Would you support higher gas taxes..

[dirk digler]

If the money went to research into alternative fuels?

Survey: Half could support higher gas tax
Also shows broad support for other measures to promote conservation, develop alternatives.
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
May 2 2007: 3:14 PM EDT

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/02/news/economy/gas_survey/index.htm?postversion=2007050215

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- More than half of Americans would support higher gasoline taxes if the money went to research into alternative fuels, according to a survey released Wednesday.

The question in the survey, which was sponsored by the conservation-minded Civil Society Institute, didn't specify how high the theoretical tax increase would be.

But the survey appeared to indicate broad support for a variety of methods to conserve fuel and promote alternatives fuels.
Watch out: Here comes $4 gasoline

Sixty-seven percent of those surveyed said the government should raise fuel efficiency standards.

Half the respondents said they would definitely or probably cut back on personal spending or summer travel if gas prices reach $3.50 a gallon. Seventy-two percent think prices will get that high.

With nationwide average prices already near $3 a gallon, demand for gasoline continues to grow in the United States. Up until this week, demand was actually growing faster than usual, according to the Energy Information Agency.

Eighty-three percent of survey respondents also believe they are being gouged at the gas pump.

Several federal investigations over the past few years have failed to turn up evidence of actual price fixing, and state investigations have only found limited instances of price gouging.

Seventy percent said they would back a windfall profits tax for oil companies if the money is used to fund research into alternative fuels. Seventy-eight percent said the government should spend more researching alternatives.

"You can pick up on a real sense of frustration in this survey," Pam Solo, president of the Civil Society Institute, said on a conference call. "Americans just don't see Washington getting the job done."

[Stinger]

Heck no if anything let the private sector figure it out. More than likely it would take less time to do and less money wasted. If anything cut the current gasoline tax to releave the high price of gas.

[Mr. Laz]

could we just use the Iraqi war money instead?

[CoMoChief]

Heck no if anything let the private sector figure it out. More than likely it would take less time to do and less money wasted. If anything cut the current gasoline tax to releave the high price of gas.


Bingo.

[Mr. Laz]

The price for gas in Kansas would be $2.55 right now without any Federal or State tax.

[dirk digler]

Heck no if anything let the private sector figure it out. More than likely it would take less time to do and less money wasted. If anything cut the current gasoline tax to releave the high price of gas.

I don't know. Do you trust the oil companies to actually try to find alternative fuels?

I agree about cutting the current gas tax.

[Mr. Laz]

I don't know. Do you trust the oil companies to actually try to find alternative fuels?

I agree about cutting the current gas tax.
oil companies will not find any alternative fuel until the one they have is no longer profitable.

right now they are getting historically high profits ... i don't see them trying anytime soon.



if our country truly wants to fight terrorism we need to get off middle eastern oil. That will do far more than any war will.

[pikesome]

Does anyone think that this tax money would really go to research? I'm sure a good portion of it would go to working on that bridge in Alaska and the like.

[stlchiefs]

Heck no if anything let the private sector figure it out. More than likely it would take less time to do and less money wasted. If anything cut the current gasoline tax to releave the high price of gas.
:clap:

[4th and Long]

could we just use the Iraqi war money instead?
:clap:

[dirk digler]

oil companies will not find any alternative fuel until the one they have is no longer profitable.

right now they are getting historically high profits ... i don't see them trying anytime soon.



I agree. I could be wrong but IMO the oil companies are probably the only companies that have the kind of deep pockets to do the research so I would probably be in favor of a higher tax so individuals or non-oil companies could do the research to get us off foreign oil.

[Soupnazi]

Sorry to disappoint, but we've already been spending tax money to fund research on alternative and renewable fuels for years.

http://www.nrel.gov/

[dirk digler]

Sorry to disappoint, but we've already been spending tax money to fund research on alternative and renewable fuels for years.

http://www.nrel.gov/

Thanks for the link that is interesting. :thumb:

[stlchiefs]

A lot of Ethanol and biofuel research is done privately, though the price is given a nice break at the pump to make it competitive.

