Arctic methane and cow farts be damned! Yes, it’s obvious that the science is in: American’s cars are at the heart of climate change. Therefore, it’s only right that we cripple our recovering economy to save the planet! [For members of the ‘literal Internet’, that was sarcasm.]
To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.
To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving would simply have to increase, according to a report released Thursday by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. The research also appears in the March edition of the journal Energy Policy.
The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.
In their study, the researchers devised several combinations of steps that United States policymakers might take in trying to address the heat-trapping emissions by the nation’s transportation sector, which consumes 70 percent of the oil used in the United States.
Most of their models assumed an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 a ton in 2030. In some cases researchers also factored in tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles, taxes on fuel or both.
In the modeling, it turned out that issuing tax credits could backfire, while taxes on fuel proved beneficial.
On the other hand, if the taxes were used to pay down the deficit… Riiight.
It would probably give me more company on my bike commute.
That will double the price of food.
Raise the cost of living and going to work.
Cost of Airplane/rail/Mail will all double..
All shipping and handling costs will double if NOT TRIPLE, adding to the cost of goods.
AND THEN, corps wont get the hint about SPREADING OUT, to build locally, so they can have things CHEAPER.
Tell me that the 30 million buffalo and 10 million elk caribou etc, that were here before the whiteman, didn’t generate just as much methane as today’s cows.
This is the same thing they want to do to England’s Airlines. Why don’t they do the simple thing the Country only gets to use so much fuel a year. The free market will take care of the rest. That would limit green house gases.
All this Green House Taxes are just a scam to get money.
When setting the tone of a “negative review” wouldn’t the responsible/mature/intelligent/informed/helpful thing to do be suggesting a range of alternatives, or even just one alternative, or state the status quo is just fine?
That must be the default position? Status quo is just fine? Do nothing. Do the Republican thing?
I can see arguments for that but not if the “goal” is to reduce the amount of fuel consumed. Pro’s and con’s to all things, as always.
Trying to bring this in to the real world is rank baloney. Sheer poppy cock. Just how many Democrats, and Obama voters are willing to pay $7 for gas.
Its funny, this really is a ‘put your $$ where your mouth is’ set up. 🙂
Yes, because when all else fails, make everyone pay taxes. Because we all know giving the government more money makes the problem magically disappear.
Another way to think about this is that most of our oil comes from foreign sources. Those guys raise prices to curb demand so the extra they charge (above production costs and reasonable profit) goes to them. If we have a tax that was used to curb demand the money would stay in this country instead of going to countries we don’t like.
Therefore, it’s only right that we cripple our recovering economy to save the planet!
Uh, doesn’t matter how spiffy our deck chair looks if the Titanic is sinking.
Tough to have a vibrant economy without a liveable planet, ya know? But hey, look at the Chinese. They have a vibrant economy — and a toxic hellhole of a country with all the pollution they’re spewing out.
We’ve based our economy on cheap oil. If a cheap oil economy hurts the environment, we should change our economy. Unless you’d like to live in a toxic hellhole.
This is the worst thing I have ever read. It insanely stupid. Somebody has to stop this nonsense.
This had to have been a California idea, liberals hate cars so obviously they are evil. Especially trucks. The facts are that the 4 largest container ships in the world spew out as much pollution in one month as all the cars on earth in one year. Liberals are a hateful little people. They should all have to live in one place where we can wall em in and they can just implode. Say California? Oh wait, already imploded under the weight of their liberalism. Idiots.
If anyone was concerned about getting the public off their collective duff and rising up against the machine, this is something that would do it. It is also further proof that the current leadership of this nation is completly out of touch. A global economy can only be supported with affordable transportation; it’s just a question of affordable for whom? The self-loathing American leadership would rather see the domestic economy flounder at the expense of the global economy. The smarter money would instead tax the living crap out of international transportation and all airline transport. This would encourage more local economic development, encourage more balanced trade between nations, and likely would reduce fuel consumption. However, this is not the agenda of our current leadership. Whatever their agenda, it’s NOT to protect the interests of the American public.
#9 ahh yes, but remember, if the container ships did anything about this then that would be a corporation doing something good. (This would be bad, and we can’t have that).
Not to mention it would deprive the liberals of being able to do something to feel better, (double bad).
Ohh, will there be no end to all this evil!
The two largest sources that the US gets its oil from are from the North and South of us. That is Canada and Mexico. The Saudi’s are the third. We have the resources here to get oil but there are some that have stopped US firms from getting oil from our own sources. All this move is is to continue to destroy the USA by people who hate capitalism and democracy. They want our way of life to come to a screeching halt.
If oil is a finite resource then the best policy for the USA would be to use oil resources in other countries while pursuing an economy that uses less oil. When the oil resources in other countries run low, then the USA would have something worth selling.
Oh My God!! You mean Americans would have to pay the same for gas as people in every other country do?!
Whatever shall we do, the world will stop spinning.
I don’t agree with the science but if we are going to tax something I think gas is a great target.
How would paying down the deficit help reduce CO2 emmissions? Why would getting people to use less of a finite resource be a bad thing?
#9
Wow! 4 ships produce twelve times as much pollution as every car on the planet?
Is your main source for information still The Weekly World News?
Thank you Zybch. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to point out that the rest of the civilized world is already paying around $7/gallon. This would do more for car companies to make efficient cars than CAFE could ever do.
Re: #4 bobbo, forgive them lord, they have eyes but cannot see…
“When setting the tone of a “negative review” wouldn’t the responsible/mature/intelligent/informed/helpful thing to do be suggesting a range of alternatives, or even just one alternative, or state the status quo is just fine?”
