PDA

View Full Version : Economics ABC’s Diane Sawyer Pleads for European-style Gas Tax


KILLER_CLOWN
05-21-2009, 03:07 PM
ABC’s Diane Sawyer Pleads for European-style Gas Tax

Scott Whitlock
News Busters
Thursday, May 21, 2009

“Good Morning America” co-host Diane Sawyer on Tuesday aggressively lobbied for the Obama administration to install a European-style gas tax on the United States. Talking to Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, about Obama’s plans for increased fuel standards, she began, “Why not just go to a gas tax, for instance, which would accomplish a reduction in the use of gasoline, dependence on foreign oil right away?” Sawyer would proceed to ask variations on this question six times.

Citing calls for a gas tax by New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, she pressed, “If you really want to change the fuel patterns of this country, and if you want to reduce dependence on foreign oil, not by 2015 or 2016, but right now, there is one way to do it. It’s the way Europe has been doing it. And that is a gasoline tax.” Browner mostly dodged the question and focused on new fuel and environmental standards. Sawyer, however, would not be deterred. She fretted, “Do you think the gas tax approach is right or wrong? Or just politically unacceptable?” Not liking the non-answers, the ABC host argued, “So, no gas tax ever, as far as you’re concerned?”

It soon became clear this would be the focus of almost the entire interview. Sawyer grilled, “I have a feeling we’re in a standoff on this question here. It’s that politically explosive?” After asking one question on another topic, the anchor returned to her quest for higher taxes. She queried, “I’m asking one more time here. If a gas tax reduces dependence on foreign oil and changes the foreign political dependency immediately, why not be for it right now?”

Now, at no time did Sawyer speculate or consider the consequences of raising taxes in a recession. She didn’t wonder what effect higher taxes have had on Europe. Instead, she repeatedly pushed the Obama administration to the left, practically begging for higher taxes.



A transcript of the segment, which aired at 7:04am on May 19, follows:

—————————————————————————————————

DIANE SAWYER: Other questions arising this morning. Why not just go to a gas tax, for instance, which would accomplish a reduction in the use of gasoline, dependence on foreign oil right away? One of the questions we posed just a few minutes ago when we talked to Carol Browner, who is the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. Ms. Browner, so good to have you with us this morning. Good morning.

CAROL BROWNER (Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change): Thank you.

SAWYER: First, let me just ask this one. It’s counterintuitive- the time when the car companies seem to be teetering so badly, to be saying to them, okay, retool for some $40 billion or more?

BROWNER: Well, Diane, we worked with all of the car companies and ten of the CEOs will be joining the President here today at the White House. And what they told us over and over again is they wanted to make more fuel-efficient. They wanted to make more cleaner cars. And what they needed was the government to give them the predictability and certainty so that they could make the investments towards cleaner cars. And that’s what the President announces today.

SAWYER: Again, I guess they want the government to ensure that everybody is going to be doing this at once. But let me ask you about what Tom Friedman, the columnist from the New York Times, and others have been saying. If you really want to change the fuel patterns of this country, and if you want to reduce dependence on foreign oil, not by 2015 or 2016, but right now, there is one way to do it. It’s the way Europe has been doing it. And that is a gasoline tax. And he said you can phase it in over two years, 10 cents a month. It will not be that onerous. And Americans stand ready.

BROWNER: Well, what we’re doing is we’re using the laws on the books today, which allow us to set fuel efficiency standards and we’re setting the first ever greenhouse gas pollution standards. And what this means is, we’re going to be able to reduce our dependence on oil by 1.8 billion barrels over the life of the program.

SAWYER: Do you think the gas tax approach is right or wrong? Or just politically unacceptable?

BROWNER: I think what we’re doing today is right. I think putting these standards, proposing these standards, moving forward, working with car companies, working in partnership is what we need to be doing.

SAWYER: So, no gas tax ever, as far as you’re concerned?

BROWNER: We’re doing what we think the right today, which is setting fuel efficiency, greenhouse standards.

SAWYER: I have a feeling we’re in a standoff on this question here. It’s that politically explosive?

BROWNER: Well, we work, obviously, within the laws on the books. And what we’re using is the President’s executive authority to propose these standards. And it is the first-ever time that EPA And DOT Have taken their existing individual authorities and woven them together so that we can give the American public and the car companies what they want.

SAWYER: Let me just ask one more question here. As we know for cars, you’re talking about reduction from 27.5 miles a gallon, up to 39 miles per gallon. Also, light trucks. 23 up to 30. But what about Hummers, which are getting about eight to ten miles a gallon? What are you going to do about them?

BROWNER: Well, all cars and light-duty trucks are included. So, Hummers would be included. And in every single category they have to improve their fuel efficiency. This isn’t simply about looking across the fleet, and so, therefore, if you make a big car, you have to make smaller cars. This is about every, single category of vehicles becoming more fuel-efficient and reducing their greenhouse gas pollution.

SAWYER: I’m asking one more time here. If a gas tax reduces dependence on foreign oil and changes the foreign political dependency immediately, why not be for it right now?

BROWNER: Well, what the President is announcing today, these proposed national standards will achieve the greatest reduction in oil use that we’ve seen in a very, very long time. 1.8 billion barrels of oil will be reduced over the life of the program.

SAWYER: Again, we thank you so much, Ms. Browner. As we said, it’s a big day at the White House, a big announcement. And we’re grateful to you for joining us.

BROWNER: Thank you.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/05/19/abcs-diane-sawyer-pleads-european-style-gas-tax

Garcia Bronco
05-21-2009, 03:12 PM
Sounds like Diane Sawyer needs buttsex. Her husband better step it up.

wild1
05-21-2009, 03:19 PM
Sounds like Diane Sawyer needs buttsex. Her husband better step it up.

except she's asking us to bend over and grab the ankles, not vice versa

Der Flöprer
05-21-2009, 03:40 PM
Fuck Diane Sawyer.

Radar Chief
05-21-2009, 03:44 PM
Um, there’s already a tax on gas?

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:46 PM
Um, there’s already a tax on gas?

ROFL

Something tells me Diane hasn't pumped her own gas in a while.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-21-2009, 03:46 PM
Um, there’s already a tax on gas?

Appearantly we don't pay enough and we should be more like europe. I feel dirty after saying that.

FishingRod
05-21-2009, 03:56 PM
Into the wood chipper with that hag

Ebolapox
05-21-2009, 03:58 PM
I'll repeat the sage words of floppynuts...

fuck diane sawyer.

FishingRod
05-21-2009, 04:07 PM
I'm a freight broker. The number of carriers has plummeted in the last year because the owner operator to medium sized companies can barely make it . I'm not really interested in fuel being $2.40 higher per gallon "for our own good".

