The headline's point is that 100$/bbl oil would not sink that US economy. That's not a point against a carbon tax, since the purpose of such a tax (I hope) is not to crash the economy.

Carbon shmarbon. The oil companies are going to
play this one like a trout and try to figure out
how to cash in on the whole thing for as long as is humanly possible, don't kid yourself otherwise. Let's get REAL and see some more
freelance people investing in the good, viable
marketable alternatives, you put a car on the
curb that'll run well on ethanol, and a service
station nearby that'll sell it, and you'll see
people using ethanol. But, as long as the people
that own the service stations are beholden to the
petroco's, you'll at-best see token efforts.
I say 'lets see more states push for ethanol
and biodiesel', and ask the car companies about
engine retrofits while we're at it. Where there's
a will, there's a way, where there's an energy
policy basically written by oil companies, there'll be future dependency on oil imports,
and it's as simple as that.

A "carbon tax" that effectively raised gasoline prices into the $5 per gallon range would generate a lot of griping, and would doom the political party behind that tax (Democrats of course). But, it would not affect the global warming problem.

Before our gas guzzling habits are altered to any significant degree there will have to be a national consensus that drivers of gas guzzlers are as bad as cigarette smokers. And, that won't happen until a large percentage of people who now enjoy their gas guzzlers find something else they enjoy more.

There are many steps that the federal government could take, relatively easily, that would greatly reduce our total gasoline consumption, from higher gas mileage standards for our vehicles, and not just automobiles, but SUV's, trucks, sports cars, muscle cars, etc., to tax breaks based on vehicle weight and fuel mileage. But, again, the party that passes such legislation is resigning from office by doing so.

Remember, this is a country where only about half of the registered voters can be bothered to vote, where about the same percentage of citizens get all of their news from TV, where the latest "missing white girl" news is considered far more interesting than some dull story about the slow slide to fascism we appear to be stuck on.

It is us, the citizens here, who are the problem. I have no idea what the solution is.

Hoppy in Sacramento

How High will Gas Prices Go?

On January 21, 2000, my local gas stations were selling their gas at an average of $1.24 per gallon. As of today those same gas stations are charging $2.79 per gallon. That’s an increase of 225%.

In October 2005, Chevron joined the profits parade. The nation's No. 2 oil company reported earnings of $3.6 billion. The totals only get bigger: Conoco Phillips made $3.8 billion, BP made $6.5 billion, Royal Dutch Shell made $9 billion and Exxon Mobil raked in a whopping $9.9 billion in just three months. Exxon made more than any other company that year.

Investor T. Boone Pickens see oil prices hitting $100 next year. If he’s correct, that would be an increase of 22%. Will this convert to another 22% increase of gas prices?

Read More....Coonsey's View: http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

Coonsey's View

HTTP://WWW.FREEWEBS.COM/COONSEY/

Re: Investor T. Boone Pickens see oil prices hitting $100 next year. If he’s correct, that would be an increase of 22%. Will this convert to another 22% increase of gas prices?

Probably not. A major reason why gas prices are so high still is because a lot of US refinery capacity is idle, including Gulf Coast refineries that have still not resumed full operation after the 2005 hurricanes. Back in the spring it was predicted that gas might drop as low as $2 a gallon in the fall but that prediction was based on the assumption that refinery production would resume at pre-2005 levels. At some point we will get back to that level and the price of gas will fall, even if oil prices head higher.
Meanwhile we would do well to remember that a large fraction of the increase in oil prices is due to Bush's adventurism in the Middle East-- first the Iraq War, now the sabre-rattling against Iran. I realize there are people here who think that may be the only good to come out of that collossal fiasco, but brass-knuckles cynicism would be a better attitude for those who want to win big next year and maybe drive the GOP down the same road as the Know Nothings and the Whigs. We should be doing everything we can to connect the dots between Iraq and high gas prices in the public mind.

There is a fundamental assumption in all proposals that using taxation will influence public behavior. In some specific cases this is true. Make tobacco more expensive and smoking tends to go down.

Where this assumption fails is when the use of taxation is supposed to create incentives. Whatever the mechanism proposed to cut GHG emission (caps or taxes) the basic assumption is that making the activity more expensive will lead to innovation.

However, this only provides an incentive it does not guarantee innovation. It is a way for pols and business people to shift responsibility to the "marketplace". Most of the proposals floating around depend upon technology which doesn't exist, or is uneconomical. Much of it also depends upon people changing their lifestyles without any discussion of how this is to be accomplished.

