Historian Michael Parenti has a good line about not underestimating the evil that men can do:  

Don't ever think that just because you don't know what they're doing, that they don't know what they are doing.

Meaning that it is a huge mistake to ascribe to incompetence that which is also explicable by self-interest/venality.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

I'm confused...

You guys rail on corn ethanol with good reason.

When there are other, much more energy efficient strategies available and apparently being put in, you rail on it too.

What the ...?

Biofuels do not imply only corn or soy.
Either the legislature is poor in its phrasing or the journalist did not elaborate on what they meant.
It seems like a credit to homeowners burning wood for heating is a good thing: The bill also gives consumers a tax credit for ... heating their homes using biofuel.
This creates jobs, while potentially having a positive climate effect: And it requires gas stations to sell ethanol blended gas or biodiesel once in-state production of those fuels reaches target levels.

I say potential, under the assumption that eventually these plants will be producing biodiesel from wood residue.

I agree with food-based ethanol or biodiesel as a negative, but the phrasing of that article does not imply anything about food grade ethanol.

Furthermore, corn that is farmed throughout U.S. is hardly food grade, and this basically means that we're already farming for sh!ts and giggles otherwise known as the burger industry. And if corn ethanol is legislated to be the case, this will do two things: bring up the cost of beef, and bring up the cost of gas. Both are not bad from a policy standpoint, while not good from a consumer perspective.

I'm against corn and soy based on the energy efficiency aspect of using these as an energy source. If, for example, this was willow, or some other woody source, I would be all for it.

Umm...
How do you get around? Do you drive? Or if you're extremely dedicated and do not own a car and bike 200 miles a week, do you ever get rides, such as for moving to a different house for example?

What do you eat? Do you ride your bike to every farm in the area? Or do you own a farm, so that you can get the food just like that? And if you do own a farm, how do you exactly pay the taxes on it?

These questions are aimed at asking, how do you avoid using petro fuel? If you don't avoid using it right now, maybe you should try to think about the reduced carbon footprint that cellulosic will afford you.

Instead of adding the same link every time?

I meant to say ethanol from wood...

Yea, transesterification method is drastically different from gasification or cellulysis, and I meant to say ethanol.

It also appears that the cellulysis pathway, such as the enzymatic pathway, is not drastically different from the regular pathway with a pretreatment step added. Thus it seems that while my optism may be charming, your pessimism is stifling.

There seems to be a lot of discussion of generalities and moral relativism here and not a lot of substantial understanding of the mechanics of this particular bill.

To help Oregon's rural communities provide economically viable feedstocks for Oregon-consumed biofuels, HB 2210 establishes state production tax credits for such feedstocks as woody biomass, canola, barley, triticale, straw, camelina and flax. And in a companion bill, HB 2211, the Business Energy Tax Credit is expanded to provide for greater capital investment in biorefineries.  HB 2211 still awaits passage in the Oregon Senate.

Like any industry, biofuels production has environmental impacts. The Oregon Environmental Council worked with the legislature on this bill to ensure that the renewable fuel standards can't be met by biodiesel produced from imported palm oil (palm plantations are supplanting tropical forests) and supported complementary legislation that ensures corn production does not receive feedstock tax credits (conventionally grown corn requires heavy pesticide application and irrigation). There will also be a two-year delay for wheat tax credits.

In the coming months, we here at OEC will work to ensure that the rules implementing this legislation are written to favor the biofuel feedstocks and biorefinery operations that are most environmentally beneficial.

Here in Oregon, wheat prices are up from $3.50 / bu. last year to $5.50 today. That's over a 60% increase and it is a much needed change for Eastern Oregon's economy.  Although you may have to pay a little more for your loaf of bread.  The fuel crops are putting a little bit of a spark into the agricultural community.  Ask any Eastern Oregon wheat or hay farmer and they might even tell you that its overdue. From a consumer standpoint that means that the cost of Wheat in a $1.39  - one pound loaf of bread is up from $0.05 to $0.075 approximately.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

And try not to post anonymously.

best regards,
-Jeremy

I attended a meeting a couple of weeks back and heard a very enthusiastic presentation by a Danish lady promoting her company's technology for cellulosic ethanol. She was asked (not by me) whether, in her opinion, the build-up of first-generation ethanol plants was paving the way for second-generation plants. "Absolutely not!", she snapped.

I am not saying she was totally right. Pilot cellulosic plants are already being bolted onto sugar-ethanol distilleries in Brazil, to be fed by bagasse. Similar technologies will no doubt be applied to some corn-ethanol plants.

But many plants will not be so easily converted, unless money is no barrier. Which brings us back to the issue of subsidies. Throw enough money at any technology and you'll get some results. But is it cost-effective?

