Now is the time to set minimum gas price at $3

tec699

Banned
Dec 19, 2002
6,440
0
0
With simple steps, we could within a decade finally escape the oil noose. But don?t hold your breath.

Charles Krauthammer
Published: Sunday, November 13, 2005
Updated: Sunday, November 13, 2005

Thank God for $3.50 gasoline. True, we had it for only a brief shining moment, and there is not much good to be said about the catastrophic hurricanes that caused it. But the price was already inexorably climbing as a result of 2.3 billion Chinese and Indians industrializing. Their increased demand is what brought us to the energy knife's edge and makes us so acutely vulnerable to supply disruptions.

Yet, the Senate is attacking the problem by hauling oil executives to hearings on ?price gouging.? Even by Senate standards, the cynicism here is breathtaking. Everyone knows what the problem really is. It's Economics 101: increasing demand and precariously tight supply.

Yet for three decades we have done criminally little about it. Conservatives argued for more production, liberals argued for more conservation, and each side blocked the other's remedies ? when even a child can see that we need both:

Demand. Just yesterday we were paying $3.50 at the pump and ready to pay $4 or $5 if necessary. No blessing has ever come more disguised. Now that we have lived with $3.50 gasoline, $3 seems far less outrageous than, say, a year ago. We have a unique but fleeting opportunity to permanently depress demand by locking in higher gasoline prices. Put a floor at $3. Every penny that the price goes under $3 should be recaptured in a federal gas tax so that Americans pay $3 at the pump no matter how low the world price goes.

Why is this a good idea? It is the simplest way to induce conservation. People will alter their buying habits. It was the higher fuel prices of the 1970s and early '80s that led to more energy-efficient cars and appliances ? which induced such restraint on demand that the world price of oil ultimately fell through the floor. By 1986, oil was $11 a barrel. Then we got profligate and resumed our old habits, and oil is now $60. Surprise.

The worst part is that much of this $60 goes overseas to foreigners who wish us no good: Wahhabi Saudi princes who subsidize terrorists; Hugo Chavez, the mini-Mussolini of the Southern Hemisphere; and (through the fungibility of oil) the nuclear-hungry, death-to-America Iranian mullahs. This is insanity. It makes infinitely more sense to reduce consumption, drive the world price down and let the premium we force ourselves to pay at the pump (which begins the conservation cycle) go to the U.S. Treasury. If the price drops to $2, plow that $1 tax right back into the American economy by immediately reducing, say, Social Security or income taxes.

The beauty of a gas tax at $3 is that it obviates the waste and folly of an army of bureaucrats telling auto companies what cars in which fleets need to meet what arbitrary standards of fuel efficiency. Abolish all the regulations and let the market decide. Consumers are not stupid. Within weeks of Katrina, SUV sales were already in decline and hybrids were flying off the lots.

Supply. For decades we've been dithering over drilling in a tiny part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Look, I too love the caribou. They are sweet, picturesque and reputedly harmless. But dire predictions about the devastation that Prudhoe Bay oil development would visit upon the caribou proved false. They have thrived. Let's get serious. We live at the edge of oil shortages and in perpetual vulnerability to oil blackmail. We have soldiers dying in the oil fields of the Middle East, yet we leave untouched the largest untapped oil field in North America so that Lower-48ers can enjoy an image of pristine Arctic purity. This is an indulgence bordering on decadence.

As is our refusal to drill on the continental shelf. Offshore drilling technology is far safer and more efficient than it was decades ago when this prohibition was passed. We're starving ourselves.

The same logic applies to refineries. We have not built a new one since 1976. Gasoline doesn't grow on trees. The U.S. refining industry operates at 96 percent capacity. That is unsustainable. We need the equivalent of the military-base closing commission, whereby outside experts decide which bases should be closed in the national interest. A refinery commission that would situate 15 new refineries scattered throughout the U.S. (some perhaps on Army bases scheduled for closing) would spread the pain, depoliticize the process and arm us against future shortages.

With these simple steps, we could within a decade finally escape the oil noose. But don't hold your breath. The Senate just loved its little oil-executive inquisition. The House on Wednesday night stripped out the ANWR drilling provision. And there is not a single national politician who dares propose raising gas taxes by even a penny. We are criminally unserious about energy independence and we will pay the price.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Krauthammer is a tool . . . but he has a few good points.

