Why don't we just tax gas like mad?

Koggit

Koggit

CAGiversary!
Feedback
3 (100%)
An additional couple bucks a gallon. With $7/gallon gas people would conserve much more, so demand would go way down, so prices should be a bit lower... then the tax could even go a little higher. Then, when the government is getting $5 for every gallon sold, they could subsidize things that would actually HELP us -- they could subsidize other life necessities, or spend it on mass transportation, or help lower income families (who may struggle with expensive gas) live more conservatively. The government could use the money to offer financial incentives for carpooling, or as grants for energy research.

Also, for clarity, I only mean tax consumer gas. Commuters, etc. Not shipping companies' diesel or airlines' fuel or anything.

I know one reason it could never happen: a Halliburton CEO is vice president. But I mean economically -- someone smarter than myself please explain why this wouldn't work. It seems logical to me, but I've never taken Econ or anything.
 
[quote name='Koggit']
Also, for clarity, I only mean tax consumer gas. Commuters, etc. Not shipping companies' diesel or airlines' fuel or anything.
[/quote]

Why wouldn't you tax shipping companies and airlines? Did they contribute heavily to your campaign?
 
OP, raising gas prices hurts the lowest income earners the most, so what you're essentially suggesting is to hurt the poor then help the poor through an army of bureaucracy.

Instead why don't we tax the rich at the same rate that we tax everyone else, instead of instituting a graduated tax plan with high-income earner loopholes big enough to drive a Mack truck through?

Why don't we eliminate subsidies for SUVs that are not being used in farming?
 
I'd like to institute a graduated tax based on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle (since I pay more at the pump due to gluttons who wastefully bought low-efficiency SUVs for the past decade, artificially driving up demand while driving the same distances).

Not that I've a clue on how to institute it. But I'd like to see it happen.
 
[quote name='Koggit']An additional couple bucks a gallon. With $7/gallon gas people would conserve much more, so demand would go way down, so prices should be a bit lower... then the tax could even go a little higher. Then, when the government is getting $5 for every gallon sold, they could subsidize things that would actually HELP us -- they could subsidize other life necessities, or spend it on mass transportation, or help lower income families (who may struggle with expensive gas) live more conservatively. The government could use the money to offer financial incentives for carpooling, or as grants for energy research.

Also, for clarity, I only mean tax consumer gas. Commuters, etc. Not shipping companies' diesel or airlines' fuel or anything.

I know one reason it could never happen: a Halliburton CEO is vice president. But I mean economically -- someone smarter than myself please explain why this wouldn't work. It seems logical to me, but I've never taken Econ or anything.[/quote]

If you tax the crap out of gasoline, sure demand will go down (not really, we're so heavily addicted at this point), and I guess that might lower prices, but then you still have a whopping $5 dollar tax, so you do not end up saving money (which is I assume your goal, right?). And then, if like you say, you raise the tax even more you are back to where you began with the government giving consumers a falcon punch to the balls.

Besides, gas is mainly as expensive as it is because of taxes.

What we need is to make our cars more efficient and to get them on a whole new type of energy ASAP. That won't happen as long as big business keeps giving the government a handjob, thanks Detroit!
 
[quote name='camoor']
Instead why don't we tax the rich at the same rate that we tax everyone else, instead of instituting a graduated tax plan with high-income earner loopholes big enough to drive a Mack truck through?
[/quote]

I'm confused by your argument. Are you saying that the rich do not pay as much in taxes as people in lower income brackets? Are you implying that the rich would actually pay more with a flat rate tax? Currently, the top 10% of income earners pay >70% of all income taxes. The top 50% pay >95%. The IRS data from 2007 are summarized here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html




With regards to the gas tax, the people hurt the most would be the lower to mid middle class. The really poor use public transportation because they lack cars. The really rich can easily absorb your increased tax. People in the middle class predominantly drive cars; and, in many cases, they lack a practicable alternative means of transportation (e.g., no convenient public transportation). To build up a competant public transportation system in a city like LA would take many years. What would people do in the mean time? Call work saying they can't show up because they can't afford gas?
 