Jeremy: Thanks for the further information. But in all the discussion of environmental effects, has the Oregon Environmental Council thought about the spill-over effects of biofuel production in the United States, even when its feedstocks are entirely locally sourced? Corn acreage in the USA has expanded this year by 15%, while soybean acreage is down by 11%. And, each year, more of the soybeans that the USA produces are going into biodiesel. To make up the shortfall in supplying world demand for soybeans, the industry is expanding rapidly in Latin America, including in the Amazon. So no matter how much one tries to protect the local market, spill-over effects on the wider world cannot be easily avoided.

To help Oregon's rural communities provide economically viable feedstocks for Oregon-consumed biofuels, HB 2210 establishes state production tax credits for such feedstocks as woody biomass, canola, barley, triticale, straw, camelina and flax.

You mean "economically viable" if you don't count the cost of the subsidy as a cost, right?

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

Thanks for the most intricate explanation of the bill that I have seen yet.

JMG,
Subsidies are everywhere, and they are especially useful for industries at their start-up, such as the biofuels industry. Subsidies are a way to level the market for a newcoming technology or an underrepresented sector, which otherwise may not be economically feasible.

I do not specifically condone subsidies, because there may be better ways of doing things: Libertarians (preferably with a big L for the individual freedoms) might be right about the free market. Or maybe not. Our system is not libertarian. And there are already some heavy handed players.

So with due respect to all of Ron's failed subsidies, it does not appear that this one will lead to Armageddon.

Artem

which otherwise may not be economically feasible[at start-up if economies of scale have potential or during operation, if it is a necessary service such as education, law enforcement and health care... Well maybe not in USA, but elsewhere people have the last one].

No subsidies are included in HB2210, only tax incentives.

Ron S. posted a link to an Oregon State University biofuels study that, presumably, informed the Legislature in its deliberations.

The conclusion, if I recall correctly (Ron may have the link), was that corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel were all, to a greater or lesser degere, far more expensive fuels than petroleum fuel and far inferior to simply a 1 mpg increase in fleet mileage as far as CO2 reduction.

The issue is not the subsidy per se --- people can light their BBQ grills with $100 bills if they want  --- it's that the need for a subsidy should be interpreted as a sign that the technology is inferior, and that there are better ways to get to the goal.

So, unless biofuels are an end in the themselves (and it's worth asking why that should be), then it's reasonable to ask why Oregon thinks it wants them.  From the comments posted above, it appears to be about giving farmers more money; well why not simply create a state commodity price support program and cut out the biofuels middleman?

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

Ron: I appreciate that concern. And we have thought seriously about those issues. Here are some thoughts:

What is needed is a clear vision of what sustainability criteria need to be addressed, such as land use changes or impacts on biodiversity, water resources, soil quality, buying locally first, energy balance analysis and so on. There is not yet an agreed-upon set of sustainability standards for biofuels. Eventually all biofuels should have a sustainability certificate that outlines their carbon savings and their ecological impact so that the public can use their dollars to support more local and sustainable practices over those which are destructive.

We are attempting to create an established biofuels sustainability criterion to provide guidance for the industry and the public; it is a dialogue for ways to address the need to develop low carbon fuels and a way to address global warming pollution.

     The most important priority of a new energy policy is to manage current energy usage and to focus efforts first on conservation and efficiency.  Conservation is the cheapest way to save energy at the source. Vehicle efficiency standards must be improved for the true impact of sustainable biofuels to have the needed impact of reducing America's dependence on foreign oil.

     New sources should be not only environmentally sound, but developed in a socially responsible manner and production facilities locally-owned when possible.  The public benefits of an agriculturally based biofuels operations must be able to adhere to established sustainable agricultural practices.  These standards specify that they are economically viable, attentive to water quality and land-use regulations, locally owned and managed when possible, ecologically sound and a provider of family-wage jobs.

     Biofuel feedstocks must reduce greenhouse gas emissions and analysis of the amount of GHG emissions reduced must be agreed upon by a consensus of crop scientists and academics so that low carbon fuels thrive.

     All crop-based biofuel developments should be analyzed to assess the individual impacts to: wildlife and wetlands, land preservation and topsoil loss, nutrient management, appropriate water use and fossil energy inputs (including pesticides and herbicides) required to extract renewable energy.

     Cellulosic and other biomass energy should not outweigh the need for wildlife habitat and recreational uses and no extraction should occur unless all appropriate regulations and safeguards have been formally addressed.  Watersheds should similarly not be negatively affected by biomass extraction. Biomass must be renewable on the lands where it was originally grown.

     Biofuels feedstocks cannot be grown on environmentally sensitive lands like old growth forests, native grasslands or on ecosystems that support a rich diversity of species and life.

     Byproducts of biofuel production should be utilized in an ecologically sound manner.  Handling these products in a responsible manner should promote sustainable livestock production rather than factory farm production.

