A higher gas tax would be one possible solution.
Personally I would prefer a carbon cap and trade system. It would be more effective in combatting global warming because we could set the carbon cap at whatever level scientists deemed necessary, and it would redistribute wealth by allowing the poor to sell their extra carbon credits to the rich.
2007-08-13 14:11:34
·
answer #1
·
answered by Dana1981 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
I am a republican who is pro-gasoline tax. Here's why. (I don't believe in global warming, so that's not why.) I agree, America needs to get off foreign oil. It is a national security problem. Gasoline is obviously cheap because people burn up a hell of a lot of it. The government could artificially raise the price of gas with a tax. Now the federal tax is like 18 cents and state taxes are from 65 cents to around 25 cents. I would love to see the federal gas tax go up to 50 cents. Gas taxes are a lot better than fuel efficiency standards because fuel efficiency standards put too much regulation of car makers which drives up car costs. If people want to drive SUVs they are going to pay for it. If enviro-freaks want to drive a Prius, let them save some Green. (Dual meaning, green as in money and environment.)
But what do I know, I'm only 13.
2007-08-13 21:23:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
The carbon tax is one of the ways to solve global warming and awaits us in the near future along with carbon credits, carbon offsets, carbon trading, and the rest as given by Kyoto, G8, and IPCC.
This will bring up the price of oil. That means higher prices at the pump. That means it would cost more to travel to work and to the grocery store. All prices in the grocery store will go up in price as well. That is because the shipping cost is now higher. You hope that wages will go up to cover the new high cost of living? That's not going to happen. The cost of running and maintaining a business will go up and that means cuts in the labor force.
Unless there is a cheap energy source that can replace oil immediately, we are all doomed.
*****
Examples of what we will have less of,
Traveling outside the country or outside your state (unless you really need to or it's an emergency that will allow the use of energy at the risk of global weather problems) - expect more check stations where they measure how many miles you've traveled.
Use of the computer - this is one of the biggest energy users of recent times. Also all the gadgets we have now. All use energy to function and all these things will have to be controlled by the state to avert global catastrophe. (These things have done the most damage in recent times in increasing exponentially our energy requirements) - TV's Stereos, headsets, computers etc there use will be measured by the government and you will have certain number of allowances per day, not to exceed without strict penalties.
*****
Even the energy needed to develop alternative forms of energy will be too expensive so we will be struggling each and every way we turn.
The best investment would be to go into carbon credits. Carbon credits = power. Carbon credits = freedom. The more carbon credits you have, the more energy you can use and the better standard of living you will have.
Good luck.
2007-08-13 21:26:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by Harry H 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
That's the answer to everything. Higher taxes...yep. How about banning the gas guzzlers? Street racers? Blatant waste?
2007-08-14 09:41:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by DT 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Assume we cut our "dependence" on foreign oil and used only what we could produce here. Fast forward to the point when we run out. In the interest of our nations survival (likely at any cost), whose oil will we take and how big a body count to get it?
2007-08-14 05:13:14
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
hike up gas and cigarette taxes; use the money for nuclear power or some efficient renewable energy source. Kill two birds with one stone; yeah, people are resistant to higher taxes but in the long run it is an incredibly good idea; people respond to holes their pockets
2007-08-13 21:01:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
90% of France runs on Nuclear .SO the ANSWER to YOUR QUESTION IS THEY WANT a DODD. that means trickle down to you $8.00 a gallon Gas Higher food prices TRUCKS deliver food run on FUEL,higher electric they will build NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS its a low carbon foot print .Carbon Tax will go to build these also if you donate to Blue Sky thru power company the $ goes to build new nuclear plants they say its clean low carbon foot print,Be careful what we wish for
2007-08-13 20:50:03
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
I would if I knew for sure the money would be use to help address the issue of pollutoin from nuclear reactors.
2007-08-13 23:37:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by jdkilp 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Please, higher taxes would just punish the poor, and give credence to the notion that "global warming" kooks just want to take other peoples money.
Here's an idea. End 'Ruralfication' programs that tax cities to give the money to rural areas. The only thing these programs do is to make cities more expensive to live while subsidizing life in the suburbs, causing urban sprawl.
2007-08-13 20:25:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by Dr Jello 7
·
1⤊
5⤋
What about just raising mpg requirements from automakers i dont want to have to pay any more for gas which i need not just want. To get to school unfortunately i cannot take a bus to my school and cannot walk since walking 15 miles would take forever.
2007-08-13 20:06:51
·
answer #10
·
answered by Half-pint 5
·
1⤊
3⤋