$10 a barrel- driverless cars

[homersapien 11,373]

Obama believes that carbon based fuels both in finding, producing and using are polluting the Planet. He is correct it does cause pollution but what he doesn't take into consideration is the impact on the world if we go green before it is economically viable.

Good intentions without a coherent plan to correct a problem often creates a new set of problems that are often worse then the existing problems. The government decides which technology to subsidize basically stopping research on other promising areas. Cheap energy provides heating and cooling, allows manufacturing all of these things help in providing jobs. Cheap energy helps everybody not just the rich.

Coal is a dying industry it doesn't need government intervention to kill it. Cheaper less polluting energy like natural Gas that has been made available via fracking is killing coal. For people in the coal belt without Government intervention as new Electric plants are built they will use natural Gas as it is cheaper per Kilowatt over time the older coal plants will shut down. This not even taking into account Wind and Solar are starting to have with their price point being lowered through the use of better technology.Without government intervention the coal belt will have time to slowly overcome the reliance on coal jobs. Government intervention can cause a complete collapse of the Industry. Causing a tremendous hardship in this part of our Country.

Solar and Wind energy due to technological breakthroughs has become competitive with Natural Gas and cheaper then coal. They have issues to overcome the ability to store energy when wind isn't blowing or sun not shining or a National Power Grid where one form of cheap energy can be shipped to an area where needed. Green Electric Energy is becoming a viable option because there is a need for it and that need is being addressed through scientific research that is improving the product so that it can compete on its own merits. Government Intervention is not needed the open marketplace will find real winners and we will eventually be green.

Electric cars are very expensive one because not enough cars are being produced to take advantage of mass manufacturing, expensive battery packs that have limited range, slow recharge times and must be replaced about every three years which is an added cost to the consumer. Again Science will address these issue. In the last few years various groups like Berkley Labs have announced various breakthrough's. Unlike in the past where breakthrough's were announced and then never came to fruition. Some of these breakthrough's are showing the ability to scale, to be cheaper then curent batteries, have longer ranges, much quicker recharging capability and a much longer lifespan. We are probably looking at 3-10 years before these are being used commercially. Once these batteries are available the demand for electric cars will increase and as more cars are built the cost of the car will come down. Capitalism works Green will win out as it becomes cheaper, more efficient and allows improved quality of air and water in the world.

An electric engine is lighter then Internal Combustion engine has less moving parts to be replaced, uses direct drive to the wheels so has quicker, steadier acceleration. Then we will have a new quandary how will we pay for our roads. The road Infrastructure in the US is deteriorating. One of the key reasons is as cars get more miles per gallon people are spending less on gas per mile driven so gas taxes have not been able to keep up with miles driven. How will we tax Electric cars or the Electricity they use to pay for upkeep of our road systems.

My problem with individuals and the government pushing green energy isn't that I am against green energy it is I believe their intervention is often counterproductive. When a technology is ready for prime time it will take off without the people on Capital Hill trying to decide who has the best energy based on who donates the most money to their campaign chest.

We cannot afford climatically to use all of the available known reserves of carbon-based fuels. We cannot wait until there is enough of an economic incentive to make the switch "naturally" from an economic standpoint. After all, even at a break-even price, you would still have the cost of infrastructure change.

Bottom line, I don't see any other option other than forcing that change to happen faster with some sort of economic control or influence.

Applying a $10.00/barrel tax now, while prices are low, seems like a no-brainer to me.

[AURaptor 1,123]

We can wait, and adding yet more taxes on a product that the govt makes a killing off of in windfall tax revenue is completely insane.

A "no brainer " ?

Couldn't have put it better myself !

[homersapien 11,373]

We can wait, and adding yet more taxes on a product that the govt makes a killing off of in windfall tax revenue is completely insane.

A "no brainer " ?

Couldn't have put it better myself !

How long can we wait oh omnipotent one?

And explain how the government "making a windfall" is an issue?

[Guest NC1406]

Obama believes that carbon based fuels both in finding, producing and using are polluting the Planet. He is correct it does cause pollution but what he doesn't take into consideration is the impact on the world if we go green before it is economically viable.

Good intentions without a coherent plan to correct a problem often creates a new set of problems that are often worse then the existing problems. The government decides which technology to subsidize basically stopping research on other promising areas. Cheap energy provides heating and cooling, allows manufacturing all of these things help in providing jobs. Cheap energy helps everybody not just the rich.

Coal is a dying industry it doesn't need government intervention to kill it. Cheaper less polluting energy like natural Gas that has been made available via fracking is killing coal. For people in the coal belt without Government intervention as new Electric plants are built they will use natural Gas as it is cheaper per Kilowatt over time the older coal plants will shut down. This not even taking into account Wind and Solar are starting to have with their price point being lowered through the use of better technology.Without government intervention the coal belt will have time to slowly overcome the reliance on coal jobs. Government intervention can cause a complete collapse of the Industry. Causing a tremendous hardship in this part of our Country.