[kepp]

Yeah, right. If we give the gub'ment more tax dollars for "research" they'll just have 100 scientists following cows around a field breaking down the composition of the poo-pies. Nothing will come of it.

[Donger]

No. We already are and have been. NREL.

I wouldn't mind the feds doing something like the X-Prize like program for an economically-viable alternative, however.

[pikesome]

No. We already are and have been. NREL.

I wouldn't mind the feds doing something like the X-Prize like program for an economically-viable alternative, however.

They ought to do a XXX-prize. First team who comes up with a workable solution gets a no-holds-barred weekend with as many Playmates as will fit in the Mansion. That's a prize worth fighting for!

[Mr. Laz]

I agree. I could be wrong but IMO the oil companies are probably the only companies that have the kind of deep pockets to do the research so I would probably be in favor of a higher tax so individuals or non-oil companies could do the research to get us off foreign oil.
the only problem is that the oil companies will just pass that tax increase into a price increase and still go right along collecting their huge profits.

i believe last year some kind of "profit tax" was talked about .... but a certain politcal party shot it down.



no .... if we really wanted to fight terrorism, instead of going to war in Iraq we should of used the Trillion plus dollars to setup the infrastructure for hydrogen in the U.S. We could of already been reducing our need for oil now instead of increasing it.

i read someplace(don't remember where) that if we get U.S. cars off of oil then the U.S. would be Oil self-sufficient. We produce enough ourselves to cover all our needs outside of automotive.


hydrogen cars = completely off of foreign oil

No foreign oil = middle eastern counties go back to be 3rd world

ME 3rd world = no money for terrorist to get at us across ocean


beats U.S. soldiers dying by the thousands

[morphius]

Why would we need to spend more money on alternative fuels? At this point it is up to the car manufacturers to work on building better electric vehicles and the government should be worried about making enough electricity to make it viable, feel free to continue research wind farms, solar power, but damn it, build some more nuclear plants.

(not opposed to an electric car with a biodiesel generator until we can work out the storage and recharge of the batteries)

[Soupnazi]

i read someplace(don't remember where) that if we get U.S. cars off of oil then the U.S. would be Oil self-sufficient. We produce enough ourselves to cover all our needs outside of automotive.


hydrogen cars = completely off of foreign oil

Do you know where the hydrogen comes from to power hydrogen cars?

Oil.

I appreciate the frustration but it's just not that simple.

[morphius]

Do you know where the hydrogen comes from to power hydrogen cars?

Oil.

I appreciate the frustration but it's just not that simple.
It doesn't have to though...

[Mr. Laz]

Do you know where the hydrogen comes from to power hydrogen cars?

Oil.

I appreciate the frustration but it's just not that simple.
oil is one way to produce hydrogen ..... in fact, the U.S. will probably have to use many ways to produce Hydrogen at first(including oil) but as it evolves it will slowly stop using Oil.

that's why we need to start now .... because the transition is going to take years.

[Iowanian]

I'd rather see the Govt turn this into a technology challenge to private industry.

I'd like to see the gauntlet thrown down and the govt offer a half billion for the first, affordable, workable and easily reproducable alternative fuel. I don't know how it would work.....but it should be like a "first private company to put a cat on the moon wins".

[Mr. Laz]

I'd rather see the Govt turn this into a technology challenge to private industry.

I'd like to see the gauntlet thrown down and the govt offer a half billion for the first, affordable, workable and easily reproducable alternative fuel. I don't know how it would work.....but it should be like a "first private company to put a cat on the moon wins".
yep

i'm not saying i want the Government to start opening hydrogen stations all over the U.S. but there are many ways that the Government can encourage private companies into doing it for them.


convert to hydrogen cars completely ... even if we have to use oil based hydrogen for now. Then as the demand increases, alternate ways to produce hydrogen would start taking over ... step by step we get weaned off of foreign oil.

domestic oil can still handle all the other petroleum products.


domestic oil companies stay in business .... hydrogen is just adding to the equation.

Our economy would actually increase, not decrease.

[dirk digler]

I'd rather see the Govt turn this into a technology challenge to private industry.

I'd like to see the gauntlet thrown down and the govt offer a half billion for the first, affordable, workable and easily reproducable alternative fuel. I don't know how it would work.....but it should be like a "first private company to put a cat on the moon wins".

