High taxes aren’t used to reduce consumption, they’re used to increase tax revenue.
You sure do like to throw out one-line platitudes that oversimplify complex issues.
Historically, they have also been used to regulate behavior.
In the case of capital gains taxes in the 1980s, raising taxes reduced investment. Cutting the capital gains tax actually resulted in more revenue. When Bloomberg taxed cigarettes in New York, making them $7/pack, a lot of people quit smoking.
Excuse me, but people pay into social security, and those people deserve to get that money back when they retire. When you withdraw your money from your bank account, do you consider that an expense for the bank, or is that your money? Cutting social security is theft. I’ve been working and paying into SS for 25 years. It’s not a charity.
The point was to show, by example, how much energy we buy when we buy a gallon of gas, in terms that can be imagined and understood.
Perhaps I should have found a simpler example for you to wrap your head around. Imagine a litter, like the ones used by rich ancient Romans for transportation, which were carried by slaves (litter-bearers). They probably reached a top speed of 4 MPH. At 4 MPH, how far will a gallon of gas take you? I don’t know, but for the sake of this example, let’s estimate 50 miles. What would it cost you to hire 8-10 strong litter-bearers to carry you that far? That much labor would cost you at least $300, making a $4 gallon of gasoline look like a bargain in comparison.
If you don’t like my examples, come of up with your own. It’s easy (and intellectually lazy) to sit back and take pot shots at other people’s ideas. It takes imagination and intelligence to propose a better idea or a better example. Are you just a nay-sayer or is there a brain in there? If you can do better, prove it.
Americans constitute 5% of the world’s population but consume 24% of the world’s energy. That may be how our culture is currently structured, but that isn’t sustainable. Eventually, our culture is going to have to adapt, like it or not.
The average American consumes as much energy as 2 Japanese people, or 6 Mexican people, or 13 Chinese people.
American culture hasn’t always been this way. My great grandmother walked 5 miles to work, and 5 miles home, after a 10 hour shift. Your sense of entitlement ignores our history, which was built on hard work and sacrifice. Having to ride a bus, or a bicycle, 20 miles to work would not be such a hardship. In fact, bicycling would probably do a lot to improve our overall health.
What people deserve and what the law says are two different things. It’s not your money, it’s a tax, and it’s gone. Congress can cut off ALL Social Security payments tomorrow if they want to.
Your great grandmother? My ancestors used to make things out of ROCKS because that was all they had. Your great grandmother had it easy.
We also do not live in dirt floor poverty like many of the countries (or much of them) you mention.
We also produce (though not as much as we did before, china, and a huge part of asia is making it’s move) much of the worlds output of goods as well.
We might consume a lot, but the saying ‘it takes money to make money’ fits here. America is not just a black hole.
Why is it bad to take what you need? someone will always say you take too much, always. It may not be sustainable, but when things run out, we will adapt. Why must we crucify ourselves now for what might happen? We didn’t go through those hardships becasue we felt like it. we did what we had to do, thats how we became great. We didn’t let someone say we couldn’t have something, becasue it might hurt someone else, or that what we were doing would be unsustainable. when something does not work, we moved on.
Call it entitlement, or call it progress. Rotting food, dirt floors and many other things have gone the way of the past, not becasue we feel entitled to it, but becasue it is part of our progress.
We did things the hard way becasue there was NO other way. not becasue it was the most efficent.
Be serious! Has Whitey been on the planet in the past decade? The political climate, any weather condition, or whatever’s always been used to immediately drive up the cost at the pump. However, when the issue’s resolved/goes away the cost at the pump doesn’t go down to the same level.
It’s as if someone’s driving the cost of gas up a dollar, letting it go back thirty cents. Then after time passes, raising the cost of gas up a dollar.
While I can feel for the people going through hard times, their plight doesn’t cause the price of gas to change.
There’s a way to get all the luxuries in life without being a glutton about it.
We waste a lot more energy then we should…actually we Americans waste a lot more of everything…
While I can feel for the people going through hard times, their plight doesn’t cause the price of gas to change.
YET…it eventually will. And if you were driving through the 70’s you would have seen how much influence the people actually had.
Sad. Disheartening. Depressing. Disparaging. Appalling. Frightening. Just some of the words that come to mind reading this post and replies.
For those who think $6/gal gas is a bargain, do you also think $23/gal milk; $13/loaf bread; $29/pound lunch meat; $43/pound dry cereal; $39/pound fish; $22/tube toothpaste; $43/gal dish detergent; $400/pound olives; $450/gal baby formula or $120/60pk diapers are a ?bargain?? If you answered ?no? to the bargain question, understand the fact that $6/gal gas prices will result in the cost of everything else you buy increasing by 350-550%. Are you comfortable with your current electric bill ? how much of a bargain would it be if it was 4 times higher? How much of a ?bargain? will it be when having a new roof put on your house jumps from $6,500 to $23,000? Or replacing your $700 refrigerator costs you $2,400? Hey, it?s car talk, how about paying $3,600 for four new tires to go along with your $6/gal bargain gas?
