name.

Big corporate farms have taken over who do not care what pesticides, genetically modified, hormone pumped up plants & animals they produce as long as the bottom line is profits.  We now have cloned meat - approved by the FDA  http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-15/health/fda.cloning_1_meat-and-milk-clone-free-center-of-food-safety?_s=PM:HEALTH   (http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-15/health/fda.cloning_1_meat-and-milk-clone-free-center-of-food-safety?_s=PM:HEALTH%20 ) Oh, it is SAFE!  Sure it is, how long have they done studies on the human population to prove that it is safe?    http://www.livescience.com/2182-cloned-milk-meat-beef.html (http://www.livescience.com/2182-cloned-milk-meat-beef.html)

When I fly I see vast areas of open land.  Yes, there is good land & poor land for farming etc.  But there is a lot of open land.  As Scott said, there's a vast amount of land that the Federal gov't now owns  http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/914109-how-much-land-does-the-federal-government-own    (http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/914109-how-much-land-does-the-federal-government-own%20 )


Don, did you watch this video that directly quotes Margaret Sanger's writings?  I think you should, as what you posted has been greatly whitewashed.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=yhs-avg&type=yahoo_avg_hs2-tb-web_us&p=You+Tube+-+Margaret+Sanger

Here's a link to the fertility rates around the world - looks like the highest growth in populations is in 3rd world countries & Muslim nations.  A lot of the growth in the US & Europe is from immigration.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

Quote from: archimedes on February 21, 2011, 11:03:42 AM
Thoughtful response and interesting numbers.    I,  of course disagree  ;) .  There are several errors in logic and economic basics that you have fatally overlooked.

Don't really have time at the moment to full reply.  But a couple of quick points.

1)  How can a gas tax that only affects (by your numbers) 25% of the energy consumption market have the type of effect on consumption that it necessary?  I'll answer that for you - it can't

If the poorer segment is taxed $1.00 a gallon, they will drive less.  The elasticity for poor people is different than rich people.  With the proposed redistribution plan proposed by carbontax.org, the poorer segment would not have an incentive to reduce demand.  Tax everyone a buck, and demand will fall for everyone except the wealthy.  There are more poor and middle class people than rich people, so more than 25% of the total demand would be impacted.  Much more.   I'm middle class by the way.

Quote from: ScottA on March 02, 2011, 08:36:40 AM
I'm not against having less people, I'm against having some bureaucrat get to decide which of us are the too many.

I agree.

Quote from: Native_NM on March 02, 2011, 09:42:15 PM

Quote from: archimedes on February 21, 2011, 11:03:42 AM

If the poorer segment is taxed $1.00 a gallon, they will drive less.  The elasticity for poor people is different than rich people.  With the proposed redistribution plan proposed by carbontax.org, the poorer segment would not have an incentive to reduce demand.  Tax everyone a buck, and demand will fall for everyone except the wealthy.  There are more poor and middle class people than rich people, so more than 25% of the total demand would be impacted.  Much more.   I'm middle class by the way.

Your math is wrong, again.

Native_NM said;    "Americans used 137.8 billion gallons of gas in 2009, which represents about 25% of all greenhouse gases."

Even if all middle and lower income people stopped driving entirely it would only affect the total greenhouse gas number by some number less than 25%.  Since the part all greenhouse gas production from gasoline is only 25% of the whole pie.  Right.  Simple mathematics.  Maybe you're not following me.

You agree,  that greenhouse gases should be limited.  So think of greenhouse gases as a pie.  So we need to figure out a way to get rid of that pie.  Your plan only addresses 25% of the pie,  my plan addresses all 100% (all greenhouse fuels not only gasoline).  If you want to create a plan that ideally gets rid of the whole pie (theoretically) why would you devise a plan that only attacks 25% of the problem - which is what a gas tax does.

That's like putting only 25% of your footings below the frost line.  Makes no sense.

Again,  I think you see some social agenda that,  in my opinion ,  doesn't exist.  My opinion is based solely on economics.

Raise the price and people will definately use less.  Especially people of lesser financial means.  It's basic economic 101.  

What you do with the proceeds of the tax has no bearing whatsoever on the effectiveness of the tax in reducing carbon consumption.  Use it for deficit reduction,  to reduce the income or FICA tax,  rebate it, whatever,  it doesn't matter.

Don't let political bias trump sound economic policy.