Substantial gas taxes would be good thing but only if it's used industriously to promote fuel efficiency and conservation. Such technology should be made widely available and subsidized for the poor . . . otherwise the tax becomes punitive for low income Americans.

US refineries on decom military bases is a great idea considering many of them are already polluted beyond all get out.

Drilling off the shelf should be a state issue with explicit laws that provide for a trust to pay for environmental damage . . . in addition to strict liability. Oil companies and the authorizing state can be sued in state AND federal court.

It will never happen:

1) there's no leadership in Congress or the White House
2) industry is making mad money
3) consumers are ignorant


 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Good points, but are you willing to pay 25% more for the products you purchase at the store? When gas prices go up, it stretches business profits and causes them to raise prices, and/or laying off employees. These are side effects we must consider.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
I basically agree with Krauthammer on this (one of the few things he and I DO agree on). Actually, $4 gas would be even better.

The thing is, with gas prices back down to the $2.30 range, there's a disincentive to conserve or to devise alternate energy techniques. Even at $3.00, there was no sense of urgency. But maybe $4 gas would be the needed kick in the butt America needs.

The tax could be defined such that any additional taxes collected this way could be offset by reductions in income tax (skewed toward the lower tax brackets). So low- and middle-income families would not be hurt, but the high gas prices would be a powerful incentive to get unstuck from an oil-based economy.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Good points, but are you willing to pay 25% more for the products you purchase at the store? When gas prices go up, it stretches business profits and causes them to raise prices, and/or laying off employees. These are side effects we must consider.

Jobs will be created in other areas of the economy as government and industry invests in fuel efficiency and conservation. As "homegrown" innovations, the benefits will have tremendous domestic impact including the ability to "export" the technology and products that evolve from it.

Ford toils in obscurity while Toyota rules the hybrid universe.
GM has to form a consortium with European automakers to build hybrids, while lil' Honda has three hybrids on the market with more in the pipeline.
We might be able to reserve those fortunes if we collected higher gas taxes and invested them well.

Businesses that rely on diesel hauling are already facing huge hardships b/c diesel prices are ~$1 higher than regular unleaded. In all likelihood, higher gasoline prices will have minor effects on profits and productivity compared to the difficulties evolving from high diesel prices.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Yes, I have to agree. The only way to fix a manipulated market is thru artificial means. Increasing the price of gas to a level that will make alternative fuels competitive is the best method.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
I actually said $6 a gallon would be best to sting out unneccessary driving and put a good dent on SUV manufacturing.

Now that it is back to $2, the sheeple will drive and even buy the SUV's again.

I would put a Energy Tax in place to keep gas at a minimum of $3 and use that money to build a hydrogen infrastructure.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I actually said $6 a gallon would be best to sting out unneccessary driving and put a good dent on SUV manufacturing.

Now that it is back to $2, the sheeple will drive and even buy the SUV's again.

I would put a Energy Tax in place to keep gas at a minimum of $3 and use that money to build a hydrogen infrastructure.

You're absolutely right. I was enjoying the lack of SUVs on the roads these past few weaks, but starting last week, the mobile apartments are back on the road. I could tolerate $3/gallon gas again, if it would mean that the SUVs are garaged again.

But on the OP's topic: I think he's more or less right. I would, however, not apply the tax to diesel, since our country is so dependent on trucking.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Good points, but are you willing to pay 25% more for the products you purchase at the store? When gas prices go up, it stretches business profits and causes them to raise prices, and/or laying off employees. These are side effects we must consider.

Jobs will be created in other areas of the economy as government and industry invests in fuel efficiency and conservation. As "homegrown" innovations, the benefits will have tremendous domestic impact including the ability to "export" the technology and products that evolve from it.

Ford toils in obscurity while Toyota rules the hybrid universe.
GM has to form a consortium with European automakers to build hybrids, while lil' Honda has three hybrids on the market with more in the pipeline.
We might be able to reserve those fortunes if we collected higher gas taxes and invested them well.

Businesses that rely on diesel hauling are already facing huge hardships b/c diesel prices are ~$1 higher than regular unleaded. In all likelihood, higher gasoline prices will have minor effects on profits and productivity compared to the difficulties evolving from high diesel prices.

I have to disagree with your first paragraph. While more jobs will be created, it will hurt many more people than it will help. $3/gallon especially hurts the lower class because they will have an even harder time making ends meet. I don't understand how people who claim to be for the lower/middle class can support something like that.
 