Donger
05-21-2009, 04:08 PM
I have to admit, though, I find her highly desirable (sexually speaking).

SNR
05-21-2009, 04:10 PM
My parents should really be taking the subway from their farm into town. Seriously, that's a waste of gas driving their cars every day for 15 miles just to go to work.

talastan
05-21-2009, 04:10 PM
I love how as Sawyer is begging for the tax, Browner carefully dodges the questions without ever giving a yes or no on additional fuel taxes.

talastan
05-21-2009, 04:12 PM
Whatever happened to the people under 250,000 a year will get no tax increase? :hmmm:

dirk digler
05-21-2009, 04:13 PM
I watched Frost\Nixon the other night and I had no clue she worked with Nixon and all of his lies.

Anyway how much does Europe pay in taxes I take it is shit load.?

KILLER_CLOWN
05-21-2009, 04:17 PM
Whatever happened to the people under 250,000 a year will get no tax increase? :hmmm:

I missed the memo on that one, oh that's right it's what BO said not what he was going to actually do.

Garcia Bronco
05-21-2009, 04:19 PM
I watched Frost\Nixon the other night and I had no clue she worked with Nixon and all of his lies.

Anyway how much does Europe pay in taxes I take it is shit load.?

Some places...about 50 percent

morphius
05-21-2009, 04:23 PM
Lets talk about that gas tax when the US becomes the same size as a European country. Of course the fact that we are nearly 20 times as big as the largest European country could make that a bit difficult.

FishingRod
05-21-2009, 04:30 PM
Some places...about 50 percent

About 70% in France. Right now at the pump between state and Feds we pay about 50 cents per gallon in tax. She would like to add another $2.40 to that. No thank you.

Donger
05-21-2009, 04:33 PM
Yes, sign me up for "free" healthcare, just like in Europe!

FishingRod
05-21-2009, 04:38 PM
"It’s the way Europe has been doing it. If you really want to change the fuel patterns of this country, and if you want to reduce dependence on foreign oil,..."


Oh by the way, Germany is 4th and France is the 6th largest oil importer in the world. How can that possibly be?

Hydrae
05-21-2009, 04:57 PM
"It’s the way Europe has been doing it. If you really want to change the fuel patterns of this country, and if you want to reduce dependence on foreign oil,..."


Oh by the way, Germany is 4th and France is the 6th largest oil importer in the world. How can that possibly be?

And are each the size of a medium sized western state.

banyon
05-21-2009, 07:03 PM
"It’s the way Europe has been doing it. If you really want to change the fuel patterns of this country, and if you want to reduce dependence on foreign oil,..."


Oh by the way, Germany is 4th and France is the 6th largest oil importer in the world. How can that possibly be?

Because you're not figuring on any sort of per capita basis?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con_percap-energy-oil-consumption-per-capita

Bwana
05-21-2009, 07:42 PM
Stupid gunt. I wonder if she has any other great ideas on how to bring the economy down?

BigMeatballDave
05-21-2009, 07:52 PM
Well, if I made 7 figures, I wouldn't mind extra taxes on gas, either. Stupid Elitist.

Saul Good
05-21-2009, 07:56 PM
Because you're not figuring on any sort of per capita basis?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con_percap-energy-oil-consumption-per-capita

Is it your position that the exorbitantly high taxes have caused them to under-consume oil compared to the global average, or are you just being contrarian?

Saul Good
05-21-2009, 07:57 PM
Lets talk about that gas tax when the US becomes the same size as a European country. Of course the fact that we are nearly 20 times as big as the largest European country could make that a bit difficult.

I think we should just get light rail from Kansas City to Chicago. That would make us much more European and save gas as well.

Baby Lee
05-21-2009, 08:03 PM
Whatever happened to the people under 250,000 a year will get no tax increase? :hmmm:

Rich people do most of the driving in Merka, doncha know.

banyon
05-21-2009, 08:10 PM
Is it your position that the exorbitantly high taxes have caused them to under-consume oil compared to the global average, or are you just being contrarian?

Well, that wasn't the point of that post, but yes, gasoline consumption has gone down dramatically in those two countries:


Energy and Resources — Transportation: Motor gasoline consumption per capita
Units: Liters per person


2003 2000 1990

France FRA 260.4 302.2 416.1

Germany DEU 402.7 450.4 507.6

http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/results.php?years=1990-1990,2000-2000,2003-2003&variable_ID=292&theme=6&cID=2,10,16,17,24,28,45,48,50,59,62,63,70,73,83,84,89,91,103,108,109,111,117,124,131,138,146,147,151 ,152,161,162,166,173,174,187,189,202,218&ccID=2

also:

Canada CAN 1,203.7 1,182.7 1,168.7
United States USA 1,635.2 1,633.9 1,542.1

http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/results.php?years=1990-1990,2000-2000,2003-2003&variable_ID=292&theme=6&cID=33,190&ccID=5

Hydrae
05-21-2009, 08:55 PM
Social engineering through the tax code. Fuck yeah!

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 09:29 PM
Europe can get away with this more than the US because it's small and takes a few hours to be in another country. Plus they ride more bikes. Things are just closer. Anerica is huge compared to those countries.

banyon
05-21-2009, 09:36 PM
LOL, anything to preserve the corporate status quo.

Radar Chief
05-21-2009, 09:36 PM
Well, that wasn't the point of that post, but yes, gasoline consumption has gone down dramatically in those two countries:


Energy and Resources — Transportation: Motor gasoline consumption per capita
Units: Liters per person


2003 2000 1990

France FRA 260.4 302.2 416.1

Germany DEU 402.7 450.4 507.6

http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/results.php?years=1990-1990,2000-2000,2003-2003&variable_ID=292&theme=6&cID=2,10,16,17,24,28,45,48,50,59,62,63,70,73,83,84,89,91,103,108,109,111,117,124,131,138,146,147,151 ,152,161,162,166,173,174,187,189,202,218&ccID=2

also:

Canada CAN 1,203.7 1,182.7 1,168.7
United States USA 1,635.2 1,633.9 1,542.1

http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/results.php?years=1990-1990,2000-2000,2003-2003&variable_ID=292&theme=6&cID=33,190&ccID=5

Those two countries are also about 1/50th the size of the United States. An effective mass transit system is one hell of a lot easier and cheaper to accomplish when your country would rattle around inside the boarders of Texas like a pea in a bucket.

banyon
05-21-2009, 09:38 PM
Those two countries are also about 1/50th the size of the United States. An effective mass transit system is one hell of a lot easier and cheaper to accomplish when your country would rattle around inside the boarders of Texas like a pea in a bucket.

Radar, you're pretty savvy on fuel topics. Do you think you get better fuel efficiency in the city or on the highway?

