Posted on 02/01/2006 9:31:45 AM PST by cogitator
Three decades after the first oil shocks -- and a quarter-century after the humiliating capture of U.S. diplomats in Tehran -- the world community remains hostage to its continuing dependence on Mideast oil. Tough-talking leaders are unable to match words with action because the hard work of reducing our oil dependence remains undone.
... We are taking a foolish and unnecessary risk by remaining so dependent on every drop of oil pumped that the global economy shudders and political leaders tremble the moment any major source is threatened. ...
(1) We have a model of success: Brazil. ... Starting in the 1970s, vast sugar plantations were devoted to producing ethanol, a homegrown liquid fuel. The Brazil stuck with the program through several setbacks and today is essentially independent of foreign oil. ...
Building on the Brazilian experience, the U.S. government should immediately launch a crash program to develop advanced or "cellulosic" ethanol made from switchgrass, poplar and other nonfood crops. ...
Starting in the next few model years, all cars sold in the United States should be "flex-fuel," giving consumers the choice between gasoline or ethanol. GM and Ford already make such cars in Brazil, where they're the hottest-sellers. ...
A grand bargain with Detroit agreeing to put many such [energy-saving] vehicles on the road and Washington agreeing to help support health and pension costs would strongly serve the national interest. ...
... the United States could in a generation cut in half its need for oil, reducing the importance of any one supplier. Strategic implications would be profound -- strengthening the U.S. and our allies in all manner of dealings in the Persian Gulf and around the world. The challenge is fundamentally not one of technology, but political will.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Yeah, that's the solution, let's use the tax code to modify people's behavior ... works every time.
Resource conservation was patriotic during WWII, and we are currently engaged in wars: real (shooting and killing), philosophical, and economic. This effort can be pitched in that manner, and many will heed the call. For those politically opposed to the war, they tend to be on the side that favors environmental issues, so there shouldn't be any excuse not to be part of the effort.
Very few enviro-whackos will shoot down alternative fuel production and energy conservation, though.
By the way, from the end of the article: "Michael O'Hanlon and David Sandalow are senior scholars at the Brookings Institution."
Surprise, surprise.
If only the market decides, there could be a rather painful gap between the period when fossil fuel energy sources get very expensive and less-expensive alternatives become widely available. And fossil fuel energy sources are under constant threaten to become very expensive with little warning (remember Hurricane Katrina and those Islamic nuts running Iran)?
Hey, it was in the Washington Times. I tend to think that if it showed up there, that the rabidther conservative editorial board agreed with its content, regardless of source.
If gas taxes were increased, wouldn't you be less likely to drive more, or buy a vehicle that uses less fuel? Remember, I'm calling for a revenue neutral solution with a corresponding cut in income taxes.
Yes, all taxes modify people's behavior. (Remember the Laffer curve?) When used for social engineering schemes that's usually a bad thing, but when used to counteract negative externalities it can be good. There should be no dispute that there are huge negative externalities involved in oil consumption; not just environmental effects, but the costs of being dependent on terrorist-infested hellholes for our energy supply.
(I feel like the gun-nut guy in police academy who misses the gunplay at the end)
During the Bi-Centennial former President Gerald Ford, in a speech delivered at the Old North Bridge in Concord, MA, committed the United States to be energy independent by the year 2000.
Still waiting ...
That's exactly why when we talk about being subject to madmen over the water we need also to include the madmen here as those to whom we are beholden for the oil prices.
If gas taxes were increased, wouldn't you be less likely to drive more, or buy a vehicle that uses less fuel?
I drive a V8 extended cab Chevy truck ... and didn't blink at $3.00+ per gallon.
By the by, out of the $2.19 per gallon I paid yesterday, $.583 per gallon is ALREADY tax .. the state and feds make 6 times as much per gallon as the "greedy oil companies" do
Amen.
Your tagline is a real nugget.
gotta come clean, I misread the chart ... it's only $.383 per gallon in taxes .. so the state and feds are only making 3.5 - 4 times as much per gallon as Exxon/Mobil.
Please don't misunderstand me. I did not mean instead of what is being proposed, but in addition to.
Minimizing dependence on the insane oil suppliers ASAP is essential.
I'm waiting for the enviro lobby to praise Bush for his leadership in coming out on this issue. Waiting, Waiting...
Certainly, his determination and follow through will make a massive difference, if the Dems don't get obstructionist, yet again, just to trip him up.
It's not that simple. Crop rotation must be part of the equation, so twice as much area must be dedicated to the task. The choice of alternative crop to address soil depletion is a critical (beef production?) component of the long term solution.
Yeah, me too. But the Sierra Club already indicated that Bush could tie aid to the ailing Big Three auto manufacturers to a commitment by them to produce more energy-efficient vehicles. (I get the Sunday WashPost, it was in there.)
The Next Big Thing from Detroit
"My organization, the Sierra Club, generally opposes corporate welfare and certainly opposes bailing out the Big Three just so they can go on making the same assortment of polluting gas guzzlers -- i.e. sport-utility vehicles -- that have got them, and us, where we are. On the other hand, perhaps some sort of government rescue effort would be justified if the Big Three were willing to do their part as good corporate citizens by giving the country something important in return. For example, what if a bailout were coupled with substantially increased miles-per-gallon standards that would cut our oil dependence, save consumers money at the pump and reduce the rate of pollution from the effects of global warming?"
continuing ... "Automakers have the technology to make all vehicles average 40 miles per gallon within 10 years. Subsidizing the Big Three to meet this goal would not only inject cash into the companies but also put them on their feet to compete against the technologically superior imports that are running away with the market. This would help preserve good jobs, increase industry profits and avert future bailout requests."
Since I'm a big fan of cellulosic ethanol, one aspect of this would be to make flex-fuel cars such as those sold in Brazil and described in the article posted at the head of this thread.
Here's a question. How much current agricultural crop production is subsidized (i.e., how many acres of crops are grown currently that would not be profitable if they weren't subsidized)?
If switchgrass production was profitable, all the acreage that isn't profitable could be converted to switchgrass. I don't have any numbers, so I can't answer my question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.