New at Reason
Ronald Bailey wonders whether Congress will try and "save us" from high gas prices.
Comments to "New at Reason":
The Wine Commonsewer | June 15, 2007, 1:39pm | #
Hope not because the prices have already dropped by 35 cents a gallon from the last time I bought gas here in Sunny So Cal. Under three bucks this morning.Paul | June 15, 2007, 1:44pm | #
mean plowing up 100 million acres of land for fuel each year-an area about the size of California.So, what you're saying is, we finally found a use for California...
Art | June 15, 2007, 1:47pm | #
What has never come up on any of these threads is that the American public, of its own free will, over the last 30 years has spent 100s of billions of dollars on Energy star products, double paned windows, insulating their houses, replacing coal and oil burners with updated gas heaters and water tanks.Never mind the huge amount of time spent separating our bottles from paper and trash or that the SUV I drive now gets better gas mileage that the economy car I bought 12 years ago.
I am sick of people telling us we haven't done anything and need to feel the pain.
We as a people have invested heavily in reducing pollution and waste and the result has been greatly improved water, air and land.
Why are we now being told carbon is toxic and we must be held accountable for our carbon “footprint?"
Carbon, a product essential to life for humans and plants.
So now we must "sacrifice" our entire corn crop to appease the Gaia gods for a less efficient and more wasteful product.
We have to start looking past the screeching from the left and stop justifying this insanity with pseudo science or making believe these are market forces at work.
These are no more market forces than German citizen getting a stylish trend for brown shirts in the thirties.
Stop the insanity stop the lunacy.
Paul | June 15, 2007, 1:54pm | #
What has never come up on any of these threads is that the American public, of its own free will, over the last 30 years has spent 100s of billions of dollars on Energy star products, double paned windows, insulating their houses, replacing coal and oil burners with updated gas heaters and water tanks.Whoa, whoa, whoa, there, tiger. Slow down. You're on a slippery slope. The next thing you're going to suggest is that healthful foods actually exist on the shelf, ready to be purchased by people wanting to seek them out. That they can, if they so choose, quit smoking and... AND, that eating right and exercise may be the best method of getting in shape.
ed | June 15, 2007, 1:56pm | #
Harry Reid (D-Nev.) identified the culprits ... "There is nothing wrong with companies making money," declared Reid. "But..."Yep. Everyone always has a big but.
c | June 15, 2007, 1:59pm | #
Art, what are you ranting about?Why are we now being told carbon is toxic and we must be held accountable for our carbon “footprint?" Carbon, a product essential to life for humans and plants.
Well, becuase we're coming to learn the damage done by carbon emissions. So, fixing or mitigating that damage is going to cost money. The money should come from a tax levied on those who do the damage.
It's great that your SUV is more efficient than the car you bought 12 years ago. You're right that our air and water have improved dramatically in the last generation. But they didn't improve because we spent the last 25 years calling enivronmentalists nazi brownshirts.
Ashley | June 15, 2007, 2:02pm | #
It must be a confounding puzzle to our lawmakers that while plenty of high mileage automobiles are available to drivers today, not everybody wants to buy them.That is an unfair statement. Anyone with 3 children, or needing to transport 3 children, is legally prohibited from owning a small car by the safety seat laws. Some would love to buy/keep a reasonable car but it's illegal to do so.
Genghis Kahn | June 15, 2007, 2:07pm | #
Well, becuase we're coming to learn the damage done by carbon emissions.No. We're learning what the Gaia worshippers like to believe carbon emissions are doing.
Ron Bailey | June 15, 2007, 2:09pm | #
Ashley: Hmmmm. CAFE as an incentive for pollution and population reduction at the same time. A environmentalist twofer! They've even cleverer than I thought.Ron Bailey | June 15, 2007, 2:09pm | #
They're even ....Peewee Herman | June 15, 2007, 2:11pm | #
Ed,Tell me about your big but. Then help me find the x-2000.
Warren | June 15, 2007, 2:14pm | #
Ron,Dude, you're scaring the shit out of me. I better start drinking before I have to go out and get me another trunk trophy.
Art | June 15, 2007, 2:16pm | #
cSo we give our governments tons of money to "fix" the damage. Perhaps you didn't read Ron's current or past articles. The same government who has effectively blocked most avenues to energy improvements are now starting to fix this problem.
No, we did call the enviromentalist lunatics, but they were so cute when they were saving the bald eagles. Now that they are successfully implemting through ligslatures and courts, incredibly short sighted and harmful policies on a problem of questionable importance we are now calling them some thing else.
