quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

What it would actually take is a politician with the courage to stop artificially holding fuel prices down.
Allow the unfettered market(sound familiar Republicans?) to actually set the price...alternate ,clean renewable fuel sources wuld than get the push they should get.
Of course such a politician could forget about ever getting re-elected.

Remove all the TAXES government collects on every gallon, and you got a deal.

quote:

I think in this case George Will is DEAD ON about his party and the actual energy situation. And while I am never a real big fan of the conservatives, I think you younger (40s on down) Neocons ought to listen to the various conservative voices that are coming forward to explain how things are ACTUALLY working. There's more sensible men and women coming forward to warn you about these neocon talking heads and bad implementers than I ever thought I'd hear.
If you guys pay attention to THEM, you can get your party working and help do the same for this country. You don't have to give away the ranch. But you can't just sit there pretending Cantor, Ryan , Boehner, et al are DOING ANYTHING besides of course tipping over the SUV and setting it on fire so no one else can get by.
There are still resources within the republican party that Ginrich and subsequent revisionist fucks didn't drive out yet. Use em!

quote:

Me too. I disagree with him, but I've also read his stuff sometimes and said, "Well, that's a good point."

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

What gets to me about this situation is Obama…before you jump with both feet let me explain….It was Bush before him…and Clinton before him…and back to the 1970’s.

During the last gas crisis and the one before….and the one before…and the one before…The reining political party was all for alternate fuel sources… THEN… just as soon as Americans stopped driving and they could not sell gas the price fell and alternate fuel sources were forgotten.

Yes the Republicans were and are the obstruction party when it comes to some sources like wind but Obama should have kept the high gas boogieman in the forefront and made the development of these sources a primary goal of his administration.

Just imagine if he had been on congress from the beginning of his administration how he would look today and how bad the Republicans would look.

Otherwise both parties are idiots that can’t see past their campaign reelection funds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

What it would actually take is a politician with the courage to stop artificially holding fuel prices down.
Allow the unfettered market(sound familiar Republicans?) to actually set the price...alternate ,clean renewable fuel sources wuld than get the push they should get.
Of course such a politician could forget about ever getting re-elected.

Remove all the TAXES government collects on every gallon, and you got a deal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

What it would actually take is a politician with the courage to stop artificially holding fuel prices down.
Allow the unfettered market(sound familiar Republicans?) to actually set the price...alternate ,clean renewable fuel sources wuld than get the push they should get.
Of course such a politician could forget about ever getting re-elected.

Remove all the TAXES government collects on every gallon, and you got a deal.

Those taxes pay for our highways. I don't know about you, but I dislike driving on rutted roads as it can do damage to my car.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

Nice to see some sanity from the Right.

I know you are referring to George Will.

I roll my eye whenever I hear about Allen West:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/392599/july-20-2011/congressional-partisan-rancorv

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/29/allen-west-unloads-on-debbie-wasserman-schultz-again_n_987720.html

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-july-28-2011/republicans-watch--the-town-

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

What it would actually take is a politician with the courage to stop artificially holding fuel prices down.
Allow the unfettered market(sound familiar Republicans?) to actually set the price...alternate ,clean renewable fuel sources wuld than get the push they should get.
Of course such a politician could forget about ever getting re-elected.

Remove all the TAXES government collects on every gallon, and you got a deal.

Those taxes pay for our highways. I don't know about you, but I dislike driving on rutted roads as it can do damage to my car.

Another thing I don't get. Why is cheap gas such a good thing? The cheaper gas is in the US, the more we use, the more money middle east states get. Where did the money to fund Al-Quida come from? Our gas guzzlers!
The IED's that blew up US troops in Iraq? Paid for by Saudi and Iranian groups with gas money. Hummers were killing our troops both in Iraq (not enough armor) and in the US (terrible fuel economy).
For that matter, you know what the first effect of a carbon tax would be? It would make Chinese goods much more expensive to import, meaning a lot of things would get made in the US again. Granted, they would cost more...
But if we all pay 5% more for shirts, and the unemployment rate goes down 5%, isn't it worth it?
Double the gas tax, fix the !@#$% roads and bridges, and the dams and levees while we are at it. Spend the money on our own nation and our own future instead of on another giant mansion for some Saudi prince or funding for some terrorist group...

