I'm not a big fan of social engineering through taxation, but this is an instance where market forces driven by often foolish and wasteful consumption will adversely effect food, transportation and most consumer goods prices in a relatively short period of time at income levels that can least afford it. If I had any confidence in the US public that can afford much higher fuel prices derived purely from market forces to substantially change their material lifestyles I might feel differently about increased taxation, but given many of the posts in this thread seeking more dribbles of oil to resolve an insurmountable problem, my lack of confidence in that public seems justified.

Place a substantial consumption tax on fuel now and direct the revenue to alternative energy sources R&D in a Manhattan Project style effort. The longer we wait, the more economic damage we're going to experience at the consumer level which drives our economy. At some point in the near future we're headed towards much higher fuel prices from market forces and a required general increase in taxes including fuel, which will be traditionally diverted to the general fund for politicians to buy votes through distribution of public money to special interests. By then, there will be no way to correct our consumption level other than economic disaster.

Quite right. As soon as it becomes profitable to go green, they will. In fact, this whole going green thing I think is going to make a lot of people rich.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Like Al Gore. He's teaming with a venture capitalist and bigtime moneyman to make over the $6 trillion global energy business.

I find it troubling that he has a vested financial interest in seeing AGW becoming publicly accepted by the majority of Americans.

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

But of all the possible proposals to do something (or nothing at all) Al Gore's market based proposals are fairly middle of the road and don't really call for much in the way of lifestyle changes or even sacrifices. I would have thought americans would be in favor of the small incremental steps Al Gore has proposed.

And since when do americans criticize people for making money (even if they are convinced it is based in lies or it is harmful to someone else)?

BTW, the majority of americans already accept that AGW is a reality, and they have for quite some time now. Long before Al Gore became the bogeyman for skeptics.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Neither of these are issues with me (well, taking incremental steps is because you know I see issues with the science). My issue with Gore is that he is going around as the preeminent voice of AGW trying to get people on board while he stands to gain financially from it.

I don't buy this at all. For example, wasn't it Gore who just said on 60 minutes that there is going to be a 300 million dollar media campaign for GW? Why is this needed if the majority believes it?

I think the majority of Americans believe warming has happened but I don't think the majority of them think it's from CO2.

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

Bullshit.

There is no more oil.

Geothermal IMO use internal heat of the earth to generate power.

One problem with that is that its not found everywhere, so it would have to be transported. The technology doesnt quite exist yet to make enough energy either. Nuclear however is proven and efficient.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

I don't think western scientists will.. China is already exploring areas where western companies refuse to go.
Demand for chinese recources is insatiable .. they're going to have to invest heavily in exploration and consequentially geoscience. If it happens, I think it will be the chinese who do it.

In the meantime as a supplement geothermal is definently a reality.

Sure, and we already use some geothermal. THe technology simply isnt at the point to make it profitable and efficient. Meanwhile coal, oil and nuclear is. Nuclear is simply the next step towards whatever we find in the future.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Here's an idea: we nationalize the oil deposit in North Dakota, then set up a publicly owned non-stock, non-profit corporation to obtain the oil and refine it into gasoline, then sell the gasoline to our people at cost.

__________________
www.richard-t-osborne.com
www.lonewolfsurvivalist.com

Well, that's an idea.

It's a dumb idea, but it's an idea.


It's time to start looking at long-term solutions.

Like what, for instance?

Alternative sources of energy.

Drastic increases in energy efficiency.

Bad idea, as it would allow unfair competition between the country and private companies. Not to mention its theft of NDs resources.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.