Solar and Wind energy due to technological breakthroughs has become competitive with Natural Gas and cheaper then coal. They have issues to overcome the ability to store energy when wind isn't blowing or sun not shining or a National Power Grid where one form of cheap energy can be shipped to an area where needed. Green Electric Energy is becoming a viable option because there is a need for it and that need is being addressed through scientific research that is improving the product so that it can compete on its own merits. Government Intervention is not needed the open marketplace will find real winners and we will eventually be green.

Electric cars are very expensive one because not enough cars are being produced to take advantage of mass manufacturing, expensive battery packs that have limited range, slow recharge times and must be replaced about every three years which is an added cost to the consumer. Again Science will address these issue. In the last few years various groups like Berkley Labs have announced various breakthrough's. Unlike in the past where breakthrough's were announced and then never came to fruition. Some of these breakthrough's are showing the ability to scale, to be cheaper then curent batteries, have longer ranges, much quicker recharging capability and a much longer lifespan. We are probably looking at 3-10 years before these are being used commercially. Once these batteries are available the demand for electric cars will increase and as more cars are built the cost of the car will come down. Capitalism works Green will win out as it becomes cheaper, more efficient and allows improved quality of air and water in the world.

An electric engine is lighter then Internal Combustion engine has less moving parts to be replaced, uses direct drive to the wheels so has quicker, steadier acceleration. Then we will have a new quandary how will we pay for our roads. The road Infrastructure in the US is deteriorating. One of the key reasons is as cars get more miles per gallon people are spending less on gas per mile driven so gas taxes have not been able to keep up with miles driven. How will we tax Electric cars or the Electricity they use to pay for upkeep of our road systems.

My problem with individuals and the government pushing green energy isn't that I am against green energy it is I believe their intervention is often counterproductive. When a technology is ready for prime time it will take off without the people on Capital Hill trying to decide who has the best energy based on who donates the most money to their campaign chest.

We cannot afford climatically to use all of the available known reserves of carbon-based fuels. We cannot wait until there is enough of an economic incentive to make the switch "naturally" from an economic standpoint. After all, even at a break-even price, you would still have the cost of infrastructure change.

Bottom line, I don't see any other option other than forcing that change to happen faster with some sort of economic control or influence.

Applying a $10.00/barrel tax now, while prices are low, seems like a no-brainer to me.

Let's apply a little business logic to this topic. Every 25 cent increase in fuel cost will increase cost of all goods delivered to a store where you buy "stuff". This cost will be applied to you, the evil rich people and the poor that are paying for food and goods. Sounds like a regressive tax to me.

Any business that survives looks at their income statement and makes decisions about the future. Obviously adjustments are made due to government regulation. If government regulations promote inefficient practices then we are setting ourselves up to allow other countries to have the leading economy in the world. If that's where we want to go then let's double the bet and raise the tax to 30 bucks a barrel.

[AURaptor 1,123]

Oil companies build the machines that find and then bring up the oil. They transport it, refine it, and get it to market. On top of all that, they pay people to do the work, and after spending all that $, they the must STILL earn a profit pay back their stock holders. The US govt , which does NONE of the hard work or takes any of the risks ( like if a well should turn up dry, for example) STILL rakes in more $ via tax revenue than " BIG OIL " takes in for its " evil " profit.

Tell me how it isn't an issue when the govt takes in far more than its " fair share " ?

[homersapien 11,373]

Obama believes that carbon based fuels both in finding, producing and using are polluting the Planet. He is correct it does cause pollution but what he doesn't take into consideration is the impact on the world if we go green before it is economically viable.

Good intentions without a coherent plan to correct a problem often creates a new set of problems that are often worse then the existing problems. The government decides which technology to subsidize basically stopping research on other promising areas. Cheap energy provides heating and cooling, allows manufacturing all of these things help in providing jobs. Cheap energy helps everybody not just the rich.

Coal is a dying industry it doesn't need government intervention to kill it. Cheaper less polluting energy like natural Gas that has been made available via fracking is killing coal. For people in the coal belt without Government intervention as new Electric plants are built they will use natural Gas as it is cheaper per Kilowatt over time the older coal plants will shut down. This not even taking into account Wind and Solar are starting to have with their price point being lowered through the use of better technology.Without government intervention the coal belt will have time to slowly overcome the reliance on coal jobs. Government intervention can cause a complete collapse of the Industry. Causing a tremendous hardship in this part of our Country.

Solar and Wind energy due to technological breakthroughs has become competitive with Natural Gas and cheaper then coal. They have issues to overcome the ability to store energy when wind isn't blowing or sun not shining or a National Power Grid where one form of cheap energy can be shipped to an area where needed. Green Electric Energy is becoming a viable option because there is a need for it and that need is being addressed through scientific research that is improving the product so that it can compete on its own merits. Government Intervention is not needed the open marketplace will find real winners and we will eventually be green.