I totally agree Iowanian.

[Brock]

I think I pay enough taxes, thank you.

[Iowanian]

I don't understand why Ethanol or BioD can't be the fuel to Power the Hydrogen processing.

How about "no more non-satellite space trips" until this problem is solved. I'd think the "right" answer would be helpful to NASA and distant space flight anyway.

[Donger]

I'd rather see the Govt turn this into a technology challenge to private industry.

I'd like to see the gauntlet thrown down and the govt offer a half billion for the first, affordable, workable and easily reproducable alternative fuel. I don't know how it would work.....but it should be like a "first private company to put a cat on the moon wins".

That's a brilliant idea.

[Mr. Laz]

I don't understand why Ethanol or BioD can't be the fuel to Power the Hydrogen processing.

How about "no more non-satellite space trips" until this problem is solved. I'd think the "right" answer would be helpful to NASA and distant space flight anyway.
i would think it could

anything that starts a energy process can do it, i would think.


anything that can produce electricity can do it :shrug:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production






.

[dirk digler]

I don't understand why Ethanol or BioD can't be the fuel to Power the Hydrogen processing.

How about "no more non-satellite space trips" until this problem is solved. I'd think the "right" answer would be helpful to NASA and distant space flight anyway.

Yep or I like Laz's idea as well. Quit wasting money on Iraq and start using it here to get off foreign oil and start investing in America again.

[Donger]

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/mission_vision.html

President Bush proposed the HFI back in 2003, I believe. They've already spent $1 billion on it.

[Donger]

Do you know where the hydrogen comes from to power hydrogen cars?

Oil.

I appreciate the frustration but it's just not that simple.

Or natural gas, of which we have plenty.

[dirk digler]

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/mission_vision.html

President Bush proposed the HFI back in 2003, I believe. They've already spent $1 billion on it.

That's a great start but I like Iowa's idea.

By reading that website they aren't even close to getting this in production. 2020 is a freaking long time.

It only took 5 years to get a man in space.

[Donger]

That's a great start but I like Iowa's idea.

By reading that website they aren't even close to getting this in production. 2020 is a freaking long time.

It only took 5 years to get a man in space.

Hey now. IT WAS MY IDEA!

Anyway, no, it didn't take 5 years to get a man in space.

We're talking about a national program, not one little rocket. Not just design, engineering and production. How pissed off would people be when they go out and buy their new 2015 Hindenburg Explodo and then find out they can't refuel the beast?

[Mr. Laz]

Hey now. IT WAS MY IDEA!

Anyway, no, it didn't take 5 years to get a man in space.

We're talking about a national program, not one little rocket. Not just design, engineering and production. How pissed off would people be when they go out and buy their new 2015 Hindenburg Explodo and then find out they can't refuel the beast?
build it and they will come


hydrogen infrastructure will make the rest happen on its own

[dirk digler]

Hey now. IT WAS MY IDEA!

Anyway, no, it didn't take 5 years to get a man in space.

We're talking about a national program, not one little rocket. Not just design, engineering and production. How pissed off would people be when they go out and buy their new 2015 Hindenburg Explodo and then find out they can't refuel the beast?

It was? My apologies.

Umm..yeah it did. The first rocket launched into space was Sputnik 1 in 1957. In 1958 Eishenhower created NASA.

John Glenn was the first American in space in 1962 while the Russians had the first man in space in 1961.

Actually it was less than 5 years

I agree but 12 years from now is a long freaking time.

[Donger]

It was? My apologies.

Umm..yeah it did. The first rocket launched into space was Sputnik 1 in 1957. In 1958 Eishenhower created NASA.

John Glenn was the first American in space in 1962 while the Russians had the first man in space in 1961.

I know I suck at math but I think that is 5 years.. :p

I agree but 12 years from now is a long freaking time.

I was going back to Goddard, the V-2, etc. They didn't just go, "Let's put a man in space" one day and five years later it was done. They had a lot of design, engineering and production behind them.

And, John Glenn wasn't the first American in space.