Interesting theory OP, and it certainly would light a fire under alternative fuel R&D, however it would be disasterous to the economy (I think).
 
[quote name='BigT']I'm confused by your argument. Are you saying that the rich do not pay as much in taxes as people in lower income brackets? Are you implying that the rich would actually pay more with a flat rate tax? Currently, the top 10% of income earners pay >70% of all income taxes. The top 50% pay >95%. The IRS data from 2007 are summarized here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html[/QUOTE]

Interesting data. You fail to point out that the top 50% earned 87% of the adjusted gross income, which, of course, means that they're paying disproportionately more in taxes, but it's not as egregious as the ">95%" figure appears, at least by itself.

But it's data I don't trust; not because it isn't a foundation I trust (a group with a vested interest and bias), but, rather, because they set the median income in the US at $30K and some change. I believe it is actually far closer to $46K. I'll look into that later, but in the meantime have some work to do to prepare for a phone interview (huzzah).
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] have some work to do to prepare for a phone interview (huzzah).[/QUOTE]

god i hate phone interviews...



on topic, raising the gas tax this sharply would only hurt middle america. the slight increase in revenue for the government would probably be offset by people who get a new car, start taking public transportation, or other method of transportation. the point is, it might change some peoples driving habits, but not enough to change the world but probably enough to offset any benefits of the tax increase.
 
i may be the oldest person here without a drivers license, so i will rejoice the day that happens. FYI, almost 22 years old and still no license.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Interesting data. You fail to point out that the top 50% earned 87% of the adjusted gross income, which, of course, means that they're paying disproportionately more in taxes, but it's not as egregious as the ">95%" figure appears, at least by itself.

But it's data I don't trust; not because it isn't a foundation I trust (a group with a vested interest and bias), but, rather, because they set the median income in the US at $30K and some change. I believe it is actually far closer to $46K. I'll look into that later, but in the meantime have some work to do to prepare for a phone interview (huzzah).[/quote]

It seems like you may be thinking of median household income or alternatively mean individual income, both of which would be in the mid-40s.

I just looked up census data and they show:
32,140 median overall income for people 25 and over.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new03_000.htm
 
[quote name='pittpizza']however it would be disasterous to the economy (I think).[/quote]

Maybe on the front end for a few years. Within a decade, gas or diesel cars would be considered quaint and unnecessary and the economy would definitely rebound within 5 years.
 
[quote name='Koggit']An additional couple bucks a gallon. With $7/gallon gas people would conserve much more, so demand would go way down, so prices should be a bit lower... then the tax could even go a little higher. Then, when the government is getting $5 for every gallon sold, they could subsidize things that would actually HELP us -- they could subsidize other life necessities, or spend it on mass transportation, or help lower income families (who may struggle with expensive gas) live more conservatively. The government could use the money to offer financial incentives for carpooling, or as grants for energy research.

Also, for clarity, I only mean tax consumer gas. Commuters, etc. Not shipping companies' diesel or airlines' fuel or anything.

I know one reason it could never happen: a Halliburton CEO is vice president. But I mean economically -- someone smarter than myself please explain why this wouldn't work. It seems logical to me, but I've never taken Econ or anything.[/QUOTE]

Let me get this straight: you want to heavily tax fuel, then use that tax money to...help people pay for said fuel. A bit redundant, and highly socialistic, don't you think?

[quote name='mykevermin']I'd like to institute a graduated tax based on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle (since I pay more at the pump due to gluttons who wastefully bought low-efficiency SUVs for the past decade, artificially driving up demand while driving the same distances).

Not that I've a clue on how to institute it. But I'd like to see it happen.[/QUOTE]


The blame lies on the car manufacturers, oil companies and goverment for that one. I'd love to buy a three car-seat capable small-to-midsize SUV that got 40MPG, and didn't have to pay $50K for said vehicle.

We tried using a small sedan, and it just doesn't work. Our CR-V is much better, but it still can't seat that additional car seat.
 