Best regards,
-Jeremy

To clarify: a subsidy gives you money.
A tax incentive allows you to keep it.

Quite different. Especially if you're an accountant.

It's also worth noting that the incentives are sunsetted out once Oregon production reaches a defined threshold.

Quite different. Especially if you're an accountant.

At best thats just semantics.

Tax Breaks are "Tax Subsidies"

first of all, thanks for stopping by and for all the thought you've obviously put into this.

What strikes me is that this all has the air of starting with an assumption -- more biofuels -- and working backward from that, attempting to mitigate the environmental and economic downsides.

But why start with biofuels? If you have the dual goal of a) helping Oregon farmers, and b) using less oil, why not put wind turbines on their land to power plug-in hybrids? Or put money into production credits for farmers and public transit for cities? Or focus on land use, to prevent farms from being bought up by developers? Etc. etc.

I'm sure all these things are on your radar, but they all strike me as more promising -- more bang for the buck -- than pouring money into biofuels. If you started from a clean slate, with no presumptions or biases, would biofuels really be your choice to achieve your goals?

grist.org

Ron,
I don't understand why carbon sequestration is the ultimate end goal in the $500 figure. It appears that one of the best yardsticks is energy production, which can more than double (in some cases up to 500%) the return of energy investment to power our vehicles. That, and create more money for farmers; and produce incentives (at least on the East Coast) for proper forest management.

Yes, as a carbon sequestration project, cellulosic ethanol is a relatively poor money investment. But that ain't the end all...

Also, as Jeremy pointed out, these aren't subsidies (whew, thank heavens I don't have to talk about these any more), these are tax breaks. There is a blatant difference between getting a welfare check every month and not having to pay taxes. THIS IS THE POINT OF INCENTIVES!

Sorry for all the caps there. Incentives are supposed to start a program, which otherwise might not be attractive due to initial starting costs. If there were more positive incentives on production of fuel efficient vehicles, we might have some sort of an efficiency increase.

The real perniciousness of subsidies via the tax code is their very invisibility, the same invisibility that makes it possible for boosters to argue that they are not subsidies.  It's like the 1% juice drinks that get some Vitamin C dumped in with the sugar and then get marketed to parents seeking something healthier than soda for kids.

Moreover, rare is the tax code subsidy that has an actual cap---I think the subsidy for the Prius did (only so many per year), but most are wide open to all comers, so we really don't know what the cost will be.  Sometimes a subsidy is even sweeter than people realize, and it's not until later that you find out that your state has blown a wad that it didn't plan to because it crafted a tax subsidy that it didn't intend.

Also, according to Jeremy above, these subsidies sunset at a certain level of production. Nice trick.  This means that, instead of an actual sunset (i.e., a date), the subsidy can continue FOREVER.  Once production starts to approach the threshold, producers will back off, keeping the gravy train running another year.  The plant owners aren't stupid -- which one of them is going to build a plant that would cause the state to reach the production threshold?  I'd be seriously worried about "accidents" during construction if I were to start building a plant that threatened to cause the state to overshoot the threshold and break everyone's rice bowl.

And, of course, there's just the plain sweet invisibility of a tax subsidy as opposed to an honest appropriation.  An appropriation has to be passed again and again and again as part of the budget; you get a tax subsidy through and boom, you're set forever.  The tax code never changes unless the Legislature changes it, and it doesn't have to be readopted year after year.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

The chant of the subsidy seeker:

Don't tax you,
Don't tax me,
Tax that fellow
Behind the tree.

Verse 2 through 2^Nth power (as N tends to infinity) same as the first.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

Einstein said compound interest was the most powerful force in the universe.

The most powerful force in the human part of the universe?  Confusion.

Even some dedicated Gristmill readers/writers still do not grok the problems with guzzling gas made with fuel farming.  And try to confuse this simple issue once again.

That is the unbelievable power of confusion.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Confusion, eh??

Clearly, I was being facetious when I said that about tax breaks. I was just kidding because I want to get off Ron's subsidy horse. But if you were king, Ron or JMG (not amazin), and you had to make an immediate decision about our energy sector, what would you do? And where would you get the liquid fuel? Cause the hundred million plus cars on the roadway, they ain't leaving any time soon.

Plus, I like how you both skirted the issue of $500/ton (ooooh) as going strictly to sequestration, instead of a number of positive outcomes.

... on behalf of biofuels and liquid coal, an argument that goes like this: "There are all these cars on the road that use liquid fuels, and they aren't going anywhere any time soon, so where are we going to get the liquid fuels?"

The irony is, with the kind of massive public money we're talking about shoveling to biofuels and liquid coal, we could get those cars off the road. We could buy every one of them, scrap them, and replace them with plug-in hybrids! If that strikes you as an absurd solution, well, that just goes to show how absurd the level of subsidies under discussion are.

grist.org

DR, what you're running into is the power of TINA -- the thought that "There Is No Alternative."  