Electric cars are very expensive one because not enough cars are being produced to take advantage of mass manufacturing, expensive battery packs that have limited range, slow recharge times and must be replaced about every three years which is an added cost to the consumer. Again Science will address these issue. In the last few years various groups like Berkley Labs have announced various breakthrough's. Unlike in the past where breakthrough's were announced and then never came to fruition. Some of these breakthrough's are showing the ability to scale, to be cheaper then curent batteries, have longer ranges, much quicker recharging capability and a much longer lifespan. We are probably looking at 3-10 years before these are being used commercially. Once these batteries are available the demand for electric cars will increase and as more cars are built the cost of the car will come down. Capitalism works Green will win out as it becomes cheaper, more efficient and allows improved quality of air and water in the world.

An electric engine is lighter then Internal Combustion engine has less moving parts to be replaced, uses direct drive to the wheels so has quicker, steadier acceleration. Then we will have a new quandary how will we pay for our roads. The road Infrastructure in the US is deteriorating. One of the key reasons is as cars get more miles per gallon people are spending less on gas per mile driven so gas taxes have not been able to keep up with miles driven. How will we tax Electric cars or the Electricity they use to pay for upkeep of our road systems.

My problem with individuals and the government pushing green energy isn't that I am against green energy it is I believe their intervention is often counterproductive. When a technology is ready for prime time it will take off without the people on Capital Hill trying to decide who has the best energy based on who donates the most money to their campaign chest.

We cannot afford climatically to use all of the available known reserves of carbon-based fuels. We cannot wait until there is enough of an economic incentive to make the switch "naturally" from an economic standpoint. After all, even at a break-even price, you would still have the cost of infrastructure change.

Bottom line, I don't see any other option other than forcing that change to happen faster with some sort of economic control or influence.

Applying a $10.00/barrel tax now, while prices are low, seems like a no-brainer to me.

Let's apply a little business logic to this topic. Every 25 cent increase in fuel cost will increase cost of all goods delivered to a store where you buy "stuff". This cost will be applied to you, the evil rich people and the poor that are paying for food and goods. Sounds like a regressive tax to me.

Any business that survives looks at their income statement and makes decisions about the future. Obviously adjustments are made due to government regulation. If government regulations promote inefficient practices then we are setting ourselves up to allow other countries to have the leading economy in the world. If that's where we want to go then let's double the bet and raise the tax to 30 bucks a barrel.

The goal is to encourage gradual change which is less disruptive economically.

And yes, the tax would increase everything to some extent. Change is always painful. But it's better to spread that pain out compared to having it occur as an uncontrolled sudden change. The longer we wait, the more painful it will be.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

Big wind generators... I am not against green energy but want it to be smartly applied and don't want the gov to pick the winners and losers because when they pick it usually

is political in nature and their buddies make a ton of money

[homersapien 11,373]

Big wind generators... I am not against green energy but want it to be smartly applied and don't want the gov to pick the winners and losers because when they pick it usually

is political in nature and their buddies make a ton of money

I agree. That's exactly why a general tax on carbon based fuels is a better approach.

[AURaptor 1,123]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

[homersapien 11,373]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

[AURaptor 1,123]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

You are completely and totally and absolutely wrong. It is exclusively picking winners and losers. Let the free market decide, keep the government out of it.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

So are you willing to pay a tax on yourself? You are made of carbon... Look taxing a barrel of oil puts that money into the hands of the government who would then select where to spend that money on. Look at Solendra (SP) how did that work out? O's friends made a killing leaving the ashes on the tax payers. Paying more in taxes is not the answer, or then you would agree with these hybrid and electric cars being taxed because they save gas and don't pay near the same for road repairs, etc... I would like to put solar on my house and a small wind generator but the efficiency vs the cost isn't there yet, when it does I can economically afford to do it. If you were to take more money out of my pocket by putting a larger tax on my gas then I can't afford to do that. Why not encourage a hybrid diesel electric? The gov't doesn't believe in diesel. Why not encourage Nuclear energy over natural gas? Nuclear energy is very efficient and safe and cheap to operate. What we need is a viable plan and roadmap to get to green energy but we don't have one. That is the problem with gov deciding on who wins and loses...by letting gov decide you let lobbyist dictate their special interests which takes that costs down to the average citizen vice finding a better path to make this work. A viable plan would have an end goal and a pathway to get there. Right now all we have is people spit balling hoping to hit the target in a dark room...to get to green energy we will have to have a holistic plan that includes green, oil, natural gas & nuclear

[homersapien 11,373]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

You are completely and totally and absolutely wrong. It is exclusively picking winners and losers. Let the free market decide, keep the government out of it.

How does a general carbon tax favor a specific alternative?

Why would the free market do anything to make a change from carbon-based fuels without an economic incentive?