And no I am not calling them the N word. My implication is that Germans didn't suddenly decide to buy brown shirts because they wanted to but because they felt they needed to in order to keep up with the shifting politics of the time.
tarran | June 15, 2007, 2:16pm | #
How Excessive Government Killed Ancient RomeBy the end of the third century, Rome had clearly reached a crisis. The state could no longer obtain sufficient resources even through compulsion and was forced to rely ever more heavily on debasement of the currency to raise revenue. By the reign of Claudius II Gothicus (268-270 A.D.) the silver content of the denarius was down to just .02 percent (Michell 1947: 2). As a consequence, prices skyrocketed. A measure of Egyptian wheat, for example, which sold for seven to eight drachmaes in the second century now cost 120,000 drachmaes. This suggests an inflation of 15,000 percent during the third century (Rostovtzeff 1957: 471).Read it, and notice the parallels.
Finally, the very survival of the state was at stake. At this point, the Emperor Diocletian (284-305 A.D.) took action. He attempted to stop the inflation with a far-reaching system of price controls on all services and commodities. [10] These controls were justified by Diocletian's belief that the inflation was due mainly to speculation and hoarding, rather than debasement of the currency.
...
Despite the fact that the death penalty applied to violations of the price controls, they were a total failure.
...
In the fifty years after Diocletian the Roman tax burden roughly doubled, making it impossible for small farmers to live on their production.
...taxpayers evaded taxation by withdrawing from society altogether. Large, powerful landowners, able to avoid taxation through legal or illegal means, began to organize small communities around them. Small landowners, crushed into bankruptcy by the heavy burden of taxation, threw themselves at the mercy of the large landowners, signing on as tenants or even as slaves. (Slaves, of course, paid no taxes.) The latter phenomenon was so widespread and so injurious to the state's revenues, in fact, that in 368 A.D. Emperor Valens declared it illegal to renounce one's liberty in order to place oneself under the protection of a great landlord.
In the end, there was no money left to pay the army, build forts or ships, or protect the frontier. The barbarian invasions, which were the final blow to the Roman state in the fifth century, were simply the culmination of three centuries of deterioration in the fiscal capacity of the state to defend itself. Indeed, many Romans welcomed the barbarians as saviors from the onerous tax burden. [15]
Although the fall of Rome appears as a cataclysmic event in history, for the bulk of Roman citizens it had little impact on their way of life. As Henri Pirenne (1939: 33-62) has pointed out, once the invaders effectively had displaced the Roman government they settled into governing themselves. At this point, they no longer had any incentive to pillage, but rather sought to provide peace and stability in the areas they controlled. After all, the wealthier their subjects the greater their taxpaying capacity.
In conclusion, the fall of Rome was fundamentally due to economic deterioration resulting from excessive taxation, inflation, and over-regulation. Higher and higher taxes failed to raise additional revenues because wealthier taxpayers could evade such taxes while the middle class--and its taxpaying capacity--were exterminated. Although the final demise of the Roman Empire in the West (its Eastern half continued on as the Byzantine Empire) was an event of great historical importance, for most Romans it was a relief.
c | June 15, 2007, 2:16pm | #
Genghis, are you seriously trying to dismiss all those who believe damage is being done by carbon emissions as "Gaia worshippers?" If that's the basis of your objection, you've already lost.Cesar | June 15, 2007, 2:20pm | #
Democrats say they want to reduce our demand for foreign oil, and they also want to reduce the number of carbon emissions.Yet, they are against letting gas prices rise, which would be the most effective way of reducing greenhouse emissions and reducing demand for oil.
c | June 15, 2007, 2:22pm | #
The way I see it, taxation in this case should act as a public "hedge". It takes us, the public, off the hook for paying to fix, or suffering from, damage done to our public resources like the environment. If a tax on carbon emissions approximates the cost of the damage or the cost to fix the damage, then we can breath easy knowing that it doesn't matter whether people continue to spew CO2. If they do, then we have the money to fix it. If they don't, then we don't have any money but there's nothing to fix.Warren | June 15, 2007, 2:23pm | #
PW,It's at the Alamo, in the basement.
I know your are, but what am I?
Art | June 15, 2007, 2:32pm | #
"are you seriously trying to dismiss all those who believe damage is being done by carbon emissions as "Gaia worshippers""Maybe because they have been pretty much wrong on every other impending doom issue.
c | June 15, 2007, 2:44pm | #
"They" being "gaia worshippers", those concerned about CO2, or the fictional people you've conflated from those two sets of folks?How can anyone respond to that, except to say "I suppose they're due to be right about something."
Alan Vanneman | June 15, 2007, 3:10pm | #
You go, Ron! You don't know bupkas about the Civil War, but when it comes to oil, you da man! If there were a modicum of justice in this world, if there were a trace, the Democratic "bill" would collapse from the weight of its own stupidity. But the odds are awfully good that that won't happen.R C Dean | June 15, 2007, 3:22pm | #
If they do, then we have the money to fix it.Sure. They're just gonna keep the trillions raised through the carbon tax in a cardboard box somewhere, so its handy in case anyone can ever show any damage done by CO2 emissions.