I find it utterly amazing as to how many people have absolutely no clue how the price of energy directly effects every single thing they purchase!
Why is it bad to take what you need?
That’s the problem. We’ve taken more than we need, and now some people act like they are entitled to continue to do so.
It may not be sustainable, but when things run out, we will adapt.
…and the necessity for that adaptation is upon us.
High fuel prices are not being forced upon us because of some conspiracy created by the system. High fuel prices are reacting to market forces, which simply require us to begin adapting.
We can do things your way, and wait to adapt until things get really bad, and it becomes really painful, or we can think ahead, and start adapting now. Some people see a tsunami coming and say, “I’ll deal with it when it gets here.” I prefer a more proactive approach.
Yup…When the price of energy costs go up…so does food, construction…and many other things.
What ALSO happens is people/companies start to look for other ways to cut energy costs.
Here’s a couple examples…
One company has a new(newer) building built about 10 years ago that uses NO lights during the day when it’s sunny. They have these solar tunnels that route the sun to all the offices through very vary large tubes that are very much like fiber-optics.
The invention of compact florescent lights came about to save energy (and it does.).
Necessity is the mother of invention. It’s not going to get invented until it’s needed.
Oh, yes, the CFL a/k/a TML’s (Toxic Mercury Lamps) that require more energy and materials to manufacture and ship from China to the US than they could “potentially” save IF they were left on 24/7 and lasted 18 years. Those TML’s are really making a show though, surface water and soil mercury levels are ever increasing - they’re producing the same results as the massive water contamination thanks to the worthless government mandated use of MTBE in gasoline. Let’s not forget that just 7% of a TML is recyclable if one was to expend 30 times more energy to recycle it than it costs to produce the lamp in the first place. Oh, let’s not forget the additional 140% more packaging material required for TML’s! There’s invention for ya! TML’s are about as good an idea as expending 40% more energy to produce ethanol that is 20% less efficient than gasoline while the cost of food grain goes through the roof.
Centuries ago people built buildings to make the best use of sunlight too, they were called “windows” but to save on heating and cooling costs, companies did away with them because it was far more efficient to use cheap electricity. But, since we no longer have cheap electricity because we haven’t built any nuclear power plants and the greenies prevented the implementation of low-impact hydroelectric and the greenies prevented the implementation of biogas generators and waste mitigation co-generation facilities, now we have to expend far more energy and use thousands of tons more oil to produce new gadgets to take the place low-cost environmentally-friendly windows.
Simple solution. Anyone who lives within a 1/2 mile walk of a mass transit option should have to pay a $1,000/mo “lazy tax” if they want to have a POV - they don’t “need” a car so if they “want” one, let 'em offset the costs for everyone else. How about an electronic gadget tax too, let’s go after all those energy eaters like the x-box, TV’s, DVR’s and all the other unnecessary energy loads. Just imagine how much energy we could save if we just turn off all those wasteful street & parking lot lights - that’ll give people a good incentive to go buy a wind-up or shaker flashlight. We’ve got voice & video over IP, let’s cut the number of passenger air flights by 50% and for those who still insist on flying, tax 'em $300 per flight so they’re really only using it when they absolutely “need” to.
Oh, I’m with ya man, things won’t happen until we make 'em happen. Why do we have all those people in NYC complaining about the snowfall … all those idle hands, look at how much fuel would be saved and how much healthier people would be if they just learned to use a shovel. Let’s do this!
Yes, that is a valid point. However, jacking up the price of gas to force us to switch is not helping anyone. There is plenty of oil for everyone. They simply need to adjust supply.
There is the point that to get people to adapt things must be painful.
Figuring out what to do when ‘the oil runs out’ (which I do not belive will happen JMHO) is a good thing, but there is a larger issue here.
The way america is set up, many of the people MUST have a car to get to work (it’s not a choice or something they just want). Many times the wages in one area do not support living in that area, so people live out and commute in. My father had to do this, he was a carpender for many years, and could not afford to live in the areas he was working in, plus he changed jobsites sometimes monthly. Using a bus system is not feasable, a 30 minute commute turns into a 2 hr commute on the bus.
There is no alternitive to america’s problem (and yes, I agree that it is a problem). all of our contry is set up for cars, commuting and the american dream of the suburbs.
You can thank the big three for making america like this, and big oil for keeping us this way.
Think about it. It is a huge profit making machine. the big three sell cars, and the big oil sells us everything we need to keep it up.
If I was them I would protect my monopoly. how can they lose? they have made the country dependent on them.
sure we can go onto alternitive energy and maybe cobble something together and save ourselves. Or we can restructure the entire country so a mass transit system can work.
Or, we can force gas prices down, and at least until we get our country out of debit, and then gradually move towards something that is better. either more fuel effecent, or some other power source.
but right now, things are working, and abandoining them becasue ‘something’ ‘might’ happen is just plain silly. It reminds me of a this 2012 junk, and just like 2000, it will be nothing.