[Donger]

build it and they will come


hydrogen infrastructure will make the rest happen on its own

I agree. But, it will take a massive effort. One that we should undertake, IMO.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Iowanian,

Good idea, but it would probably be more of an incentive if it were 5 billion.

If you all are interested in this, you should watch "Who Killed the Electric Car". It's a bit uneven, but overall it's a solid documentary on the complacency of big auto. Trusting them is like telling your crack dealer you need to kick the habit.

[Iowanian]

The number was arbitrarily chosen from thin air.

Find a number, that the Govt could reasonably absorb, that is high enough to get the serious players motivated to solve this problem and get us to the point that in my lifetime, I can see an American middle finger extended to OPEC.

[Iowanian]

Hey now. IT WAS MY IDEA!


Where?

[Donger]

Where?

Post #16

[dirk digler]

I was going back to Goddard, the V-2, etc. They didn't just go, "Let's put a man in space" one day and five years later it was done. They had a lot of design, engineering and production behind them.

And, John Glenn wasn't the first American in space.

Well if you want to get technical Donger we have been trying to find\research alternative fuel sources for decades. Probably alot longer than people trying to get into space.

With that being said from the time NASA was created in 1958 it was only 3+ years, Shepard in 1961 (i was wrong) and Glenn in 1962, that we got a man in space.

Of course maybe getting a man on the moon would be more relevant in this case so that took us 20 years

[Iowanian]

Credit given where deserved.

It must have been a subliminal skim of that post that stimulated my train of thought.

[JBucc]

I thought of it first. BAck in Nov. of 05http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2838055&postcount=13

[Iowanian]

If we're all measuring cyber pickles now.....in the entire history of CP, I'd doubt that was the first mention either.

[Mr. Laz]

I agree. But, it will take a massive effort. One that we should undertake, IMO.
agreed ..... that's why it's gonna take the power of the government to make it happen. It's also gonna take several years so we need to get started.


The oil/energy companies won't do it until they have to do so to maintain profits.

[Eleazar]

It's ridiculous to propose robbing the consumer for money that's going to be donated to auto manufacturers who created this problem with their complacency and incompetence anyway. Especially at a time when prices are peaking.

I think we're doing things the right way. Continue to give tax credits and all that to encourage hybrid ownership. The demand is there, and I think that the private sector will fix this eventually.

It wouldn't hurt us to give them some extra motivation to hurry up though. How about the states rebate all of the sales tax on a hybrid vehicle? Or a vehicle that's rated at 35MPG highway or greater? No property taxes for a year or five?

Those would get people buying and help defray some of the hybrid premium.

We can attack this problem proactively and reduce taxes at the same time. It's win/win. The fuel tax corporate welfare and is lose/lose.

[Donger]

Well if you want to get technical Donger we have been trying to find\research alternative fuel sources for decades. Probably alot longer than people trying to get into space.

With that being said from the time NASA was created in 1958 it was only 3+ years, Shepard in 1961 (i was wrong) and Glenn in 1962, that we got a man in space.

Of course maybe getting a man on the moon would be more relevant in this case so that took us 20 years

Yeah, I know. I'm just having fun. But, imagine flipping the switch on this project knowing that the goal is to replace every single gasoline-powered car in the entire nation...

It's daunting.

[Donger]

If we're all measuring cyber pickles now.....in the entire history of CP, I'd doubt that was the first mention either.

It isn't. I've been yelling for years that we need an Apollo-scale hydrogen program.

What the hell is the difference, if any, between a pickle and a gherkin (sp?) anyway?

[Iowanian]

I don't see it as an "all or nothing" flip of the switch.

more of a "all cars after date X will now run off of energy source y".

There is still room for heating fuel and many other petroleum products and even gas powered cars. If impemented today, it would be a couple of decades before most cars were phased out of use.....and there would STILL be a need for gasoline.

[Donger]

agreed ..... that's why it's gonna take the power of the government to make it happen. It's also gonna take several years so we need to get started.


The oil/energy companies won't do it until they have to do so to maintain profits.

Well, you can thank President Bush then. It has already started.