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967



Remove all the TAXES government collects on every gallon, and you got a deal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967



Not one mention of Clinton's ties to the house of Saud, or Obama's general love of all things Muslim... Just sayin

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

It seems to me it would be easy to require energy providers to be using 50 percent alternative fuel sources in 10 years or suffer tax penalties.
We could also mandate new construction to be green with tax incentives of solar, wind and thermal energy systems.

We could also require auto makers selling in the US to produce electric and hybrid autos at comparable prices to standard vehicles… It is the only way to get the new innovations to the public where they can afford to try them.

There are many easily mandated tax and incentives in many industries that could have us independent of foreign fuel needs in 10 years and with a reasonable cost… It just takes getting past obstructionist politicians and oil interests and do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967



Remove all the TAXES government collects on every gallon, and you got a deal.

And let the roads and bridges what are maintained with that money fall apart.

That is one of the STUPIDEST ideas Ive ever seen posited in PnR.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

It seems to me it would be easy to require energy providers to be using 50 percent alternative fuel sources in 10 years or suffer tax penalties.
We could also mandate new construction to be green with tax incentives of solar, wind and thermal energy systems.

We could also require auto makers selling in the US to produce electric and hybrid autos at comparable prices to standard vehicles… It is the only way to get the new innovations to the public where they can afford to try them.

There are many easily mandated tax and incentives in many industries that could have us independent of foreign fuel needs in 10 years and with a reasonable cost… It just takes getting past obstructionist politicians and oil interests and do it.

Are electric cars really good for the planet though?
I ask for 2 reasons, one is, that the batteries in electric cars are pretty toxic. You are talking a big bank of batteries made of poisonous heavy metals. Disposing of them is not very good for the environment, donno if they can be recycled...
But the other issue is, that electricity has to come FROM somewhere. Now granted, if we increase production of green energy, we will have more power that doesn't require coal, but there is a limited amount of green energy we can produce. That said, increases in electricity use will, of necessity, come from conventional fuels. Generally coal.
So an electric car is basically a coal burning car. However, there is some extra inefficiency built in. After all, the coal is not burnt at the car, but in the electric plant. Once that power is created, it is sent over electric lines, at some loss in power. Then you store it in a battery, which loses some power both in transition and over time. So it is an inefficient coal powered car.
Not saying it is always going to be worse, and certainly a coal powered car can be run on US mines instead of Saudi wells, but...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
It seems to me it would be easy to require energy providers to be using 50 percent alternative fuel sources in 10 years or suffer tax penalties.
We could also mandate new construction to be green with tax incentives of solar, wind and thermal energy systems.

We could also require auto makers selling in the US to produce electric and hybrid autos at comparable prices to standard vehicles… It is the only way to get the new innovations to the public where they can afford to try them.

There are many easily mandated tax and incentives in many industries that could have us independent of foreign fuel needs in 10 years and with a reasonable cost… It just takes getting past obstructionist politicians and oil interests and do it.

Are electric cars really good for the planet though?
I ask for 2 reasons, one is, that the batteries in electric cars are pretty toxic. You are talking a big bank of batteries made of poisonous heavy metals. Disposing of them is not very good for the environment, donno if they can be recycled...
But the other issue is, that electricity has to come FROM somewhere. Now granted, if we increase production of green energy, we will have more power that doesn't require coal, but there is a limited amount of green energy we can produce. That said, increases in electricity use will, of necessity, come from conventional fuels. Generally coal.
So an electric car is basically a coal burning car. However, there is some extra inefficiency built in. After all, the coal is not burnt at the car, but in the electric plant. Once that power is created, it is sent over electric lines, at some loss in power. Then you store it in a battery, which loses some power both in transition and over time. So it is an inefficient coal powered car.
Not saying it is always going to be worse, and certainly a coal powered car can be run on US mines instead of Saudi wells, but...

To partially answer your question.

Yes, the metals in batteries can be recycled.
Electric cars convert chemical energy (coal in your case) to horsepower much more efficiently than the internal combustion engine. The net result is that even if you have to charge an electric car with electricity generated by a coal fired plant, there is less pollution for the same amount of cargo hauling capacity.
The ideal situation would be to charge them from electricity generated by cleaner sources but even in the worst case they're still cleaner.