I agree that we should have other options ready, but right now we are not doomed, we simply need to keep gas prices reasonable for americans. By force if needed. We cannot let some corperation hobble america. (this is why we have antitrust laws).
surface water and soil mercury levels are ever increasing
Where did you hear that??? Show me. The amount of Mercury in one of the compact florescent bulbs is MINUSCULE.
I hate to tell you this, but florescent lights have been around for YEARS…
And in 5 years they may be replaced by the new LED lights which are much more efficient.
Centuries ago people built buildings to make the best use of sunlight too, they were called “windows” but to save on heating and cooling costs, companies did away with them because it was far more efficient to use cheap electricity
I have a window where I work…And many buildings do…but MOST people don’t have access to light…Most peoples offices are on the interior…And during the winter months I get to work before light and leave after sunset.
all those idle hands
What idle hands???
We waste more than other countries, true. But we also live better than many other contries.
if you have nothing, you can’t waste it.
and when you have nothing, anyone that has anything is a glutton, to you.
You know fuel costs too much when you stop buying it…Until that point is reached, it’s not too much…
Mercury data - US & States’ EPA/DEP (also note the biggest bio-polluters are municipal governments, primarily waster water & garbage ? that thanks to a combination of the greenies living off govt grants and govt employee unions) The amount of mercury per ?lamp? (a ?bulb? goes on the end of a clown horn) is hardly minuscule, it may seem like a small amount in compared to other things but it?s enough to contaminate a potable water well and raise the soil mercury levels well above EPA safe limits. Irresponsible people dispose of those Toxic Mercury Lamps improperly and as that garbage juice drips out of the truck going down the road, it?s spreading mercury contamination all over the place. When it rains, mercury is carried from trash bags and roadways into the soil and waterways. Yes, florescent lamps have been around for years and I?m sure you?ll also note they are rarely used in residential applications and commercial users are well aware of the proper disposal methods so as to avoid being fined. Contrary to the Toxic Mercury Lamps (curly fry lamps) that are only 7% recyclable at an energy use and cost well in excess of the return, standard florescent tubes are 99% recyclable in an energy and cost effective manner. LED lamps are quite unique in that 99% of their construction requires materials made from OIL and they?re 0% recyclable while producing less usable light than the Toxic Mercury Lamps that produce just 28% usable light ? to put things in a little contrast, 93% of the light output of a standard clear incandescent lamp is usable and they?re 100% recyclable in an energy and cost effective manner. Furthermore, the amount of energy and oil used to produce an LED lamp greatly exceeds its potential energy savings in-use even when using the most generous lifespan ?estimates?. Just a little FYI, a private company has produced an incandescent lamp that runs with greatly reduced energy requirements and heat output, it?s >99% recyclable, can be produced for just $0.16 each and does not contain any toxic materials!
I go start work well before sunrise and quit well after dark year-round so what?s your point? We wouldn?t need to worry about burning lamps to work under if we utilized cheap renewable energy from low-impact hydroelectric, utilized the east, west and great lakes coast lines for wind farms, allowed the construction of waste mitigation co-generation plants and nuclear power plants. The city of Chicago alone burns more than 315 million kilowatt hours of electricity costing in excess of $20 million every year just on street lighting ? that doesn?t include all the manpower, materials and energy required to install and maintain all those fixtures. Over 40,000 homes can be lighted, heated and cooled for an entire year using just the amount of energy that?s wasted by the city of Chicago alone, add that up for every city and town across the US. Speaking of Chicago, they installed LED stop lamps to ?save energy? but the LED?s got covered with snow which not only required sending out manpower and trucks to clear the snow from the lamps but also resulted in causing a fatal traffic accident … so where was the alleged ?savings?? How about the great NYC blunder, replace fixtures that cost $160 with LED fixtures costing $1650; replace a $0.65 incandescent lamp that burns $73 in electricity and cost $11 in maintenance per year with a $200 LED lamp that burns $57 of electricity and cost $96 in maintenance per year. Add the numbers and the incandescent lamps cost $245 to install, use and maintain for the first year and a total of $85 for every year thereafter. First year on the LED?s costs $2003 and $153 for every year thereafter ? hard to call spending $68 more per year per light a ?savings?!
All those idle hands … the roughly 5 million people in NYC who do not work. And what?s so wrong with the working people pitching in? In the rural parts of the country people work from 8 to 16 hours per day and still manage to shovel their own snow before and/or after work. With the amount of manpower sitting on their duffs in NYC, a foot of snow should be cleared in an hour or two without expending anything more than human energy.
What I think we should be willing to “pay/sacrifice” is the 70mph speed limit on interstate travel. One of the results of the 70’s fuel crisis was the 55mph speed limit to reduce fuel consumption. I hate being on I-90 doing 65 in my Honda Accord getting 38mpg, while I am being passed by SUV’s doing 80 most likely getting less than 10mpg!