[Buckaroo]

Hyperventilating? It's been a couple weeks. Well, I have always said that the whole global warming thing is a scam. This carbon credits is a scam on top of a scam.

Originally Posted by tie 

Um, you must have missed the first few pages of this thread, Buckaroo (back when you were hyperventilating about Gore's "hypocrisy," claiming that he wanted to drive the world into poverty, etc.).

The industry is not regulated and has poor standards. And it is growing quickly. I don't know Gore's reasons, but this would be one reason I would not necessarily promote purchasing carbon credits to a wide audience. A lot of people who didn't do their research would end up being scammed. There are some good companies out there, but until standards are agreed on and enforced, they won't all be equal.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by tie 

Um, you must have missed the first few pages of this thread, Buckaroo (back when you were hyperventilating about Gore's "hypocrisy," claiming that he wanted to drive the world into poverty, etc.).

The industry is not regulated and has poor standards. And it is growing quickly. I don't know Gore's reasons, but this would be one reason I would not necessarily promote purchasing carbon credits to a wide audience. A lot of people who didn't do their research would end up being scammed. There are some good companies out there, but until standards are agreed on and enforced, they won't all be equal.

The one that Al Gore owns? Is that one of the good ones? The one that buys or rents cheap land in Africa and mono-cultures trees? That one?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I oppose that too, but I just don't see how anything anyone here has said is any more "taxing people into submission" than any other tax is. What is it about this tax that alludes to "submission?" Or do you oppose all taxes on principle?

You bring up an interesting question that probably wouldn't bear too much fruit in this thread. I'm for a flat sales tax in general and believe the entire tax structure needs to be scrapped. It's too complex, It's too cumbersome. We're actually missing tax revenue by taxing only documented workers, etc... The technical answer is; I understand the importance of taxation, but don't appreciate the current structure. I've not heard this "taxation" issue brought up to increase the cost of gas as a punitive measure against consumption by many in leadership, but several here seem to advocate this notion. I'm opposed to it. I'm opposed to continuously increasing taxes on cigarettes and alcohol under the guise of "societal interest" while it is patently obvious an addiction is being exploited to boost the coffers of govt. while no societal change is evident in their policy.

you seem to be talking as if $4/gal gas will be the result of someone's agenda, when in reality it is most likely an inevitability that we'll be stuck in that situation eventually no matter what happens. So if we talk about using taxes to jump ahead to that time, I don't see that as "punative," I see it as making the monetary cost of buying gas more accurately represent the societal cost of using/wasting it.

I'm glad to see you include "using" it as opposed to simply saying "wasting" it. If you're taking a weekend stroll with your family in the minivan to patronize many of the fine businesses downtown, this is not wasteful. Many would disagree. Enter agenda. Some define this issue with only "waste" on their mind as opposed to the implications this has on others.

Isn't that what all taxes do? The price increase goes towards making alternative technologies more competitive as well as generating revenue to subsidize solutions to the coming energy crisis before it hits.

My wheel tax is supposed to go toward road improvement and maintenance here, but if I lose another suspension on a friggin' VW-eating pothole I just don't know what...

I don't think the folks in government are good stewards of our money. I don't want to give the govt more money in making alternative technologies more competitive because they won't. I don't want to give the govt more revenue to subsidize solutions to the coming energy crisis before it hits because they won't. All you'll be doing is giving them more revenue to fight over while the purpose of it gets lost in emotional, political paralysis and posturing. Social Security had a purpose at one time too.

None of that says "punitive" or "submission" to me, so I guess my question is, what part of it says those things to you?

Originally Posted by KarlG

That's the problem; they haven't been hit hard enough yet. Maybe when gas hits $4/gallon, or more, it will make a difference.

That, by definition says "punitive" to me. I don't think "hitting people harder" is sound policy initiative.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

My wheel tax is supposed to go toward road improvement and maintenance here, but if I lose another suspension on a friggin' VW-eating pothole I just don't know what...

I don't think the folks in government are good stewards of our money. I don't want to give the govt more money in making alternative technologies more competitive because they won't. I don't want to give the govt more revenue to subsidize solutions to the coming energy crisis before it hits because they won't. All you'll be doing is giving them more revenue to fight over while the purpose of it gets lost in emotional, political paralysis and posturing. Social Security had a purpose at one time too.

It doesn't matter how the government spends the proposed gas tax. The money could go into general funds, and other taxes could be cut to make it revenue-neutral. The point is to charge people for their externalities. Don't rely on the government to come up with solutions to an energy crisis.* Rather, let the free market do its magic.

* Given our military exposure in the Middle East, I would call it a current energy crisis not a coming one.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm for a flat sales tax in general

How is a flat sales tax any less punitive than a flat gas tax? If you insist on saying a gas tax penalizes people for using gas, why wouldn't you say that a sales tax penalizes them from buying goods and services?

I've not heard this "taxation" issue brought up to increase the cost of gas as a punitive measure against consumption by many in leadership, but several here seem to advocate this notion.

Uh, you're the first person to mention "taxation" here

I'm opposed to continuously increasing taxes on cigarettes and alcohol under the guise of "societal interest" while it is patently obvious an addiction is being exploited to boost the coffers of govt. while no societal change is evident in their policy.

That's interesting. Would you prefer a ban on cigarettes and alcohol? Or a license, like a fishing license, 2 drinks and 2 smokes per person per week?

I'm glad to see you include "using" it as opposed to simply saying "wasting" it. If you're taking a weekend stroll with your family in the minivan to patronize many of the fine businesses downtown, this is not wasteful. Many would disagree. Enter agenda.

I don't know about that (the disagreeing), but taking 4 cars downtown when 1 carpool would do, quite clearly is wasteful. I doubt any would disagree, exit agenda.
As I see it, taxation is the only way the government has of separating "using" from "wasting." If it's wasting, people will stop doing it. If it's necessary afterall, people can still do it.

I don't think the folks in government are good stewards of our money. I don't want to give the govt more money in making alternative technologies more competitive because they won't.

Let me ask it another way then. Suppose no mention is ever made of global warming, and the gas tax just goes to support the expensive foreign wars that are necessary from time to time in order to defend democracy in parts of the world which produce that gas. Is the govt a less bad steward of that money?

Or conversely, would your argument also support anyone opposed to taxes that wind up funding the war, if they can show the govt is a bad steward of our money when it comes to defending the peace?

I don't want to give the govt more revenue to subsidize solutions to the coming energy crisis before it hits because they won't. All you'll be doing is giving them more revenue

Not quite, you'll also be making more room in the market for next year's technologies to prove themselves (or not). Some day, gas will be gone, and some new technology will take its place. Wouldn't selling that technology be better than buying it? Wouldn't it be preferable to be in the lead on new tech than to be behind everyone else? Wouldn't the transition be easier if we do it while cheap gas is still a fall-back?

That, by definition says "punitive" to me. I don't think "hitting people harder" is sound policy initiative.

People being "hit harder" doesn't imply punishment, taxes, nor any conscious entity at all. We all know that people will be "hit harder" eventually just by supply and demand. I think you're reading too much into that, though only Karl can say for sure I guess.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How is a flat sales tax any less punitive than a flat gas tax? If you insist on saying a gas tax penalizes people for using gas, why wouldn't you say that a sales tax penalizes them from buying goods and services?

If someone says; "I think the sales tax should increase to discourage consumer-spending and lessen the powerful grip of corporate America", I would view it as a punitive attitude. On the other hand, I think you're reading far too much into what I'm saying. What I'm saying is quite simple. I don't agree with the notion of taxing people into submission. You agreed in the last post, but seemed to have done a 180 here.

Uh, you're the first person to mention "taxation" here

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. So far, I've not heard mention of a gas tax increase by anyone in leadership. I'm not expressing a problem with them at this time. However, if we're not dealing with a dire supply and demand crisis, and we're not currently at "peak oil", what other reason would there be for an increase to $4.00/gallon? How else would we experience a 25% increase in fuel costs if not for some arbitrary and punitive tax proposal? BTW; I'm not the one who mentioned $4/gallon. My concern is those of us here on MacNN proposing increases to discourage particular behaviors. How about a tax increase exclusively on porno mags or a Federal "casino-entry" fee? So far, with the increases in taxes on fuel historically, I've not heard of this being an issue of supply and demand. If there is a fuel shortage (which I agree is possible), it is not yet evident right? Why get started early? I've not had anyone who can tell me to what degree I'm responsible for warming, why should I propose an increase in taxes on something not easily measurable?