Take the simple example of commuting from the exurbs. If fuel is more expensive what are the commuters supposed to do? There is no mass transit for them to shift to, there aren't even any plans for mass transit. Single family sprawl housing can never be made as efficient as compact housing. Asking people to better insulate their houses is inadequate.

If anything is to be done, then government and other people need to address the hard issues directly and stop pretending that the "marketplace" will come up with solutions though the magic of the invisible hand. The invisible hand is not only invisible, it doesn't exist at all. See yesterday's NY Times story about how fast the water table is dropping in much of China.

People can't alter their behavior to fix society. There needs to be a national framework and it involves more than tweaking the tax code.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

The left is wrong on bio-fuels. They are being bio-fools. Look at the sky-rocketing prices of food across the board as more and more land is dedicated to ethanol production. The middle and lower classes of this country are being hurt by these price increases, no to mention the billions of dirt poor across the third world. And for what? Ethanol will not significantly reduce carbon, pollution or our dependance on oil. It IS making speculators in the nascent bio-fools industry obscene amounts of money. That's precisely what we need - another speculative bubble, on top of all the others threatening to blow out the world's monetary system.

No, you want to reduce carbon, pollution and end our petro-economy? Build nuke plants, build electrified rail, maglev systems, mass transit systems, build a new class of hydrogen powered autos. With federally directed investment towards these ends, we can re-build our auto, steel and transportation sectors, add tons of high-paying jobs to replace those out-sourced by the neo-feudal elite that have ruined our productive economy and replaced it with a gambling casino economy.

The left thinks it is outmaneuvering the evil oil barons with bio-fuels. You are just being played for suckers - again. Who do you think is going to control the bio-fuels industry? We're going to solve 21st century energy problems with 100+ old technology? We need high-tech, 21st century solutions and an FDR-like approach to making it happen. Until the left ends it's infantile opposition to nuclear power, our energy problems will never be solved, in fact they will only get worse.

To avoid coming pandemics, mass starvation and global asymmetrical warfare, the world needs bankrupt the global neo-feudal financial elite, create a new monetary system modeled on Bretton Woods, raise global living standards and to build hundreds of nuke plants around the world. Otherwise, we are all headed to a global dark age.

UA

UA- The main problem with nuclear power is that we have still not resolved the issue of waste disposal. Are you volunteering to let us use your backyard to dispose of the waste?

Corn-based ethanol is at best break-even, and probably takes more carbon based fuel to produce it than it saves. It survives only by virtue of heavy taxpayer subsidies (51% is the number I have heard). Ethanol produced from sugar cane is much more efficient -- the entire plant is used. Cuba could probably produce lots of cheap ethanol from sugar cane; but import duties on sugar are high. Are we still subsizing tobacco farmers? Couldn't they produce plants for fuel instead of tobacco?

You are right that land diverted to fuel production will raise the price of food; one answer is cellulosic ethanol, ethanol produced from such things as wheat or corn stalks, switch grass, brush, using enzymes to break down the cellulose into sugar. Cellulosic ethanol has been around for many years.

Another source of energy is the processing of animal wastes from dairy farms and feed lots. The methane from the decaying waste matter can be trapped and used for fuel. The residue can be used for fertilizer. Many busses in Sweden and Denmark run on bio-gas -- methane produced from animal wastes. All the Nordic countries have a carbon tax.

Diesel's original engine ran on peanut oil; McDonalds and other fast food restaurants could clean their used cooking oils and sell them for fuel. Denmark gets 20% of its electrical energy from wind turbines. It is headed for 40%, It has some oil; but it is a net exporter of oil. In Norway it is said that more methane is produced from Moosefarts than CO2 by cars.

Increased use of mass transit, and rail transit would cut our dependence on foreign oil. How many mass transit systems could have been built in this country with the money we have wasted in Iraq? Why are we always bailing out the airlines but refusing to subsidize rail travel?

There are many, many options for reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing our carbon footprint. Not only that, but we would probably be much happier with less traffic congestion. It is the corporations and their right-wing political allies, not the left, who are blocking progress.

Re: The main problem with nuclear power is that we have still not resolved the issue of waste disposal.

Oh? Nuclear waste is being disposed of right now today-- hardly sounds like it's a problem! Moreover much of this waste is extremely low energy in terms of its radioactivity (highly radioactive elements decay rapidly, that's why they are highly radioactive). They do not present any where near the threat sometimes imputed to them.