page eleven

bob - You guys claim to be worried about the costs of preventing global warming when in actuality what has been suggested here so far would represent a net savings to the average consumer. The automobile and the costs associated with eat up a large share of people's incomes. Better mass transit and improved city design would reduce that cost, improve the livability of cities and cut down on CO2 emmisions all at the same time. But of course this has been explained before and it hasn't made a dent because you want what you want and that is the status quo that suits you so well. To hell with well reasoned, well documented arguements such as the one provided by seeker4 above. To hell with people who don't love cars. And to hell with the future generations who will inherit your mess.

fred smith - The killer bees are coming. They are coming. Whooooaaaaaaa hahaha

bob - Very funny. But increasing gas tax to pay for improved mass transit would improve life for everybody but the oil companies as I am sure you are well aware. BP declared record profits this year thanks to guess what? High oil prices. If we don't pay it to those bastards we pay it to the bastards in the middle east. Why not pay it to ourselves? Why not improve the quality of life for everybody in the process? Why not have more city space devoted to green space and less to pavement? Why not look at the actual science related to global warming and respond rationally instead of with stupid jokes about killer bees?

OutofChaos - Question posed:

Quote bob:
Why not look at the actual science related to global warming and respond rationally instead of with stupid jokes about killer bees?


Irrational, unfounded, economic gobbly-gook offered as an example of ‘rational’

Quote bob:
If we don't pay it to those bastards we pay it to the bastards in the middle east. Why not pay it to ourselves? Why not improve the quality of life for everybody in the process?


So the premise is: If we raise taxes on gasoline, the oil company won’t get the money. If we raise taxes on gasoline the Arabs won’t get the money. If we raise taxes on gasoline WE get the money.

BLEEP! Wrong. Bad premise. I, and most others, am not buying this BIG LIE.

‘Big oil’ won’t cut their costs in the wake of higher taxes. The Arabs won’t charge less in the wake of higher taxes. All I get is much higher gasoline costs because the government is raising the price of gasoline.

The money is mine now; I don’t have to PAY me. I certainly don’t need you to charge me higher taxes to PAY me my money.
Your argument for higher gasoline taxes is ‘sound bite simple’ and fully flawed. That’s just one reason I don’t trust the ‘facts’ presented in the rest of your arguments.

The quality of life certainly won’t improve for those of us paying the higher cost of gasoline with your increased taxes. In fact, it will give us less discretionary income to spend on the other things in life we enjoy.

I certainly don’t enjoy the prospect of ‘everyone’ living in high-density housing. I certainly don’t enjoy the prospect of being at the mercy of some bureaucrats mass transit timetable. I certainly don’t enjoy the prospect of losing the safety and security of my own transportation, at my beck and call, when I want it, where I want it.

I worked long and hard to get it and I do resent anyone trying to take it away and telling me they'll improve my quality of life without it.

You have the right to flail your arms wildly about and scream and preach doom and gloom. You even have the right to call that 'rational.' But your right to do so ends at my wallet.

Your increased taxes on gasoline don’t make you my friend and benefactor; they make you into just another ‘bastard’ as much as you refer to when you speak of the oil companies and the Arabs.

Jaboney - OutofChaos wrote:
Quote:
If we don't pay it to those bastards we pay it to the bastards in the middle east. Why not pay it to ourselves? Why not improve the quality of life for everybody in the process?

So the premise is: If we raise taxes on gasoline, the oil company won’t get the money. If we raise taxes on gasoline the Arabs won’t get the money. If we raise taxes on gasoline WE get the money.


The premise isn't that anyone will cut prices, but that higher costs will spur the development of alternatives, which, I assume, won't be dependent of extracting resources from politically inconvenient regions. Alternatives which, I expect, would be immediately and immensely popularly, and thus bring wealth flowing in, rather than out of the country.

OutofChaos wrote:
I certainly don’t enjoy the prospect of ‘everyone’ living in high-density housing. I certainly don’t enjoy the prospect of being at the mercy of some bureaucrats mass transit timetable. I certainly don’t enjoy the prospect of losing the safety and security of my own transportation, at my beck and call, when I want it, where I want it.

I worked long and hard to get it and I do resent anyone trying to take it away and telling me they'll improve my quality of life without it.

Fair enough, but not necessary. Intelligent engineer needn't mean high-density housing, that's simply the easiest alternative. There are plenty of people working on "off-the-grid" single-family dwellings that are far, far more conservative in terms of energy usage.

Here's one that's rather fun: Rocky Mountain Institute


OutofChaos wrote:
You have the right to flail your arms wildly about and scream and preach doom and gloom. You even have the right to call that 'rational.' But your right to do so ends at my wallet.

Fair enough, but at what point does your right to consume unnecessarily large amounts of energy, and to pollute unnecessarily, end? When it involves my country in a war for resources? When I become ill from the environmental impact?

bob - OCC wrote Quote:
BLEEP! Wrong. Bad premise. I, and most others, am not buying this BIG LIE.


You must work for an oil company, or perhaps an automobile manufacturer. Auto sales? Insurance? Repairs maybe. Or are you just too set in your ways to see that we are all in this thing together. That the exhaust you spew is the air others breathe. That cities could be extrordinarily beautiful, exciting, healthy places to live if only there weren't so many goddam automobiles. That the people who don't drive actually pay taxes to build and maintain roads for the people that do. That you are not the only one to have worked long and hard. That you haven't paid one red cent for the clean air you convert into CO2. That not everyone wants the shared living space of the city dominated by ugly, dangerous automobiles. That the money you spend on gasoline supports terrorism. That man's contribution to global warming is becoming more clear and that the automobile is the primary culprit.

That's a lot of thats already and I'll bet my friends on the rational, responsibile side of the issue could add a lot more. Let us know if you can muster an inteligent response to even one of them.

OutofChaos Jaboney wrote:
The premise isn't that anyone will cut prices, but that higher costs will spur the development of alternatives, which, I assume, won't be dependent of extracting resources from politically inconvenient regions. Alternatives which, I expect, would be immediately and immensely popularly, and thus bring wealth flowing in, rather than out of the country.


Sorry Jaboney, you are wrong on this one. I re-read the original post twice and my quoted extract captures the stated premise. You are inserting a completely different premise about alternatives.

The argument as stated was why pay the oil companies or the Middle Eastern countries when we can pay ourselves.

It is a flawed premise without redeemable value.

bob - Jaboney wrote:
The premise isn't that anyone will cut prices....


Oh, but it is. OPEC, Shell, BP and the Saddam Husein clones of the world will surely lower prices as demand falls. Lord knows we have given them plenty of wiggle room. Bastards.

bob - OutofChaos wrote:
It is a flawed premise without redeemable value.

It is a common sense premise of unestimable value. I heard the chairman of BP admit as much on CNN yesterday. What he said was "We would not raise prices to the point that alternatives become economically feasible." Combine that with the fact that they are claiming record profits and it is obvious that the gas tax could be higher without anybody seeing a rise in prices at the pump (not that that would bother me in the least - judging from the number of cars on the street gas is plenty cheap enough).