That's interesting. Would you prefer a ban on cigarettes and alcohol? Or a license, like a fishing license, 2 drinks and 2 smokes per person per week?

I'd prefer a flat sales tax on everything sold as mentioned before. I oppose taxing people into the preferred social construct. If it's such a damnable substance, illegalize it.

I don't know about that (the disagreeing), but taking 4 cars downtown when 1 carpool would do, quite clearly is wasteful. I doubt any would disagree, exit agenda.

What if I want to leave downtown before my friends do? Should I have them drive me home in the van early and return downtown? That's pretty wasteful too. Maybe I'd rather take my own vehicle downtown anyway.

As I see it, taxation is the only way the government has of separating "using" from "wasting." If it's wasting, people will stop doing it. If it's necessary afterall, people can still do it.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I oppose that too, but I just don't see how anything anyone here has said is any more "taxing people into submission" than any other tax is.

Again, I'm not entirely certain what you're arguing here. It's clear you'd like to discuss something, I just can't for the life of me figure out what that is.

Let me ask it another way then. Suppose no mention is ever made of global warming, and the gas tax just goes to support the expensive foreign wars that are necessary from time to time in order to defend democracy in parts of the world which produce that gas. Is the govt a less bad steward of that money?

No. Again, there were good intentions behind Social Security, but it didn't make them any better stewards of our money. The gas tax increase originally proposed in 1932 was an "emergency" tax to help balance the budget due to WWI. The fact that we're still paying that original increase plus the subsequent additional increases and in light of the current incredibly wasteful spending; intention has little to do with stewardship.

Or conversely, would your argument also support anyone opposed to taxes that wind up funding the war, if they can show the govt is a bad steward of our money when it comes to defending the peace?

Right now your money is taken from your income and disseminated in whatever fashion your govt deems fit. You have no say. You'd at least have a little more say if your spending dictated your contribution as opposed to both. They've not only been bad stewards in defending our peace at home and abroad, they've been bad stewards in light of the illegal immigration problem among a host of other issues. Your question seems a little convoluted IMO, so let me take a stab at this from a different angle. You can bet your lucky stars if a gas tax increase were proposed to fund our action in Iraq, a great many would oppose the move. They'd likely storm the front lawn of the White House to let them know. I would hear their argument. I would oppose a gas tax increase for any and all of these reasons.

Not quite, you'll also be making more room in the market for next year's technologies to prove themselves (or not). Some day, gas will be gone, and some new technology will take its place. Wouldn't selling that technology be better than buying it? Wouldn't it be preferable to be in the lead on new tech than to be behind everyone else? Wouldn't the transition be easier if we do it while cheap gas is still a fall-back?

I'm in favor of disciplined change. I don't believe a gas tax increase is the vehicle of choice to attain that change. I'd much sooner hold the line on our current tax contributions while holding our leadership to account for their current spending endeavors and cut the waste in govt before I worry about cutting fuel waste in society and unfairly burdening innocent and necessary consumption. It's just not my battle.

People being "hit harder" doesn't imply punishment, taxes, nor any conscious entity at all. We all know that people will be "hit harder" eventually just by supply and demand. I think you're reading too much into that, though only Karl can say for sure I guess.

I'm not sure what you gleaned from his statement so we'll just leave it at that. I think I've got the pulse of that mentality because I've seen it before here numerous times. It is most definitely a punitive attitude and IMO can only be read as such. If I tell you my boy needs to be "hit harder" because he repeatedly plays with matches and sitting him in time-out is not working; I'm most definitely implying punishment. I simply don't see any other way to read the statement.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. So far, I've not heard mention of a gas tax increase by anyone in leadership. I'm not expressing a problem with them at this time. However, if we're not dealing with a dire supply and demand crisis, and we're not currently at "peak oil", what other reason would there be for an increase to $4.00/gallon? How else would we experience a 25% increase in fuel costs if not for some arbitrary and punitive tax proposal? BTW; I'm not the one who mentioned $4/gallon.

As prices are already $3.30 to $3.80, it wouldn't take much at all for them to increase to $4.00. Probably by this summer, or if Bush does something else stupid in the Middle East. I guess we'd better get our gas subsidies ready.

My concern is those of us here on MacNN proposing increases to discourage particular behaviors. How about a tax increase exclusively on porno mags or a Federal "casino-entry" fee? So far, with the increases in taxes on fuel historically, I've not heard of this being an issue of supply and demand. If there is a fuel shortage (which I agree is possible), it is not yet evident right? Why get started early? I've not had anyone who can tell me to what degree I'm responsible for warming, why should I propose an increase in taxes on something not easily measurable?

Again, the tax meant to charge for externalities and is quite different from a "sin tax" on cigarettes, say. Of course, politicians argue that cigarette taxes are also to charge for costs absorbed by the health care system, but the reality is different; a majority of voters has just discovered a great revenue source from a (smelly) minority. I don't think anything similar could happen with a gas tax because it would affect nearly everyone.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

As prices are already $3.30 to $3.80, it wouldn't take much at all for them to increase to $4.00.

I know you're frothing at the mouth to pay more at the pump, but slow down haus. The highest prices I can find are $3.53/gallon and that is almost exclusively in California and throughout a small portion of the remainder of the West Coast. Other than that, it is pretty much below $3.00/gallon. In fact, it is $2.87/gallon where I am and the national average is below $3.00/gallon. The whole world does not evolve around what's going on in California. I dare say on most issues they seem to be by themselves in fringeville anyway.

Probably by this summer, or if Bush does something else stupid in the Middle East. I guess we'd better get our gas subsidies ready.

Whew. I almost thought you were serious there for a minute and then I saw the little smiley face.

Again, the tax meant to charge for externalities...

"externalities"??? What the heck is that?

...and is quite different from a "sin tax" on cigarettes, say. Of course, politicians argue that cigarette taxes are also to charge for costs absorbed by the health care system, but the reality is different; a majority of voters has just discovered a great revenue source from a (smelly) minority. I don't think anything similar could happen with a gas tax because it would affect nearly everyone.

They've discovered a wealth of revenue from small gas tax hikes also. A little dab'll do ya. Historically, the government doesn't have much of a problem enacting legislation that affects everybody. After all, that's what they do and I certainly don't put this past them. Especially when it seems a significant sect of zealots are calling for it. As far as the "sin" tax, I don't see that it's really done anything to ease the burden on the health care system. I'd much rather they lay off the tax-paying smokers and address the undocumented, non tax-paying illegal immigrants that are causing clinics to close across the country. I mean, if they're truly concerned about the burden on our health care system.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I know you're frothing at the mouth to pay more at the pump, but slow down haus. The highest prices I can find are $3.53/gallon and that is almost exclusively in California and throughout a small portion of the remainder of the West Coast.

I am frothing at the mouth to pay more at the pump! How'd you know? And I do live in California -- how about that.

Whew. I almost thought you were serious there for a minute and then I saw the little smiley face.

Good eye, ebuddy!! Thought I could sneak one by you there.

"externalities"??? What the heck is that?

Who knows? -- it's rocket science! Heaven forbid we include even the most basic economics in a discussion of government policies. Maybe it has something to do with the ozone hole...

[Atomic Rooster]

WoW!

Al Gore has this much power for possibly the longest thread ever in the PL lounge...

...and no lockination! I am befuddle-duddled.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

I am frothing at the mouth to pay more at the pump! How'd you know? And I do live in California -- how about that.

I couldn't have guessed.

Who knows? -- it's rocket science! Heaven forbid we include even the most basic economics in a discussion of government policies. Maybe it has something to do with the ozone hole...

So... economics has nothing to do with quantification or is the smiley face indicative of another silly post?

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... economics has nothing to do with quantification or is the smiley face indicative of another silly post?

Actually, that smiley face was just to throw you off...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Actually, that smiley face was just to throw you off...

So... how does discouraging fuel consumption relate to decreased chlorine and bromine?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't agree with the notion of taxing people into submission. You agreed in the last post, but seemed to have done a 180 here.

"taxing into submission = bad" I agree.
"taxing gas = taxing into submission" I don't agree. Get it now?