Gas could be $20/gallon and I'd still have to buy it because I have to get to work somehow. They've got us by the balls and they know it.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Maybe on the front end for a few years. Within a decade, gas or diesel cars would be considered quaint and unnecessary and the economy would definitely rebound within 5 years.[/QUOTE]

No it wouldn't. You'd see an absolute collapse in the economy. All the suburb commuters would either move back into the city, forcing lower-class urban tenants onto the street. Homeless shelters would explode, people would be more likey to commit violent crimes in order to survive, and you'd start to see the collapse of society.

Or, those suburban commuters would be out of work when they were unwilling/unable to find other work or move inside city limits. Then the housing market would finally collapse for good, or see foriegn investors buy up valuable assets for pennies on the dollar so that the banking and lending industries would completely go belly-up. It would make the Japanese property grabs of the 80s look like a Monolopy game.

The transportation system in this country needs a complete overhaul, but a...125% tax on petrol isn't the answer by a longshot.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Gas could be $20/gallon and I'd still have to buy it because I have to get to work somehow. They've got us by the balls and they know it.[/quote]

A KWh costs 10 cents. It takes 10-15KWh to push an electric car for 60 miles.
 
And completely impractical for non-city driving. These also tend to be smaller cars, making them a greater safety risk around larger vehicles.

Hell, some guy in a jacked up truck hit me in a drive-thru because he couldn't see the del Sol I was driving at the time. Unless you replace 40% of the larger vehicles on the road, small electrics aren't going to find anything more than a niche.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
But it's data I don't trust; not because it isn't a foundation I trust (a group with a vested interest and bias), but, rather, because they set the median income in the US at $30K and some change. I believe it is actually far closer to $46K. I'll look into that later, but in the meantime have some work to do to prepare for a phone interview (huzzah).[/QUOTE]

FWIW, Where I live, most people I know make around 33-35k a year.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']A KWh costs 10 cents. It takes 10-15KWh to push an electric car for 60 miles.[/QUOTE]

Fantastic point. If you really do the research on it, there really is no real good reason why fully electric cars are not common place. The only explanation is conspiracy.

With a good deal of work you can retrofit most sedans to be fully electric for 5 grand - and they will get at least 80 miles on a charge. Obviously you would keep a second gasoline car for long trips, but still.

They also perform really well, look up drag races on youtube. Look up "white zombie".

They also are far more reliable. Essentially one moving part in the engine. Industrial size electric motors run for decades non-stop with very little maintenance.

It amazes me that the best car company's can do is Hybrid vehicles, which really don't have a lower cost to own than a regular car. It's a joke.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']FWIW, Where I live, most people I know make around 33-35k a year.



Fantastic point. If you really do the research on it, there really is no real good reason why fully electric cars are not common place. The only explanation is conspiracy.

With a good deal of work you can retrofit most sedans to be fully electric for 5 grand - and they will get at least 80 miles on a charge. Obviously you would keep a second gasoline car for long trips, but still.

They also perform really well, look up drag races on youtube. Look up "white zombie".

They also are far more reliable. Essentially one moving part in the engine. Industrial size electric motors run for decades non-stop with very little maintenance.

It amazes me that the best car company's can do is Hybrid vehicles, which really don't have a lower cost to own than a regular car. It's a joke.[/QUOTE]

Most major oil companies also have their hand in the other energy producing streams. So if we aren't paying through the nose on gas, do coal prices skyrocket? What about overhead for solar?

People pay pennies on the dollar to operate electric vehicles in large part because they are the only ones doing it. Just like anything, when demand rises, so does cost.

And what about during California's rolling blackouts? How much more would a fleet of electric vehicles tax that system? And if you can't charge your car during the blackout, you're stuck at home with no power and no ability to go anywhere.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']And if you can't charge your car during the blackout, you're stuck at home with no power and no ability to go anywhere.[/quote]

Gas-powered generators :p.

I think the biggest problem with electric cars are their range, but that has gotten better over time and will only get better faster if there is more emphasis on it. Instead they're trying to do this hydrogen and ethanol shit. It makes the most sense to me to transition to mostly hybrids (with a plug-in ability) and then over to fully electric (unless for some reason hydrogen gets a whole hell of a lot more efficient).

Of course it's not that simple, but I'd think as more people switched there would be more advances in the technology, etc.
 