[dirk digler]

It's ridiculous to propose robbing the consumer for money that's going to be donated to auto manufacturers who created this problem with their complacency and incompetence anyway. Especially at a time when prices are peaking.

I think we're doing things the right way. Continue to give tax credits and all that to encourage hybrid ownership. The demand is there, and I think that the private sector will fix this eventually.

It wouldn't hurt us to give them some extra motivation to hurry up though. How about the states rebate all of the sales tax on a hybrid vehicle? Or a vehicle that's rated at 35MPG highway or greater? No property taxes for a year or five?

Those would get people buying and help defray some of the hybrid premium.

We can attack this problem proactively and reduce taxes at the same time. It's win/win. The fuel tax corporate welfare and is lose/lose.

My question would be is the auto manufacturers at fault or is the oil companies\energy companies at fault or maybe they are both at fault?

I like your idea of tax credits it would be interesting to see if the states would give up alot of revenue by rebating sales tax.

All good points Cochise.

[Eleazar]

The oil/energy companies won't do it until they have to do so to maintain profits.

No, of course we can't expect the oil companies to do anything. Their business is oil.

A lot of people pimp ethanol when it's obviously not the answer. It plays good with greens and people in middle America who want the additional government subsidies so a lot of politicians are big fans of it. But ethanol is never going to fix this, it's a short term solution, a band-aid at best.

It's the auto manufacturers that need to fix this. They need to come up with vehicles that make gasoline obsolete. Oil companies aren't going to spend a zillion dollars in R&D to put themselves out of the oil business.

Car makes, however, will spend zillions developing something that people want to drive more than anything else. We just need to speed up the curve by which they will be come profitable.

[Mr. Laz]

Well, you can thank President Bush then. It has already started.
actually i believe it's started over and over and over again .... for years now. IIRC Clinton did something ... heck, i think Bush Sr. did something too.


but merely a drop in the bucket to what's needed.

[dirk digler]

But, imagine flipping the switch on this project knowing that the goal is to replace every single gasoline-powered car in the entire nation...

It's daunting.

Daunting but necessary IMHO.

[Iowanian]

It isn't. I've been yelling for years that we need an Apollo-scale hydrogen program.

What the hell is the difference, if any, between a pickle and a gherkin (sp?) anyway?
Whats the difference between a Kilbasa and a little smokey?

Maybe something like?

Iowanian Pickle http://thumb11.webshots.net/t/54/154/0/0/23/2062000230083348031TQVBFG_th.jpg

Donger Gherkin http://images.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_TN/0018-0510-2511-0917_TN.jpg

[Donger]

Whats the difference between a Kilbasa and a little smokey?

Maybe something like?

Iowanian Pickle http://thumb11.webshots.net/t/54/154/0/0/23/2062000230083348031TQVBFG_th.jpg

Donger Gherkin http://images.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_TN/0018-0510-2511-0917_TN.jpg

ROFL

Ah.

[dirk digler]

Whats the difference between a Kilbasa and a little smokey?

Maybe something like?

Iowanian Pickle http://thumb11.webshots.net/t/54/154/0/0/23/2062000230083348031TQVBFG_th.jpg

Donger Gherkin http://images.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_TN/0018-0510-2511-0917_TN.jpg

LMAO

ROFL

[Mr. Laz]

Iowanian Pickle http://thumb11.webshots.net/t/54/154/0/0/23/2062000230083348031TQVBFG_th.jpg

Donger Gherkin http://images.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_TN/0018-0510-2511-0917_TN.jpg
ROFL

[dirk digler]

That is going to leave a mark for sure

[Iowanian]

That WAS the civilized version for the record.

Forgive me for my moment of weakness Donger.

[Donger]

That WAS the civilized version for the record.

Forgive me for my moment of weakness Donger.

No need. On the contary, thanks for the belly laugh.

[cdcox]

BP just invested $500M in biofuels research:

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9009836&contentId=7018600

The US DOE is also funding $375M in biofuels research over the next 5 years.

What is noteworthy is that BP is going outside the corporate structure to conduct this research and selecting the same contractors (US Universities) as the US government does for much of the government-funded research.

Together both spending efforts (there are others) amount to less than $3 per American, spread over a period of several years.