Carbon schmarbon: It's foreign oil dependency, stupid
Does global warming resonate with America?Today, most Americans - most of Main Street - believe that hybrid cars are "strategically" important to the United States. Yet, most of these Americans have real doubts about global warming. So, how do most Americans reconcile this bit of irony?
Foreign oil dependency.
According to recent data, most Americans believe hybrid cars are "strategically" important because of foreign oil dependency, followed by saving auto jobs. For most Americans, global warming is not a reason to buy a hybrid vehicle.
Yet, Democrats, when discussing the issue of the oncoming auto revolution, always frame this conversation around global warming. Around carbon. Around cap and trade. Main Street, however, does not agree with Democrats on this issue.
Of course, once America also believed 'separate, but equal' was a fair policy until the government led America out of that insanity. So, the government leading the people, rather than the people leading the government, is sometimes a necessary evil.
Nonetheless, why not more of a focus on ending foreign oil dependence? Inevitably, ending foreign oil dependence would have a positive impact on global warming. Moreover, ending foreign oil dependency, like beating the Russians to the moon, is something almost every American could rally behind. Foreign oil dependence is the thread that can sew unity amongst the workers, industry, and and the government.
Ultimately, inevitably, American tax payers are going to risk as much as a few hundred billion on the US auto industry. Why not leverage this investment into a national campaign to end foreign oil dependency? Besides if you bring average Americans into this movement, it will probably be easier to work cap & trade legislation through Congress in the background.
Labels: cap and trade, Foreign Oil Dependency, global warming, Hybrid Vehicles
posted by Dahcredyns at
8:14 AM
21 Comments:
Most Americans can see "Cap and Trade" for what it is a tax on American. So that their greedy government can waste yet more money.
If we had a rational energy policy that included all forms of energy that actually lowered energy prices, Americans would be on board. Instead what we have is an Administration and Congress that is trying to actually raise energy prices. And that is something that will not be tolerated.
I hear what you're saying Scott. Still, without higher energy prices, most Americans won't do the right thing according to the data.
How do we resolve that?
Ultimately, higher energy prices are the only way that Americans will change their preferences away from gas guzzlers towards efficiency. Sure, you can argue let the free markets determine this, but the future is higher energy prices. Unfortunately, American automakers are far behind the curve when it comes to dealing with higher energy prices that will be coming.
Again, without 'forced' higher energy prices, they won't be prepared for energy spikes. They won't be prepared for the future.
Moreover, the US spends more per year protecting OPEC oil than the oil itself is worth, and that started BEFORE the current Iraq War. Today, we spend far more than the oil is worth.
Yet, that price isn't paid at the gasoline pump, its hidden in taxes that Americans inevitably pay.
What's wrong, for instance, with some transparency regarding those costs? Shouldnt' we pay those costs at the pump so we know the real cost of gasoline?
The fact is, we pay far more for gasoline then we pay at the pump, but as long as its hidden in military taxes, treasury bonds, etc. We don't ask any questions because we're not smart enough to realize what is really going on.
Can that kind of deception really lead to an effective "rational energy policy"? Isn't honesty the only way forward? And, if we're honest, isn't accepting higher energy prices the only way forward?
I can't say AMEN enough times to this article. It hit the nail square on the head. Selling the American Public on the benefits of independence from forieng oil is such an easy sell. Why the administration virtually ignores it is beyond me. I guess it's because the argument is too practical. I guess saving the planet seems so much nobler (which it is), but it boils down to an environmental rightousness (not that it's wrong). The problem with the environmental rightousness is that it's blinding policymakers from seeing what will really sell the American Public on reducing our voracious appetite for oil.
Because then the Republicans will talk about ANWAR, off shore drilling, ethanol, and shale which leads to business as usual. We have hid the cost of carbon based energy for decades and its not going to change anytime soon. No road in America is 100% paid for by gas taxes and so we hide driving costs with higher property and sales taxes because politically, that's what is acceptable. Talk about higher gas taxes and its a non starter. Cap and trade is politically acceptable. Obama and the Democrats are doing what they can to move us forward.
Exxon is correct suggesting that gasoline will be around for 100 years unless we spend money setting up a different system. It is amazing to see how much we believe in this country that cars are the biggest necessity and so we spend huge sums of money to keep them going. All this talk of carbon and still, all the transportation bills are mostly funding more driving. Less than 1-2% for other forms of transportation. How serious are we really? Here in Arizona, the local paper ran an editorial suggesting raising gas taxes and they got 200+ comments mostly suggesting that they were a bunch of communists and that what raising gas taxes would lead to more gov't waste. The city ended up raising public transportation fees though and no one complained at all. Ending foreign oil dependency sounds nice but it won't happen anytime in your lifetime without major changes to our system!