Radar Chief
05-21-2009, 09:41 PM
Radar, you're pretty savvy on fuel topics. Do you think you get better fuel efficiency in the city or on the highway?

I'm pretty sure you already know the answer is highway, and the reason for that is of course stop and go traffic of the city.

WoodDraw
05-21-2009, 09:41 PM
Social engineering through the tax code. **** yeah!

This thinking is BS.

All of our tax code is social engineering. Deciding not to tax gas highly subsidizes driving. We subsidize the end cost of gas more than almost every other non oil rich country.

I'm fine with having a low gas tax, as long as all of you will pay for it in other ways. Let's put tolls our roads, or pay per the mile. Because I don't drive much, yet I subsidize everyone that wants to live out in the middle of no where yet still wants a highway right next door with $2 a gallon gas.

banyon
05-21-2009, 09:42 PM
I'm pretty sure you already know the answer is highway, and the reason for that is of course stop and go traffic of the city.

So, do you think Americans do more or less travel on the highway compared to Europeans?

Saul Good
05-21-2009, 09:49 PM
Radar, you're pretty savvy on fuel topics. Do you think you get better fuel efficiency in the city or on the highway?

Depends on whether or not you are driving a hybrid doesn't it?

Saul Good
05-21-2009, 09:51 PM
Well, that wasn't the point of that post, but yes, gasoline consumption has gone down dramatically in those two countries:


Energy and Resources — Transportation: Motor gasoline consumption per capita
Units: Liters per person


2003 2000 1990

France FRA 260.4 302.2 416.1

Germany DEU 402.7 450.4 507.6

http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/results.php?years=1990-1990,2000-2000,2003-2003&variable_ID=292&theme=6&cID=2,10,16,17,24,28,45,48,50,59,62,63,70,73,83,84,89,91,103,108,109,111,117,124,131,138,146,147,151 ,152,161,162,166,173,174,187,189,202,218&ccID=2

also:

Canada CAN 1,203.7 1,182.7 1,168.7
United States USA 1,635.2 1,633.9 1,542.1

http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/results.php?years=1990-1990,2000-2000,2003-2003&variable_ID=292&theme=6&cID=33,190&ccID=5

That was a fine answer to a question that wasn't asked.

banyon
05-21-2009, 09:55 PM
Depends on whether or not you are driving a hybrid doesn't it?

Not necessarily, no.

banyon
05-21-2009, 09:57 PM
That was a fine answer to a question that wasn't asked.

That's weird, I could've sworn it was you who posted this question:

Is it your position that the exorbitantly high taxes have caused them to under-consume oil compared to the global average, or are you just being contrarian?

In what way was your question left unanswered?

WoodDraw
05-21-2009, 10:00 PM
The argument here has been presented in the wrong terms.

We're not trying to discourage driving, or encourage alternative means, but levy the true costs of driving a car onto the driver.

If you decide to live far from a city center, you make a choice. A choice. You should have to live with the fiscal consequences of that choice.

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 10:06 PM
The argument here has been presented in the wrong terms.

We're not trying to discourage driving, or encourage alternative means, but levy the true costs of driving a car onto the driver.

If you decide to live far from a city center, you make a choice. A choice. You should have to live with the fiscal consequences of that choice.

You're not levying any true costs if it's the govt adding on a fee. The true cost is what the market will bear—not what social engineers want.

banyon
05-21-2009, 10:08 PM
You're not levying any true costs if it's the govt adding on a fee. The true cost is what the market will bear—not what social engineers want.

Yeah, that petroleum market is as pure and free as the driven snow.

WoodDraw
05-21-2009, 10:09 PM
You're not levying any true costs if it's the govt adding on a fee. The true cost is what the market will bear—not what social engineers want.

Sure, but we live in a society where the government builds and maintains the roads. Fix that, and I'll go home and sip lattes.

Iowanian
05-21-2009, 10:17 PM
That'll stimulate the economy.

banyon
05-21-2009, 10:19 PM
That'll stimulate the economy.

Yeah, Europe is doing terribly compared to us.

Iowanian
05-21-2009, 10:19 PM
I'll like to send a thundercock over the gash-tax her for talking that way.

Iowanian
05-21-2009, 10:20 PM
Yeah, Europe is doing terribly compared to us.

yeah...European countries cover the geography we do, for business, freight et al.

Dumbass.

If I wanted to live like a Hungarian, I'd move there.

banyon
05-21-2009, 10:22 PM
yeah...European countries cover the geography we do, for business, freight et al.

Dumbass.

If I wanted to live like a Hungarian, I'd move there.

I'm sure if we continue with a less efficient, sh***ier infrastructure, that'll eventually make us more competetive, right?

Iowanian
05-21-2009, 10:25 PM
If we'd stop supporting Europe and every other 3rd world shithole the left insists we feed, medicate, provide condoms-abortions-military defense et al.......We'd save some greenbacks.


Europe sucks. Well, ok, all of it doesn't suck, but I don't want to live with a family of 6 in a 600 sq' apartment in Madrid, no matter how nice it is to go drink their beer in the Plaza De Mayor on a pleasant fall evening.

Iowanian
05-21-2009, 10:26 PM
I'm sure if we continue with a less efficient, sh***ier infrastructure, that'll eventually make us more competetive, right?


Maybe we should just let Germany blow our country to shit and let the United States pay to rebuild for us? Then we'd have newer infrastructure.

HonestChieffan
05-21-2009, 10:27 PM
Well its the rich people who have cars, some have more than one, and some actually drive SUV's and other symbols of wealth. So it seems only right to tax gas to get even with the rich. I know people who have two cars and a pickup truck and a RV for Gods sake! They need to be taxed. Its their patriotic duty to pay tax!

And poor people dont have cars, or they really dont need them if they have them. So gas taxes wont hurt them. Lots dont have jobs so where do they need to drive to anyway, right?

banyon
05-21-2009, 10:30 PM
Maybe we should just let Germany blow our country to shit and let the United States pay to rebuild for us? Then we'd have newer infrastructure.

That's a great plan. I'm glad you've put so much thought into these issues.

alanm
05-21-2009, 10:34 PM
I have to admit, though, I find her highly desirable (sexually speaking).
Maybe 20 yrs ago. Now :shake:

alanm
05-21-2009, 10:36 PM
Whatever happened to the people under 250,000 a year will get no tax increase? :hmmm:
That was a lie from the word go.

Iowanian
05-21-2009, 10:37 PM
That's a great plan. I'm glad you've put so much thought into these issues.

