$3 gas prices, where is the outrage?

Originally posted by Palynka
So you don't believe private enterprise can do better than the state in researching alternatives?

You should discuss this with Wajoma. It would be EPIC!

Research alternative? I thought we already had alternatives.

The bottom line is that energy is a national security issue and as such, the government should make sure that their national security needs are met.

Originally posted by whodey
Research alternative? I thought we already had alternatives.

The bottom line is that energy is a national security issue and as such, the government should make sure that their national security needs are met.

But it should not undertake measures that would increase energy efficiency? You're not making a lot of sense, whodey. And you just argued for the abolishment of government.

Originally posted by whodey
Research alternative? I thought we already had alternatives.

The bottom line is that energy is a national security issue and as such, the government should make sure that their national security needs are met.

You seem to be very resistant to the idea of "free market solutions" on this topic. You want direct government involvement. Is there a reason you don't trust the free market to come up with effective solutions?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
But it should not undertake measures that would increase energy efficiency? You're not making a lot of sense, whodey. And you just argued for the abolishment of government.

No, I did not argue for the abolishment of government. What I am arguing is that it makes more sense finding alternative energy than it does trying to make our current energy more "efficient". Case in point is the concept of "clean coal". Even if you were to reduce its carbon emissions, it is the dirtiest of offenders. Another is the continued reliance on foriegn oil. Sure, you could reduce consumption, but you are still held hostage to OPEC.

I suppose the biggest difference is that I favor programs that create jobs in the US. You know, like drilling for oil and natty gas in the US or building nuclear power plants or building solar panels, wind mills, etc etc. It not only creates jobs, it provides energy sources at home rather than abraod. From the other perspective, what they want is a large pot of money to do with how they want. So if this means research for pie in the sky alternatives for an indefinate number of years then so be it. Or if it means making its proponents rich beyone their wildest dreams then so be it. At least with my way of doing things there would be light at the end of the tunnel. With my appraoch increased energy costs would go directly towards inveseting in alternative energy. Then at some point those alternate energy sources would REPLACE foriegn oil. Using either plan, I suppose you could argue that higher prices would curb use.

Of course, the biggest arguement for cap and tax would be that its main focus is reducing carbon emissions. I would argue, however, that carbon polluters would simply export themselves to the third world thus losing more jobs. I would also argue that cap and tax may reduce cabron emissions more short term, however, long term my plan would be the best because at some point carbon free alternatives would take over. You would then have the best of both worlds which is more jobs at home and cheaper energy which is carbon free by in large.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
You seem to be very resistant to the idea of "free market solutions" on this topic. You want direct government involvement. Is there a reason you don't trust the free market to come up with effective solutions?

What has the free market produced in Europe with cap and tax?

Economically speaking, the free market will find the best solution. However, when other factors are entered into the equation, such as national security/carbon emissions, then the government is needed to reverse course. That is why cap and tax is proposed, however, I would argue that it will do extensive damage to an already ailing world economy as well as be ineffective at reducing emissions like they would like to see done. In fact, from what I hear China is on a path to outpace the US at some point with carbon emissions.

Originally posted by whodey
No, I did not argue for the abolishment of government. What I am arguing is that it makes more sense finding alternative energy than it does trying to make our current energy more "efficient". Case in point is the concept of "clean coal". Even if you were to reduce its carbon emissions, it is the dirtiest of offenders. Another is the continued reliance on ...[text shortened]... m my plan would be the best because at some point carbon free alternatives would take over.

You did say that abolishing taxes (and therefore government) maximizes economic output, so what did you mean by that?

I have no objection to drilling for more oil and gas, but reducing the use of fossil fuels will also reduce foreign dependence on oil.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You did say that abolishing taxes (and therefore government) maximizes economic output, so what did you mean by that?

I have no objection to drilling for more oil and gas, but reducing the use of fossil fuels will also reduce foreign dependence on oil.

I never said that we should abolish taxes, rather, I am simply saying one should not lose sight of the fact that lower taxes stimulate economic growth. Therefore, policies should reflect this fact, especially in an ailing economy.

As for drilling for more fossil fuels at home, if the US began to transfer to natty gas it would reduce carbon emissions because it is the cleanest burning of fossil fuels. It would also create jobs in the US which would increase tax revenue which could then be used for alternative fuels and/or research. However, those on the left are fixated with the notion that drilling is "bad" for the environment. In addition, it still is carbon emitting. Therefore, so long as they are in power nothing will change other than telling the American people they are bad for heating and coolilng their homes and driving to work, so just do less of it.

Originally posted by whodey
I never said that we should abolish taxes, rather, I am simply saying one should not lose sight of the fact that lower taxes stimulate economic growth. Therefore, policies should reflect this fact, especially in an ailing economy.

As for drilling for more fossil fuels at home, if the US began to transfer to natty gas it would reduce carbon emissions becau ...[text shortened]... they are bad for heating and coolilng their homes and driving to work, so just do less of it.

Right, so you are saying that abolishing government maximizes economic output.

Originally posted by whodey
But that was the Democrats reaction when "W" was in office and gas hit the $3 level. Now when it happens again a few years later, there is no outcry. In fact, all I get here are people who are singing the praises of $5/gallon gas.

No one is singing the praises of $5.00 a gallon gas.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Right, so you are saying that abolishing government maximizes economic output.

Again, I never said that government should be abolished, rather, I am simply in agreement with the Founding Fathers who advocated for limited governmnet.

Originally posted by whodey
Again, I never said that government should be abolished, rather, I am simply in agreement with the Founding Fathers who advocated for limited governmnet.

Yes, you did, unless you want to retract your earlier statement that lowering taxes increases economic output (or you don't think economic output should be maximized). Feel free to clarify.

Originally posted by bill718
No one is singing the praises of $5.00 a gallon gas.

Are we reading the same thread? Southfast said that gas prices should be at a minimum $5/gallon. Sh76 said that gas prices are too low. In addition, according to the article the left is advocating higher energy prices overall so that the "free market" will find alternatives. What am I missing?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, you did, unless you want to retract your earlier statement that lowering taxes increases economic output (or you don't think economic output should be maximized). Feel free to clarify.

I think that taxation is a necessary evil. Therefore, all effort should be made to minimize it when able.

Originally posted by whodey
I think that taxation is a necessary evil. Therefore, all effort should be made to minimize it when able.

The minimum is zero taxes and zero government. Do you, or do you not, think that lowering taxes increases economic output? If you believe this, economic output will be maximized with no government.

Originally posted by whodey
What is a better alternative than a blind tax on energy? How about a tax that actually mandates investment into solar, wind, or nuclear energy instead of some pie in the sky premise that if you raise costs things will just automatically work out for the best?

Good idea; that's what the bill passed by the House did:

•Requires electric utilities to meet 20 percent of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources and energy efficiency by 2020.
•Invests $190 billion in new clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, including energy efficiency and renewable energy ($90 billion in new investments by 2025), carbon capture and sequestration ($60 billion), electric and other advanced technology vehicles ($20 billion), and basic scientific research and development ($20 billion).
•Mandates new energy-saving standards for buildings, appliances, and industry.

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/06/28/house-narrowly-passes-climate-bill-reaction-roundup/