YoshiSato

Banned
Jul 31, 2005
1,012
0
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Good points, but are you willing to pay 25% more for the products you purchase at the store? When gas prices go up, it stretches business profits and causes them to raise prices, and/or laying off employees. These are side effects we must consider.

Jobs will be created in other areas of the economy as government and industry invests in fuel efficiency and conservation. As "homegrown" innovations, the benefits will have tremendous domestic impact including the ability to "export" the technology and products that evolve from it.

Ford toils in obscurity while Toyota rules the hybrid universe.
GM has to form a consortium with European automakers to build hybrids, while lil' Honda has three hybrids on the market with more in the pipeline.
We might be able to reserve those fortunes if we collected higher gas taxes and invested them well.

Businesses that rely on diesel hauling are already facing huge hardships b/c diesel prices are ~$1 higher than regular unleaded. In all likelihood, higher gasoline prices will have minor effects on profits and productivity compared to the difficulties evolving from high diesel prices.

I have to disagree with your first paragraph. While more jobs will be created, it will hurt many more people than it will help. $3/gallon especially hurts the lower class because they will have an even harder time making ends meet. I don't understand how people who claim to be for the lower/middle class can support something like that.


It's simple. People that are for the lower class support these types of things because it will make the lower class more needy of government to save them, therefor people who support $3 a gallon of gal will have power.


 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I actually said $6 a gallon would be best to sting out unneccessary driving and put a good dent on SUV manufacturing.

Now that it is back to $2, the sheeple will drive and even buy the SUV's again.

I would put a Energy Tax in place to keep gas at a minimum of $3 and use that money to build a hydrogen infrastructure.

You're absolutely right. I was enjoying the lack of SUVs on the roads these past few weaks, but starting last week, the mobile apartments are back on the road. I could tolerate $3/gallon gas again, if it would mean that the SUVs are garaged again.

But on the OP's topic: I think he's more or less right. I would, however, not apply the tax to diesel, since our country is so dependent on trucking.

LMAO... Are you being sarcastic? Cause if not... Wow. Talk about only seeing what you want to see.

There is something to be said for Krauthamers position but at the same time I'd say that making North/South America an independent energy zone would be a better idea. This involves developing known oil reserves (ANWR, East Coast and Mexico/South American Reserves) in conjunction with alternative energy development. Nuke, hydro, solar, wind... In 10 years we could be self sufficient and off the ME oil grid. What's more, our energy would be less expensive. That is good for everyone.
 

MicroChrome

Senior member
Mar 8, 2005
430
0
0
Yeah, good points... But are leaders are so dumb, that can't do basic math and never figure out that this could be good for the nation so it's like talking to a brick wall. Altho............. Bush did do something that surprised me on renewable solar energy taxes. But I think that was just a fluke...

Altho, I do disagree on Hydrogen Infrastructure. We have cars that can get 50MPG with out spending billions on a technology that has not been proven on a mass scale and will cost billions to retrofit cars and pumps. It is going to take too long and you need to produce a lot of energy to make hydrogen. Where are we gonna get the energy? Trade oil for processing hydrogen? I think we need to use the technology we have NOW... Get all cars above 40MPG. Invest in technology to conserve not waste it on something that will take many years and $$ to implement.

Easy to Say and HARD to do. Most people arn't going to want to drive small cars with skinny tires and not be able to burn the tires at a stop sign. Its a matter of choice and frankly your going to need to get 5-6.00 a gallon to change people...
 

SparkyJJO

Lifer
May 16, 2002
13,357
7
81
NO
I'm sick of gas taxes being almost 50 cents a gallon, and all these reformulations they keep messing with.
I do agree in one spot - BUILD NEW REFINERIES. Unfortunately, the environmentalist extremist wackos ("greenies") do not want such a thing, so they put up roadblocks to do that.
We need to drill our own oil and get off the Arab oil. That would help tide us by, keep our supply up and prices low while in the meantime some einstein comes up with an alternative fuel that won't break our wallets.

You a democrat? Sounds like it - "RAISE TAXES, THAT WILL FIX IT!" sure it will... :roll:
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
NO
I'm sick of gas taxes being almost 50 cents a gallon, and all these reformulations they keep messing with.
I do agree in one spot - BUILD NEW REFINERIES. Unfortunately, the environmentalist extremist wackos ("greenies") do not want such a thing, so they put up roadblocks to do that.
We need to drill our own oil and get off the Arab oil. That would help tide us by, keep our supply up and prices low while in the meantime some einstein comes up with an alternative fuel that won't break our wallets.

