Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles]If taxpayer controled, Do We Need A Tax Hike On Fossil Fuels (Petroleum, Coal, Natural Gas) To Cover Global Property Damage From Global Warming?

Expand Messages
  • James Wilson
    I agree with most of what you have written here. I have been told that Government gets X amount per gallon burned. If that is so,then Government is making the
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 30 8:52 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree with most of what you have written here. I
      have been told that Government gets X amount per
      gallon burned. If that is so,then Government is making
      the money now,with the price dropped a dollar +. I was
      in Neosho Mo. today,(Saturday) & regular unleaded was
      $1.93 per gallon. I never thought I'd ever see it that
      low again. It helps the poorest the most,that drive
      older vehicles & can't afford a more efficent vehicle.
      In my own mind, I can't help but think this price drop
      is very helpful in fooling younger folks into buying a
      gas guzzler.Then price goes back up,&,wow I'm stuck
      with this gas hog for 5 to 7 years,could be their
      thought. Big oil & Monster makers GM & Ford sales go
      up for a spell. If the tax payer,could control, where
      those revenues were spent,it would change the view,no
      doubt. James Wilson

      --- murdoch <murdoch@...> wrote:

      > I think we have all noticed the dramtatic recent (in
      > the last few
      > weeks) drop in the price of petroleum and gasoline,
      > and perhaps
      > natural gas. For some of us who are very dialed-in
      > to causes seeking
      > permanently to supplant oil in various uses, we have
      > noted that our
      > causes finally had much needed benefit from last
      > year's rise in the
      > price of oil, and now with this drop, I fear that
      > real damage is or
      > could be done to the momentum we were building in
      > arguing for
      > implementation of our many alternative energy ideas.
      >
      > The idea of dramatically and forcefully raising
      > taxes on the sourcing
      > or use of non-renewable hydrocarbons has been held
      > up I think in a few
      > ways. These ways include, but are not limited to:
      >
      > ... trying to keep local and global economies
      > purring
      > ... the axiom (that needs to be questioned) that
      > raising taxes is
      > always opposed by voters.
      > ... the fact that we now live on a globe where, in
      > some countries,
      > governments are willing to go into debt and raise
      > taxes on future
      > generations, or raise taxes by currency inflation or
      > some other
      > back-handed way, rather than raising taxes in the
      > present.
      > ... the fact that, as many alternative energy
      > activists argue,
      > governments are addicted to revenues from taxes on
      > all manner of
      > things, particularly oil, and so if we advocate
      > raising taxes on oil
      > and its sister fossil fuel products (coal, natural
      > gas, propane, etc.)
      > then we risk addicting government even further to
      > those taxes and we
      > risk government then fighting for the continued
      > supremacy of those
      > products.
      >
      >
      > As against this, we have not only looming global
      > economic and security
      > hazzards linked closely with global resource
      > scarcity, but we have a
      > looming global environmental problem which affects
      > everyone on the
      > planet (no exceptions). This environmental problem
      > will get worse and
      > worse, our experts tell us, if we fail to do
      > something immediately. We
      > are also caught in something like "The Tragedy Of
      > The Commons" where
      > it seems not to be in the self-interest of any one
      > individual or
      > county or province or state or nation to be the ones
      > singlehandedly to
      > take the costly measures to try to mitigate global
      > warming. Parties
      > who carry on in contravention of measures to
      > mitigate or slow global
      > warming are, to this day, economically rewarded in
      > the sense that they
      > are taking what is presently the least costly and
      > still-very-productive path. This path is only least
      > costly though if
      > they are not held responsible for the property
      > damage that they do,
      > both nearby and in the accumulating global damage.
      >
      > I think we should tax fossil fuels, not to deny he
      > arguments against
      > this, but as a way of getting around the "Tragedy Of
      > The Commons"
      > aspect of this problem. If you (or I) are doing
      > property damage, and
      > we cannot pay for that damage down the road, because
      > it is impossible
      > to sort out who did what, then I think taxing in
      > advance of that
      > damage is the best way I can think of for now to
      > levy an assessment to
      > each of us, so we can use the economic system to pay
      > the true costs of
      > what we use.
      >
      > If, then, the tax revenues are targeted toward
      > development of
      > non-fossil-fuel-intensive technologies, then (I
      > think) this is perhaps
      > all-the-better. But, to me, the main point is that
      > when we do
      > property damage, and when the situation simply
      > carries on for decades
      > because no one on the globe seems able to address
      > the special case of
      > property damage where the causes lies in part with
      > most-everyone, then
      > I think a solution is to attack the problem on an
      > across-the-board
      > level. Never mind trying to track down at the Hague
      > a way to sue for
      > damages. Let's just start preventing the problem,
      > via a tax
      > mechanism.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      > >"...A senior Chevron executive was quoted
      > off-the-record 6 months ago as saying
      > >that Chevron was determined not to go down the BEV
      > path again and never to
      > >let that happen again in the automotive industry,
      > at least not with NiMH
      > >batteries...."
      >
      > [An alternative energy activist quotes a 2005
      > discussion with an Oil Industry
      > executive.]
      >
      > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      >


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.