[homersapien 11,373]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

So are you willing to pay a tax on yourself? You are made of carbon... Look taxing a barrel of oil puts that money into the hands of the government who would then select where to spend that money on. Look at Solendra (SP) how did that work out? O's friends made a killing leaving the ashes on the tax payers. Paying more in taxes is not the answer, or then you would agree with these hybrid and electric cars being taxed because they save gas and don't pay near the same for road repairs, etc... I would like to put solar on my house and a small wind generator but the efficiency vs the cost isn't there yet, when it does I can economically afford to do it. If you were to take more money out of my pocket by putting a larger tax on my gas then I can't afford to do that. Why not encourage a hybrid diesel electric? The gov't doesn't believe in diesel. Why not encourage Nuclear energy over natural gas? Nuclear energy is very efficient and safe and cheap to operate. What we need is a viable plan and roadmap to get to green energy but we don't have one. That is the problem with gov deciding on who wins and loses...by letting gov decide you let lobbyist dictate their special interests which takes that costs down to the average citizen vice finding a better path to make this work. A viable plan would have an end goal and a pathway to get there. Right now all we have is people spit balling hoping to hit the target in a dark room...to get to green energy we will have to have a holistic plan that includes green, oil, natural gas & nuclear

Organize that response into paragraphs and I'll make the effort to read it.

[AuburnNTexas 7,148]

Obama believes that carbon based fuels both in finding, producing and using are polluting the Planet. He is correct it does cause pollution but what he doesn't take into consideration is the impact on the world if we go green before it is economically viable.

Good intentions without a coherent plan to correct a problem often creates a new set of problems that are often worse then the existing problems. The government decides which technology to subsidize basically stopping research on other promising areas. Cheap energy provides heating and cooling, allows manufacturing all of these things help in providing jobs. Cheap energy helps everybody not just the rich.

Coal is a dying industry it doesn't need government intervention to kill it. Cheaper less polluting energy like natural Gas that has been made available via fracking is killing coal. For people in the coal belt without Government intervention as new Electric plants are built they will use natural Gas as it is cheaper per Kilowatt over time the older coal plants will shut down. This not even taking into account Wind and Solar are starting to have with their price point being lowered through the use of better technology.Without government intervention the coal belt will have time to slowly overcome the reliance on coal jobs. Government intervention can cause a complete collapse of the Industry. Causing a tremendous hardship in this part of our Country.

Solar and Wind energy due to technological breakthroughs has become competitive with Natural Gas and cheaper then coal. They have issues to overcome the ability to store energy when wind isn't blowing or sun not shining or a National Power Grid where one form of cheap energy can be shipped to an area where needed. Green Electric Energy is becoming a viable option because there is a need for it and that need is being addressed through scientific research that is improving the product so that it can compete on its own merits. Government Intervention is not needed the open marketplace will find real winners and we will eventually be green.

Electric cars are very expensive one because not enough cars are being produced to take advantage of mass manufacturing, expensive battery packs that have limited range, slow recharge times and must be replaced about every three years which is an added cost to the consumer. Again Science will address these issue. In the last few years various groups like Berkley Labs have announced various breakthrough's. Unlike in the past where breakthrough's were announced and then never came to fruition. Some of these breakthrough's are showing the ability to scale, to be cheaper then curent batteries, have longer ranges, much quicker recharging capability and a much longer lifespan. We are probably looking at 3-10 years before these are being used commercially. Once these batteries are available the demand for electric cars will increase and as more cars are built the cost of the car will come down. Capitalism works Green will win out as it becomes cheaper, more efficient and allows improved quality of air and water in the world.

An electric engine is lighter then Internal Combustion engine has less moving parts to be replaced, uses direct drive to the wheels so has quicker, steadier acceleration. Then we will have a new quandary how will we pay for our roads. The road Infrastructure in the US is deteriorating. One of the key reasons is as cars get more miles per gallon people are spending less on gas per mile driven so gas taxes have not been able to keep up with miles driven. How will we tax Electric cars or the Electricity they use to pay for upkeep of our road systems.

My problem with individuals and the government pushing green energy isn't that I am against green energy it is I believe their intervention is often counterproductive. When a technology is ready for prime time it will take off without the people on Capital Hill trying to decide who has the best energy based on who donates the most money to their campaign chest.

We cannot afford climatically to use all of the available known reserves of carbon-based fuels. We cannot wait until there is enough of an economic incentive to make the switch "naturally" from an economic standpoint. After all, even at a break-even price, you would still have the cost of infrastructure change.

Bottom line, I don't see any other option other than forcing that change to happen faster with some sort of economic control or influence.

Applying a $10.00/barrel tax now, while prices are low, seems like a no-brainer to me.

Let's apply a little business logic to this topic. Every 25 cent increase in fuel cost will increase cost of all goods delivered to a store where you buy "stuff". This cost will be applied to you, the evil rich people and the poor that are paying for food and goods. Sounds like a regressive tax to me.

Any business that survives looks at their income statement and makes decisions about the future. Obviously adjustments are made due to government regulation. If government regulations promote inefficient practices then we are setting ourselves up to allow other countries to have the leading economy in the world. If that's where we want to go then let's double the bet and raise the tax to 30 bucks a barrel.

The goal is to encourage gradual change which is less disruptive economically.

And yes, the tax would increase everything to some extent. Change is always painful. But it's better to spread that pain out compared to having it occur as an uncontrolled sudden change. The longer we wait, the more painful it will be.