That's why I wouldn't suggest an electric car as your only car. But it makes a lot of sense for most errand driving.

You can still buy a 5000 watt gassoline generator for $200, and charge your car with it far cheaper than driving a gas car, and power outages won't matter.
 
The problem is that if you increase gas taxes, the price of everything else will also increase. You can already see this in the rise in food prices.

I agree that finding a cheap alternative fuel source is the way to go but imagine how drastically that would change the world economy. The Middle East would completely degenerate into anarchy since the regional economy is completely dependent on oil revenue.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']That's why I wouldn't suggest an electric car as your only car. But it makes a lot of sense for most errand driving.

You can still buy a 5000 watt gassoline generator for $200, and charge your car with it far cheaper than driving a gas car, and power outages won't matter.[/quote]


well this one http://www.teslamotors.com/ is 220 miles on a charge and its a sports car, can only imagine what they could get with a compact car.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']And completely impractical for non-city driving. These also tend to be smaller cars, making them a greater safety risk around larger vehicles.

Hell, some guy in a jacked up truck hit me in a drive-thru because he couldn't see the del Sol I was driving at the time. Unless you replace 40% of the larger vehicles on the road, small electrics aren't going to find anything more than a niche.[/quote]

90% of American driving requires a range of less than 30 miles a day. Lead Acid gives you 60 miles of range. NiMH gives you 120 miles of range. Never mind the theoretical promises of A123 Batteries.

Range won't be a problem greater than 90% of the time.

Also, electric cars could use 1 large 144 volt battery instead of 12 small 12 volt batteries. Use a hoist with a modest amount of skill and you could replace the large battery in the same amount of time as a stop at the gas station.

Regarding no defense against blind idiots in SUVs, pickup trucks make for great conversions. Then, electric motors can scale up. The bigger the vehicle, the more batteries you can stuff into it without affecting performance.

Reading charging, wind turbines and solar panels can handle charging for less than the electric grid.

If you live in an area where the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, electric batteries can be charged overnight. When you go to bed, the power from your 400Wh TV, 3-100Wh light bulbs and 700Wh computer can be used to charge your car. The electric company will thank you because they don't have to change gears on their turbines.

...

Electric cars aren't the normal because of inertia.

Today's car companies sell you a car at a loss because they'll make the money back on repairs.

Electric car companies have to make their money up front because a buyer may never need to see the dealer again.

...

I understand some people aren't going to buy into electric cars until The Big Three stop selling gas guzzlers. However, the truth will always crush Big Oil's talking points against electric cars.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Let me get this straight: you want to heavily tax fuel, then use that tax money to...help people pay for said fuel. A bit redundant, and highly socialistic, don't you think?[/QUOTE]

I'll just reply to this one, since many others replies to my first post seem to say similar things. I think what you're saying is an accurate summation, tax fuel then use the money to alleviate the stress caused by it where necessary, but I don't think it'd be redundant.

Instead of consumers spending $2,000 a year on a car that gets 15 mpg and $2,000 a year on 750 gallons of gas they could spend $2,000 a year on car that gets 35 mpg and $2,000 a year on 350 gallons of gas, and drive the same distance -- the more efficient car subsidized by the extra revenue from an increased gas tax.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'd like to institute a graduated tax based on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle (since I pay more at the pump due to gluttons who wastefully bought low-efficiency SUVs for the past decade, artificially driving up demand while driving the same distances).

Not that I've a clue on how to institute it. But I'd like to see it happen.[/quote]

Who wants to read a little post modern Orwell way to implement the above?

Put a VIN barcode underneath fuel inlet and put a VIN barcode reader underneath the gas pump's nozzle.

You stick the nozzle into your car's fuel inlet. The barcode and barcode reader do their dance. The gas pump assigns a price on the fuel based on the VIN.

While fueling, the gas station's computer accesses a vehicles records database to verify the VIN is legit.

If the vehicle cannot be found in that database and a federal level database cannot be accessed, a flag is set.

If the vehicle is refueled again in the same state and VIN legitimacy cannot be verified, the gas pump will advise the customer to swipe their driver's license for the image scanner in the gas pump or pay a $100 fine on the spot.