However, if we're not dealing with a dire supply and demand crisis, and we're not currently at "peak oil", what other reason would there be for an increase to $4.00/gallon?

Don't play dumb here, ebuddy. Two years ago gas was at $3.50 in many cities across the US. Are you saying that if natural fluctuations brough it above $4 you would be flabbergasted? That 12.5% increase would just blow your mind? Or maybe if that happened you'd think peak oil must have just happened...?

My concern is those of us here on MacNN proposing increases to discourage particular behaviors.

I'm curious how you feel about tariffs. I'm afraid that your general opposition to taxes which seek to influence the market is in opposition to reality. It doesn't have much relevance to any specific issue, like oil or climate change.

How about a tax increase exclusively on porno mags or a Federal "casino-entry" fee?

Why not?

If there is a fuel shortage (which I agree is possible), it is not yet evident right? Why get started early?

Our entire economy and way of life is dependent on one product, whose cost fluctuates by half nearly every year, whose production is almost entirely out of our control. You really think that when the time comes it will be easy to replace all our oil infrastructure with something new, which hasn't been tested in the real world, which may or may not have even been invented yet? And how much harder will that testing and building be after we've run out of cheap oil energy with which to conduct the tests and build the infrastructure, than if we did those things before running out of oil? You don't see this as a national threat, something the government should be trying to protect us against?

I've not had anyone who can tell me to what degree I'm responsible for warming, why should I propose an increase in taxes on something not easily measurable?

It isn't really about warming. Many hipsters and activists think it is, but it isn't. It's about waste. We tend to use fuel (for example) in a wasteful manner. If we were a culture that already used fuel in a prudent and miserly manner, and that resulted in the exact same fuel use as what we use today, the rhetoric of global warming wouldn't touch gasoline, it would be about something else (eg beef). The real problem is that we're using more than we have to.

I oppose taxing people into the preferred social construct. If it's such a damnable substance, illegalize it.

That's a very black-and-white worldview you've got there. Either use as much of something as you can, or none at all, no middle ground, eh?

What if I want to leave downtown before my friends do? Should I have them drive me home in the van early and return downtown? That's pretty wasteful too. Maybe I'd rather take my own vehicle downtown anyway.

If the reason is utility, then you can do whatever you like. All that changes with an increased cost of gas is that you'll take it upon yourself not to choose a plan that wastes gas for no reason. I'd think you'd be happy about this plan, as it puts the responsibility for use policy on the consumers, not the government. Would you rather have "waste police" following you around trying to evaluate whether what you're doing at the moment is "too wasteful?"

I'd much sooner hold the line on our current tax contributions while holding our leadership to account for their current spending endeavors and cut the waste in govt before I worry about cutting fuel waste in society and unfairly burdening innocent and necessary consumption.

The only part I don't understand is how it's an "unfair burden." If you had your way, they (the "burdened") would just be paying the same amount in a different tax. If your argument is that the sum of all taxes is too high, then how does that affect this issue? That just says you oppose any and all tax increases, and you don't discriminate on the justification. In that case, your opinion on this issue doesn't hold much weight.

If I tell you my boy needs to be "hit harder" because he repeatedly plays with matches and sitting him in time-out is not working; I'm most definitely implying punishment. I simply don't see any other way to read the statement.

It's the "needs" part that you came up with. Karl didn't say anyone "needs" to be hit harder, he just said that when they are maybe it will make a difference, and that he was already thinking ahead to that hit, and changing his own behavior accordingly. And I agree. Some people use gas wastefully, as if it won't become a scarce commodity, as if using it faster won't bring that time sooner.

If you tell me your boy might behave differently when he gets "hit harder" because he repeatedly plays with matches, my first interpretation is that you're talking about him burning himself with the matches.

[OldManMac]

It's the "needs" part that you came up with. Karl didn't say anyone "needs" to be hit harder, he just said that when they are maybe it will make a difference, and that he was already thinking ahead to that hit, and changing his own behavior accordingly. And I agree. Some people use gas wastefully, as if it won't become a scarce commodity, as if using it faster won't bring that time sooner.

Bingo! It may have sounded like I said that everyone should be hit harder, just for the sake of driving down gas usage. What's happening in this country is that those who have don't see the consequences of their actions, or don't care if there are any, as they can "afford" to be wasteful. This may be a nearly impossible situation to change, because part of our culture has always been to get what we want, when we want it, and to hell with anybody who stands in our way. Those who don't have, which is a group that's getting larger by the day, only get hurt even more when staples, such as gas, become even less affordable. This, in turn, reduces their purchasing power for other items they really need, such as medical care, food (which goes up in price because of the increased cost of producing it and transporting it), clothing, etc. I'm going to be accused of being an alarmist, but someday the chicken is going to come home to roost, and the results aren't going to be pretty. I believe we are now entering a phase where the rest of the world is slowly starting to realize they can do just fine without us. The U. S., like it or not, has never been issued a guaranteed role as the world's dominant power, despite what incredibly arrogant and self-centered people like Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, Jeb Bush and their ilk seem to think.

[Buckaroo]

Now they are after your hamburger.

The Sun Online - News: New law sounds full of hot air

BARMY Euro MPs are demanding new laws to stop cows and sheep PARPING.
Their call came after the UN said livestock emissions were a bigger threat to the planet than transport.

The MEPs have asked the European Commission to “look again at the livestock question in direct connection with global warming”.

The official EU declaration demands changes to animals’ diets, to capture gas emissions and recycle manure.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yeah I'm sure burgers from cows whose emissions were recycled will taste just awful...

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah I'm sure burgers from cows whose emissions were recycled will taste just awful...

I am no farmer or expert, but I believe that all cow manewer (spelling) is used for fertilizer or something. It's not like they pile it up into giant cow dung mountains and leave it. I have no idea how they plan on stopping cow farting.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"taxing into submission = bad" I agree.
"taxing gas = taxing into submission" I don't agree. Get it now?

No and specifically because you're a little all over the place on this one. Your statement of "separating waste from use" is essentially the government trying to influence the degree of use via taxes to govern that behavior.

taxing gas exclusively with the express purpose of manipulating and/or regulating consumption = taxing into submission.

Don't play dumb here, ebuddy. Two years ago gas was at $3.50 in many cities across the US. Are you saying that if natural fluctuations brough it above $4 you would be flabbergasted?

I wouldn't be flabbergasted at all. I would fully expect the government to consider cessation of a gas tax during these tough times. After all, if sky-rocketing prices can in any way be connected to inept domestic policy, it seems logical to consider the cessation of gas tax. This has been proposed by some and I support that.

That 12.5% increase would just blow your mind? Or maybe if that happened you'd think peak oil must have just happened...?

You're just getting silly now. At no time that I'm aware of has a gas tax increase followed a 'supply and demand' crisis. If there is truly a fuel shortage due to refineries being destroyed in a hurricane for example, this may cause a short-term spike in gas prices. Again, "short-term". There is nothing short-term about a tax increase. They are what they are and they don't seem to expand and contract like market conditions.

I'm curious how you feel about tariffs. I'm afraid that your general opposition to taxes which seek to influence the market is in opposition to reality. It doesn't have much relevance to any specific issue, like oil or climate change.

When have I expressed a general opposition to taxes? In fact, I specifically recall stating that I realize and understand the importance of taxes. I generally oppose the current tax structure. Tariffs are generally imposed on a corporation in the interest of encouraging or discouraging specific market practices regarding import/exports. The risk of this burden is absorbed by corporations and they have a choice as to whether or not they'd like to conduct business under those terms. A tariff on goods and services sold by corporations who are weighing cost/benefit in determining participation is different than simply taking a portion of your income.

Why not?

Why not legislate behavior via tax burden founded upon a preferred social construct? You've already answered this question so I'm assuming you're literally playing dumb here.

Our entire economy and way of life is dependent on one product, whose cost fluctuates by half nearly every year, whose production is almost entirely out of our control. You really think that when the time comes it will be easy to replace all our oil infrastructure with something new, which hasn't been tested in the real world, which may or may not have even been invented yet? And how much harder will that testing and building be after we've run out of cheap oil energy with which to conduct the tests and build the infrastructure, than if we did those things before running out of oil? You don't see this as a national threat, something the government should be trying to protect us against?