The free market will do it without Government getting involved. Wind & Solar are already getting cheaper as older less efficient plants need to be replaced they will be replaced by gas, wind or solar. With or without a tax on oil wind or solar won't become mainstream until either there is a way to store unused energy created at peak time or until there is a national Grid where Wind from Texas can be sent to an area using solar when it is raining. A $30.00 a barrel tax won't change the economics until the technology is ready to stand on its own. I would love an electric car and I will buy one when it is a useful car. I live in Texas my son plays Rugby we travel from Dallas to Austin or Houston a few times a year to play in games and tournaments. Currently I would need to buy 2 cars one for any trip over 100 miles and an electric car for around town.

Those hurdles are to big to overcome with a wasteful tax policy that just gets passed on to the consumer but doesn't really address the fundamental issues with the Green technology. Please don't say we will take that money and put it into research because that means that our very knowledgeable and efficient Federal bureaucracy will decide who gets the money probably based on who they donated campaign money to.

I am a conservative and I think green is the way to go as do most conservatives despite what many liberals think. The difference is I believe the free market will do it the right way and will resolve the issues that Green Energy has to overcome.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

You are completely and totally and absolutely wrong. It is exclusively picking winners and losers. Let the free market decide, keep the government out of it.

How does a general carbon tax favor a specific alternative?

Why would the free market do anything to make a change from carbon-based fuels without an economic incentive?

The economic incentive is consumer driven. If you make a diesel electric tractor trailer that is cheaper to operate than current ones but might cost slightly more but have better performance, you would sell a ton of them. I would buy a diesel electric car (I know Toyota made a prototype that got 100 miles a gallon). Would you buy a car that cost around 30K that got 100mpg? I would. I would also like solar panels that are efficient and what I don't use in power I could sell back to the electric company (although I can't sell back in my state yet). There are many of these things that would drive the market....but right not it isn't that viable...ethanol was forced on us and it drove the price of corn up...

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

So are you willing to pay a tax on yourself? You are made of carbon... Look taxing a barrel of oil puts that money into the hands of the government who would then select where to spend that money on. Look at Solendra (SP) how did that work out? O's friends made a killing leaving the ashes on the tax payers. Paying more in taxes is not the answer, or then you would agree with these hybrid and electric cars being taxed because they save gas and don't pay near the same for road repairs, etc... I would like to put solar on my house and a small wind generator but the efficiency vs the cost isn't there yet, when it does I can economically afford to do it. If you were to take more money out of my pocket by putting a larger tax on my gas then I can't afford to do that. Why not encourage a hybrid diesel electric? The gov't doesn't believe in diesel. Why not encourage Nuclear energy over natural gas? Nuclear energy is very efficient and safe and cheap to operate. What we need is a viable plan and roadmap to get to green energy but we don't have one. That is the problem with gov deciding on who wins and loses...by letting gov decide you let lobbyist dictate their special interests which takes that costs down to the average citizen vice finding a better path to make this work. A viable plan would have an end goal and a pathway to get there. Right now all we have is people spit balling hoping to hit the target in a dark room...to get to green energy we will have to have a holistic plan that includes green, oil, natural gas & nuclear

Organize that response into paragraphs and I'll make the effort to read it.

That is your problem...no effort take the easy way out...

[AuburnNTexas 7,148]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

That tax doesn't change the basic economics. Green energy will win out when it has overcome the hurdles of no storage during peak hours or National Grid to allow sharing of available green resources some times when wind doesn't blow or sun doesn't shine in one part of the country. Currently you have to have enough available fossil fuel generated energy to cover for when local green is not producing during cloudy days.

The tax is not going to cause a change it is just going to make it more expensive for what we are currently getting.

[homersapien 11,373]

Obama believes that carbon based fuels both in finding, producing and using are polluting the Planet. He is correct it does cause pollution but what he doesn't take into consideration is the impact on the world if we go green before it is economically viable.

Good intentions without a coherent plan to correct a problem often creates a new set of problems that are often worse then the existing problems. The government decides which technology to subsidize basically stopping research on other promising areas. Cheap energy provides heating and cooling, allows manufacturing all of these things help in providing jobs. Cheap energy helps everybody not just the rich.

Coal is a dying industry it doesn't need government intervention to kill it. Cheaper less polluting energy like natural Gas that has been made available via fracking is killing coal. For people in the coal belt without Government intervention as new Electric plants are built they will use natural Gas as it is cheaper per Kilowatt over time the older coal plants will shut down. This not even taking into account Wind and Solar are starting to have with their price point being lowered through the use of better technology.Without government intervention the coal belt will have time to slowly overcome the reliance on coal jobs. Government intervention can cause a complete collapse of the Industry. Causing a tremendous hardship in this part of our Country.

Solar and Wind energy due to technological breakthroughs has become competitive with Natural Gas and cheaper then coal. They have issues to overcome the ability to store energy when wind isn't blowing or sun not shining or a National Power Grid where one form of cheap energy can be shipped to an area where needed. Green Electric Energy is becoming a viable option because there is a need for it and that need is being addressed through scientific research that is improving the product so that it can compete on its own merits. Government Intervention is not needed the open marketplace will find real winners and we will eventually be green.