How about raise gas taxes and give everyone a rebate check for the amount over the amount spent on roads? This would give politicians the incentive to keep costs down and rebate amounts up.
Foreign oil independence sounds like a good angle but...
Americans still think primarily with their wallets.
Only when gas was $4.00 per gallon did Americans care about foreign oil independence. Today, only a select few (mostly people who have lost family members in Iraq), still caare deeply about foreign oil independence.
That's why a gas tax increase makes sense...... Americans will not do anything about the situation until it affects their own wallets.
SCOTT:
Most Americans don't have a clue what energy policy America has...and they simply don't care. The problem isn't the energy policy...it's the people of this country.
We allowed this to happen...we allowed things to get this way. And EVEN NOW....when we should be up in arms and frankly revolting, we do nothing...and buy more and more and more and more.
Most Americans are only too eager to see fuel prices go back down so they can hop back into their living rooms on 4 wheels. After all, we all need to feel like we're sitting on a couch while driving right?
The only way Americans will change their minds about how they live and how wasteful they are is if it hits them hard in the pocketbook. Do you know why? Because as a culture and people we're as greedy as the government you criticize...we're the same cloth.
Does a parent wait for the child to be convinced of the need for a bath? Persuasion is not appropriate in every context. The next time I care what the public thinks about anything, I will be senile and you can shoot me in the eye.
Can any of us be all knowing that we are sure that we can affect what is right. Right for the economy. Right for the environment. etc.
Truth is none of of knows. But the market has a way of working thing out by using prices to allocate scarce resources.
Instead, what we have, is a govt that is hell bent on spending way more than the taxes bring in. Creating new cap and trade taxes.
Open up the energy markets. Allow the oil companies to drill. Allow companies to build nuclear power plants. Allow windmills off the coast of the Kennedy's.
Instead of raising taxes and the costs of energy. That hurts lower income Americans a lot more than richer Americans.
It's quite easy to know what's right for the environment..LEAVE IT ALONE.
That's how it was meant to be. We've caused more damage to ourselves by ourselves...how can you claim you don't know what's right or wrong? While that debate is raging in your mind, we're one step closer to screwing up this planet even more.
"But the market has a way of working thing out by using prices to allocate scarce resources."
That is a fallacy. And in the case of pollution, price is exactly what has been missing. Pollutors pay zero cost for the pollution they "buy." Pollutors have been externalizing the cost of the pollution, and there is currently no pricing mechanism for the market to allocate pollution efficiently.
Even energy costs are a failure of pricing, because energy does not include the massive military costs incurred to secure the energy we use. How much of our military budget is driven by our energy needs? What would energy cost if energy prices reflected the military costs?
"Instead, what we have, is a govt that is hell bent on spending way more than the taxes bring in. Creating new cap and trade taxes."
Cap and trade is an attempt to put a price on pollution. We can disagree whether it is a good attempt. Do you also want to disagree about putting a price on pollution?
"Open up the energy markets. Allow the oil companies to drill. Allow companies to build nuclear power plants. Allow windmills off the coast of the Kennedy's."
Fine, as long as the drilling and nuclear power plants fully cover the expense of their environmental usage and expenses, and are able to balance environmental concerns. I don't think they can.
"Instead of raising taxes and the costs of energy. That hurts lower income Americans a lot more than richer Americans."
What we are claiming is that if we stay dependent upon burning foreign oil lower income americans will be doing worse in 20 years. And we can't get off foreign oil by drilling in America and building nuclear power plants. Period.
This post has been removed by the author.
(REPOSTED TO CORRECT TYPO)
Open up the energy markets? It is the open energy market that got us here.
There 3 basic facts about energy.
1. The U.S. uses the highest percentage of energy per person
2. Oil is currently the cheapest source of energy available. The alternative options are still more expensive.
3. The U.S. owns 3% of the world's oil reserves (with or without ANWAR).
These 3 facts are the reason we are in the current situation, using foreign oil, and a lot of it.
The only way to change this situation is to change the economics. People will continue to use oil until it is more expensive than it alternatives.
