Aren't we ignoring the elephant in the room - our cars?

Question

Of all the energy consumers, I think cars are the worst problem. I don't agree with the theory that our CO2 output is going to cause catastrophic, runaway warming, but I'm alarmed at the way it's heading. It wouldn't matter so much, if it looked like sensible, effective policies were likely to be implemented. We are going to have to deal with the end of oil, anyway - and the sooner the better. Why does it have to be turned into the usual political foolishness, and force fed to the public, with highhanded indoctrination tactics? Like, "don't worry, were just going to put a carbon tax on business and industry - " .

Anyway, does anyone else think we should reduce speed limits to save fuel? Or how about adding 2$ per gallon, and at the end of the year, divide the money up among all of us. That way, people who use a lot of oil will be paying a lot of tax, and only get the same rebate as someone who uses none. It'd be easier to administer than "cap &trade"and very motivating.

Answer 1

it all comes down to 1 thing.

Cutting down on emissions IS NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE.

As stated by that midget b*****d ex prime minister

john howard. (Australian)

we make more money using fossil fuels then anything else.

We should go green. but the earth will die because *** holes will go for money over our planet, any day.

Answer 2

Imagine getting all of our power from nuclear power.  We would be able to produce all the power we need without producing any green house gases.

Then we could plug in our electric cars and use nuclear power to charge the batteries.  

We would be able to drive as much as we wanted without causing any harm to the environment and without raising taxes

Answer 3

if you were in the Darfur refugee camps, you'd be singing a different story.

<<U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon blames the ethnic and religious violence in Darfur on global warming and insists more conflicts of this kind are coming because of climate change.

"The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change," Ban said>>

it's sort of like Reagan's definition of a recession and a depression.  in this case,  when someone else doesn't have water, it's a problem -- when you don't have water it's a crisis.

cars, power plants, and cement and aluminum production are the big problems.  clearly we should raise the MPG requirements.  as soon as Bush and all his lackeys are gone, look for that to happen.

as for reducing speed limits, yes it would be good if we drove slower.  but there will be a lot of complaining.  and many will ignore the limit.

as far as adding a $2 tax,  nobody ever got elected by promising to raise taxes.  and that's surely not gonna happen today.  consider we've added 3-4-5 trillion dollars to the national debt this century.  that's stealing from our children.  and you still see politicians claiming we need to reduce taxes, and increase the debt.  (no they don't say increase the debt, but it'll surely happen.)

Calif gov Schwarzenegger has proposed that when there's a budget shortfall, there ought to automatically be service curtailment.  how 'bout when there's a budget shortfall, there be an automatic tax hike to make up the difference.  of course, it's way easier to take it from our kid's schools.  they don't get to vote.

Answer 4

People do love their cars.  Jello is right that electric cars are the best prospect for the future.  We can certainly expand the nuclear industry, but sadly there is not enough uranium available to satisfy all electricity requirements from nuclear power alone.    A mixture of wind, solar, nuclear, biomass, etc. is a feasible solution.  

The proposed tax on gasoline would not be simple to administer.  Everyone has a different need for transportation fuel.  A office worker may find driving a car convenient, but public transport would be a better solution.  A farmer or a trucker uses fuel for a legitimate business purpose and arguably should not be taxed as much as the office worker that uses fuel for convenience.  Would the proposed fuel tax offer a rebate for business use and if so, how would the rebate be administered?

Answer 5

Your "tax fuel and divide the proceeds" is the pet idea of either T. Boone Pickens or another billionaire like him.

I think it would work great (except that I think the money should be given back as a deductible on Social Security taxes; people shouldn't get a rebate if they aren't productive).

Answer 6

I like the idea of an additional tax to increase the price of gasoline at the pump.  This additional tax money would be used to fund alternative energy and alternative fuels, such as biodiesel and ethanol. The additional fuels biodiesel fuel and ethanol production would decrease the amount of oil that needs to be converted to gasoline. The price would at first rise, due to the additional tax and then fall as more plant based fuel became available in the service stations of America.

It should also be noted that I saw a concept car in WIRED magazine recently that when it was tested got 340 miles per gallon of fuel.

Also consider the possibility of public transportation 24 hours a day to get people to where they need to go to reduce fuel consumption, by transporting many people in one large vehicle (buses) as opposed to one or a few being transported by automobiles. This could reduce fuel consumption about 50 %.