Electric cars are very expensive one because not enough cars are being produced to take advantage of mass manufacturing, expensive battery packs that have limited range, slow recharge times and must be replaced about every three years which is an added cost to the consumer. Again Science will address these issue. In the last few years various groups like Berkley Labs have announced various breakthrough's. Unlike in the past where breakthrough's were announced and then never came to fruition. Some of these breakthrough's are showing the ability to scale, to be cheaper then curent batteries, have longer ranges, much quicker recharging capability and a much longer lifespan. We are probably looking at 3-10 years before these are being used commercially. Once these batteries are available the demand for electric cars will increase and as more cars are built the cost of the car will come down. Capitalism works Green will win out as it becomes cheaper, more efficient and allows improved quality of air and water in the world.

An electric engine is lighter then Internal Combustion engine has less moving parts to be replaced, uses direct drive to the wheels so has quicker, steadier acceleration. Then we will have a new quandary how will we pay for our roads. The road Infrastructure in the US is deteriorating. One of the key reasons is as cars get more miles per gallon people are spending less on gas per mile driven so gas taxes have not been able to keep up with miles driven. How will we tax Electric cars or the Electricity they use to pay for upkeep of our road systems.

My problem with individuals and the government pushing green energy isn't that I am against green energy it is I believe their intervention is often counterproductive. When a technology is ready for prime time it will take off without the people on Capital Hill trying to decide who has the best energy based on who donates the most money to their campaign chest.

We cannot afford climatically to use all of the available known reserves of carbon-based fuels. We cannot wait until there is enough of an economic incentive to make the switch "naturally" from an economic standpoint. After all, even at a break-even price, you would still have the cost of infrastructure change.

Bottom line, I don't see any other option other than forcing that change to happen faster with some sort of economic control or influence.

Applying a $10.00/barrel tax now, while prices are low, seems like a no-brainer to me.

Let's apply a little business logic to this topic. Every 25 cent increase in fuel cost will increase cost of all goods delivered to a store where you buy "stuff". This cost will be applied to you, the evil rich people and the poor that are paying for food and goods. Sounds like a regressive tax to me.

Any business that survives looks at their income statement and makes decisions about the future. Obviously adjustments are made due to government regulation. If government regulations promote inefficient practices then we are setting ourselves up to allow other countries to have the leading economy in the world. If that's where we want to go then let's double the bet and raise the tax to 30 bucks a barrel.

The goal is to encourage gradual change which is less disruptive economically.

And yes, the tax would increase everything to some extent. Change is always painful. But it's better to spread that pain out compared to having it occur as an uncontrolled sudden change. The longer we wait, the more painful it will be.

The free market will do it without Government getting involved. Wind & Solar are already getting cheaper as older less efficient plants need to be replaced they will be replaced by gas, wind or solar. With or without a tax on oil wind or solar won't become mainstream until either there is a way to store unused energy created at peak time or until there is a national Grid where Wind from Texas can be sent to an area using solar when it is raining. A $30.00 a barrel tax won't change the economics until the technology is ready to stand on its own. I would love an electric car and I will buy one when it is a useful car. I live in Texas my son plays Rugby we travel from Dallas to Austin or Houston a few times a year to play in games and tournaments. Currently I would need to buy 2 cars one for any trip over 100 miles and an electric car for around town.

Those hurdles are to big to overcome with a wasteful tax policy that just gets passed on to the consumer but doesn't really address the fundamental issues with the Green technology. Please don't say we will take that money and put it into research because that means that our very knowledgeable and efficient Federal bureaucracy will decide who gets the money probably based on who they donated campaign money to.

I am a conservative and I think green is the way to go as do most conservatives despite what many liberals think. The difference is I believe the free market will do it the right way and will resolve the issues that Green Energy has to overcome.

While the cost of renewable energy is dropping dramatically it is unrealistic to think they will become cheap enough to trigger a transition from carbon-based energy within the time frame required. It is possible - perhaps probable - that renewable energy will become much cheaper that carbon-based energy is today. But for that to happen, renewable energy must enjoy the same market share that carbon-based energy now enjoys.

Again, it is not realistic to expect renewable energy to ultimately provide enough cost incentive to replace our carbon-based infrastructure. That represents a huge "barrier to entry" (in marketing terms).

You describe the problem perfectly with the electric car dilemma. Now imagine an infrastructure built around electric cars. When you need a charge you pull into a service station and drive through process that drops your depleted battery and replaces it with a charged one, sort of like a car wash. It would take less time than filling your tank.

The problem with natural market evolution to such a system is that electric cars offer no benefit to the consumer compared to existing cars and it's far cheaper to simply keep using gas or diesel until there is no more gas or diesel to be had. There is no market incentive to make the transition.

The only reason (incentive) to make the transition is for environmental/climatic reasons. That is not an incentive the market recognizes.

As for funding research, the government is already the major funder of basic research and always will be as there is also no incentive for the market to fund such research.