Just like the tobacco lobby fought for decades to defeat one simple idea (cigarettes kill), the auto gang (a HUGE cross-sector complex that includes the oil industry, the manufacturing sector, the highway (concrete/asphalt) lobby, the sprawlbuilders lobby) continues to fight for the primacy of one key idea (meme):

  Cars aren't going anywhere.  They are central to our culture and we cannot give them up.

The auto gang are like the Japanese on Iwo Jima on this point.  They know that, when enough people realize that we can have a pretty darn nice country, with a lot better health, wealth, and environment without personal cars, things are going to change in a real hurry.

So their job is to enforce the meme at all costs (as long as those costs are shifted to others).

Therefore, they equate cars with "freedom" and "independence," "virility" and "fun" and all the other positive things (just like cigarettes were sold on every one of those same traits).  They do everything possible to keep the true costs of car culture from becoming widely understood; they work tirelessly to train kids in the ways of car culture and to make auto-free living seem like a weird and undesirable state.  They prey on the poor, who bankrupt themselves to stay in the car culture, just like the people smoking through their tracheotomy holes.

Flex-fuel vehicles, hybrid electrics, etc. are all just the auto gang's version of the "low tar cigarette" -- a way to keep the junkie on the line.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

...Dave, I would take all that juicy metal being wasted on all those pretty cars I see whizzing by me everyday (and it seems like half the prius's in the country must be in Evanston), and melt them down for light rail and intercity rail.  And then there are all those buildings in the suburbs...

We can distinguish between three positions here:

We don't have to keep using cars.
Practically speaking, we have to accept cars for the foreseeable future, but we can insure they use much less oil.
We have to accept cars, and we have to keep running them primarily on liquid fuel.

There's an interesting debate to be had between #1 and #2. But #3 just makes no goddam sense at all. Why use liquid fuels as some kind of non-negotiable starting point?

grist.org

Actually I lived without a car for quite a few years. It was a nightmare. Always waiting in the rain for buses that were always late. Trains that run late and are old, dirty and slow.

When I bought a car our lives improved by orders of magnitude. Getting somewhere could take half a day by bus now takes a hour or so. My wife is going to by a second car as her job requires her to travel around town. Again with the buses that would mean spending 3 hours or so every day in buses.

You can say what you want. I like my car. It has made my life a lot better. No propaganda required from the car lobby.

that's the problem with the "cars are evil and we need to get rid of them" position -- it doesn't jibe with people's personal experience. My family probably could live without the minivan, but it would be effing miserable -- lots and lots and lots of time spent herding intransigent young children to and from bus stops, and waiting for buses, and being on buses. I shudder to contemplate it.

Thing is, when we make the infrastructure and urban planning and land use changes necessary, people will naturally migrate out of their cars. No moral suasion will be required. Until then, moral suasion just bugs people.

Switching out present-day cars for plug-in hybrids, however, is a marked and immediate increase in quality of life, no matter the other circumstances. That seems like the low-hanging fruit, even as we work in parallel to reduce the need for cars.

grist.org

Nice biblical reference, Jon Rynn.

You all got that?  Isaiah 2.4:
<<
And he [the Lord, aka Yahweh] shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
>>

Not one of the favorite texts of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their neo-con entourage.  Unknown if W. himself ever stumbled upon it while doing his Bible-roulette games.

Anyway, I am definitely on Jon's side, in supporting car-to-train re-adaptation (CTT).

But JMG is right about the deep-rootedness of the private car in our culture and indeed in our sense of identity and self-worth.

And Hollywood has a great responsibility in that.  TV too.  Where does it start?  James Dean?  Segueing into "Route 66"?

Iconically, it ought to have ended with "Thelma and Louise": car as platform for a rape, car as suicide instrument.  But I guess not; that was just a chick-flick. : (

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

...sung to the music of "spam", by monty python.  I fully realize, appreciate, feel-your-pain about giving up cars.  This is why it's a very, very touchy issue.  I remember raising this with a friend who had been the head of the Chicago Transit Authority, and he swatted my verbiage like a fly; never, ever talk about eliminating cars, always talk about increasing the range of "choices".

The bus system in many places (not all, such as SF or NYC), were the miserable systems that GM et al. put in place after they bought the trolley systems and ripped them up.  I have not owned a car in 20 odd years, but I lived in NYC and now downtown Evanston, where I can walk.  Even so, if we could magically not be so lazy and get our drivers licenses renewed (yes, we let them lapse) we would do it, because this society is simply not set up to be completely car-free.  

So, push for more light rail -- if salt lake city likes it, what's not to like -- push for more transit-oriented development, with the argument that life will be better, more pleasant, with lots of rail and walkable neighborhoods.  Even Al Gore, in his recent rolling stone interview, used the example of being stuck in traffic for hours as an example where a emissions-reduced world would be superior to the current one.