If the vehicle is refueled again in the same state and VIN legitimacy is verified, a flag is reset.

...

I thought of an easier way after I wrote the above.

When registering your car for tags for the year, a clerk verifies your mileage. Said clerk enters the mileage into the computer. The computer uses the car's VIN and mileage to determine how many gallons of gas were used by the car that year and determines the tax. When a car is sold to another person or junked, the seller must pay the tax before the buyer can take possession of the car.

Odometer rollback becomes a class B felony to discourage adjustments to mileage.
 
[quote name='dopa345']I agree that finding a cheap alternative fuel source is the way to go but imagine how drastically that would change the world economy. The Middle East would completely degenerate into anarchy since the regional economy is completely dependent on oil revenue.[/QUOTE]

Interesting point. I think you could also argue that this would be a good thing, considering oil money often props up repressive regimes. Look at places like Russia, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, where oil money has led to all sorts of nastiness.
 
Completely degenerate into anarchy you say? That wouldn't be too far from the status quo, ahh but I kid, slightly.

I hear talk to electric cars, that is an idea.

There is currently an engine being developed using high efficiency compressors put in parallel with a heating portion of the cycle that can run off any fuel (that is combustible) and uses the waste gases to heat incoming air for pressure. It can be used for mass transit to small automobile (even ships). Basically is scalable.

What I am trying to comment on is efficiency. I don't believe that answer should come in the way of economic stimulus to force consumer to change (drastically). I believe the consumer should be educated and attempt to be efficient with their energy usage, but can only be counted on for small changes. Engineers and Scientist should focus on efficient usage and the government should promote mass transit and subsidize or fund companies who are efficient or designing equipment. There are already widely available mass transit alternatives, GE has gas turbine based engines and trains with ridiculous people mile per gallon efficiencies (PMPG). Hell, any engine with an environment designed to keep it in its power band, maximum efficiency, and keep the maximum amount of people onboard (Max PMPG) is loads better than current choices. Cars especially because their most efficient point is only reached at a portion of the power band (like all combustible engines). Just some of my thoughts about energy and directions the U.S should take.

I lived in Europe for a while, I drove a motorcycle, we had a car, but we could also and often used mass transit because it was available (convenient and cheap).

Oh the engine and compressor I talked about is here. http://www.starrotor.com/

They also have a cooling system designed about the compressor that uses water instead or freon or other refrigerants (better for the environment).
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']well this one http://www.teslamotors.com/ is 220 miles on a charge and its a sports car, can only imagine what they could get with a compact car.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I've been following that company for a while. Unfortunately they are expensive. What we need is a company like that to make $10k cars.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yeah I've been following that company for a while. Unfortunately they are expensive. What we need is a company like that to make $10k cars.[/quote]

theres this group of guys lookin to start a company converting prius into plug in hybrids for like 10k and if I remember correctly boost it to 120 mpg http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=818 its not at 10k yet but better than 100k
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn'][quote name='mykevermin']I'd like to institute a graduated tax based on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle (since I pay more at the pump due to gluttons who wastefully bought low-efficiency SUVs for the past decade, artificially driving up demand while driving the same distances).

Not that I've a clue on how to institute it. But I'd like to see it happen.[/quote]

Who wants to read a little post modern Orwell way to implement the above?

Put a VIN barcode underneath fuel inlet and put a VIN barcode reader underneath the gas pump's nozzle.

You stick the nozzle into your car's fuel inlet. The barcode and barcode reader do their dance. The gas pump assigns a price on the fuel based on the VIN.

While fueling, the gas station's computer accesses a vehicles records database to verify the VIN is legit.

If the vehicle cannot be found in that database and a federal level database cannot be accessed, a flag is set.

If the vehicle is refueled again in the same state and VIN legitimacy cannot be verified, the gas pump will advise the customer to swipe their driver's license for the image scanner in the gas pump or pay a $100 fine on the spot.

If the vehicle is refueled again in the same state and VIN legitimacy is verified, a flag is reset.

...

I thought of an easier way after I wrote the above.