But if you don't like the idea of the federal government taking in revenue because you feel they will misspend it, then specify how that revenue must be spent. Target it for roads, bridges, infrastructure or to the debt.

[homersapien 11,373]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

So are you willing to pay a tax on yourself? You are made of carbon... Look taxing a barrel of oil puts that money into the hands of the government who would then select where to spend that money on. Look at Solendra (SP) how did that work out? O's friends made a killing leaving the ashes on the tax payers. Paying more in taxes is not the answer, or then you would agree with these hybrid and electric cars being taxed because they save gas and don't pay near the same for road repairs, etc... I would like to put solar on my house and a small wind generator but the efficiency vs the cost isn't there yet, when it does I can economically afford to do it. If you were to take more money out of my pocket by putting a larger tax on my gas then I can't afford to do that. Why not encourage a hybrid diesel electric? The gov't doesn't believe in diesel. Why not encourage Nuclear energy over natural gas? Nuclear energy is very efficient and safe and cheap to operate. What we need is a viable plan and roadmap to get to green energy but we don't have one. That is the problem with gov deciding on who wins and loses...by letting gov decide you let lobbyist dictate their special interests which takes that costs down to the average citizen vice finding a better path to make this work. A viable plan would have an end goal and a pathway to get there. Right now all we have is people spit balling hoping to hit the target in a dark room...to get to green energy we will have to have a holistic plan that includes green, oil, natural gas & nuclear

Organize that response into paragraphs and I'll make the effort to read it.

That is your problem...no effort take the easy way out...

No, actually if you are trying to communicate, it's your problem.

[homersapien 11,373]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

You are completely and totally and absolutely wrong. It is exclusively picking winners and losers. Let the free market decide, keep the government out of it.

How does a general carbon tax favor a specific alternative?

Why would the free market do anything to make a change from carbon-based fuels without an economic incentive?

The economic incentive is consumer driven. If you make a diesel electric tractor trailer that is cheaper to operate than current ones but might cost slightly more but have better performance, you would sell a ton of them. I would buy a diesel electric car (I know Toyota made a prototype that got 100 miles a gallon). Would you buy a car that cost around 30K that got 100mpg? I would. I would also like solar panels that are efficient and what I don't use in power I could sell back to the electric company (although I can't sell back in my state yet). There are many of these things that would drive the market....but right not it isn't that viable...ethanol was forced on us and it drove the price of corn up...

That's pie-in-the-sky thinking. From an engineering standpoint, how do you create an electric long haul truck that's cheaper than a diesel without being able to switch out the depleted battery with a fresh one? It would take too long to charge such a battery. But I expect we will see hybrid trucks in the not too distant future.

You can already buy solar panels and sell back surplus power, at least in some areas. Solar panel companies will pay you rent to install such panels on your land. Much of this technology is available, but it's still not so cheap as to make people buy it purely on economic reasons. But it's coming. Elon Musk is selling a "household battery" which shows the future. I think we will ultimately see a decentralized grid, but it won't happen quickly on it's own.

I agree completely with ethanol. But that's a result of a political effort by the people who produce corn. It's a perfect example of the government picking a preferred technology. Much better to simply make petroleum more expensive and let the market choose alternatives.

[homersapien 11,373]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

That tax doesn't change the basic economics. Green energy will win out when it has overcome the hurdles of no storage during peak hours or National Grid to allow sharing of available green resources some times when wind doesn't blow or sun doesn't shine in one part of the country. Currently you have to have enough available fossil fuel generated energy to cover for when local green is not producing during cloudy days.

The tax is not going to cause a change it is just going to make it more expensive for what we are currently getting.

Of course such a tax changes the basic economics.

Emerging technology is always more expensive than established technology. In a world without the problem of greenhouse gases, the emerging renewable technology wouldn't become competitive until the old carbon-based technology starts becoming more expensive due to scarcity.

The problem is that we cannot wait until that happens. We need to force the change by artificially increasing the cost of carbon-based fuels "before their time". Increasing taxes on carbon-based fuels does exactly that.

[AuburnNTexas 7,148]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

You are completely and totally and absolutely wrong. It is exclusively picking winners and losers. Let the free market decide, keep the government out of it.

How does a general carbon tax favor a specific alternative?

Why would the free market do anything to make a change from carbon-based fuels without an economic incentive?

The economic incentive is consumer driven. If you make a diesel electric tractor trailer that is cheaper to operate than current ones but might cost slightly more but have better performance, you would sell a ton of them. I would buy a diesel electric car (I know Toyota made a prototype that got 100 miles a gallon). Would you buy a car that cost around 30K that got 100mpg? I would. I would also like solar panels that are efficient and what I don't use in power I could sell back to the electric company (although I can't sell back in my state yet). There are many of these things that would drive the market....but right not it isn't that viable...ethanol was forced on us and it drove the price of corn up...

That's pie-in-the-sky thinking. From an engineering standpoint, how do you create an electric long haul truck that's cheaper than a diesel without being able to switch out the depleted battery with a fresh one? It would take too long to charge such a battery. But I expect we will see hybrid trucks in the not too distant future.