I'm so glad that you understand why so much of your lovely Europe has infrastructure built after 1945....

wild1
05-21-2009, 10:39 PM
Gas is almost up to $2.50 down at the corner. I wonder what Diane Sawyer thinks we should be paying. $5.00?

banyon
05-21-2009, 10:40 PM
I'm so glad that you understand why so much of your lovely Europe has infrastructure built after 1945....

You think they're still renovating their infrastructure with Marshall plan funds almost 70 years after the fact?

Do we still owe the French for the Revolutionary War loans?

wild1
05-21-2009, 10:44 PM
I'm so glad that you understand why so much of your lovely Europe has infrastructure built after 1945....

It's the fascade of Europe.

They have public transit out of necessity, not of some superior system of administering life. Europe has far more people living hand to mouth and their infrastructure couldn't handle half of the stress we put on ours.

But if you're a college student and enjoy the booze and weed and tourist spots, sounds great. Hop through London and Paris for two days each and you'll come back with the idea that socialism is awesome and that people live like kings. Because you were just sampling hospitality and infusing much needed cash, you weren't trying to pay bills and make life work end-to-end there.

HonestChieffan
05-21-2009, 10:51 PM
Three years ago, Diesel was $9.00 per gallon in Italy. I felt so good as I drove around the country knowing I was helping so may people through the taxes I paid. I'd do it again though, it was a great trip.

Tuscany is glorious, Rome and the Vatican outstanding but Venice was not so much. Parma is quaint. Bologna is foodie heaven.

They have a lot more pigeons there than we do.

The homeless sleep on the street across from the Vatican and the beggers are sort of like our beggers, they just don't speak English. Life in Europe looks like life in the US with higher taxes, food costs a lot more and they have major housing issues we dont have and they lack a ton of the freedoms we enjoy. They do make some awesome beer and wine.

But maybe the lefties on here see things differently.

banyon
05-21-2009, 10:51 PM
It's the fascade of Europe.

They have public transit out of necessity, not of some superior system of administering life. Europe has far more people living hand to mouth and their infrastructure couldn't handle half of the stress we put on ours.

But if you're a college student and enjoy the booze and weed and tourist spots, sounds great. Hop through London and Paris for two days each and you'll come back with the idea that socialism is awesome and that people live like kings. Because you were just sampling hospitality and infusing much needed cash, you weren't trying to pay bills and make life work end-to-end there.

Or live there and score higher in every survey out there about quality of life.

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 10:52 PM
Or live there and score higher in every survey out there about quality of life.

Prove it

banyon
05-21-2009, 10:53 PM
Prove it

I'm supposed to list EVERY survey? Ever?

How about you list one that's not from Mises or something that doesn't fit the bill?

HonestChieffan
05-21-2009, 11:01 PM
The bums in Rome seemed to have nicer cardboard boxes than those I have seen in San Fran or LA. There maybe something to this quality of life thing.

They use a lot of migrant labor there too but I dont know if the average Turk who picks fruit is happier than the migrant who does it here...I'd bet they are equally unhappy with the treatment they get.

And the trucker who hauls freight with $9.00 diesel probably whistles while he works cause his quality of life is so superior. Farmers are prob pretty cool with price fixing too.

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 11:07 PM
I'm supposed to list EVERY survey? Ever?
Just cite a few points even anecdotal if you want about why the quality is so much higher. Afterall, quality is a relative term...and subjective. I'm sure your own list of what you think is better will reflect your own values. This is why we have different countries and cultures.

And I don't want to hear about how much healthier they are because they have govt healthcare. Their lifestyle and diet is different and they use more low tech medicine. Those are things I agree with Europe on but that's not from their govt.



How about you list one that's not from Mises or something that doesn't fit the bill?

Why should I not list anything from Mises....it's the economic system I trust as leading to the most prosperity and well being. Just like you making socialist or command and control economic arguments.

wild1
05-21-2009, 11:10 PM
Or live there and score higher in every survey out there about quality of life.

Of course you could probably come up with one showing the people in Malawi are very happy as well.

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 11:10 PM
The bums in Rome seemed to have nicer cardboard boxes than those I have seen in San Fran or LA. There maybe something to this quality of life thing.

They use a lot of migrant labor there too but I dont know if the average Turk who picks fruit is happier than the migrant who does it here...I'd bet they are equally unhappy with the treatment they get.

And the trucker who hauls freight with $9.00 diesel probably whistles while he works cause his quality of life is so superior. Farmers are prob pretty cool with price fixing too.
Well, my girlfriend married an Italian from Italy and he says America is paradise compared to there. He says we have so much more freedom—and don't realize how good we have it in that department. They can do hardly anything over there. He's a businessman.

banyon
05-21-2009, 11:11 PM
Just cite a few points even anecdotal if you want about why the quality is so much higher. Afterall, quality is a relative term...and subjective. I'm sure your own list of what you think is better will reflect your own values. This is why we have different countries and cultures.

And I don't want to hear about how much healthier they are because they have govt healthcare. Their lifestyle and diet is different and they use more low tech medicine. Those are things I agree with Europe on but that's not their govt.





Why should I not list anything from Mises....it's the economic system I trust as leading to the most prosperity and well being. Just like you making socialist or command and control economic arguments.

No. You rarely back up your extraordinary claims, and even when they are proved hollow, you rarely, if ever, admit that. So, no, I don't think I'll do you that courtesy. Then you put the poster on fake ignore.

Perhaps if another, less juvenile poster asks, I will do so.

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 11:11 PM
Of course you could probably come up with one showing the people in Malawi are very happy as well.

Bingo! Exactly right. Or the Hunza's. Lol...I hear they're a very happy people. Cheerful, upbeat, friendly and helpful to others.
They don't mind the simple life atop the roof of the world.

Also, my daughter's school were studying the Haitians which we hear have such a lousy life...but they're also happy people too.

Everyone should have what banyon thinks they should have—at the point of a gun.

banyon
05-21-2009, 11:14 PM
Of course you could probably come up with one showing the people in Malawi are very happy as well.

I would bet you pretty good money there's not a reputable survey or index that says that.

HonestChieffan
05-21-2009, 11:24 PM
Of course you could probably come up with one showing the people in Malawi are very happy as well.

I found this disturbing. I cannot believe the happiness scores can be very high with hippos running about. The good news is for Banyon we may have found a place thats worse to live than the US.

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/malawi/practical-information/health

Dangers & annoyances
Unfortunately, reports of travellers being robbed in Lilongwe and Blantyre have increased. However, incidents are still rare compared with other countries, and violence is not the norm. There have also been robberies at popular lakeshore areas such as Cape Maclear and Nkhata Bay, but here violence is very rare.

Potential dangers while at Lake Malawi include encountering a hippo or crocodile, but for travellers the chances of being attacked are extremely remote. Popular tourist beaches are generally safe, although, just to be absolutely sure, you should seek local advice before diving in.