I see many things as a national threat. I also believe that the marketplace will make this decision in a more disciplined fashion than the Federal Government. As hybrids gain popularity and people begin to really tout the number of gas stations they're passing as a result, more people will buy hybrids. The demand will increase, the supply will increase, the cost will come down in these golf carts and they will be available to most who drive. This is already underway is it not? Is the "coming crisis" currently outweighing the degree of change we're currently witnessing? That's likely the question and my answer is... no.

It isn't really about warming. Many hipsters and activists think it is, but it isn't. It's about waste. We tend to use fuel (for example) in a wasteful manner.

How so? Let's discuss some examples of "waste".

If we were a culture that already used fuel in a prudent and miserly manner, and that resulted in the exact same fuel use as what we use today, the rhetoric of global warming wouldn't touch gasoline, it would be about something else (eg beef). The real problem is that we're using more than we have to.

With regard to Hummers and the like, I'm inclined to agree, though I'm curious; do Hummer purchases fall under the luxury tax? I wonder where that money goes. Other than that, I think the term "waste" is highly subjective and you might be surprised at how rigid some become with regard to the notion of "waste". Who decides?

That's a very black-and-white worldview you've got there. Either use as much of something as you can, or none at all, no middle ground, eh?

You've already established that you're willing to extrapolate any absolute you deem fit with a host of false projections at your disposal. I don't believe taxing people into submission is effective domestic policy. I understand how pointing a finger at the citizenry and proposing punitive monetary measures against them to discourage waste is expedient and profitable for them, but in light of the incredible amount of waste we currently witness in government spending I'd rather they clean their own house first. After all, they were elected to serve us, not the other way around.

If the reason is utility, then you can do whatever you like. All that changes with an increased cost of gas is that you'll take it upon yourself not to choose a plan that wastes gas for no reason. I'd think you'd be happy about this plan, as it puts the responsibility for use policy on the consumers, not the government. Would you rather have "waste police" following you around trying to evaluate whether what you're doing at the moment is "too wasteful?"

That's a pretty black and white worldview you've got there. Either we impose additional taxes on the assumed guilty, wasteful collective or create a "waste" police? By the way if I'm wasting fuel, I'm in fact paying more in taxes due to this waste. I'm just doing what I can to help. It seems to me, if the government is good stewards of this tax dollar and is justified in implementing new additional taxes on this premise, how is it they've not been good stewards of the additional taxes I'm already paying because of my wasteful lifestyle? Hell, if the American people are as wasteful as you seem to suggest and the government has as much integrity on hedging against the "coming threat" as you seem to hope, we should all be flying around like the friggin' Jetsons by now.

The only part I don't understand is how it's an "unfair burden." If you had your way, they (the "burdened") would just be paying the same amount in a different tax. If your argument is that the sum of all taxes is too high, then how does that affect this issue? That just says you oppose any and all tax increases, and you don't discriminate on the justification. In that case, your opinion on this issue doesn't hold much weight.

It's an unfair burden because there are a significant number of people not wasting. A tax imposed on fuel to discourage waste is an unfair burden on those who do not. Those who do waste are already paying more in taxes. I have a problem with a government entity placed there to serve me while wasting my current monetary contribution to it, placing an additional tax burden on me (the assumed guilty) to discourage waste. I'd rather they started by cleaning up the house I bought for them first.

It's the "needs" part that you came up with. Karl didn't say anyone "needs" to be hit harder, he just said that when they are maybe it will make a difference, and that he was already thinking ahead to that hit, and changing his own behavior accordingly. And I agree. Some people use gas wastefully, as if it won't become a scarce commodity, as if using it faster won't bring that time sooner.

Originally Posted by KarlG

That's the problem; they haven't been hit hard enough yet. Maybe when gas hits $4/gallon, or more, it will make a difference.

Again, we'll simply have to disagree here. I didn't pull "need" out of thin air, but I suppose we'll let the readers decide. What's the problem? Fuel waste. What is the proposed solution? Maybe $4/gallon gas. Maybe if we "hit them harder", we'll see change. Maybe they need to be hit harder? I just don't see any other way to read this other than an illustration of the punitive mentality prevalent on this issue. Interestingly, KarlG's "clarification" post probably establishes my point better than any post so far.

Maybe by Page 15, we'll have come to some reasonable common ground. i.e. Maybe we need more time.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

The U. S., like it or not, has never been issued a guaranteed role as the world's dominant power, despite what incredibly arrogant and self-centered people like Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, Jeb Bush and their ilk seem to think.

Aside from the fact that I have absolutely no clue why any of the above points are relevant at all; What separates people like Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, Jeb Bush, and their "ilk" from Liebermann, Hillary Clinton, or anyone else, the fact that they have an (R) after their name??? I mean this is just partisan BS disguised as concern for some expendable resource. The rest of the world needs us as much as we need them. I don't know what you're trying to say other than; "I'm into fashionable self-loathing."

Your entire post is a complete affirmation of my statement that this stems from a punitive mentality. Worse, it is founded on more generalizations than the KKK.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Aside from the fact that I have absolutely no clue why any of the above points are relevant at all; What separates people like Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, Jeb Bush, and their "ilk" from Liebermann, Hillary Clinton, or anyone else, the fact that they have an (R) after their name??? I mean this is just partisan BS disguised as concern for some expendable resource. The rest of the world needs us as much as we need them. I don't know what you're trying to say other than; "I'm into fashionable self-loathing."

Your entire post is a complete affirmation of my statement that this stems from a punitive mentality. Worse, it is founded on more generalizations than the KKK.

This thread started out as a thread about Al Gore's hypocrisy, and turned into a thread about energy consumption, which is naturally tied in. What separates the individuals I mentioned from those you mentioned is that they got us into an unjustified war which had nothing to do with democracy, and more to do with ensuring that we can continue our guzzling from the oil trough, amond other reasons. The individuals you named are also partly responsible, but they weren't the architects of this disaster, and I don't like them either, as they either fell for or believed in the same lies that we were fed to get us where we are today.

As to your allegations that the rest of the world needs us as much as we need them, if you'd pay attention, you'd discover that is becoming less and less the case. China and India are poised to become the next world superpowers, and Russia, with Putin in charge, doesn't like us much either. Alliances are changing, and it's due to our arrogance and hubris, and if you want to call it "punitive mentality" that doesn't change things; it just gives you and excuse to to name call.

Do try to keep up.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

This thread started out as a thread about Al Gore's hypocrisy, and turned into a thread about energy consumption, which is naturally tied in. What separates the individuals I mentioned from those you mentioned is that they got us into an unjustified war which had nothing to do with democracy, and more to do with ensuring that we can continue our guzzling from the oil trough, amond other reasons.

This of course ignores the International power play between those developing nations and their substantial increase in oil usage.

The individuals you named are also partly responsible, but they weren't the architects of this disaster, and I don't like them either, as they either fell for or believed in the same lies that we were fed to get us where we are today.

At least the above is a little less shameless, it still doesn't take into account the fact that it's a disaster either way. You act as if we wouldn't continue dedicating resources to Iraq over the next 12 years had we not invaded, bombed, and authored economic sanctions serving only to starve them to death. You forget the vast number of those on board to invade Iraq both (D) and (R). It may help you to sleep at night knowing that your "ilk" are not supportive of it today, but their denial of recent history and the numerous speeches by members of the Democratic party in support of action against Iraq were astounding. They are two heads of the same snake. Period.

As to your allegations that the rest of the world needs us as much as we need them, if you'd pay attention, you'd discover that is becoming less and less the case.

No it hasn't and you've not offered one shred of evidence to support this. The fact of the matter is that interdependence decreases as developing nations develop their own resources. Until then, they will seek the resources of others.

China and India are poised to become the next world superpowers, and Russia, with Putin in charge, doesn't like us much either. Alliances are changing, and it's due to our arrogance and hubris, and if you want to call it "punitive mentality" that doesn't change things; it just gives you and excuse to to name call.

Conversely, if you'd been following along you'd have realized that Russia and China have been engaged in military strategy and numerous other agreements with one another prior to our action in Iraq. Didn't know that? Yeah, do try to keep up. It had nothing to do with our arrogance and hubris via Iraqi invasion so if you're looking for someone to blame, you're welcome to blame the prior Administration. (D) That is, if you're a simpleton and need to pin the blame on a single party. Me? I blame human nature. This world is going to come to a head of ideals regardless. Hubris, arrogance, greed, and imperialism are not exclusive to American leadership, but of course the tie always goes to the baseman in your game. Why? Fashionable self-loathing. Proving once again that society today has no clue about right or wrong, only left or right.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This of course ignores the International power play between those developing nations and their substantial increase in oil usage.