When I lived in the center of Edinburgh I was fine. Everything was walking distance. Then you get a family and a job and find you can't afford to live in the center nor would you want too...

More people in cities is a good idea. Less travel and rail makes more sense.

...because with a family the rents are too high.  Part of a sustainable path will be to create more housing in cities so that this is not a problem.  Did you know that Trump's father made his millions building housing in Queens for GI's returning from WWII?  Call it the "Harold Trump" (believe that was his name) "Housing Bill"

DR: "Thing is, when we make the infrastructure and urban planning and land use changes necessary, people will naturally migrate out of their cars. No moral suasion will be required. Until then, moral suasion just bugs people."

Q:  Why would we make any of those changes to obviate cars before we're committed to getting rid of car culture?  

A:  We wouldn't.  And we won't.

Technologic niches work just like ecological ones--the toys don't share any better than species do.

Look at all the effort being expended to maintain car culture:  we're willing to fight wars to do it, we're willing to starve people to do it, we're willing to destroy climate stability to do it, to pave over fertile land, to mine the last few inches of topsoil, etc.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

As it happens, I am off to a bar at Broadway and 21st, to meet (or at least observe from a distance) John Edwards.  That is a couple of miles from here.  My plan is to take the 1 train at 116th and Broadway to Times Square, then do that athletic little dance up the steps, then a few meters eastward, then down the steps to catch the downtown R train, and get off at 23rd and Broadway.  Tre`s facile, n'est-ce pas?  I am not expecting that Senator Edwards is going to drink me under the table, so probably I shall return the same way, in reverse.

So, what are these things called "cars" that you are all talking about?

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

Carpool from the suburbs.  It would be nice to have carpool passenger terminals.

Recharge plug-in and electric cars with solar/wind power, and/or NW hydro.

The car does not have to die, just make it stop smoking so much fuel.

I might consider exchanging my car for a horse or, during nasty weather, a horse and buggy. Would that be more environmentally sound? It would probably be safer, especially in the winter, assuming horses replace all automobile and truck traffic.

Just a couple questions so I can plan ahead:

(1) How long will my current 30-mile commute be via horse? Via horse and buggy?

(2) How expensive is it to care for a horse vs. an automobile?

(3) How much pasture is required for each horse if I want him or her to get some fresh air, sunshine, and quality forage?

(I'm actually  replacing my crown vetch -- see alien plant thread -- with a mix of pasture grass. This was going to be a temporary measure, but I could skip the native plants if it will reduce America's dependence on fossil fuel and give me an excuse for caring for another animal.)

(4) What will urban planners have to start thinking about in order to facilitate the transition?

Forward!

Jon Rynn wrote: the new UK white paper on energy [...] basically assumes that there will be oil forever, available forever, at a decent price forever.

Why would there not be oil at a decent price forever?

that, like Dick Cheney, you consider a 30 mile commute a 'non-negotiable' part of life?

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

People did not switch from walking to the internal combustion engine. There were other stages. Cities require a means of moving people and goods around. Perhaps what you folks are really dreaming about is a return to villages and small towns, where everything is within walking distance.

Forward!

you can keep telling people that their lifestyle choices represent a moral failing. One day, when you've convinced the vast majority of the country's citizens to admit their sins, repent, and seek forgiveness, there will be support for boosting public transit and densification.

I just hope other people try different methods, because I don't hold out a lot of hope for that one.

grist.org

At this point, my 30-mile commute is non-negotiable.

I cannot earn a living via telecommuting, consulting, blogging, or writing novels. I have to go somewhere to work. I might be able to grow enough food for my family, but there would be no way to pay for heat, electricity, a photovoltaic system, healthcare, clothing, fabric, books, tools, property taxes, telephone, et cetera.

We've already purchased -- and must pay back the loan for -- the house. If I return to an urban area, I would have to sell the house. I would probably have to sell it to someone just like me, so I might as well live there. At least I'm taking care of the land.

If there is a massive migration from rural areas to urban areas because of the rising cost of transportation, I won't be able to sell the house. There wll be no market for houses in rural areas. I would have to declare bankruptcy and have no means of starting a new life in an urban area.

So... the commute is non-negotiable. I have to make it work. Millions of American have to make it work. Whine all you want. But unless there is a state or federal program to buy houses, raze them, and replace them with natural areas, commuters are here to stay. The alternative, in my opinion, is a landscape dominated by the wealthy who can afford energy and littered with abandoned homes the wealthy are not interested in living in.

By the way... the remarks regarding horses... I'm serious.

Forward!

Did Dick Cheny actually say that  commuting is a non-negotiable part of life?

Forward!

