Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Why don't we get the Feds to slap a $2.gallon tax on gas?
That would really start making folks look for fuel efficient cars, reduce pollution and reduce out dependence of foreign oil.
We could use the cash do develop new fuel/energy technologies and help pay for the cost of getting the military in the ME.
It would also slow down the economy and likely put us into recession .
But if people think that's worth it to get Co2 out of the gas, then yes let's do it.
But to be fair there should be 2 lists, those that agree with the idea and are all for it, those that don't agree it's a good idea but figure we might as well do it anyways. Those on the 2nd list will get priority for all government aid
when the recession hits.
But if people think that's worth it to get Co2 out of the gas, then yes let's do it.
Where did I say that ?
Russ, I know this issue gets you worked up but if you want rational answers then post rationally.
btw: I do expect to get dumped on for that post. Nobody wants to have actually do anything about those issues themselves.
High gas prices haven't killed Germany's economy the US public is just hooked on cheap gas and anybody who suggests doing something about it can expect to be trashed.
Russ, I know this issue gets you worked up but if you want rational answers then post rationally.
btw: I do expect to get dumped on for that post. Nobody wants to have actually do anything about those issues themselves.
High gas prices haven't killed Germany's economy the US public is just hooked on cheap gas and anybody who suggests doing something about it can expect to be trashed.
What's irrational about saying we should ban C02? Again, on 60 minutes last night a leading expert on climate change said if we stopped all emissions immeidately the earth would still be warming for a long time. If we're positive that C02 is causing it we have no choice but get it out of gas. Simply reducint it won't help, if eliminating it entirely won't slow warming for a longtime, reducing is pointless. The only choice is to ban gas from producing C02 immediately.
Germany didn't just arbitrarily increase the price of their gas by 2 bucks overnight. If you want to do that as an incentive to slow driving that's fine, but you have to realize that overnight everything becomes more expensive, without people having more money to buy it. That will decrease spending and lead to a recession.
I don't understand why if you're so convinced Co2 is the culprit, you wouldn't support an all out ban of it in gasoline?
Even with his now stacked SCOTUS he couldn't win this
Amazing. This is the same Supreme Court some on here have decided would be a rubber stamp for GW because of all the conservatives on it. The first major decision regarding the environment goes against him. Guess they were wrong.
[quote=Russ Smith;1305099]What's irrational about saying we should ban C02? /quote]
You can't ban Co2, you just post that to make any response appear ridiculous and bolster your own position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ Smith
Germany didn't just arbitrarily increase the price of their gas by 2 bucks overnight.
Never said do it overnight, that is your invesntion. Do it over time, say 2-3 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ Smith
If you want to do that as an incentive to slow driving that's fine
Why is slow driving the tool of choice, could it be you think that other folks would react to that and it also once again makes my position sound more ludicrous ?
How about a more rational suggestion, like more fuel efficient cars. If you want a monster truck, fine that's your choice just expect to pay more.
It might also force Detroit to make monster trucks safer for the rest of us in crashes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ Smith
I don't understand why if you're so convinced Co2 is the culprit, you wouldn't support an all out ban of it in gasoline?
Again you are on your global warming high horse. Nowhere did I saw Co2 is the culprit and of course you want to make my comment sound as extreme as you can.
All I am advocating is better fuel economy in cars and an incentive to make it happen. Though research and deployment of alternative fuels is also a good thing if it reduces pollution and our dependence on oil.
What's irrational about saying we should ban C02? /quote]
You can't ban Co2, you just post that to make any response appear ridiculous and bolster your own position.
Never said do it overnight, that is your invesntion. Do it over time, say 2-3 years
Why is slow driving the tool of choice, could it be you think that other folks would react to that and it also once again makes my position sound more ludicrous ?
How about a more rational suggestion, like more fuel efficient cars. If you want a monster truck, fine that's your choice just expect to pay more.
It might also force Detroit to make monster trucks safer for the rest of us in crashes.
Again you are on your global warming high horse. Nowhere did I saw Co2 is the culprit and of course you want to make my comment sound as extreme as you can.
All I am advocating is better fuel economy in cars and an incentive to make it happen. Though research and deployment of alternative fuels is also a good thing if it reduces pollution and our dependence on oil.
You can absolutely mandate that C02 is too dangerous for the earth and we can't emit anymore. It's just that you're aware that doing that would be a massive hit on the world economy.
You said let's slap a $2 gas tax, you didn't say let's phase it in over 2-3 years, you gave no information beyond let's slap a $2 tax so I logically assumed you wanted the price at my local station to go from 3.25 today to 5.25 tomorrow. Mine's higher than yours because we already have taxes in California to dissuade people from driving gas guzzlers.
I didn't mean drive slower, I meant slow driving as in slow the amount of people who drive by making it too expensive to drive. But yes reducing the speed limit would reduce emissions immediately if people obeyed the new limit.
I don't understand why you are so concerned about this stuff if you want the EPA to regulate emissiosn the logical conclusion is to mandate zero emissions by a certain date. We don't know how to reduce the amount of C02, we've been told that repeatedly by all the climate experts. So the only logical conclusion is to stop emissions as soon as we can so we don't add more to it. Plant trees in the right area to remove some C02, and wait for nature to take it's course as we ride out the warming.
You can absolutely mandate that C02 is too dangerous for the earth and we can't emit anymore. It's just that you're aware that doing that would be a massive hit on the world economy.
We're all doomed. There is no way the whole world could unite on anything. Even something that would ultimately end in our demise.
Sure I can't probably find extremist enviromental activists who might say that but it would not be me.
The solution for reducing pollution from cars is much the same [but not identical] to the solution for reducing our dependence on foreign oil. That being fuel efficiency
I am looking for incentives to push us to be a more fuel efficient society and rather than being a drain on our economy [as the fear mongers say] it could be a boon to it if done well
Sure I can't probably find extremist enviromental activists who might say that but it would not be me.
The solution for reducing pollution from cars is much the same [but not identical] to the solution for reducing our dependence on foreign oil. That being fuel efficiency
I am looking for incentives to push us to be a more fuel efficient society and rather than being a drain on our economy [as the fear mongers say] it could be a boon to it if done well
But declaring Co2 to be a pollutant that needs to be regulated does what?
We already have hybrids, plugin hybrids are coming soon. We're already throwing billions of dollars at doing what you want to do, so what is the point of asking the Supreme Court to force the EPA to regulate Co2 emissions in cars? They're already doing it and have been for years.
Linear Mode