... Which isn't nearly as significant.

At least the above is a little less shameless, it still doesn't take into account the fact that it's a disaster either way. You act as if we wouldn't continue dedicating resources to Iraq over the next 12 years had we not invaded, bombed, and authored economic sanctions serving only to starve them to death. You forget the vast number of those on board to invade Iraq both (D) and (R). It may help you to sleep at night knowing that your "ilk" are not supportive of it today, but their denial of recent history and the numerous speeches by members of the Democratic party in support of action against Iraq were astounding.

The resources we were dedicating to Iraq prior to the invasion were miniscule in comparison. The $2 trillion estimated cost of this war, for example, subtracted off the costs of maintaining a military presence and no-fly zone.

I agree that neither Democrats nor Republicans should have supported Bush's Folly. Clinton is in a deep hole, in my book. On the other hand, you have to realize that Bush was lying to them the same as was lying to the rest of us. They were given the same manipulated intelligence as the rest of us. Still, they should have had the good judgement to realize that they were being lied to.

Conversely, if you'd been following along you'd have realized that Russia and China have been engaged in military strategy and numerous other agreements with one another prior to our action in Iraq. Didn't know that? Yeah, do try to keep up. It had nothing to do with our arrogance and hubris via Iraqi invasion so if you're looking for someone to blame, you're welcome to blame the prior Administration. (D) That is, if you're a simpleton and need to pin the blame on a single party. Me? I blame human nature. This world is going to come to a head of ideals regardless. Hubris, arrogance, greed, and imperialism are not exclusive to American leadership, but of course the tie always goes to the baseman in your game. Why? Fashionable self-loathing. Proving once again that society today has no clue about right or wrong, only left or right.

Not a very convincing rant, sorry.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Your statement of "separating waste from use" is essentially the government trying to influence the degree of use via taxes to govern that behavior.

That's what most taxes do. Welcome to the 18th century. You may not agree with it, but it has little to do with Al Gore, the environment, or energy policy.

As I recall my US history, the spark that set off the revolution which founded this country was a tax designed for reasons other than regulating trade, namely a tax whose sole purpose was to raise revenue. That I would consider "taxing into submission," but some hypothetical gas tax to promote thrifty driving habits just doesn't qualify for me.

Keep in mind, too, that Karl's comment that set you off in the first place was in reference to his suggestion that people save 5-10% just by keeping their tires inflated and driving at the speed limit. Not by driving fewer miles or buying new-age hippie cars. He didn't suggest anything other than that, and in fact I was thinking of challenging him that 5-10% is a ridiculously modest goal given the rhetoric of the doomsayers...anyway off topic. What I'm saying is that if your idea of "submission" is to obey the speed laws and keep your tires full of (free) air, I have a hard time taking your stubborn indignation seriously on this issue.

When have I expressed a general opposition to taxes?

I quite clearly said "taxes which seek to influence the market."

Tariffs are generally imposed on a corporation...

So using taxes to influence the free market is ok as long as the primary participants are corporations, not humans (that sounds weird, but corporations are legally considered "persons," so...)? Why the distinction?

Why not legislate behavior via tax burden founded upon a preferred social construct? You've already answered this question so I'm assuming you're literally playing dumb here.

I don't know what you're referring to. As I mentioned earlier in this post, that's how taxes generally work. Their purpose is partly to influence the market, and that influence is often based on that society's preferred social construct. I understand that you dislike this fact, but it doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand.

Is the "coming crisis" currently outweighing the degree of change we're currently witnessing? That's likely the question and my answer is... no.

It's a good question, and I don't believe anyone's answer; I don't think we know enough about the system. But for me this isn't about the "coming crisis," it's about waste. I think efficiency for its own sake is an important enough issue, with or without peak oil or climate change (though obviously more important with those things).

How so? Let's discuss some examples of "waste".

Karl's infamous comment already brought up a good one, speeding (and I'll make it more specifically even-speed travel; minimizing acceleration, aka (to some) cruise control). I'm curious ebuddy, what are your habits regarding speeding?

Other than that, I think the term "waste" is highly subjective and you might be surprised at how rigid some become with regard to the notion of "waste". Who decides?

I'm glad you asked. The user decides, of course. Waste is a cost/benefit analysis, and the benefits to be had can only be evaluated by the user. If you really want to address this issue, you would include the actual societal costs of the products being used in their price tag, so the user can decide for himself how much that extra gas he uses to shave 2 minutes off his trip is worth to him.

That's a pretty black and white worldview you've got there. Either we impose additional taxes on the assumed guilty, wasteful collective or create a "waste" police?

I was just asking what you preferred, not suggesting we have either. I'll remind you again that you are the one who brought the concept of taxes into this thread.

if the government is good stewards of this tax dollar and is justified in implementing new additional taxes on this premise,

It's already been stated that the new tax need not be additional. It can be removed from another tax, so the same amount of money is still being collected (idk why you missed that, maybe you have an ignore list). This is an easy way for you to separate your hatred of big government from your hatred of environmentalists. This thread is really only about the latter.

Again, we'll simply have to disagree here. I didn't pull "need" out of thin air, but I suppose we'll let the readers decide. What's the problem? Fuel waste. What is the proposed solution? Maybe $4/gallon gas. Maybe if we "hit them harder", we'll see change.

Ok I think I see the source of your misunderstanding. It's that "we." He never said that "we" or anyone would be doing the "hitting." The implication, which he's said he should have made more clear, is that we, all of us even you, are facing a future end of cheap gas (peak oil). This threat has nothing to do with energy policy or global warming or anything man-made at all. All he's talking about is that oil is a finite resource. That's it. He was just saying that he thinks that he is exercising more caution and forethought than those who are acting wastefully, and that when the reality of scarcity catches up with them, they will then wish they had acted more like he is. You know the fable of the grasshopper and the ant? He's just saying that he's the ant. There is no "punitive mentality" in that fable, is there?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's what most taxes do. Welcome to the 18th century. You may not agree with it, but it has little to do with Al Gore, the environment, or energy policy.

List the taxes that govern use. Generally, a tax is a revenue-generating unit imposed on a necessary commodity.

As I recall my US history, the spark that set off the revolution which founded this country was a tax designed for reasons other than regulating trade, namely a tax whose sole purpose was to raise revenue. That I would consider "taxing into submission," but some hypothetical gas tax to promote thrifty driving habits just doesn't qualify for me.

I find it funny how worked up we were about tea taxes. There were a host of causes for the Revolution. Literally hundreds. History should spark a great many thoughts including Navigation Laws and the Mercantile System in general. The taxes were an attached, revenue-generating unit to commodities in order to assuage English debt and to perpetuate interdependence.

Keep in mind, too, that Karl's comment that set you off in the first place was in reference to his suggestion that people save 5-10% just by keeping their tires inflated and driving at the speed limit. Not by driving fewer miles or buying new-age hippie cars. He didn't suggest anything other than that, and in fact I was thinking of challenging him that 5-10% is a ridiculously modest goal given the rhetoric of the doomsayers...anyway off topic. What I'm saying is that if your idea of "submission" is to obey the speed laws and keep your tires full of (free) air, I have a hard time taking your stubborn indignation seriously on this issue.

This is all projection. My indignation is "maybe if they were hit harder..." as if the government is somehow qualified to address the collective waste. Again, they were elected to serve the collective, not the other way around.

I quite clearly said "taxes which seek to influence the market."

I stand corrected. I noticed this after the fact and anticipated the rebuke.

So using taxes to influence the free market is ok as long as the primary participants are corporations, not humans (that sounds weird, but corporations are legally considered "persons," so...)? Why the distinction?