I'd be willing to bet that for most people the top use of the gas they buy is to get to and from work. Driving around for fun is probly only a small part of their total fuel use. So you add a $1 a gallon to gas to lower demand. It won't work. You may get them to reduce a portion of their fun time driving but the other uses won't change. Also lets not forget how much gas business uses for operating trucks and I'm not just talking about semi trucks either. Look around the next time you are in the city at all the verious service trucks for plumbers, electritions, delivery etc. Who do you think will pay the $1 tax for them? You will. 

Quote from: archimedes on March 02, 2011, 10:43:36 PM

Even if all middle and lower income people stopped driving entirely it would only affect the total greenhouse gas number by some number less than 25%.  Since the part all greenhouse gas production from gasoline is only 25% of the whole pie.  Right.  Simple mathematics.  Maybe you're not following me.

You agree,  that greenhouse gases should be limited.  So think of greenhouse gases as a pie.  So we need to figure out a way to get rid of that pie.  Your plan only addresses 25% of the pie,  my plan addresses all 100% (all greenhouse fuels not only gasoline).  If you want to create a plan that ideally gets rid of the whole pie (theoretically) why would you devise a plan that only attacks 25% of the problem - which is what a gas tax does.

I was speaking in the context of gasoline consumption only.  Electricity generation accounts for 40% of fossil-based CO2 output.  If you want to talk math, CO2 is only about 10% of total greenhouse gasses.  Water vapor exceeds CO2 by a factor of 5 to 7.  The Icelandic volcano that erupted last year spit out about the same CO2 as all man-made fossile fuels combined.  That means at least half of all CO2 is not man-made.  By your "mathadology", fossil-based CO2 is 1/2 of 10% of CO2 gasses, and gasoline is 1/4 of that.  Why bother?  If all humans suddenly died, total greenhouse gasses would reduce by about 5%.  Agreed?

You know,  you're right. 

I  won't  can't argue with logic like that.   d*

Quote from: archimedes on March 03, 2011, 05:38:12 PM
You know,  you're right. 

I  won't  can't argue with logic like that.   d*

Human's impact the environment, but so does every species.   The earth was here before us, and most likely will be here after us.

Pre fossil fuel I believe the carrying capacity of the planet never exceeded 1 billion humans and it wasn't because we lacked the opportunity to breed. We are living on stored rather than current sunlight presently and are blowing through that stored energy at an ever increasing clip. I believe something like 98% of all species that have ever inhabited this planet are now extinct. I seriously doubt we are somehow an exception. I'm not much for gloom and doom. We have been able to find and use these sources of energy. We have learned and built upon our knowledge generation by generation. We are also the first to be able to percieve oncoming problems in the future. Whether we are smart enough to do anything about it is still up in the air, but we are quite capable, of just about anything we put our minds to.

QuoteThe earth was here before us, and most likely will be here after us.

I doubt many would dispute that.

QuoteHuman's impact the environment, but so does every species.

Technically true of course, but we are the only species with the tools to do it on a industrial scale.

QuoteWe are living on stored rather than current sunlight presently and are blowing through that stored energy at an ever increasing clip.

This is the real meat of the matter and the reason why many estimated energy reserves of hundreds or more years is either propaganda, delusion, denial, mind dulling contrails, or some combination of thereof. Exponential growth=exponential energy consumption. A little math proves indisputably that unless growth is checked, no amount of fossils we dig up will do anything but slightly prolong our addiction to them.

I agree with DonP that we possess the intelligence to solve the problem, but I wonder if we possess the wisdom.

When you consider the enormous profit motive in keeping the current energy situation exactly the same,  it's no wonder that nothing ever changes.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!   -  Upton Sinclair

Interesting piece on the news about how the recent gas prices are affecting travel.  One family said if gas goes up to $4.00 they would cancel their summer vacation to Disneyland.  Their three kids were really looking forward to the trip, and they were hoping prices didn't go too much higher. 

A family of five driving to Disney will probably spend $5 grand easy in a week.  If they can't afford the extra $150 or so in gas, they probably shouldn't be going in the first place. 

Quote from: Native_NM on March 10, 2011, 11:04:22 PM

Interesting piece on the news about how the recent gas prices are affecting travel.  One family said if gas goes up to $4.00 they would cancel their summer vacation to Disneyland.  Their three kids were really looking forward to the trip, and they were hoping prices didn't go too much higher. 