PeeWee | June 15, 2007, 3:31pm | #
That's my name.Don't wear it out.
Art | June 15, 2007, 3:37pm | #
""They" being "gaia worshippers", those concerned about CO2,"Add in the politicians, the NGOs and the remaining organizations and companies that will be stealing a huge amount of our money "saving the world"
And you have "They"
Art | June 15, 2007, 3:39pm | #
RCNo cardboard boxes, they are responsible people.
They are going to put it in Al Gore's lock box.
Sam-Hec | June 15, 2007, 3:50pm | #
I think somehow this is related:http://www.businessgreen.com/2007/06/opec_biofuel_br.html#comments
"It was always going to happen. Like a lover fearful they are about to get dumped for a younger rival, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) appears to have its scissors poised and ready to cut up the rest of the world's suits unless it stops flirting with those wanton biofuels.
..."
ed | June 15, 2007, 4:09pm | #
Cheer up, everyone.It's Friday, and one day closer to Barbara Boxer's death.
TrickyVic | June 15, 2007, 5:26pm | #
"""Well, becuase we're coming to learn the damage done by carbon emissions."""No we're not. We are being fed a bunch of crap about carbon emission damage. Check out the Great Global Warming Swindle.
This is only part one of eight. I could not find the full video, which was long. I'm sure all the parts can be found
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f8v5du5_ag
joe | June 15, 2007, 5:36pm | #
I came home from vacation today. Five messages on the machine. One of them was from a candidate for the Special Election to fill Marty Meehan's Congressional seat."Hi, I'm Barry Feingold. I think $3 a gallon is too much to pay for gasoline..."
Beep. Buh-bye, Barry.
jh | June 15, 2007, 10:10pm | #
ed said: "Yep. Everyone always has a big but."Speak for yourself. My but is of a moderate size.
Genghis Kahn | June 16, 2007, 5:48am | #
are you seriously trying to dismiss all those who believe damage is being done by carbon emissions as "Gaia worshippers?" If that's the basis of your objection, you've already lost.Yes, that's not a bad summary of my catagorizing. But lost what, and to whom?
You don't know what my basis is for rejecting the theory that CO2 is destroying the universe. Or at least this world.
Now hear this: Gore was wrong. The debate is not over.
A president with any respect and power of persuasion would easily be able to rouse the oil industry into constructing additional refineries--despite the popular wisdom, plenty of locales would welcome them. Instead a corrupt executive branch recently offered )and was forced to revoke) an absurd 8 bil tax break for big and immensely profitable oil firms. Addl refineries are not just a good idea, they are critical for national security---sort of like the currently degraded military. Btw, join me in requesting that Exxon Mobil raise their absurdly low dividend. Enjoy the transfer of wealth to our enemies with these high prices--doubtless a nightmare not on your shallow radarr.
Donaldd | June 17, 2007, 2:19pm | #
Oil companies and other business interests are over charging, Price Gouging, customers and paying lower dividends using the money to pay for political purposes, Lobbyists and PACs.Where do you think Politicians get all those millions from?
Neu Mejican | June 17, 2007, 8:46pm | #
Trickyvic...No we're not. We are being fed a bunch of crap about carbon emission damage. Check out the Great Global Warming Swindle.
You've been duped...
http://curtrosengren.typepad.com/alternative_energy/2007/03/the_great_globa_2.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2032575,00.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
http://reasic.com/2007/03/10/the-great-global-warming-swindle-questions-answered/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Reception_and_criticism
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php
http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html
Really a weak attempt at propoganda more than a science documentary.
Neu Mejican | June 17, 2007, 8:55pm | #
TrickyVic...Cambridge University's response to the GGWS
http://www.btplc.com/ClimateChange/Learnmore/Booksfilmsandsites/gws_scientific_responses.pdf
Scientific Response to “The Great Global Warming Swindle”
Compiled by University of Cambridge Programme for Industry
It is short and to the point.
Neu Mejican | June 17, 2007, 9:02pm | #
TrickyVic,THE GGWS fairs less well than even Al Gore's movie in terms of accuracy...here are some errors in Gore's film detailed by various sources.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=299
http://www.wunderground.com/education/gore.asp
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-06-27-gore-science-truth_x.htm
http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/the-truth-about-al-gores-film-an-inconvenient-truth
Two years ago Toyota built a prototype that was capable of 70mpg. Where are all the cars that can deliver between 50mpg and 70mpg? No auto manufacturer is going to raise the mpg until the oil companies agree upon what that target should be. It is in the oil companies' short term interest to milk every dime out of oil they can, before resources can no longer support the demand. It may be how businesses plan, but it is not how a nation should plan.