You can already buy solar panels and sell back surplus power, at least in some areas. Solar panel companies will pay you rent to install such panels on your land. Much of this technology is available, but it's still not so cheap as to make people buy it purely on economic reasons. But it's coming. Elon Musk is selling a "household battery" which shows the future. I think we will ultimately see a decentralized grid, but it won't happen quickly on it's own.

I agree completely with ethanol. But that's a result of a political effort by the people who produce corn. It's a perfect example of the government picking a preferred technology. Much better to simply make petroleum more expensive and let the market choose alternatives.

The latest research is about having batteries re-charge quickly in the same amount of time that you would fill up a car. One of the reasons research has gone towards fast re-charging is it would not require the same infrastructure upgrade that having to swap out batteries would require. There have been announced breakthroughs with batteries both in range, length of life-cycle, speed of recharging and lowering cost. Most experts believe that we will start seeing these batteries in 3-10 years. Then just need to add Plugs at Stations with a meter for paying for a charge.

There are multiple breakthroughs who will win is still to be determined.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/08/10/nanoscale-yolks-in-batteries/

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/30/hemists-make-super-battery-breakthrough.html

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130380-future-batteries-coming-soon-charge-in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

So are you willing to pay a tax on yourself? You are made of carbon... Look taxing a barrel of oil puts that money into the hands of the government who would then select where to spend that money on. Look at Solendra (SP) how did that work out? O's friends made a killing leaving the ashes on the tax payers. Paying more in taxes is not the answer, or then you would agree with these hybrid and electric cars being taxed because they save gas and don't pay near the same for road repairs, etc... I would like to put solar on my house and a small wind generator but the efficiency vs the cost isn't there yet, when it does I can economically afford to do it. If you were to take more money out of my pocket by putting a larger tax on my gas then I can't afford to do that. Why not encourage a hybrid diesel electric? The gov't doesn't believe in diesel. Why not encourage Nuclear energy over natural gas? Nuclear energy is very efficient and safe and cheap to operate. What we need is a viable plan and roadmap to get to green energy but we don't have one. That is the problem with gov deciding on who wins and loses...by letting gov decide you let lobbyist dictate their special interests which takes that costs down to the average citizen vice finding a better path to make this work. A viable plan would have an end goal and a pathway to get there. Right now all we have is people spit balling hoping to hit the target in a dark room...to get to green energy we will have to have a holistic plan that includes green, oil, natural gas & nuclear

Organize that response into paragraphs and I'll make the effort to read it.

That is your problem...no effort take the easy way out...

No, actually if you are trying to communicate, it's your problem.

I cannot help it if you cannot read a simple paragraph. That would be YOUR problem.

[AuburnNTexas 7,148]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

You are completely and totally and absolutely wrong. It is exclusively picking winners and losers. Let the free market decide, keep the government out of it.

How does a general carbon tax favor a specific alternative?

Why would the free market do anything to make a change from carbon-based fuels without an economic incentive?

The economic incentive is consumer driven. If you make a diesel electric tractor trailer that is cheaper to operate than current ones but might cost slightly more but have better performance, you would sell a ton of them. I would buy a diesel electric car (I know Toyota made a prototype that got 100 miles a gallon). Would you buy a car that cost around 30K that got 100mpg? I would. I would also like solar panels that are efficient and what I don't use in power I could sell back to the electric company (although I can't sell back in my state yet). There are many of these things that would drive the market....but right not it isn't that viable...ethanol was forced on us and it drove the price of corn up...

That's pie-in-the-sky thinking. From an engineering standpoint, how do you create an electric long haul truck that's cheaper than a diesel without being able to switch out the depleted battery with a fresh one? It would take too long to charge such a battery. But I expect we will see hybrid trucks in the not too distant future.

You can already buy solar panels and sell back surplus power, at least in some areas. Solar panel companies will pay you rent to install such panels on your land. Much of this technology is available, but it's still not so cheap as to make people buy it purely on economic reasons. But it's coming. Elon Musk is selling a "household battery" which shows the future. I think we will ultimately see a decentralized grid, but it won't happen quickly on it's own.

I agree completely with ethanol. But that's a result of a political effort by the people who produce corn. It's a perfect example of the government picking a preferred technology. Much better to simply make petroleum more expensive and let the market choose alternatives.

The latest research is about having batteries re-charge quickly in the same amount of time that you would fill up a car. One of the reasons research has gone towards fast re-charging is it would not require the same infrastructure upgrade that having to swap out batteries would require. There have been announced breakthroughs with batteries both in range, length of life-cycle, speed of recharging and lowering cost. Most experts believe that we will start seeing these batteries in 3-10 years. Then just need to add Plugs at Stations with a meter for paying for a charge.

There are multiple breakthroughs who will win is still to be determined. These are just a few of the breakthrough. What is pushing batteries isn't electric cars but cell phones and laptops but the reward is that what works there can be scaled up.

http://www.engadget....s-in-batteries/

http://www.cnbc.com/...eakthrough.html

http://www.pocket-li...er-over-the-air