A family of five driving to Disney will probably spend $5 grand easy in a week.  If they can't afford the extra $150 or so in gas, they probably shouldn't be going in the first place. 

Yes, but if they are used to spending $100 a week in gas commuting and now they are spending $130, that is an extra $1560 a year in gas.  That can eat up much of the money for a yearly vacation.

An increase in the price of oil causes the price of virtually everything to go up ,  not just gasoline.

Because our political system is crippled by political extremism,  we allow other countries to control our destiny.  Which the oil companies,  and oil dictators,  like just fine.

No rational energy policy in the US,  spells troubled times for us ahead.

The actual solutions are quite simple.  Getting the political system to work well enough to implement them is another story.

Quote from: archimedes on March 11, 2011, 12:42:36 PM
An increase in the price of oil causes the price of virtually everything to go up ,  not just gasoline.

Because our political system is crippled by political extremism,  we allow other countries to control our destiny.  Which the oil companies,  and oil dictators,  like just fine.

No rational energy policy in the US,  spells troubled times for us ahead.

The actual solutions are quite simple.  Getting the political system to work well enough to implement them is another story.

Since the US has enough energy resources within its own borders to be energy independent right now, some might argue that we are in charge of our own destiny.  We do have an energy policy: use their cheap resources first.  This is well documented. 

We choose to import oil because it is cheap and cleaner than doing the dirty work in our own backyard.  I could grow my families food at my place;  I have the room and the knowledge.  It is frankly cheaper and easier to buy it at the grocery store.  We import food because of cheap Mexican or South American labor and economies of scale.  That and the fact that they don't have to worry about the EPA and other regulations like OSHA and DOL.  At the point that it is cheaper to "drill baby, drill", we will be energy independent.  Ironically, the environmentalists will long for the good old days of cheap Saudi crude.

And it many cases it's cheaper and easier because our own government drove up the cost of doing things ourselves thus putting millions of Americans out of a job. Great plan.

Quote from: ScottA on April 21, 2011, 03:50:31 PM
And it many cases it's cheaper and easier because our own government drove up the cost of doing things ourselves thus putting millions of Americans out of a job. Great plan.

The spread between Pw and Pr is taxes.  Since Pr (in aggregate) is based on the elasticity of the product relative to the entire basket of goods, the lower Pw, the more the government can tax.  There is a hypothetical max Pr that the public can pay.  Saudi crude keeps Pw low enough that they can tax the heck out of it and Pr is still affordable to most people.  The average gas tax per gallon right now is $0.45 cents per gallon.  It is not variable.  When gas was $2.50 a gallon last year, the tax rate on each gallon was ~ 25% at the pump.  For a family with a marginal rate of 15%, the effective tax rate for each gallon of gas is over 25% at today's price.  To earn $3.65 net, you have to gross $4.75.  For a family in the 28% bracket it skyrockets.  It is all about the money.  Gas tax revenue is well over $100 billion a year.  Not chump change.  Many families pay more in federal and state gas taxes than they do federal income tax.  Check out irs.gov for the details.

I'm not opposed to gas taxes if they were used for the right reasons.  Gas is still a bargain in most cases.  As the price goes up, most people cut back. 

You missed the hidden taxes. All these oil selling nations are required to buy US debt, thus a large portion of the COST of the oil is returned to the government via debt. So you have that plus the actual tax. But it gets even better. By keeping U.S. and other oil off the market they keep the price up. This creates a demand for the dollars they are printing up out of thin air which is another hiddden tax known as inflation. If I had to guess I'd say 60% of the cost of gas is directly related to tax and hidden taxes.

While I agree that our energy dependence is due, in large part, to our political decisions and kowtowing to extreme and often ignorant environmental advocacy groups. It is not due to control of oil supplies by "big oil companies" . Many assume they own the oil reserves in the mid east and other regions----they do not. Those oilfields and the oil is, in every location I know of, owned by the countries they are in. The oil companies are merely contractors who are hired to develop those assets. All the major oil companies, combined, actually own and control less than 10% of proven reserves----they are not  able to "set prices"---believe me, if they did, the price per barrel would never fall to less then $10 which it has several times in recent years----as it did in the mid 1980s when a small oil company I and a few others owned was forced to close its' doors----but not before we had expended $11 million----but it was fun for a while, being pseudo-rich.