[Pops]

Biofuels study raises doubts on cost, fossil fuel reduction

The researchers concluded that all of these biofuel mandates combined would reduce fossil fuel use by less than 2.5 percent, or the same amount that a gas tax increase of 25 cents per gallon could achieve, but at an estimated cost of $67 billion compared with a cost of $6 billion with a gas tax.

http://westernfarmpress.com/management/ ... -reduction

[Margarethe]

Well, no one can expect to undo decades of damage done with just a few pennies. It's like a mistake in a wall, you have to take the whole thing off to rectify your mistake if you've already built all of it.
I think the best thing would not be to think about fuel substitutes, alternatives, new sources, etc., but to rethink how to use fuel.

[kiwichick]

running out of time chaps


lots of unhappiness from next april with arctic methane release

[careinke]

The best thing would be to eliminate ALL energy subsidies AND raise carbon taxes to the point where alternates seem the logical way to go.

[AdTheNad]

The best thing would be to eliminate ALL energy subsidies AND raise carbon taxes to the point where alternates seem the logical way to go.

I agree almost entirely, but how does that mesh with your minimal government beliefs, and what happens with the tax revenue?

[careinke]

The best thing would be to eliminate ALL energy subsidies AND raise carbon taxes to the point where alternates seem the logical way to go.

I agree almost entirely, but how does that mesh with your minimal government beliefs, and what happens with the tax revenue?

How about lowering the deficit. Or even better, buy back the treasury notes and burn them.

[AgentR11]

All such cost / benefit studies on this issue are going to suffer a similar fate, due to the multidimensional aspect of this policy. To reiterate, biofuels mandates and subsidies are designed to produce the following effects, in order of importance:

1.) provide a lever between grain price and fuel price, such that we don't end up importing a very expensive commodity, and exporting our own product (grain) for next to nothing. We burn the grain to even up the balance between world demand and world supply (grain); the more we have to burn to reduce supply, also modestly reduces the amount of expensive commodity we import.

2.) provide a consistent level of demand for agricultural producers here; the worst economic problem farming faces in general is that you don't know what the price of your product will be at harvest; with consistent baseline demand available, excess is consumed and internal market prices moderate or rise. This is a good thing.

3.) the reduction in expensive commodity import in #1 improves our balance of accounts / trade deficit, improving the dollar's strength.

An increase in gasoline tax accomplishes none of these without causing people to drive less. If you're a Dem representing a typical Dem district, you mess with how much the lower class slobs in your district can drive, you might as well type up your retirement letter asap, because reelection just became impossible, you'll either lose in the general to the party opposite, or a primary challenger will stick a GAS TAX stamp on your forehead on a billboard and quietly collect your seat and your salary. We need not describe the political devastation that would be visited upon a Republican for such a crime against humanity.

[Outcast_Searcher]

The best thing would be to eliminate ALL energy subsidies AND raise carbon taxes to the point where alternates seem the logical way to go.

I agree almost entirely, but how does that mesh with your minimal government beliefs, and what happens with the tax revenue?

How about lowering the deficit. Or even better, buy back the treasury notes and burn them.

I LIKE it. 100%. Let's do it! So I take it that puts gasoline at what, $8 or $10 a gallon? This, roughly, seems about right to WAKE PEOPLE UP, which is what I think is needed.

Now just two questions. The left, who purports to being all about green will have a FIT about what this will do to poor people (especially those who make poor choices of vehicles, live in the sticks, etc).

1). So do we need a subsidy for the poor to make up for the hardship this will cause, or do we tell them to take the bus, carpool, walk, etc?

2). If we do need a subsidy, where does it come from? Some of the taxes raised from the higher gas tax, or another tax?

[careinke]

The best thing would be to eliminate ALL energy subsidies AND raise carbon taxes to the point where alternates seem the logical way to go.

I agree almost entirely, but how does that mesh with your minimal government beliefs, and what happens with the tax revenue?

How about lowering the deficit. Or even better, buy back the treasury notes and burn them.

I LIKE it. 100%. Let's do it! So I take it that puts gasoline at what, $8 or $10 a gallon? This, roughly, seems about right to WAKE PEOPLE UP, which is what I think is needed.

Now just two questions. The left, who purports to being all about green will have a FIT about what this will do to poor people (especially those who make poor choices of vehicles, live in the sticks, etc).

1). So do we need a subsidy for the poor to make up for the hardship this will cause, or do we tell them to take the bus, carpool, walk, etc?

2). If we do need a subsidy, where does it come from? Some of the taxes raised from the higher gas tax, or another tax?

Simple, you give EVERYBODY a prebate that covers the tax up to the poverty level. This way you untax the poor without giving them special treatment.