For one thing, a corporation is not as profoundly affected as the individual. In regards to corporations the burden can be spread more vastly than the burden upon the individual. A corporation is considered a person in and of itself, it is not 'James Smith' or 'Jack Anderson'. A corporation can file bankruptcy as an individual while the founder keeps his own assets. (as a real person, separate from the person/corporation). A revenue-generating tax imposed on necessary commodity and eventually exploited as such, can be implemented under the guise of "protecting" us when the entity doing the protecting is really doing more wasting. Owning a business and weighing cost/benefit = choice. Taxes imposed on necessary commodities such as fuel under the guise of governing waste = taxing a behavior/taxing into submission. My reason for continuing to mention taxes is the fact that not only has this been brought up before, but if there is no supply and demand crisis- the only way to increase the cost of gas long-term is to implement another tax. My goal is to squelch any such talk.

I don't know what you're referring to. As I mentioned earlier in this post, that's how taxes generally work. Their purpose is partly to influence the market, and that influence is often based on that society's preferred social construct. I understand that you dislike this fact, but it doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand.

Tax breaks may often be used in accordance with social construct, but tax implementation in and of itself is simply revenue-generating units on commodities.

It's a good question, and I don't believe anyone's answer; I don't think we know enough about the system. But for me this isn't about the "coming crisis," it's about waste. I think efficiency for its own sake is an important enough issue, with or without peak oil or climate change (though obviously more important with those things).

I think if efficiency is your goal, government is not your solution. If I were concerned about wasting cookies, I would not assign cookie monster the responsibility of solving the problem.

Karl's infamous comment already brought up a good one, speeding (and I'll make it more specifically even-speed travel; minimizing acceleration, aka (to some) cruise control). I'm curious ebuddy, what are your habits regarding speeding?

If I'm running late, I'm running fast though I always ensure my tires are of proper inflation. After all, it's not safe to speed with deflated tires. If I'm wasting fuel, I'm in fact already paying more in taxes to the very entity you're supposing could influence change.

I'm glad you asked. The user decides, of course. Waste is a cost/benefit analysis, and the benefits to be had can only be evaluated by the user. If you really want to address this issue, you would include the actual societal costs of the products being used in their price tag, so the user can decide for himself how much that extra gas he uses to shave 2 minutes off his trip is worth to him.

He already does. Not withstanding the fact that you're still being charged taxes when gas goes to $4.00/gallon due to market conditions (supply and demand) which leaves the cost of gas at more like $4.55/gallon.

I was just asking what you preferred, not suggesting we have either. I'll remind you again that you are the one who brought the concept of taxes into this thread.

When I see what appeared to be a call for punitive action against the wasteful consumer, I think taxes. I don't know of too many other ways to have read his statement and we continue to disagree on it. I believe KarlG was referring to a punitive increase in cost to assuage consumption.

It's already been stated that the new tax need not be additional. It can be removed from another tax, so the same amount of money is still being collected (idk why you missed that, maybe you have an ignore list). This is an easy way for you to separate your hatred of big government from your hatred of environmentalists. This thread is really only about the latter.

Another projection. I don't have a problem with big government as long as it doesn't become a big burden on the rest of us. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense for the government to point a finger at me for waste and impose a tax to curb this behavior when they are mired in waste of their own. I'd like for them to manage my money more wisely before I give them more. Not really a reprehensible stance when you think about it. Now, in regards to shuffling taxes around, I'm not sure how that benefits anyone. I don't have an ignore list, but may have ignored the notion as fruitless.

Ok I think I see the source of your misunderstanding. It's that "we." He never said that "we" or anyone would be doing the "hitting." The implication, which he's said he should have made more clear, is that we, all of us even you, are facing a future end of cheap gas (peak oil). This threat has nothing to do with energy policy or global warming or anything man-made at all. All he's talking about is that oil is a finite resource. That's it. He was just saying that he thinks that he is exercising more caution and forethought than those who are acting wastefully, and that when the reality of scarcity catches up with them, they will then wish they had acted more like he is. You know the fable of the grasshopper and the ant? He's just saying that he's the ant. There is no "punitive mentality" in that fable, is there?

No. In fact, the fable is very sensible. These are among the same justifications for action in Iraq. They can be founded upon a mistaken premise and cause more strife and hardship than benefit if taken to their logical conclusion. I have no problem rebuking waste. I've stopped taking pleasure drives during my lunch break and instead go to the park for a walk. I park further from the door and generally drive the speed limit. I always ensure all vehicles in the house have fully inflated tires. That said; there are some who rail on SUVs as wasteful. Maybe the soccer-mom is actually a soccer coach and hauls equipment in the SUV. Maybe the incredible waste of her city government has left her with shoddy streets and she wants something with a more rigid suspension. Maybe the snow-removal is dismal and he wants a 4X4.

I started off by asking for us to maintain perspective when discussing this issue. I was concerned that the mentality prevalent on this issue was a punitive one and upon seeing KarlGs clarification post featuring "The 'haves' don't care about the increasing 'have-nots' etc..." felt entirely comfortable with my accurate assessment.

[Macrobat]

Hell, Gore even ignores the science and advice of his own "mentor," then launches an attampted hatchet job by claiming Revelle never co-authored the piece cited here and was "getting senile in his old age."

Gore's guru disagreed

See, Revelle was against the very alarmism Gore is riding to his personal popularity and actually stated in 1991 that we should wait "another 10 to 20 years" for the science to "settle," as there were simply too many variables to warrant advocating drastic, draconian measures and crying wolf.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Hell, Gore even ignores the science and advice of his own "mentor," then launches an attampted hatchet job by claiming Revelle never co-authored the piece cited here and was "getting senile in his old age."

Gore's guru disagreed

See, Revelle was against the very alarmism Gore is riding to his personal popularity and actually stated in 1991 that we should wait "another 10 to 20 years" for the science to "settle," as there were simply too many variables to warrant advocating drastic, draconian measures and crying wolf.

So global warming is good for you if you're a plant?

Well, I'm sure the plants will be very happy then.

[OldManMac]

So, in the 16 years since Dr. Revelle died, we haven't learned anything about global warming. Interesting.

[Uncle Skeleton]

CheatNeutral

"What is Cheat Offsetting?
When you cheat on your partner you add to the heartbreak, pain and jealousy in the atmosphere.

Cheatneutral offsets your cheating by funding someone else to be faithful and NOT cheat. This neutralises the pain and unhappy emotion and leaves you with a clear conscience.

Can I offset all my cheating?
First you should look at ways of reducing your cheating. Once you've done this you can use Cheatneutral to offset the remaining, unavoidable cheating"

/funny

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is all projection. My indignation is "maybe if they were hit harder..."

Again, it's not "if" it's "when." It will happen, no matter who is in charge of taxing or not taxing anything.

You can refuse to even consider the outcome on the grounds that any person who supports it is your enemy, but that makes you the grasshopper. You can't stop winter from happening by fighting the ants who are trying to prepare for it.

as if the government is somehow qualified to address the collective waste. Again, they were elected to serve the collective, not the other way around.

Where in the world did you get the idea that this tangent you've got on has anything to do with any specific government being qualified to point fingers on waste?
1, you're the only one bringing up taxes, and
2, the hypothetical taxes you're bringing up aren't even tied to government. You said yourself they're only tied to individual pseudononymous internet posters in a forum dedicated to letting individuals spout off about what they would do with public policy given the opportunity.

For one thing, a corporation is not as profoundly affected as the individual. In regards to corporations the burden can be spread more vastly than the burden upon the individual. A corporation is considered a person in and of itself, it is not 'James Smith' or 'Jack Anderson'. A corporation can file bankruptcy as an individual while the founder keeps his own assets. (as a real person, separate from the person/corporation). A revenue-generating tax imposed on necessary commodity and eventually exploited as such, can be implemented under the guise of "protecting" us when the entity doing the protecting is really doing more wasting. Owning a business and weighing cost/benefit = choice.

What happened to your heartfelt plea for the trucking industry? They're not corporations?

Taxes imposed on necessary commodities such as fuel under the guise of governing waste = taxing a behavior/taxing into submission.

Assuming there is a public need to reduce waste (not now, but at some point when there is such a need), what method would you prefer?

My reason for continuing to mention taxes is the fact that not only has this been brought up before, but if there is no supply and demand crisis- the only way to increase the cost of gas long-term is to implement another tax. My goal is to squelch any such talk.

I do believe that is the definition of a straw man argument.

I think if efficiency is your goal, government is not your solution.

Fair enough, and I'll ask again, what is your solution?

If I'm wasting fuel, I'm in fact already paying more in taxes to the very entity you're supposing could influence change.

