The town meeting regarding the Calypso LNG Gas Port.

[ONESPEED]

The Afghans sell us enough oil to fight for? I think we would be better off trying to get poppy seeds from them . . .

I'm pretty sure poppy seeds are the root cause of most of her posts.

 

[letterboy]

I like poppy seed miffins . . .

 

[thebes11]

And I thought I was there to help rebuild a country . . .

Hey, LB, I never pass up an opportunity to say thanks to anyone I meet in the Military. I know a couple of people who have been in either Iraq and Afghanistan, and I realize the difference you are making over there. I appreciate that you are laying your lives on the line, not to secure oil supply or make people rich, but to make the lives of everyday people safer and better. It matters not that they speak a different language, and have a different culture, they deserve to live without fear of attack and torture from a tyrant. I applaud you. I only wish the news would report more of the successful programs such as the building of schools instead of only highlighting the challenges and problems.

Thanks again.

 

[Charlie99]

Although it would work Charlie, it just does not seem to be the way to go. Do you have any other suggestions

Why not? What objection do you have?

If you want to move us away from fossil fuels the simplest way is to make them more expensive than conservation measures and alternative fuels. There will be great reluctance to do extreme conservation measures (smaller cars, smaller houses, less travel,) and to use more expensive alternative fuels as long as fossil fuels are readily available, cheaper alternative.

One can hide the costs by supplying all sorts of tax breaks and subsidies to conservation and alternative fuel measures, but the hidden cost of that method is that it requires the government to make good choices about what to subsidize. Ethanol from corn is an example of a subsidy that appears to be causing more harm than good.

Directly taxing importation and production of fossil fuels is IMO the most direct, efficient way to reduce our fossil fuel dependency. The only drawback (or advantage) is that it clearly shows the cost of moving away from fossil fuels.

The biggest negative impact of a fossil fuel tax (or the somewhat equivalent carbon tax) is that by raising cost of doing business in the US, it puts us at a disadvantage for exports and will most likely negatively impact our balance of trade.

In real life, it is difficult to have one's cake and eat it too. Choices need to be made. So far, our nations choice (as opposed to rhetoric) is to continue supporting our high standard of living by using cheap, readily available fossil fuels as the primary energy source.

-----------------------------------------

Rather directly raising the cost of fossil fuel or lowering the cost of alternative fuels and conservation through subsidies, the other alternative is to reduce fossil fuel consumption through shortages, rationing, and general breakdown of our infrastructure.

Having lived through the gas lines of the 1967 and 1973-74 Arab Oil Embargos, I'm not a fan of that method. Nor am I a fan of reducing electric power consumption through brownouts, rolling blackouts, and system failure.

It is a method though, and the advantage is that we can do it without conscious planning simply by using the permitting process to reject all proposals to maintain or expand our energy infrastructure. Although you don't say it explicitly, this appears to be YOUR plan, whether or not you are conscious of it.

Charlie Allen

 

[Divergirl4U]

I don’t think the public would go for it. Politicians would loose their jobs and heads would roll. I am sure there would be a vote & it would get shot down in flames.