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 11:25 PM
I was reading about Finland a few nights ago, and they are very collectivist but have a high suicide rate. IIRC one of the highest in the world.

banyon
05-21-2009, 11:28 PM
Not many environmental or labor regulations there. You guys should have a great time. Hurry up and move there!

HonestChieffan
05-21-2009, 11:28 PM
I was reading about Finland a few nights ago, and they are very collectivist but have a high suicide rate. IIRC one of the highest in the world.

They need to be happy they dont have a hippo problem.

banyon
05-21-2009, 11:29 PM
I was reading about Finland a few nights ago, and they are very collectivist but have a high suicide rate. IIRC one of the highest in the world.

YDNRC

http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/

Iowanian
05-21-2009, 11:43 PM
You think they're still renovating their infrastructure with Marshall plan funds almost 70 years after the fact?

Do we still owe the French for the Revolutionary War loans?

No.
We more than paid those back in full in blood in their trenches in WWI and on their beaches and throughout their country in WWII. We owe France Nothing....forever.

You might remember that...a few hours from Memorial day.

wild1
05-21-2009, 11:52 PM
I was reading about Finland a few nights ago, and they are very collectivist but have a high suicide rate. IIRC one of the highest in the world.

Connect the dots between substance abuse and a cultures of national socialism as well, if you like.

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 11:53 PM
They need to be happy they dont have a hippo problem.

Ya' mean like the one we have in America? :D

Iowanian
05-22-2009, 07:48 AM
The Autobahn is great for gas milage and safety. If we're Eurofying out country, we should start with removing speed limits and seat belt laws, like those Enviro-conscious Germans.

Save Water....stop bathing....Like the French!

Radar Chief
05-22-2009, 08:07 AM
The argument here has been presented in the wrong terms.

We're not trying to discourage driving, or encourage alternative means, but levy the true costs of driving a car onto the driver.

Um, are you channeling Diane Sawyer or is there a gas leak in your apartment?
We already are paying the “true cost of driving a car” every time we pay for tags and the taxes associated with them and every time we pay for a gallon of gas and the taxes associated with it.

If you decide to live far from a city center, you make a choice. A choice. You should have to live with the fiscal consequences of that choice.

I think we should wall off the cities and quit accepting your crime and pollution. Stop shipping in food, fuel, hell energy or goods of any sort. You made a choice to live there you should have to live with the consequences of that choice. :shrug:

Radar Chief
05-22-2009, 08:14 AM
So, do you think Americans do more or less travel on the highway compared to Europeans?

Tough question, I’d have to rely on what I’ve seen and not any survey or anything, but I would assume we travel more miles of highway than Europeans if for no other reason than we have millions of miles more highway, interstates, than any European country I can think of.
Also because they’re more compact, mass transit actually works for them. It still takes some footwork, but you can around Europe very well without driving or flying.

StcChief
05-22-2009, 08:18 AM
No.
We more than paid those back in full in blood in their trenches in WWI and on their beaches and throughout their country in WWII. We owe France Nothing....forever.

You might remember that...a few hours from Memorial day.
in fact they owe us, time to start collecting.

Radar Chief
05-22-2009, 08:32 AM
Depends on whether or not you are driving a hybrid doesn't it?

A hybrid doesn’t do you much good on the highway. They rely on using braking forces in stop and go traffic to help recharge the battery bank and get that great gas mileage. Get it out on the highway and it won’t get much, if any, better gas mileage than any other car with a comparably sized four cylinder motor.

FishingRod
05-22-2009, 09:01 AM
Mr. Banyon,

It seems that you are in favor of raising the taxes on Fuel while I and several others think it a poor idea. As with most actions there will be positive and negative results should this come to pass. When analyzing a situation such as this one needs to place the consequences on the scales to see if the positive outweighs the negative. Lets try listing the pros and cons and see if we can come to a consensus of what they are.

I will just start with a couple of con's and Pros and I sure others can help us out with both.

Cons

By raising the cost of fuel an additional $2.40 per gallon virtually every single American will have a lower standard of living. People will less money to spend and what they have left will not go as far because the price to transport all of our goods and foodstuffs will reflect the artificially high fuel prices. Even the poor and unemployed will suffer because the average American will have $100-$300 less in their monthly budget that cannot go to charity.

Pros
It will lower our fuel consumption. It would encourage more efficient cars and perhaps alternative fuel research.


And Pro or Con depending on your confidence in our Government. It would provide Trillions of dollars for our Federal Government to spend as they see fit.

The Cons are easy for me someone come up with some additional Positives.

Radar Chief
05-22-2009, 09:11 AM
By raising the cost of fuel an additional $2.40 per gallon virtually every single American will have a lower standard of living. People will less money to spend and what they have left will not go as far because the price to transport all of our goods and foodstuffs will reflect the artificially high fuel prices. Even the poor and unemployed will suffer because the average American will have $100-$300 less in their monthly budget that cannot go to charity.

Yea, that’s what no one talks about.
Nothing more directly affects the price of everything we consume than the price of fuel.
What kicked off the domino effect of financial collapse that we’re still trying to climb out of was the spike in gas prices last summer.

Garcia Bronco
05-22-2009, 09:22 AM
in fact they owe us, time to start collecting.

All of Europe owes us actual money that was never paid. That doesn't include the lives lost.

whatsmynameagain
05-22-2009, 09:27 AM
I'm a freight broker. The number of carriers has plummeted in the last year because the owner operator to medium sized companies can barely make it . I'm not really interested in fuel being $2.40 higher per gallon "for our own good".


i am too and never wanna deal with a 45% fuel surcharge again!
Posted via Mobile Device

HonestChieffan
05-22-2009, 09:27 AM
Lest we forget, Obo did say he saw nothing wrong with high priced fuel but he wished it had not risen so fast....

Its slowly rising now....and its low enough now that adding a tax would still have it under $5.00 so he could defend it as a conservation measure....

Its gonna happen. And all the stuff about transportation will be ignored, food prices wont go up enough to matter...if it costs 1000 bucks more to haul a TL of lettuce from California to KC, the added cost per pound will be tiny...thats how you justify these things...

And you assume the cost gets passed on...forgetting that the trucker wont be able to. And the farmer cannot set his prices. And if we have a few truckers go under in the quest for higher taxes, they should be able to get one o the new green jobs, right?

Somehow it will support some innane arguement about infrastructure. But we wont see the money go to infrastructure. In fact no one will ever know where the new tax money goes. Kinda like when they passed gambling saying the money would go to education...

There can be no other decision. With the huge deficit he has run up, every single source of tax revenue must be employed. Look to Canada...soon will we see a VAT? States will need to source more income as the economy stays in the crapper...so will we see increases in sales taxes? Property taxes? Lic Plates? Yes we will.

