A lame rant about the gov't and gas

[catsix]

Una Persson said:
That works as long as the production curve is higher than the consumption curves. How long will that last, exactly? Plus, that completely and totally ignores the Middle East influence and foreign dependence and trade gap issues, the CO2 production issue, the resource consumption of something that can be used for other petrochemicals issue…

And all that will be magically solved by just raising the tax on gasoline, huh? For one, I’m not even convinced that the Kyoto protocol is a good thing at all (and yes, I have read it and research surrounding it).

I just adore people who think the solution to everything is to raise fucking taxes and let the government handle it.

I didn’t say it would be “lovely”, nor did I say “indefinite”, nor did I say it was intended to “punish” people. Thus, these would appear to be mischaracterizations.

Well, you do think it’s a good idea to use higher taxes, consumption based, on gasoline so that those people who use more fund more of your pet research project. Hence the ‘lovely’ and ‘punish’.

And the last time a temporary tax was actually lifted was when? Yeah, there we go with indefinitely.

don’t know why you are taking such offense at my posts. Do you think you really need to get so upset with me?

Oh, I’m not upset with you merely because I see absolutely no justifiable reason to artificially increase the price of gasoline so that the US can be more like the UK.

I just don’t see your logic in how another increase in the price of gasoline will automatically be a good thing.

[Una_Persson]

What?

@catsix

And all that will be magically solved by just raising the tax on gasoline, huh?

No, it might be if we used a massive research project to find suitable alternatives for gasoline, hopefully bio-derived. For all you’ve been carrying on about this “pet research project” you claim I have, why are you implying that all I said was “tax”?

In my original post, way up this thread, I said:

I think the price should go up. Add $2.50 a gallon in tax to be devoted solely towards replacing oil with renewable, greenhouse-neutral energy,

You now act like I was claiming “just raising a tax” would do this? But in the same breath condemn a “pet research project” of mine? And see no connection between the two…? Ugh. Make up your mind what you’re so pissed off about - just pick something I really said, please.

I just don’t see your logic in how another increase in the price of gasoline will automatically be a good thing.

Oh come on. I didn’t say that at all, and what I wrote is here in the thread for all to read.

[catsix]

1. Raising the tax on gasoline will not necessarily fund any development of cars that don’t use gasoline. Do you expect the government to hire the scientists and do the research and then then require car makers to just manufacture whatever the government folks came up with, or are you suggesting that the tax money just be given to the auto companies and then we let them do the research?

How would this actually work?

2. It’s your pet research project which, although you’ve outlined no actual way for the tax you’d like to raise to fund the research in a useful manner, you are already willing to force people to start paying for it.

I think that accurately sums up my problem with your proposal.

[Una_Persson]

@catsix

1. Raising the tax on gasoline will not necessarily fund any development of cars that don’t use gasoline. Do you expect the government to hire the scientists and do the research and then then require car makers to just manufacture whatever the government folks came up with, or are you suggesting that the tax money just be given to the auto companies and then we let them do the research?

How would this actually work?

By not choosing either of your methods.

I propose, as I discussed a couple of times before, a research project to focus on heavily GM fuel crops to be refined for ethanol, then either used directly and/or converted to gasoline - for the purpose of moving the gasoline economy to being a renewable, US-produced and home-controlled resource. To this end the areas of focus of the research have to be:

a) Creating GM crops of fast-growing high-sugar hydrogenated biomass which can grow in agricultural slack space, or on existing surplus developed agricultural land.

b) Optimizing production of said crops, including closed-loop energy systems for the planting, maintenance, and harvesting.

c) Creation of more efficient chemical cracking/conversion methods for grain->ethanol and ethanol->gasoline.

d) Research in replacing petrochemical-derived products with bio-derived ones.

For starters. This project would be managed by creation of a research wing of the DoE to act as ombudspeople and guidance, with subsidies given directly to researchers from government, academia, and industry - wherever the greatest expertise, experience, and efficiency lies. Without any “make work” or white-collar subsidy aspect of it at all.

The project could have a certain goal to get it past a critical point of no return, such as “replace 25% of US gasoline use with bio-derived gasoline”, then sunset with removal of the tax. I am a big fan of sunsets - if a tax is applied towards a cause and it doesn’t work, then either get rid of it, or fix it and send it back for another vote in its new form.

I would also take the controversial step of making the positive results of the research either public domain, or for sale at a reasonable cost to other nations - one would have to balance out the net good with the need for money.

As bio-derived gasoline would be produced, it would be exempt from the tax. Thus, if $0.25 per gallon tax is added on and 10% comes from bio-derived sources, then the tax is now only $0.225.

Those are just some generalities. I don’t think I’m going to go into it any more on this message board, however.

2. It’s your pet research project which, although you’ve outlined no actual way for the tax you’d like to raise to fund the research in a useful manner, you are already willing to force people to start paying for it.

I think that accurately sums up my problem with your proposal.

You really want me to write some sort of proposal here on the SDMB Pit?

I could throw back that you’ve offered absolutely not one scientific suggestion for how you will handle steadily diminishing oil reserves and increasing imports. Only pointed out some tech trends of a few automakers. But then, I never made fun of you for not submitting your detailed research proposal either, nor called your experience and credentials in this area into question.

Your argument appears to be selective and vindictive. Selective because there are a thousand or so off the cuff “proposals” about solving one or another problem of society here on this message board each week, and vindictive because I haven’t seen you going after those for not being defined as you would like with the same, equal intensity you have with my off-the-cuff proposal.

[catsix]

Selective because there are a thousand or so off the cuff “proposals” about solving one or another problem of society here on this message board each week, and vindictive because I haven’t seen you going after those for not being defined as you would like with the same, equal intensity you have with my off-the-cuff proposal.

Because a lot of them don’t directly affect my means to have a livelihood, while yours does.

You’re right that I’ve only pointed out what certain auto companies have been doing, but then again I didn’t come in and make a very large speech about how I’d solve the problem by doing xyz.

You stated what you wanted to do, and I asked how you think that’ll work when it’s very lacking in details and when it would put a pretty big burden on the ability of people like myself to commute to work.

[ParentalAdvisory]

I don’t see how the government taxing our usage of gasoline would help benefit the study of alternate fuels when oil companies can do this themselves with their own profits.

@Una Persson

Even a 60-mile round trip would only add $5 a day onto your trip.

?

[ParentalAdvisory]

I mean, the oil companys still want to have an edge in the market when the oil runs out right?

[Colophon]

Ahem.

smash

[Una_Persson]

@ParentalAdvisory

I don’t see how the government taxing our usage of gasoline would help benefit the study of alternate fuels when oil companies can do this themselves with their own profits.

Originally Posted by Una Persson
Even a 60-mile round trip would only add $5 a day onto your trip.

?

I was saying that at $2.50/gallon, assuming 30mpg, that’s 2 gallons/60 miles, or $5 of the very high tax.

Without getting into advocating anything, just because I don’t have time to argue with anyone here, I will respond to you by saying that an advantage of centralized authority can be greatly reduced redundant work (you don’t have 20 different people researching the same thing because of trade secret/competition issues), and I will also point out the fact, often pointed out by others, that nowhere near the magnitude of effort I envisioned possible at even $0.25/gal is being done in this field. Gasoline price is a pass-through, for the current time. If light sweet crude goes up to $100/bbl, most (if not all) of this cost will be bourne by the consumer, not the company.