You a democrat? Sounds like it - "RAISE TAXES, THAT WILL FIX IT!" sure it will... :roll:

The President lifted the Formulation rules after the Hurricanes, have they been put back in place yet????
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,443
212
106
Spam
There should be the same tax on deisel cause then maybe the damn semi's would get off the road and back on rail where it is a lot more cost effective to transport.
This whole 24 hr to your door inventory system brought to you by the back of a truck is ruining roads and inefficient.
Half those trucks going by you on the highway are empty.

"Supply. For decades we've been dithering over drilling in a tiny part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Look, I too love the caribou. They are sweet, picturesque and reputedly harmless. But dire predictions about the devastation that Prudhoe Bay oil development would visit upon the caribou proved false. They have thrived. Let's get serious. We live at the edge of oil shortages and in perpetual vulnerability to oil blackmail. We have soldiers dying in the oil fields of the Middle East, yet we leave untouched the largest untapped oil field in North America so that Lower-48ers can enjoy an image of pristine Arctic purity. This is an indulgence bordering on decadence. "

Again with the ANWR, look dummy there isn't enough oil there to matter one lick on the world stage or even on the US stage and secondly a mistake in the arctic is HUGE it takes forever in that cold environment to undue damage. They are still cleaning up from the Exxon Valdez 20 yrs later
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,504
566
126
Perhaps we can find a process that turns dead people into oil.

Soylethanol anyone?
 

Accipiter22

Banned
Feb 11, 2005
7,942
2
0
while I agree with the principle....I mean honestly you think if it was costing that much detroit et al wouldn't have some sort of alternative within 3 years?? yeah right. But the problem is, in the meantime, the poor would be destroyed. I personally wouldn't be able to work more than a few miles from my apartment, cause I'd be walkin
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,443
212
106
Perhaps we can find a process that turns dead people into oil.

They have it
Read anything 'into oil article' in Popular Mechanics
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,504
566
126
The oil industry found their breaking point.

Gas will stay between 2.10 and 2.60 a gallon. I doubt it will ever go below $2 again.

 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,753
599
126
This is what I think we should have been doing all along. There is NO competition for vehicle fuel. If gas is more expensive...what are you going to do? Buy it anyway. Don't tax diesel any more, or even lower its tax and you'll alleviate the burden on business and the amount of damage to the economy should be slim. Time and time again we see that the only way we advance is because we have too, not because we should. When was the last burst of innovation in fuel efficient vehicles? He said in the article, during a fuel crisis. What happened when gas got cheaper? Everyone busted their ass to try and use MORE. There has to be a financial incentive to innovate. Locking the price high is the best way to force this to happen in a capitalist country.

Sink the extra money into R&D grants for fuel efficient designs and to try and build a biodiesel production infrastructure using that algea that the government did some testing on. That stuff has a much higher yield then conventional methods of making biodiesel, can be trucked through the existing pipeline network, grown right here in the united states and works in convential diesel engines. We shouldn't sink all our money into hydrogen...which requires the construction of an entirely new distribution network, new engines and would be made from oil and other energy stocks anyway. (And conversion of energy always results in a loss of total energy).

The ANWR should be saved in case we need a bunch of fuel for a major war IMO, not drilled for political gain. It would be nice if we could set it up so it'd be ready for an emergency like that but they'd just start pumping it a couple years later to appease the stupid population.

There's a solution to this problem...but people are going to have to endure some pain in the short term for a gain in the long term. This isn't a matter of choice either. We can take a proactive approach to it now, and a little initial pain along with it...or we can continue to ignore the problem and endure a whole lot of pain when the market naturally creates pressure.
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
31
91
This idea is stupid for the majority of the United States. It would be nice if we all had transportation choices like those available in a lot of the major metropolitan cities but sadly this is not the case nor is it even a realistic possibility.

I drive a car that gets an average of 30mpg and would still be adamantly against anything like this. It favors the metropolitan city populace and the rich who will just continue to drive their gas guzzlers regardless of if gasoline costs $.99/gallon or $6/gallon. On the other side of the spectrum $.99/gallon looks pretty good to a poor family that brings in $20k/year and doesn't have public transportation options.
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,443
212
106
So we designed our lifestyle and cities around unsustainable cheap energy ?
Oops, looks like a correction is in order. . .