...to your work?  or would it make sense to put light rail somewhere near your home?  Before Cars (BC), there were "streetcar suburbs".  We are very spread out now, so I don't know how feasible it would be, but some serious consideration should be given to "light-railing" many of the freeways meandering around suburbia.

you also said

unless there is a state or federal program to buy houses, raze them, and replace them with natural areas

I actually thought of this in my utopian musings, and indeed it may be necessary.  As I stated a few comments ago, I would preface any move to a car-free society as "in 30 years" or so.  The problem with that strategy is that a gazillion people have their life savings invested in their house, and that is a long-term consideration people will act on, so even a 30-year time frame might not be good enough -- which is why we would have to include a program of the feds buying you out if you still had something there, so don't worry, you won't get screwed!  

Parenthetically, Kunstler and even more so, many peak oilers think everyone will just wind up eating doo-doo, so my proposal is actually less wild than many.

I once heard Barney Frank on Bill Maher basically say that people bought their homes on the assumption that they could make a 45-minute commute, and implied that gas prices need to be kept at the appropriate level.  So if someone on the "left" is defending Americans god-given right to liquid fuels, you can just imagine what the other politicians are feeling -- and if suburban commuting becomes unsustainable, the right will accuse the left of being behind a conspiracy to destroy the suburbs.

Just as I suspected. Thank you for looking into it.

Forward!

My actual views are probably better described in my TINA post:  the vast majority of people in this country are the victims of the auto gang's meme and control over policymaking.  

What I believe, as I wrote, was that we have been sold a dysfunctional system and we pay the price for it every single day, in hundreds of ways, from our taxes to our air quality, to our loss of species diversity, to the tens of thousands of people who die every year from automobility, not to mention the pedestrians and bicyclists killed by cars.  I know of very few people who argue in favor of any of these things, which would truly be morally reprehensible.

DDT and leaded gasoline were once both popular and completely accepted uses of technology.  That changed because people were willing to actually look at the evidence of the harm they caused and talk about it, despite a fierce rebuttal from the industries involved.  The personal automobile is quite similar in my view.

Like you, I hope that others find more effective ways to get people to rethink cars; if you have suggestions for that, I'm all ears.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

...for 17 years, that's when I let my driver's license expire!

No, an immediate sessation of all gas guzzling is not practical nor is it necessary.  A shift to renewable electric power for transportation and the grid over a decade would be fine.

Confusion reigns, in this rhetorical playground.  But mother earth is not confused.  A 300+ mph tornado indicates that quite forcefully.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

OK, I do not know how he arrived at this supposedly way-cool place called "Strata," at the Southwest corner of Broadway and 21st.  By fly-and-trap perhaps.  I for my part went and returned by subway, and the time was reasonable.

As for himself, it was definitely the love that I knew was always there: sure, I saw him across a crowded room, and I was like a brontosaur-distance away, but I knew, I just knew -- you know how you know about these things? -- I just knew, when he was looking up at my balcony, in my direction, I felt it, he was looking right at me!  Oh God, I could have died!  Right there, in front of all those people from Long Island!!

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

The main reason why a carbon tax will not work.  Companies will not change because of it, they will simply pass the cost to consumers and mount a public campaign to blame the environmental politicos who voted in the tax.

Subsidies change corporate policy and consumer preference.  Taxes will not.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

A subsidy for solar and wind encourages investment.  A tax on carbon merely raises the consumer's bill.

Will that consumer then say, "ah ha!, now that my bill went up, buying a solar system will pay back much more quickly.  I'm going to get one"?

Not likely, instead they will realize that with the higher bill due to the new tax they need to cut corners even further to keep the power on.  not lay out more money for a solar system.

they will blame the new tax and the politicians who implemented it.  What will the tax dollars raised go for?  For wind and solar or for more oil wars?  more oil wars.

With a shift of subsidies from fossil fuels to solar and wind, the consumer will realize that solar system is a great investment with a shorter payback period.

Taxpayers rightly distrust what this new american dictatorship might do with any money from new taxes.  War first, then tax breaks for the rich, then boondoggles like fuel farming.

Reform would be to divert monies misspent to incentives for beleaguered families trying to pay their energy bills to go with renewables.  A plugin car that runs on 60 cent equivalent per gallon of gas electricty, or even better from your own home solar system.

That's what real people want.  Not a higher power bill with the carbon tax going to oil war or paying halliburton to pretend to rebuild Iraq.

Gitmo detainees have full health coverage.  911 first responders had to go to Cuba with Micheal Moore to get health coverage, and now they face a 65k fine each for traveling to cuba.  This administration is prosecuting them.

But rove keeps his job and prospers.

Voters will never trust raising taxes to get reform.  they want reform by taking money wasted now and using it wisely.  on rebates directly to them for investing in solar, wind, plugin cars, and conservation.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Voters will never trust raising taxes to get reform.