The ability to rape and pillage the wealthy will come to an end. The failures of Corporate taxes are too easy to point out so that wont be a good place to go.

So....as predicted and forcast over and over...the middle class and and the poor will get taxed..not in income taxes, we will just increase the cost of just being.

And all this occurs before the unrelenting bite of inflation.

The left and the Obama policies will end up being a major downward force on the poor. Its always worked that way, it worked that way in every case where liberal desire to help the poor has led to the poor being just as poor or poorer as a result of governmental help.

blaise
05-22-2009, 09:52 AM
Let the people eat cake, right Diane?

FishingRod
05-22-2009, 10:18 AM
i am too and never wanna deal with a 45% fuel surcharge again!
Posted via Mobile Device

No doubt about that.

I pissed my boss off at the previous freight company (I wanted to take care of my customers that sort of thing) and was invited to leave. I then spent a year in the collections business trying to get some money returned to Carriers and owner operators that were not paid as brokers went out of business by the scores. Most people don't know that either the shipper or the consignee are liable to pay the carrier should the original party fail to do so. Imagine all of the sudden having your company owe $100 K that you really shouldn't have to pay. My non-compete time ran out and I went back into this goofy business last August. A common lane I run is from South Carolina to South TX. The cost to move these loads is over $1000 less now than it was less than it was just last August but, the number of loads being shipped has also taken a nosedive with the flat economy. If we were to double the fuel costs that would be an additional nail in the coffin of our economy and I don't think it could stand it right now.

banyon
05-22-2009, 10:37 AM
Tough question, I’d have to rely on what I’ve seen and not any survey or anything, but I would assume we travel more miles of highway than Europeans if for no other reason than we have millions of miles more highway, interstates, than any European country I can think of.
Also because they’re more compact, mass transit actually works for them. It still takes some footwork, but you can around Europe very well without driving or flying.

So, knowing those things, with an increase in fuel efficiency of 10%, who would you expect to reduce their overall gasoline consumption more (focusing purely on autos) us or Europe?

BucEyedPea
05-22-2009, 10:39 AM
It's not the govt's job to make people reduce their gasoline consumption. Let the price climb.

banyon
05-22-2009, 10:40 AM
Mr. Banyon,

It seems that you are in favor of raising the taxes on Fuel while I and several others think it a poor idea. As with most actions there will be positive and negative results should this come to pass. When analyzing a situation such as this one needs to place the consequences on the scales to see if the positive outweighs the negative. Lets try listing the pros and cons and see if we can come to a consensus of what they are.

I will just start with a couple of con's and Pros and I sure others can help us out with both.

Cons

By raising the cost of fuel an additional $2.40 per gallon virtually every single American will have a lower standard of living. People will less money to spend and what they have left will not go as far because the price to transport all of our goods and foodstuffs will reflect the artificially high fuel prices. Even the poor and unemployed will suffer because the average American will have $100-$300 less in their monthly budget that cannot go to charity.

Pros
It will lower our fuel consumption. It would encourage more efficient cars and perhaps alternative fuel research.


And Pro or Con depending on your confidence in our Government. It would provide Trillions of dollars for our Federal Government to spend as they see fit.

The Cons are easy for me someone come up with some additional Positives.

I am not in favor of raising fuel taxes, posters like yourself in this thread merely assumed that.

I am in favor of heavy and serious subsidization and research grants for alternatives.

banyon
05-22-2009, 10:42 AM
It's not the govt's job to make people reduce their gasoline consumption. Let the price climb.

It is the government's job to make sure we have a sustainable economy and future. Again, you pretend that petroleum prices are a free market, when it is unrefutable that it is run by a hostile cartel organization that artificially sets supply and price.

FishingRod
05-22-2009, 11:30 AM
I am not in favor of raising fuel taxes, posters like yourself in this thread merely assumed that.

I am in favor of heavy and serious subsidization and research grants for alternatives.

I see, your contrarian approach threw me off. It appears I have misinterpreted your stance. Obviously the time will come that Oil will no longer be the most cost affective way to power our transportation. At this point I don't know of a viable alternative and many of the Government programs (in my opinion) are little more than feel good measures. For example their pushing and propping up of ethanol. I think a much greater emphasis on improving batteries in both their storage capacity and changing their toxic nature from a waste standpoint may be the key to eventually making wind and solar power a legitimate replacement of oil. In the meantime it seems irresponsible of us to not utilize the reserves we have as part of a gradual long-term migration to renewable energy sources.

Radar Chief
05-22-2009, 11:44 AM
So, knowing those things, with an increase in fuel efficiency of 10%, who would you expect to reduce their overall gasoline consumption more (focusing purely on autos) us or Europe?

Are you assuming I’m somehow against increasing fuel standards? I hope I haven’t left that impression, I’m just, hopefully, pointing out the devil hiding in the details. :shrug:
Hell, I’m not even against electric cars. I’d miss the growl of a well tuned ICE but when you consider even a rather pedestrian 20 horse electric motor can crank out over 300 lb/ft of torque and because there are so few moving parts that RPM’s are nearly limitless, that just sounds like a load of fun to this old Gearhead.

HonestChieffan
05-22-2009, 02:11 PM
I am not in favor of raising fuel taxes, posters like yourself in this thread merely assumed that.

I am in favor of heavy and serious subsidization and research grants for alternatives.

And what tax would you raise, create, or take from something else to pay for such a risky venture?

blaise
05-22-2009, 02:18 PM
And what tax would you raise, create, or take from something else to pay for such a risky venture?

The Rich will pay for that.

banyon
05-22-2009, 02:59 PM
And what tax would you raise, create, or take from something else to pay for such a risky venture?

Why do you characterize alternative energy as "risky"?

If anything, the utter national dependence on a resource that is known to run out in @ 50 years is "risky".

banyon
05-22-2009, 03:02 PM
A hybrid doesn’t do you much good on the highway. They rely on using braking forces in stop and go traffic to help recharge the battery bank and get that great gas mileage. Get it out on the highway and it won’t get much, if any, better gas mileage than any other car with a comparably sized four cylinder motor.

Although a plug-in hybrid would again change that ratio.

banyon
05-22-2009, 03:03 PM
Are you assuming I’m somehow against increasing fuel standards? I hope I haven’t left that impression, I’m just, hopefully, pointing out the devil hiding in the details. :shrug:
Hell, I’m not even against electric cars. I’d miss the growl of a well tuned ICE but when you consider even a rather pedestrian 20 horse electric motor can crank out over 300 lb/ft of torque and because there are so few moving parts that RPM’s are nearly limitless, that just sounds like a load of fun to this old Gearhead.

no, you're pretty reasonable.