So we have two choices:
1. Wait until the world runs out of oil and prices go up, then develop alternatives.
2. Increase gas taxes now so the alternatives can be developed now.
One of these options will help us with foreign oil independence. One option..... the "open market" option.......will not.
scott -
i'd be very interested to see true free markets in action.
nonetheless, as has been brought up a few times, how can markets be free when the military enforces these 'free markets' via hidden military costs?
if it costs $.50 cents of every gallon of gas to secure OPEC shipping lanes, shouldn't that $.50 cents be charged at the pump?
if scientists can prove that gasoline pollution has caused such and such an increase in asthma, including the insurance costs of treating this asthma, the lost labor costs, etc. - shouldn't those costs be part of the cost of gasoline?
Isn't including the real world costs of gasoline the only way to successful free markets?
I mean, let's agree to disagree on carbon for a second. Let's say human CO2 emissions have nothing to do with global warming.
You still can't deny that American buyers of gasoline still don't pay for the scientifically proven pollution costs, in addition to the more than obvious military costs.
If free markets are the goal, shouldn't those costs - minimally - be added to the price of a gallon of gasoline? If not, how is such a market a free market?
I agree with Dahcredyns comments about paying for the cost of military defense of oil and pollution-related diseases with a gasoline tax.
This is the EXACT same philosophy used when justifying an increase in cigarette taxes. I didn't hear any objections to "that" tax. Especially from all the nonsmokers. Too bad we don't have 60% of the population that doesn't drive who would support a gas tax.
Scott,
The belief that the free market economy can solve all of our problems is a REPUBLICAN MYTH.
It was excessive deregulation of the banking and oil industries that led us to where we are today.
One "fact" we have learned in the last couple of years...... TOO MUCH DEREGULATION IS A BAD THING.
The myth about too much deregulation is a myth. In the era of Sarbanes Oxley, there is no such thing.
smurf-
interesting thoughts on deregulation.
i think the idea of deregulation is just plain silly. government is regulation. the fact that we live under the rules of a government means we've accepted regulation.
deregulation doesn't mean there isn't any regulation, it's just regulation based upon political favoritism. however, sometimes over-regulation can be based on the same political favoritism. so democrats aren't completely free from the tentacles of regulatory corruption.
nonetheless, there will never be unregulated markets. never.
what we want is fair and transparent regulation, which is exactly why the military and pollution costs of oil - gasoline - need to be charged at the pump. put reality in the hands of consumers. that's the closest we'll ever get to free markets. real world prices based on real world costs.
anything else is pure nonsense as it's pure deception.
it's time to handle the truth.
unfortunately, if we run for congress on that platform our campaign is already over.
Regulation or de-regulation. Either way, someone is in control with their own agenda. Government has its bearucrats with their own agenda which usually involves job security. Corporations have their agenda to, which usually means short term monetary gain. It's hard to tell which is worse, but since some of the tenants of our constitution are built on free trade so I'll stick with that. I am not in favor of more government. I think it's the worse of two evils. I don't think corporate America has a monopoly on moral and ethical depravity. The government seems to have its share of moral and ethical depravity too. Sorry for rambling, when we're really talking about oil dependency.
Where to draw the line on government intervention has always been a subject of debate.
One thing the last 8 years proved is that if you tip the pendulum too far in one direction (too much de-regulation) you run the risk of taking down the whole system....
I know a lot of folks hate too much regulation but remember this.....
- It took a law to put seat belts and air bags in cars.
- It took a law to stop factories from from dumping waste and chemicals into our rivers.
- It took a law to get the US automakers to increase the fleet average fuel efficiency to 26 mpg, at a time when the fleet average was only 10 mpg.
When a company is give the choice of doing what is right and doing what is profitable, they will always choose doing what is profitable.
i don't know smurf. i think too much has been made of de-regulation as a cause of all our problems.
over the decades we've faced many bubbles, and i'll bet we'll face many more regardless of what the regulators try to do. too often, unfortunately, the regulators become part of the problem.
ultimately, the problem is more about greed and human behavior than regulation. and greed always seems to find loopholes around regulation.
so i'd imagine the debate will always go on and in the interim we will over-regulate, then under-regulate and back and forth.
still, when it comes to foreign oil dependency, i'd like to see a real focus on consumers. give consumers the ability to prosper from making smart, efficient decision. it just seems that when we try to regulate such moves through corporations, too much waste is involved and too many loopholes found.
Post a Comment
<< Home