Playing tough with Detroit. Is a gas tax next?
Just a "sacrificial lamb"?Last week I speculated that President Obama's task force would give GM and Chrysler the bailout money without any serious strings. Doing so, I argued, didn't make sense because GM and Chrysler just didn't seem very viable - especially not if the auto run rate in the US is only around 9 million vehicles per year, and much higher fuel requirements are in the mix.
Instead, Rick Wagoner, CEO of GM, is now gone, and the task force stated that neither plan was viable. And they aren't. While getting rid of Wagoner might not change much, some times real change requires a change in management. It just shakes things up. It happens all the time in professional sports.
Ultimately, I think this was the right move. However, if America is to challenge foreign oil dependency, while sustaining a viable auto industry, other moves need to be made. Somehow, everyday Americans need to be made part of this problem and they need to become part of the solution. While ideas like gas taxes are sure to enrage many, such ideas might be the only way forward.
Labels: bailout, Foreign Oil Dependency, gas tax
posted by Dahcredyns at
7:06 AM
6 Comments:
We need a Federal Synfuel Corporation to give direct Federal loans to companies and utilities for the production of carbon neutral gasoline, methanol, diesel fuel, and jet fuel.
The Federal government also needs to mandate that a certain but gradually growing percentage of all transportation fuels sold in this country be composed of carbon neutral synfuels.
The sources for such fuels can come from urban biowaste (garbage and sewage), rural biowaste (farms and forest), and nuclear power (the green freedom concept).
The Federal Synfuel Corporation should also aggressively fund some of its own synfuel projects as examples for private industry of what they're looking for.
However, the US automobile companies must also start producing flex fuel PHEVs, EVs, and methanol fuel cell vehicles during the next decade.
If Obama announced his support for the creation of a 15 billion dollar a year Federal Synfuel Corporation to make the US totally independent of petroleum within the next 20 or 30 years, I think the American people would be all for it.
But we need to start producing non-ethanol synfuels in this country as soon as possible to get this industry going.
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/
marcel-
I follow alt fuels a bit, but not enough.
Can you respond as to why synfuels would be better than natural gas or cellulosic ethanol?
Also, did you see that Penn St. methanol study regarding electromethanogenesis?
I read about on GreenCarCongress this morning - really makes me wonder about methanol fuel cells. Might not methanol fuel cell hybrid vehicles be a very interesting proposition if this finding can be cost-effectively commercialized?
Exciting stuff.
Natural gas is a carbon dioxide polluting fossil fuel. Not good. See my blog, The Worse Case Scenario:
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/03/worse-case-scenario.html
US ethanol production utilizes food or feed for the production of biofuel and throws away at least 60% of the total non-edible biomass. You could make 50% more fuel if you used the agricultural biowaste to make methanol while still being able to sell the food content of the crop.
Methanol can also be converted into high octane gasoline using the Mobil Oil MTG process.
Yes I read the Green Car Congress post. Very interesting.
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com
Thanks for the response. This methanol angle is really starting to pique my interest.
Raising the gas tax would help reduce CO2 emissions, rebuild roads, bridges, highways, and mass transit systems. and reward fuel-efficient cars. (U.S. cars consume twice as much fuel as European and Japanese cars)
@ the same time
reducing our dependence on foreign oil,
(our dependence on foreign oil is one of the greatest threats to our national security.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee has estimated that the U.S. military cost of protecting Middle East oil supplies runs around $50 billion a year.)
PS. Eliminate the gas tax if oil goes above $100 a barel.
And that protection cost is just securing shipping lanes, etc., It has nothing to do with war costs. So, even if we weren't in Iraq, we'd still be spending that $50 billion. I think that's such a hugely important point.
I think limiting the extra tax at $100 a barrel, or say $3.50 a gaollon, or something, is an interesting idea.
Post a Comment
<< Home