When registering your car for tags for the year, a clerk verifies your mileage. Said clerk enters the mileage into the computer. The computer uses the car's VIN and mileage to determine how many gallons of gas were used by the car that year and determines the tax. When a car is sold to another person or junked, the seller must pay the tax before the buyer can take possession of the car.

Odometer rollback becomes a class B felony to discourage adjustments to mileage.[/QUOTE]


No, no....see, myke just wants to punish "gluttons." He thinks they increase demand based on a fixed oil supply. What we should all know is that oil production isn't fixed - it's manipulated to increase price. If oil producing nations raised their capacity, the price would go down. Myke just needs to punish those who have freedom of choice and use them as an example for an argument to eliminate choice. What he conveniently leaves out is that that glutton who gets 15mpg is ALREADY paying double the tax that myke pays in his 30mpg Toyota.

I'm sure, though, the graduated gas tax isn't really going to satisfy him. He'll assuredly move on to taxing the purchase of the vehicle as a luxury, then onto quartering the disenfranchised in the fifth seat.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']. If oil producing nations raised their capacity, the price would go down.[/QUOTE]

I for one would like to see your cunning plan for forcing other nations to raise their capacity (the raising of which is apparently free now).
 
If they raised gas prices to $7 a gallon, I'd quit driving. My school is two blocks away, my job is about 5 miles, and my girlfriend's house is about 10. I would start biking everywhere. In fact, I'm going to stop driving when it hits $4.50. ($3.87 now.) I'm not worried though. As soon as Bush's greedy ass is out of office, gas prices will plummet.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']No, no....see, myke just wants to punish "gluttons." He thinks they increase demand based on a fixed oil supply. What we should all know is that oil production isn't fixed - it's manipulated to increase price. If oil producing nations raised their capacity, the price would go down. Myke just needs to punish those who have freedom of choice and use them as an example for an argument to eliminate choice. What he conveniently leaves out is that that glutton who gets 15mpg is ALREADY paying double the tax that myke pays in his 30mpg Toyota.

I'm sure, though, the graduated gas tax isn't really going to satisfy him. He'll assuredly move on to taxing the purchase of the vehicle as a luxury, then onto quartering the disenfranchised in the fifth seat.[/QUOTE]

Actually, if we'd fix our fucking dollar worth, gas would go down. And that starts with not dropping the rate any further, possibly even bumping it back up.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']What he conveniently leaves out is that that glutton who gets 15mpg is ALREADY paying double the tax that myke pays in his 30mpg Toyota.[/QUOTE]

That's not conveniently left out; it's circumstantial and avoids the problem I'm raising to begin with.

What you're arguing is akin to saying that someone who buys 2 "Big Macs" is paying twice as much tax as someone who buys 1. Well, no shit and thanks for the 2nd grade Econ lesson.

Your claim here ignores that the increased consumption as a consequence of "gluttons" increases demand - which has led to higher prices. Unless, of course, you think that the price of oil per barrel is unrelated to increased demand from China at the current moment.

I pay a higher price because of other's "freedom" (which gets into the side of freedom that bmulligan is scared to death of: the concept that freedom has *consequences*; we can not behave like the marquis de sade or faust or caligula and act as if nobody is affected by it).

Of course, they're suffering at the moment, too: trade-in values for SUVs are through the fuckin' floor. Serves those dickbags right.

bmulligan, for all your talk of freedom, I hope that you get seated between two 400-pound Samoan dudes the next time you fly somewhere.
 
What about posterity's freedom to breathe clean air and inhabit a healthy earth?

Bmull is also wrong about oil production not being fixed. Beleive it or not there is a fixed amount of oil on this earth, and it's running out. Demand and consumption are growing MUCH faster than than the oil can be produced/replenished so YES, it is fixed.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']What about posterity's freedom to breathe clean air and inhabit a healthy earth?