... that American voters want the government to decide how to spend their money even more than European voters do?

To oppose higher taxes on transport fuel (you seem to be talking mainly about electricity) because the money might be misspent is silly. Most people proposing such taxes call for tax neutrality -- i.e., cutting taxes elsewhere so that the total tax burden remains unchanged, and even using some of the revenues to compensate low-income people hurt by the higher taxes.

That better mileage in europe is due to boardroom policy.  Driven by automakers instead of oil salesmen.  Taxes, schmaxes.  taxes have merely reduced the numbers of cars and drivers, only the wealthy can afford to drive.

US automakers are primarily oil salesmen.  All other considerations are secondary. look at the lobbying against the puny move to raise CAFE standards to 35mpg.  Mounted by automakers?

Why?  Automakers would produce the 200+ mpg Volt voluntarily.  that would beat the world with consumer demand everywhere.  

No way, these boardrooms of US auto companies are full of oil men.

They are clearly making money from oil, not cars.  cars are the loss leader.  Buy the gas guzzler from Detroit (that the auto company loses money on)and they get you later at the gas pump.  So it goes.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

For change Ron.  Not socialism.

Incentivise small business to build out solar, wind, and geothermal heating/cooling.  incentivize a boom in renewable distributed power generation and storage and plgin vehicles.

Don't punish the wicked carbon demon by taxing consumers then spending the taxes on more oil wars to get more carbon.  Left, right, or middle, voters will never trust the government to raise taxes then spend the money wisely.  

Instead stop the waste of tax dollars on adventures like Iraq, and give it out in incentives to homeowners and small business.

Remember the 9 billion in 100 dollar bills that dissappeared into Iraq on C-130s?  They loaded up the loot with forklift trucks.  Taxpayers who vote remember.  No new taxes.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

you da socilist not me.

You want to raise taxes and have socialist government owned nukes like socialist France does.

I want a marketplace that chooese the best renewable technology incentivized with subsidies for systems that save energy and produce clean, carbon free energy.  Each consumer buying wisely, helped out by subsidies diverted from big corporate thieves like exxon mob and halliburton.

You want huge socialist nuclear plants where the government uses tax dollars to foot 80% of the corporate bill.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

That is the best reason for carbon taxes.

Invested capital currently favors subsidized technologies like ethanol, pv, wind.

And then there's coal, oil, gas and nuclear subsidies.

The better return on investment comes from end-use energy efficiency and conservation, best supported via carbon taxes shifted from other taxes, not a new tax.

You tax and spend geniuses need to talk to some voters.  Too much time spent with your fellow socialists.

Maybe that whiff of reality would be more helpfull to you.  Hehehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

A commie, pinko name if I ever heard one.  Hehehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Organic Sunflower Foundation stopped the DoE from importing nuke war heads from The Ukraine by exposing the DoE lie of vitrification of Plutonium at a White House meeting of Clinton, Gore, and Kuchma.  

After words, Defense Sec. Perry was on his knees with Leonid Kuchma's rep watering sunflower seeds on the subsequent Ukrainian burial site.  

The connotation of sunflower is nuclear disarmament.

You know, the discussion here would be much more substantive if you didn't just wing it:

That better mileage in europe is due to boardroom policy. Driven by automakers instead of oil salesmen. Taxes, schmaxes. Taxes have merely reduced the numbers of cars and drivers, only the wealthy can afford to drive.

You don't know what the ... you're talking about. Yes, car ownership in Europe is less than in the USA, but not that much less. They are certainly not owned only by the wealthy. People just buy smaller, more-efficient cars. More cars here are diesel, and most cars are sold with manual transmissions rather than automatic transmissions as in the 'States.

Don't punish the wicked carbon demon by taxing consumers then spending the taxes on more oil wars to get more carbon. Left, right, or middle, voters will never trust the government to raise taxes then spend the money wisely.

I guess you didn't read what I said. Almost all serious calls for carbon taxes are made in the context of tax neutrality: raise taxes in one area; decrease them elsewhere (e.g., on labor). Charging a carbon tax does not automatically mean giving the government more money to spend.

...there's over $500 billion of pork in the military, and hundreds of billions not being collected or undertaxed on millionaires and billionaires, and corporations.  Why not say, we will put up lots of solar and wind, as Germany does but more, and construct huge train systems, and take the money out of the Pentagon and superrich?  Then 99% of people won't get their taxes raised, you won't even need subsidies because the government just builds the infrastructure, bada-bing, your on the road to a sustainable society.

Jon Rynn wrote: there's over $500 billion of pork in the military

Are you meaning to suggest cutting the military budget to zero?

...to mothball most systems, have a crew available, a small miliatary capacity, then use it to protect fish in the sea and trees in the rainforests

What would you suggest be done with the nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, nuclear-powered nuclear-armed submarines, and the nuclear-warhead and missile stockpiles and land-based launch complexes?