My comments in this instance are more directed to show the people who were exasperatedly claiming "we're not europe, we can't do anything!" that in fact we stood to benefit in some respects.

Donger
05-22-2009, 03:04 PM
I'd rather pay for an Apollo-like energy program than for some deadbeat's healthcare.

Donger
05-22-2009, 03:07 PM
Or live there and score higher in every survey out there about quality of life.

I know plenty of Europeans. Very, very few are happy. On the contrary, most are f*cking miserable. They won't admit it out of historical pride, and most would move here if given the opportunity.

banyon
05-22-2009, 03:09 PM
I know plenty of Europeans. Very, very few are happy. On the contrary, most are f*cking miserable.

Well, yeah. But that's just because they know you. :D

blaise
05-22-2009, 03:09 PM
I know plenty of Europeans. Very, very few are happy. On the contrary, most are f*cking miserable. They won't admit it out of historical pride, and most would move here if given the opportunity.

Those Parisians looked happy when they rioted for a few weeks.

Donger
05-22-2009, 03:14 PM
Well, yeah. But that's just because they know you. :D

Not really. They want to move here because they hate where they are. I don't think I have anything to do with it.

banyon
05-22-2009, 03:15 PM
Not really. They want to move here because they hate where they are. I don't think I have anything to do with it.

Are you familiar with our system of smiley face icons on Chiefsplanet?

googlegoogle
05-22-2009, 03:17 PM
THIS IS NOT EUROPE.

Donger
05-22-2009, 03:17 PM
Are you familiar with our system of smiley face icons on Chiefsplanet?

Yes. :D

banyon
05-22-2009, 03:19 PM
THIS IS NOT EUROPE.

Shouldn't you interject some slur here to complete the thought?

Donger
05-22-2009, 03:20 PM
Shouldn't you interject some slur here to complete the thought?

EURO-TRASH NAZIS!

HonestChieffan
05-22-2009, 03:21 PM
Why do you characterize alternative energy as "risky"?

If anything, the utter national dependence on a resource that is known to run out in @ 50 years is "risky".

If its its not risky, why does it need a subsidy?

banyon
05-22-2009, 03:22 PM
EURO-TRASH NAZIS!

That's not really slurry enough for mr. googlegoogle, I don't think.

banyon
05-22-2009, 03:23 PM
If its its not risky, why does it need a subsidy?

Because it has a public benefit but no comparable private incentive?

Radar Chief
05-22-2009, 03:37 PM
Although a plug-in hybrid would again change that ratio.

The “plug and play hybrids” are basically modified with an extra bank of batteries and you plug it in at night to charge so in your morning commute the electric motor takes the car farther before going to the gas motor to recharge the bank.
Not that it’s a bad thing just that once both battery banks are depleted mileage will return to earth.

Radar Chief
05-22-2009, 03:39 PM
no, you're pretty reasonable.

My comments in this instance are more directed to show the people who were exasperatedly claiming "we're not europe, we can't do anything!" that in fact we stood to benefit in some respects.

Oh, OK. I was wondering why you were going all Donger on me. ;)

DJJasonp
05-22-2009, 03:42 PM
Someone needs to remind Sawyer that only a very few Manhattans (with multiple public transit options) exist in the US.

New Yorkers piss me off.

banyon
05-22-2009, 04:04 PM
The “plug and play hybrids” are basically modified with an extra bank of batteries and you plug it in at night to charge so in your morning commute the electric motor takes the car farther before going to the gas motor to recharge the bank.
Not that it’s a bad thing just that once both battery banks are depleted mileage will return to earth.

Right, but at the current range of 300 miles for most models that covers most people's daily drives.

Radar Chief
05-22-2009, 04:14 PM
Right, but at the current range of 300 miles for most models that covers most people's daily drives.

True, and that’s the number that was bouncing around in my head but I just couldn't muster up enough give a shit going to Google it. ;)

bluehawkdoc
05-22-2009, 04:38 PM
I find it amusing that Sawyer is asking Browner about a Hummer.

Hydrae
05-22-2009, 04:50 PM
The “plug and play hybrids” are basically modified with an extra bank of batteries and you plug it in at night to charge so in your morning commute the electric motor takes the car farther before going to the gas motor to recharge the bank.
Not that it’s a bad thing just that once both battery banks are depleted mileage will return to earth.

Of course then you are back to the question of how the electricity for the plug is being produced. I know this is about ending oil dependency but I don't know that it does anything for the environment as a whole.

banyon
05-22-2009, 04:56 PM
Of course then you are back to the question of how the electricity for the plug is being produced. I know this is about ending oil dependency but I don't know that it does anything for the environment as a whole.

It is vastly more efficient to produce it at one source than to burn in in millions of minature combustion engines. Hence, most estimates show that you can power your plug in with electricity at about 40 cents a gallon as opposed to $2.50 or whatever it is today. But yes, the source will still presently be mostly carbon-based until efficient alternatives can be developed. Many places (kansas included) could probably already power a large chunk of the plant energy by wind.

Hydrae
05-22-2009, 05:05 PM
It is vastly more efficient to produce it at one source than to burn in in millions of minature combustion engines. Hence, most estimates show that you can power your plug in with electricity at about 40 cents a gallon as opposed to $2.50 or whatever it is today. But yes, the source will still presently be mostly carbon-based until efficient alternatives can be developed. Many places (kansas included) could probably already power a large chunk of the plant energy by wind.

We would also have to seriously ramp up our electrical production. We have areas that go through brownouts now due to lack of electricity. Moving most the our cars to electricity would compound that problem to an extent. Most of the recharging would be happening at night when demand is low so this may be a smaller problem than I am stating here though. Certainly not my field.

Donger
05-22-2009, 05:09 PM
There was a study done recently about our current (teehee) grid and if it could handle a large and sudden demand increase from plug-ins. I'll see if I can find it.

Donger
05-22-2009, 05:18 PM
Plug-in hybrids are coming. General Motors, Tesla Motors, Fisker Automotive and Toyota are all coming out with gas-electric cars that can be charged from a socket.

The question now is can the grid handle it. The latest voice on the debate, Stan Hadley of the Cooling, Heating and Power Technologies Program at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, says it won't be easy. Hadley examined 182 scenarios on how plug-ins might be used in different regions in the U.S. between 2020 and 2030. Hadley assumed a 25 percent penetration of plug-ins by 2020.

In a worst case scenario, Hadley postulated that the U.S. would need 160 new power plants to handle the requirements of these cars. The worst case scenario, though, assumes that the millions of plug-in owners would want to charge their car at 5 p.m., the tail end of peak power demand.