Bmull is also wrong about oil production not being fixed. Beleive it or not there is a fixed amount of oil on this earth, and it's running out. Demand and consumption are growing MUCH faster than than the oil can be produced/replenished so YES, it is fixed.[/QUOTE]

It is estimated that there is TRILLIONS (that's 3x what's estimated to be under Saudi Arabia) of barrels of oil in the Wasatch mountains in the inter mountain western united states. It's shale oil, but it can currently be extracted at $30 a barrel. But there are so much costly and slow paperwork to do just for exploratory drilling and for a permit to try and pump it, most company's won't try.

And why have we not built a refinery in something like 20 years?

And don't even get me started on unobtrusive slant drilling in northern Alaska.

The oil is there, but we have let the environmentalist extremists hijack our means of taking care of ourselves with it. Besides the fact that there was so much more money to be made in the deals that were worked out with the Arabs in the 50's.
We have enough oil estimated to be under one island in Northern Alaska to take care of our country's needs for 200 years. So don't tell me we are about out of oil.

Oh and one more thing. The belief that oil doesn't replenish itself very fast is a myth. Scientists can't even fully agree on the source of oil let alone how fast it replinishes.
 
Fuel is taxed like hell in the UK (65% of the cost of a gallon is tax I believe, gas is more expensive there than here and the UK government want to put the fuel duty up again in Oct) and the UK enconomy hasn't collapsed.

The effect has been that people drive smaller, more fuel efficent cars, which is no bad thing IMO.
 
[quote name='Koggit']An additional couple bucks a gallon. With $7/gallon gas people would conserve much more, so demand would go way down, so prices should be a bit lower... then the tax could even go a little higher. Then, when the government is getting $5 for every gallon sold, they could subsidize things that would actually HELP us -- they could subsidize other life necessities, or spend it on mass transportation, or help lower income families (who may struggle with expensive gas) live more conservatively. The government could use the money to offer financial incentives for carpooling, or as grants for energy research.

Also, for clarity, I only mean tax consumer gas. Commuters, etc. Not shipping companies' diesel or airlines' fuel or anything.

I know one reason it could never happen: a Halliburton CEO is vice president. But I mean economically -- someone smarter than myself please explain why this wouldn't work. It seems logical to me, but I've never taken Econ or anything.[/QUOTE]

You raise it to $7 a gallon, and everyone who needs to get somewhere for work is fucked. Mass transportation is an option for people in the city, but what about... most of the country where that isn't an option? And why, exactly, do lower income families need to live more conservatively? That's what they already have to do because of their low income level.

And quite honestly, the last place anyone would want the money to go at this point is to the government.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It is estimated that there is TRILLIONS (that's 3x what's estimated to be under Saudi Arabia) of barrels of oil in the Wasatch mountains in the inter mountain western united states. It's shale oil, but it can currently be extracted at $30 a barrel. But there are so much costly and slow paperwork to do just for exploratory drilling and for a permit to try and pump it, most company's won't try.

And why have we not built a refinery in something like 20 years?

And don't even get me started on unobtrusive slant drilling in northern Alaska.

The oil is there, but we have let the environmentalist extremists hijack our means of taking care of ourselves with it. Besides the fact that there was so much more money to be made in the deals that were worked out with the Arabs in the 50's.
We have enough oil estimated to be under one island in Northern Alaska to take care of our country's needs for 200 years. So don't tell me we are about out of oil.

Oh and one more thing. The belief that oil doesn't replenish itself very fast is a myth. Scientists can't even fully agree on the source of oil let alone how fast it replinishes.[/quote]

Thrust, I'm getting tired of posting some variation of "Please carefully read my posts, I say what I mean, not what I don't" so please stop making yourself look like an uneducated fool by portending that I said things I did not (e.g. we are about out of oil.) I never said we were (though pricing implies differently).

What I said was that it is a FIXED amount.

I will say this though: we are almost out of something. Not oil, rather OZONE!

Oil isn't any good if you can't use it? It's like using a match in a room full of flammable gas: You may need the match and have plenty to use, but they don't do you much good if you can't use them do they?

Moreover, this:
Scientists can't even fully agree on the source of oil
Click to expand...
just makes you seem really really dumb, and like you've never been to a museum before.