Well, since the status quo is but one suggestion, I’ll offer one alternative. Dramatically increase government funding to the most promising alternative energy alternatives, and realistically support the ongoing development of increased efficiency and lower pollution technology for current oil consuming activities, to accelerate the development of a reasonable renewable energy alternative while, at the same time, stimulating the economy in a positive and responsible way.
The narrow-minded objective of the study was ONLY to “reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020”. They didn’t even factor in the damage to the economy and low income earners or the negative effect on industry… which would have been the “responsible/mature/intelligent/informed/helpful thing to do”.
Raising the cost of oil will only hurt blue collar and low income people, while the BMW’s and Lexis owners enjoy high speed travel on empty highways. Meanwhile, the alarming and disastrous greenhouse prophesy will likely not play out based on the many predictions to date that have proved to be wrong and therefore based on unsound science.
Way back in college, in my Economics 1 class, my professor spent a day talking about the supply and demand for pollution. Consumers demand less pollution and firms and consumers generate pollution. At some point an equilibrium is reached when the marginal cost of reducing pollution exceeds the marginal benefit. In the end, the population *pays* to reduce pollution because they feel the benefit is worth cost. We do not eliminate *all* pollution because the cost of doing would not exceed the benefit.
Since we’re paying to reduce oil dependency, I would think a solution that would have far less impact on the economy than taxing everyone would be subsidies to corporations that reduce the use of oil, both direct and indirect. This, of course, would be better under *normal* circumstances when we were not up to our eye balls in debt especially considering that the odds that the short term additional tax revenue will be used to pay down the debt is zero.
How would the plan to raise taxes on fuel reduce GLOBAL pollution? If we add this tax it would make it more expensive to produce goods in the US. Then other counties would have a competitive advantage. That is, we’ll continue to remove all production of goods from the US. These goods will then be produced outside of the country and shipped in. Since shipping takes fuel, it’s a net increase in global pollution.
Sure, it may make it nicer to live here, but some of us might like to work here too.
I guess we’ll have to add tariffs on all imported goods to “level the playing field”. With enough taxes I’m sure we can solve any problem….
#2. “Tell me that the 30 million buffalo and 10 million elk caribou etc, that were here before the whiteman, didn’t generate just as much methane as today’s cows.” It’s complicated, but domesticated cattle and sheep produce vastly more CH4 than free-ranging wild game.
# Thomas — The US government has for a long time supported the oil companies by giving them tax breaks and/or subsidies. The government could move all or some of those benefits to companies that have products reducing the usage of oil.
This would probably increase the price of fuel.
bac, I suggest you expand your knowledge on oil companies and taxes. That would bode well for the oil company bashing AGW alarmists on DU.
Sample link to enlightenment …
http://bit.ly/USA_News_Article_Oil_Taxes
#20–Orgasm Skeptik==well done, thanks for contributing. As much a fan of fisking that I am, let me take but one of your statements: “Meanwhile, the alarming and disastrous greenhouse prophesy will likely not play out based on the many predictions to date that have proved to be wrong and therefore based on unsound science.”===not well grounded in science itself is it?
As in all things, its all in the setup–all in how you define things. Lots of squishy room in that allowing for that kind of sentiment.
There is science. There is cause and effect. There are long term trends.
Errors in science does not negate science. The timing of effect measured from cause does not negate the casual relationship. Failure to correctly name the month or year of a certain effect does not negate the long term trend.
With all that said, is there still a corn subsidy for ethanol production? I’ll allow you to connect the proper dots.
I notice that no one is suggesting that bankers are to blame for all this. Whew!
The important people (you know, the ones the government protects)are provided with enough income, bonuses and the like so that these moves don’t affect them. Why aren’t those with huge herds of cattle taxed on a government assessed amount by a Federal Fart Inspectorate? Come to think of it, why aren’t humans being asked only to visit the can once every three days? Surely, that would reduce human methane output by 2/3?
We need more blue skies thinking on this subject (from those with bullet proof heads)
re; long range bobbo, “===not well grounded in science itself is it?”
I didn’t say the current climate science is not science, but it. If they ever seriously allow the skeptical science in on the discussion, I’m sure the predictions will be at least somewhere in the vicinity of the target…. what you refer to as the casual relationship. There may not even be a reason for panic at all.
I wouldn’t call the corn subsidy anything but a thoughtless flawed reaction by poor leadership. I’m sure there are Americans with intelligence enough to do better than that. If anything it serves as an example of what not to do, and not a reason by any stretch to give up.
Catastrophic global warming makes Uncle Dave yawn.
But a 14% reduction in envisions _over 15 years_ makes him pee his pants because its the FRIGGIN’ END OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!
#29–Skeptik==I think we are roughly on the same wave length and frequency.
Why quibble?
– – – – -well,—– because its fun?
Science doesn’t tell us what to do as in panic or not. As in plan or not.
We also need to define panic as in “do something rather than nothing even though it will cost me money.”==is that a panic reaction or just “good planning?”
Science can’t tell us that. When the gas crises of 1979 passed us by with just 2-3 weeks of gas lines, Carter telling us to wear sweaters, CAFE regs for a few years, but nothing done otherwise when a PANIC RESPONSE was warranted, the distinction between long term planning and any panic reaction faded to meaningless.
Like yeast, we hoomans will continue shitting into our environment until the concentrations reach max sustainability for our species, and then we too will host the next apex creature.
Silly Hoomans.