In a best case scenario, where drivers charged their cars after 10 p.m. and smart grid technologies staggered charging times, the U.S. would need zero to eight new power plants.

Zero to 160 is a big swing, but Hadley warns that you have to accommodate human nature. Electricity costs less at night, so individuals will be incented to charge their cars then. But you also can't control everyone's behavior.

"It might prove extremely difficult to force consumers to charge their cars during some specified period of time," he wrote in his report. Continued, repeated charging could also stress the infrastructure of the grid, he added.

Overall, Hadley concluded that nearly every region in the country would have to beef up its electrical capacity. Electricity prices would also rise, by 1.2 to 2.7 percent in the best case scenarios to 141 to 297 percent in the worst case scenarios. The price hikes also depend on the size of the batteries used in the cars.

In Hadley's analysis, plug-ins could end up producing more carbon dioxide than efficient standard hybrids. But a plug-in hybrid is always better than driving a regular car.

"The best thing about plug-in hybrids is that they open us up to non-oil," he said in a phone conference. "But there are questions. Hybrids do a pretty good job themselves." Hadley isn't alone in his skepticism of plug-ins. "Plug-in hybrids are irrelevant because they are too expensive. Unless you can make 500 million or 800 million of those, it won't matter," said noted VC Vinod Khosla recently. Plug-ins and electric cars, though, have a lot more adherents right now than detractors. It will take more information and studies to figure out who is right on this one.

Last year, the Pacific Northwest National Labs said that you could convert 73 percent of the cars, trucks and vans on the road in the U.S. to plug-ins and the grid, as it currently exists, could handle it. PNNL scientists, however, said that their study depended on night time charging and that it still needed to study the impact on the grid of sustained charging.

Radar Chief
05-22-2009, 05:20 PM
We would also have to seriously ramp up our electrical production. We have areas that go through brownouts now due to lack of electricity. Moving most the our cars to electricity would compound that problem to an extent. Most of the recharging would be happening at night when demand is low so this may be a smaller problem than I am stating here though. Certainly not my field.

Not only that, what happens when all these dead battery banks start hitting land fills? Then we'll have toxic chemicals and heavy metals leaking into the ground. IMO, that has the possibility of being a much bigger problem than air pollution.

RedNeckRaider
05-22-2009, 05:26 PM
Funny how someone like her can demand this. She unlike many in this country does not have to budget the cost of fuel to get back and forth to work. I have never been in a situation where I could not afford to fill up but it is a cost I notice. I do know people who struggled while gas was going for close to 4 bucks a gallon. If Obama does something like this it will just be another slap in the face of the working man from the party that once stood for them.

Donger
05-22-2009, 05:29 PM
If my numbers are right, the federal government takes ~$30 billion/year from gasoline taxation.

Guru
05-22-2009, 06:03 PM
Why the hell do the well off people want to destroy the people below them on the money ladder? A new gas tax. yeah, that will help this horrible economy. One problem at a time Diane.

Hydrae
05-22-2009, 06:16 PM
Not only that, what happens when all these dead battery banks start hitting land fills? Then we'll have toxic chemicals and heavy metals leaking into the ground. IMO, that has the possibility of being a much bigger problem than air pollution.

I was reading about that earlier and the argument was that these cars use a different kind of battery that is much less toxic. Notice, I am not saying non-toxic!

According to environmental researchers, that's not the case. Jim Kliesch, author of the "Green Book: The Environmental Guide to Cars and Trucks" told HybridCars.com, "There are many types of batteries. Some are far more toxic than others. While batteries like lead acid or nickel cadmium are incredibly bad for the environment, the toxicity levels and environmental impact of nickel metal hydride batteries—the type currently used in hybrids—are much lower."

http://www.hybridcars.com/battery-toxicity.html

I found this when I was looking for information about the environmental impact in Canada from the nickel strip mining. I never did find what I was looking for there which deals with the impact before the car is even made.

Guru
05-22-2009, 06:20 PM
Also, there is still the problem that these "fuel efficient" cars are still too expensive for the average American.

banyon
05-22-2009, 07:19 PM
Not only that, what happens when all these dead battery banks start hitting land fills? Then we'll have toxic chemicals and heavy metals leaking into the ground. IMO, that has the possibility of being a much bigger problem than air pollution.

What are we doing with the batteries cars use now?

HonestChieffan
05-23-2009, 05:31 AM
Because it has a public benefit but no comparable private incentive?

You dont believe there is a commercial opportunity for industry?

banyon
05-23-2009, 09:41 AM
You dont believe there is a commercial opportunity for industry?

Not a sufficient one, no.

prhom
05-23-2009, 08:12 PM
What are we doing with the batteries cars use now?

Well in the U.S. 97% of the lead used to make batteries gets recycled, and 70% of the lead used to make new batteries comes from recycled material. That's more than any other consumer product. I got that from an article by Doe Run Co., COO Jerry Pyatt. If your not familiar with Doe Run, they operate lead mines and a recycling center in Missouri.

BucEyedPea
05-23-2009, 09:17 PM
Not a sufficient one, no.

That's how planners usually see things.

banyon
05-23-2009, 09:56 PM
That's how planners usually see things.

Yuk yuk, good one there. :rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
05-23-2009, 11:10 PM
No imagination.

banyon
05-24-2009, 12:11 AM
No imagination.

No reality.

BillyMaze
05-24-2009, 05:10 PM
No reality.
You are smart.

BucEyedPea
05-24-2009, 05:39 PM
Reality of tommorrow is the result of creative minds. Not bureaucratic minds.

banyon
05-24-2009, 06:35 PM
Reality of tommorrow is the result of creative minds. Not bureaucratic minds.

What is this "insult sunday"? I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here, but it's obviously not very productive or persuasive on any topic.

And I may work for a government entity, but just because I don't believe that people in a magic valley live to 140 and that Lincoln is a rapist, and if only all government would go away the fairies would make everything ok doesn't mean I have a "bureaucratic" mind. Rather, it means I'm able to discriminate plausibility and horse puckey.

The_Doctor10
05-30-2009, 12:41 PM
Frankly, fuel taxes in places like the US, Canada, Russia, any larger nation, is absurd. A fuel tax works in England, France, Germany, etc because you can take public transit from one end of the country to another in a few hours. In countries with large, open, uninhabited spaces, gas has to be cheaper.

Not to mention gas getting Euro-style expensive means my summer landscaping gigs get quite scarce.

Stewie
05-30-2009, 03:48 PM
I was unaware Diane Sawyer had all the answers. I thought she just read from a teleprompter.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-30-2009, 04:29 PM
I was unaware Diane Sawyer had all the answers. I thought she just read from a teleprompter.

Well she does, which means this is an agenda not just ole Diane's pov.