Although government funding undoubtedly contributes to some research on alternative energy, I'd like to make clear that I think the primary benefit of any hypothetical gas tax is just to make new technologies more competitive by comparison. I don't think that government will be the actual agent of change.

That said; there are some who rail on SUVs as wasteful. Maybe the soccer-mom is actually a soccer coach and hauls equipment in the SUV. Maybe the incredible waste of her city government has left her with shoddy streets and she wants something with a more rigid suspension. Maybe the snow-removal is dismal and he wants a 4X4.

Maybe her wanting those things means she should pay her fair share of the societal costs of the increased fuel usage associated with those things.

[Tom_mac]

al gore has a apple i belive its a mac book pro

[OldManMac]

I had a red delicious today.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Again, it's not "if" it's "when." It will happen, no matter who is in charge of taxing or not taxing anything.You can refuse to even consider the outcome on the grounds that any person who supports it is your enemy, but that makes you the grasshopper. You can't stop winter from happening by fighting the ants who are trying to prepare for it.

Enemy? That's a little strong. I don't like the statement; "maybe when we're hit harder, there will be change." I don't need to be hit harder and neither do you or KarlG. I don't know if there's an enemy or not, but rest assured I'll be fighting for you.

We're changing enough. Where in the world did you get the idea that this tangent you've got on has anything to do with any specific government being qualified to point fingers on waste?
1, you're the only one bringing up taxes, and
2, the hypothetical taxes you're bringing up aren't even tied to government. You said yourself they're only tied to individual pseudononymous internet posters in a forum dedicated to letting individuals spout off about what they would do with public policy given the opportunity.

What are you arguing here??? You oppose taxing into submission, then talk about taxing into submission. You continuously remind me I'm the one who brought taxes in while continuing to mention what gas taxes might do for competing technologies.
A. Taxes will do no such thing.
B. I'm opposed to the "hit 'em harder" mentality. It is predicated on a class warfare of sorts, a punitive mentality, and is chock full of bogus generalizations. KarlG's clarification post affirmed my point.

What happened to your heartfelt plea for the trucking industry? They're not corporations?

Things getting boring at home or something? My heart still bleeds for the frequently self-employed truckers who work for smaller firms that are more profoundly hit by even small increases in fuel costs... as I mentioned before.

Assuming there is a public need to reduce waste (not now, but at some point when there is such a need), what method would you prefer?

What's wrong with the current method?

I do believe that is the definition of a straw man argument.

You know, I might have been inclined to apologize for that leap except for the fact that the particular poster to whom I was referring returned to affirm my argument.

Fair enough, and I'll ask again, what is your solution?

Status quo. "Hit 'em harder" is not a solution. I'll entertain some other ones if you've got any. *hint, don't bring up taxes or we'll be back to square one.

Although government funding undoubtedly contributes to some research on alternative energy,

Yeah... Iraq's.

I'd like to make clear that I think the primary benefit of any hypothetical gas tax is just to make new technologies more competitive by comparison. I don't think that government will be the actual agent of change.

Why do you keep bringing up taxes? Are there any other solutions to the impending gas crisis? I think the primary benefit of a hypothetical gas tax is the fun of watching political pandering for the right of who gets to waste it and where. I've already indicated where I'm conserving fuel and I believe I'm doing enough. Enough for you or KarlG or Tie? Maybe not, but then none of you are the judge.

Maybe her wanting those things means she should pay her fair share of the societal costs of the increased fuel usage associated with those things.

If she's using more fuel, she's already paying more money. Who decides what is fair? I believe she's paying more than her fair share. Again if there's as much waste as you seem to think, where are the alternative energy sources and competitive technologies you keep talking about?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Enemy? That's a little strong. I don't like the statement; "maybe when we're hit harder, there will be change." I don't need to be hit harder and neither do you or KarlG. I don't know if there's an enemy or not, but rest assured I'll be fighting for you.

now you're just a parody of yourself.

I don't like the statement "maybe when winter comes, it'll be colder." I don't need to be colder and neither do you, so if anyone suggests contemplating cold you can rest assured I'll be fighting them tooth and nail. :double rolleyes:

Aren't you a little old for the criticism-for-the-sake-of-criticism?

What are you arguing here??? You oppose taxing into submission, then talk about taxing into submission.

I don't consider it "sumbission" when all they have to do to avoid any change is keep their tires inflated and obey the speeding laws. What are you arguing here, that people deserve to be able to drive on flat tires and break the speeding laws without having to worry about consequences?

You continuously remind me I'm the one who brought taxes in

You have no basis for complaining about them. See: strawman

My heart still bleeds for the frequently self-employed truckers who work for smaller firms that are more profoundly hit by even small increases in fuel costs... as I mentioned before.

But no "smaller firms" or self-employed entrepreneurs would be affected by tariffs? Your reasoning is completely irrational.

Status quo. "Hit 'em harder" is not a solution.

No it's not the solution, it's the problem. Prices rise. Costs rise. People will be hit harder. It's the arrogant cocksure "status quo," "there is no problem" grasshoppers who are going to end up being responsible for the "hit." If people would listen to the ants and start easing the transition, the "hit" will be less painful. As long as grasshoppers keep refusing to even address the problem like you're doing, the ants' only recourse is to wonder how much of the coming winter needs to arrive before you grasshoppers sit up and take notice. That's all he was doing.

I'll entertain some other ones if you've got any. *hint, don't bring up taxes or we'll be back to square one.

Yeah, I've got one, raise the CAFE standards. And lower the speed limits back to 65, and actually enforce them. If everyone drives 5-over, give them all tickets.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

So, in the 16 years since Dr. Revelle died, we haven't learned anything about global warming. Interesting.

BS - Gore started his crap during the run-up to the 2000 election and the science is no more "settled" now than it was then.

[OldManMac]

Well, I guess we'll just have to take your word on that, won't we? I'd always thought that the exponential growth in knowledge in the last hundred years or so was real, but I guess I was wrong.

[Macrobat]

Hmm, you don't believe the "grandfather of global warming?" You know, the guy who did all the initial science?

And along comes this:

ScienceDaily: Earth's Climate Is Seesawing, According To Climate Researchers

and this:

Famed hurricane forecaster: Oceans, not CO2, cause global warming - International Herald Tribune

There's some more of that "settled" science for ya.

CONCENSUS!!!

LMFAO

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Hmm, you don't believe the "grandfather of global warming?" You know, the guy who did all the initial science?

Are you making fun of yourself? The guy said to wait "10 to 20 years," and he said it 16 years ago. Sounds like you're the one who doesn't believe him

[Macrobat]

No, read it again. Gore started his alarmism in 2000, only 9 years after the man published the article.

Don't think I didn't notice your convenient ignoring of the two articles I posted links to proving Dr. Revelle correct in advising against alarmism - the science is NOT "settled," even today. You know, those "16 years later?"

See that means your post above = moot.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Gore ran for president in 2000. Did he run on an environmentalism campaign? Arguably (and I would disagree). Global Warming? No way. Alarmism means you go around trying to bring your message to people who don't want to listen. He didn't do that until the movie (2006). Before that he was just preaching to the converted.

I didn't mention the articles because I hadn't read them yet. Now that I have, the first one explicitly states that the authors of the work in question agree with most other climatologists. The second one is about a speech to a republican group, on a hypothesis that hasn't been peer-reviewed, nor even tested empirically that I can tell. Not relelvant.

Meanwhile, have you read the IPCC report? The report's specific primary purpose was to be as conservative as necessary to gain the explicit support of all governments involved (including the US), so that all skeptics and believers could establish a common basis for discourse. You should take a look.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Hmm, you don't believe the "grandfather of global warming?" You know, the guy who did all the initial science?

And along comes this:

ScienceDaily: Earth's Climate Is Seesawing, According To Climate Researchers

and this:

Famed hurricane forecaster: Oceans, not CO2, cause global warming - International Herald Tribune

There's some more of that "settled" science for ya.

CONCENSUS!!!

LMFAO

So, we have a few scientists who've done some research, which the article doesn't state has been peer-reviewed, and we have a famous hurricane forecaster telling a group of Republicans what they want to hear, and there's no indication that his work has been peer-reviewed, yet they know more than the IPCC. Okay, you've convinced me. ROTFLMFAO!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

now you're just a parody of yourself.