Oil comes from millions of years of decaying animal and vegetable matter. MILLIONS, if not BILLIONS. THis is how long it took to get there. Guess how fast we can use it all up if we keep increasing consumption exponentially??? (Hint: Faster than Billions of years).
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Thrust, I'm getting tired of posting some variation of "Please carefully read my posts, I say what I mean, not what I don't" so please stop making yourself look like an uneducated fool by portending that I said things I did not (e.g. we are about out of oil.) I never said we were (though pricing implies differently). [/quote]

We are going to point out which one of us is clearly the most uneducated fool regarding this subject later, just you wait.

What I said was that it is a FIXED amount.
Click to expand...
If you were referring to an artificially fixed amount, then i misunderstood you and apologize.


Moreover, this: just makes you seem really really dumb, and like you've never been to a museum before.

Oil comes from millions of years of decaying animal and vegetable matter. MILLIONS, if not BILLIONS. THis is how long it took to get there. Guess how fast we can use it all up if we keep increasing consumption exponentially??? (Hint: Faster than Billions of years).
Click to expand...

Just taking 30 seconds and doing a google search for "where does oil come from"... These links are all from the first page:

Link Link Link

There are far more if you want to take the time to look.

The point is, what you described was a popular THEORY 20 years ago (probably when you learned about it in school). Many scientists today are really questioning that THEORY, as a simple google search would have proved if you hadn't been so obtusely certain of your so-called facts.

Futhermore, have you or any scientists been inside the earth and watched dead dinosaurs become oil? Of course not. Then you don't KNOW anything, do you?

People that peddle theory as fact all the time are the ones that look foolish and "really really dumb". And all you are doing when you peddle theory as fact is proving the dangers of theory as fact education in our messed up educational system - which I've noticed you do quite often.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Oil comes from millions of years of decaying animal and vegetable matter. MILLIONS, if not BILLIONS. THis is how long it took to get there. Guess how fast we can use it all up if we keep increasing consumption exponentially??? (Hint: Faster than Billions of years).[/quote]

Not necessarily. There are ideas about abiotic sources of oil. Some sort of pressure between the crust and mantle.

Of course, it doesn't mean the oil is any more accessible or better alternatives aren't available.
 
Sorry if I trust commonly held scientific expert opinion over google. Ever heard the phrase "fossil fuels"? Break it down into it's two parts: (1) FOSSIL! and (2) FUEL! Can you see where I'm goin with this?

They may be wrong about where oil comes from, and so I may be wrong about that too.

Regardless, neither of the last two posts address the point made about the atmospheric problems associated with burning fossil fuels.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Sorry if I trust commonly held scientific expert opinion over google. Ever heard the phrase "fossil fuels"? Break it down into it's two parts: (1) FOSSIL! and (2) FUEL! Can you see where I'm goin with this?

They may be wrong about where oil comes from, and so I may be wrong about that too.

Regardless, neither of the last two posts address the point made about the atmospheric problems associated with burning fossil fuels.[/QUOTE]

The real point is, the price of gas at this very moment is not fixed on supply and demand, but by how much profit the OPEC countries can make.

They themselves said a month or so ago that they could (but would not) boost production.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Sorry if I trust commonly held scientific expert opinion over google. Ever heard the phrase "fossil fuels"? Break it down into it's two parts: (1) FOSSIL! and (2) FUEL! Can you see where I'm goin with this?

They may be wrong about where oil comes from, and so I may be wrong about that too.

Regardless, neither of the last two posts address the point made about the atmospheric problems associated with burning fossil fuels.[/quote]

Sure I did.

Even if there was 1 billion years of oil left in the Earth, there would come a time when a better alternative is needed due to primary effects (price) and secondary effects (pollution).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']We have enough oil estimated to be under one island in Northern Alaska to take care of our country's needs for 200 years.[/QUOTE]

source.

As for refineries, that's a question in two parts:
1) Is there a substantial backlog in unrefined oil? If not, adding more refineries is moot.
2) Talking financially about refineries suggests that the government is preventing any refineries from being built (assuming we do have a massive bottlenecking of crude oil somewhere), instead of handling the argument from the same vantage point as "why doesn't Nintendo add Wii console manufacturing lines to keep up with demand?").
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top