What would you suggest be done with the nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, nuclear-powered nuclear-armed submarines, and the nuclear-warhead and missile stockpiles and land-based launch complexes?

Unlike civilian electricity, those are meant to be deadly.

...which President Kennedy actually proposed in the early 1960s.  See how nicely environmental issues are inextricably intertwined with everything else!  So, we would work with Russia and other nuclear states to dismantle as many nuclear weapons as possible, mothball whatever else seemed possible (such as most aircraft carriers, they are enormously expensive and fuel-intensive and are simply used to push Third World countries around, at least, most of them), and keep a few around in port for emergencies -- like scaring bottom trawlers.

...Nucbuddy, I don't understand, I explicitly said $100 billion for a military.  That would probably still be the world's biggest (we presently spend half yes, that's right, half -- of the world's military expenditures).  I think Sandoval's sentiment is the correct one, and obviously $100 billion is politically impossible right now, but we should be moving in that direction.  It's mostly a fat piece of pork just waiting to be used for something constructive.

so if China's GDP is officially 2.5 trillion, let's double that because their currency should arguably be twice the value it is, so let's say their military would then be around $180 billion.  Last I checked, most experts thought they were incapable of invading Taiwan, much less giving the U.S. problems.  If they want to waste their money, that's their business.

I didn't even check the everyone-the-administration-gangs-up-on-us, you've got to be kidding.  Anyway, we have so much equipment that just keeping it in operating condition and having a plan to rev it back up would be all you would need even if the entire planet ganged up on us.

Ron how much of the taxes on gasoline in europe is spent to purchase and subsidize plugin hybrids?  Even 1%?  Highly doubtfull.  More likely it is wasted on boondoggles.  

Why do european auto makers build smaller, higher mileage cars?  Because they are not in the oil business.  US automakers are in the oil business.  their boards are virtually identical in car mileage policy to the boards of big oil corporations.  They fight higher mileage standards with bribery on a monumental scale.

You have to remember just how far from reality carbon taxers and nukers are to appreciate my bluntness.  They call you a socialist, you call them a commie.

When training a mule one needs to first hit it between the eyes with a 2 x 4 to get it's attention.  there never was a more mule like human than buddy or sunny.  

Now sunny has unlinked stories about single handedly stopping Clinton from bringing on nuclear armageddon?  We get to listen to clinton haters here now with unverifiable crazy stories.  Gee I hope rush comes by too.

"Almost all serious calls for carbon taxes are made in the context of tax neutrality"

Perhaps you are not familiar with the version of the US government that dissappeared 9 billion dollars in 100 dollar bills into Iraq on C-130 transport planes.

Forget about voters trusting these so-called "serious calls".  Voters in the USA no longer trust any sort of promises to spend raised taxes wisely, period.

First take the money wasted on subsidies to big oil, coal, nuclear, and fuel farming away.  Use that money to subsidize energy sources that reduce carbon.  Don't ask for more taxes while wasting the taxes already collected now on Iraq and halliburton.

Maybe voters would then trust the government to raise their taxes?  But I doubt it even then.

Zero trust Ron.  Is that getting through to you.  Zero Ron.  Lied into war over oil, 100s of billions wasted.  Zero.  Got it yet?

No new taxes Ron.  Got it?  

Not yet huh?  didn't think so.  Hehehey.

Think about what 9 billion in 100s looks like being loaded on a c-130 with forklifts.  think long and hard.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

But I do think that voters are smart enough to understand a package of tax reform -- backed up with information on how it would affect people of different income brackets -- that involved an increase in fuel taxes and a reduction in income tax.

In any case, Dr. X, you keep talking about subsidizing this or that. Whence comes the money to pay for those subsidies? Taxes, and currently mostly taxes on the income of individuals and corporations.

As for Europe, when the current fleet of new vehicles already get such good gas mileage, why would subsidizing the production and purchase of plug-in hybrids be the best use of revenues from its gasoline and diesel taxes? In any case, revenues from fuel taxes (in most European countries) are not earmarked: they go into general revenues (as they should). So governments have to decide weigh up all kinds of priorities when spending. In Paris, the government is spending quite a bit of money on increasing its bicycle-path network (and fleet of public bicycles), and building new tram lines. At the national level, the French government continues to extend its TGV (bullet-train) network. The point is, these transport options are more viable precisely because the alternative -- the private motor car -- is expensive (compared with the USA), because fuel taxes are so much higher.

Well, frankly I don't think the government is very good at picking technologies.

Thats why one of the best things they can do is give out rebate subsidies based on product performance.

Makes it easier for new technologies to sell.

Not so much picking technologies as picking companies.

Usually thats a matter of who you know, not what you can do.