i say raise it to $7, which is about the pain point. the serveral governments should be making a killing off of gasoline – and should have been for the past 35 years. we could fund a lot of transportation projects that way.

oh, i know how it’s done now. i’m talking about changing the structure of gas taxes altogether. the model we use doesn’t even pay for road maintenance, let alone help to fund bigger projects.

don’t get me started on taxpayer subsidies to big oil, or the fact that they’re not paying their corporate taxes.

they should, but they won’t. the oil industry has no interest in cutting their own throats. congress isn’t going to cut their throats, either. note that the u.s. house just cut funding for energy research, while refusing to address subsidies for big oil.

“[the republican proposal] would cut Department of Energy budgets that promoted renewable energy by $1.7 billion — a 23% reduction at a time when the U.S. is in a clean-energy race with China.”

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2052930,00.html

they’ve also proposed cutting the EPA’s budget by a third.

now, who do you suppose benefits from a smaller EPA?

Although i agree in principle that rising gas prices are a good thing

without a good public transportation system

they hurt the poor disproportionately

Raising the price of gas will only bring more profits to the oil companies. And it will only (or mostly) effect those with low income. People, who because of ecomonic reasons are unable to live close to work or a grocery store and with kids and working are unable to take the bus. I know I was one of those families. I suffered, oil execs got richer. Causing hardships for people who already have a difficult enough time is not the way to kick the petroleum habit.

autumn, i’m talking about raising taxes on gasoline; the oil companies don’t get a dime of that money. furthermore, high gas prices tend to get people off of the roads, so oil company profits actually decrease or flatten when prices rise. it might even be their way of controlling u.s. demand.

but with extra tax revenue, governments could subsidize fuel and transportation for low-income wage earners – at least give them some assistance, like food stamps. yes, smitty, those of us with means would subsidize those with fewer or lesser means.

don’t worry: this is just my typical pie-in-the-sky idealism. until politicians get the spine to implement better ideas beyond raw consumerism and whatever the free market will bear, nothing is going to change.

except prices. expect the oil companies to get richer, wage earners to get poorer, and the several governments to continue to starve themselves because of a few selfish, loudmouthed nut jobs.

redblack…

if only could.. would.

smitty…

once again you are awarded a prize for insensitivity.

The addition of SeaHawk tickets was merely facetious…

but gummy bears? that is noteworthy.

“you’re free to buy whatever frivolous, eco-hostile thing you want.”

A friend who drives a 79 Celica once told me the exact same thing. My SUV spews much less crap and gets equal mileage.

Even those almighty hybrid owners should do some dd on how their batteries are made, shipped and assembled – not to mention where the electric car power comes from. The carbon footprint is greater than they think. But, it makes them feel better driving it.

True.

I am getting an electric lawn mower for this summer though – I kind of feel good about that – but moreso because I always felt bad about the noise, not just the pollution. Gas lawn mowers are bad, bad, bad on emmissions though.

redblack…

forum jujitsu only funny if someone laughs

smitty: i hear bad things about the 18- and 24-volt battery mowers. go with A/C power. (hey, we have cheap hydro, right?) not sure what amperage would suit your lawn mowing needs, but my inherited-from-the-previous-homeowner 4.0 HP black and decker does just fine on our typical urban 6000 SF property.