I don't even know what that means.

I don't like the statement "maybe when winter comes, it'll be colder." I don't need to be colder and neither do you, so if anyone suggests contemplating cold you can rest assured I'll be fighting them tooth and nail. :double rolleyes:

:double I don't know what that means:

Aren't you a little old for the criticism-for-the-sake-of-criticism?

So far we're off to a slow enough start for you old man.

I don't consider it "sumbission" when all they have to do to avoid any change is keep their tires inflated and obey the speeding laws. What are you arguing here, that people deserve to be able to drive on flat tires and break the speeding laws without having to worry about consequences?

So... that's it then? We just drive the speed limit and keep our tires inflated and no cost increase? Zoinks man, why didn't I think of that. Okay done... next?

You have no basis for complaining about them. See: strawman

Tax payers have no basis for complaining about them? Hmm, this is part of your problem.

But no "smaller firms" or self-employed entrepreneurs would be affected by tariffs? Your reasoning is completely irrational.

You decide whether you want to talk about taxes or tariffs and I'll try again. I'm not much of a hunter and prefer a stationary target if you don't mind. Otherwise, you might think I'm being irrational in my answer.

No it's not the solution, it's the problem. Prices rise. Costs rise. People will be hit harder. It's the arrogant cocksure "status quo," "there is no problem" grasshoppers who are going to end up being responsible for the "hit."

You act as if nothing is being done. I'm not the grasshopper. I inflate my tires and drive the speed limit remember? I'm one of you ants with the little pin heads just like you like.

If people would listen to the ants and start easing the transition, the "hit" will be less painful. As long as grasshoppers keep refusing to even address the problem...

What problem? You thinking we're not doing enough to hedge against the impending peak oil crisis? How do you know?

like you're doing...

What am I not doing??? What shall I be agreeing with you on?

the ants' only recourse is to wonder how much of the coming winter needs to arrive before you grasshoppers sit up and take notice. That's all he was doing.

Like sheeple they are all herded by their queen to gather corn. Little do they know, someone has sprinkled a little deception in the form of grits and the little ants all got bloated and died. The queen? She's smart enough to know the difference so she lives happily ever after on the fruits of their efforts.

Yeah, I've got one, raise the CAFE standards. And lower the speed limits back to 65, and actually enforce them. If everyone drives 5-over, give them all tickets.

We're already addressing the CAFE standards aren't we? I'm for lowering the speed limit. I can barely do 65 in my Jeep Wrangler anyway. Better stock up on more police in the meantime.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You act as if nothing is being done. I'm not the grasshopper. I inflate my tires and drive the speed limit remember? I'm one of you ants with the little pin heads just like you like.

You've been arguing the side of the grasshopper, I've been arguing against it. This raises thet obvious questions, if you're not the grasshopper, why argue for him? And if you support the grasshopper, why distance yourself from him?

What problem? You thinking we're not doing enough to hedge against the impending peak oil crisis? How do you know?

I guess it's because everything I've heard and read indicates our industries are unwilling to increase fuel efficiency. More below...

Like sheeple they are all herded by their queen to gather corn. Little do they know, someone has sprinkled a little deception in the form of grits and the little ants all got bloated and died. The queen? She's smart enough to know the difference so she lives happily ever after on the fruits of their efforts.

Who's the queen? Gore?

We're already addressing the CAFE standards aren't we?

That's not what I've heard. Got a link?

Better stock up on more police in the meantime.

Technology can be your friend.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You've been arguing the side of the grasshopper, I've been arguing against it. This raises thet obvious questions, if you're not the grasshopper, why argue for him? And if you support the grasshopper, why distance yourself from him?

In your fable the ants are doing all the work collecting corn and the grasshopper is singing. The ants in this fable aren't collecting any corn, but the assumption is made that only grasshoppers sing. Because the ants have no wings, they are flying about on personal jets to tell you why you're singing is wrong and why you need to collect corn while they waste at least 12 times more than you. You've mistaken me for a grasshopper because you don't like the sound of my voice.

I guess it's because everything I've heard and read indicates our industries are unwilling to increase fuel efficiency. More below...

Kenworth Trucking has maintained a concern for increasing fuel efficiency consistently. 35,000 automotive engineers assembled as the Society of Automotive Engineers World Congress to discuss Fuel cells, hybrids, high-tech diesels and other "next-generation" ideas per SAE article. "Engineering for Global Sustainable Mobility -- It's Up to Us."

Who's the queen? Gore?

I'm not certain he's an ant at all in this fable. In fact, he's not really collecting any corn, but he's doing an awful lot of singing.

That's not what I've heard. Got a link?

Bush wants to reduce the nation's gasoline usage 5% annually by 2017 through increasing the fuel efficiency of passenger cars and light trucks. This proposal called '20 in 10', may cost the auto industry $114 billion through 2017 so it has a down-side, but it's a start. As of March 2007, it has stalled in Congress because it's "not enough". Apparently, political posturing is more important than action. After 20 years of no policy change, any measure would be a start. Urge your representative in Congress to do something about it instead of singing to me like the grasshoppers do.

Technology can be your friend.

True, but it can also be your foe.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Gore ran for president in 2000. Did he run on an environmentalism campaign? Arguably (and I would disagree). Global Warming? No way. Alarmism means you go around trying to bring your message to people who don't want to listen. He didn't do that until the movie (2006). Before that he was just preaching to the converted.

I didn't mention the articles because I hadn't read them yet. Now that I have, the first one explicitly states that the authors of the work in question agree with most other climatologists. The second one is about a speech to a republican group, on a hypothesis that hasn't been peer-reviewed, nor even tested empirically that I can tell. Not relelvant.

Meanwhile, have you read the IPCC report? The report's specific primary purpose was to be as conservative as necessary to gain the explicit support of all governments involved (including the US), so that all skeptics and believers could establish a common basis for discourse. You should take a look
.

Maybe you should take that look yourself, since it is now common knowledge that the IPCC Report directly contradicts more than 40% of Gore's claims in "An Inconvenient Truth."

And, please, save us all the meme about Gore not starting this crap until recently.

Here, the copyright page from his first book [i]in 1993.[/]

Amazon Online Reader : Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit (Plume)


Feel free to hitch that wagon to a better horse. Shouldn't be hard to find one.


And, KarlG, since the argument is that the science is settled and anyone who disagrees should shut up, trying to attack the source is ridiculous. The very existence of the sources (and the FACT that the publishing of the group's findings at ScienceDaily actually qualifies itself as peer review) eviscerates your argument, in public.

[besson3c]

You guys are still at this?

WHO CARES? I mean really... Who cares what Al Gore's motives are? Why psychoanalyze him? He's just one of several saying the same thing... Is he being opportunistic? Likely, but who really cares? Leave this for People magazine or some celebrity gossip rag or something... Sheesh!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

And, please, save us all the meme about Gore not starting this crap until recently.

Here, the copyright page from his first book [i]in 1993.[/]

A book? Who cares? The only people who read books are people who already agree with what the author is saying. Otherwise they wouldn't buy the book and keep reading it. What was the last book you read that made you change your mind about an "issue"?

That's exactly why I just said "Alarmism means you go around trying to bring your message to people who don't want to listen."

I was a member of the public, and I voted for Gore in 2000, and I knew he was in favor of "the environment" in general, but even with all those things I didn't even know that his focus was on climate change or that he had written books about it until last year. The whole point of "crying wolf" is that people know about it. I have a hard time believing his book constitutes "crying wolf" when I didn't know about it until it was made into a movie.

Feel free to hitch that wagon to a better horse. Shouldn't be hard to find one.

Wagon? I don't have a wagon. I was just pointing out that your argument contradicted itself.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You guys are still at this?

WHO CARES? I mean really... Who cares what Al Gore's motives are? Why psychoanalyze him? He's just one of several saying the same thing... Is he being opportunistic? Likely, but who really cares? Leave this for People magazine or some celebrity gossip rag or something... Sheesh!

If you're going to troll the least you could do is read the thread.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you're going to troll the least you could do is read the thread.

I haven't read all 11 pages, but I do see a lot of "Gore this", "Gore that"...

[Uncle Skeleton]

If seeing this thread title bothers you too much, I have a solution for you...




...





...




Step away from the internets now and then