Comments on: Unintended Consequences

By: Shoebox

Shoebox — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:42:11 +0000

Lee, using Oxfam as an example of Greens not liking biofuels is akin to using Bush as an example of Conservatives saying it’s “OK”. The exceptions do not prove the rule. The same knuckleheads have the same position on ethanol and it has the same issues.

The 2 issues are these:
1. Don’t burn your food!
2. oil, oil, oil, oil

The issue is polarized. It’s polarized between people who refuse to recognize the reality/need of inexpensive energy and will try any idiotic thing without looking at even basic math and those who have managed to get through 5th grade math and can see that for the time being, that trying to grow enough corn/soybeans for both food and fuel doesn’t work

By: HeatherRadish

HeatherRadish — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:02:54 +0000

I’m surprised (not, not really) no one figured this out after they started banning smoking, then had to raise the cigarette tax to maintain revenues.

Biodiesel is about reducing our dependence on foreign oil moreso than it is about being environmentally friendly.

Yeah, I’ll believe that when they start calling for drilling off our coasts and developing the resources in Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota instead of whining about the plants and animals (nevermind the wildlife habitat being destroyed all over the Midwest to plant more corn, an irony that would amuse me if it wasn’t so bloody STUPID).

By: Shoebox

Shoebox — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:41:57 +0000

Headless,

Of course you’re right that the fundamental issue is spending and prioitization of that spending not the revenue level. As always, the simple analogy is a family budget. When our revenues drop down we find ways to adjust our spending. Govt. never looks at the world that way!

By: Headless

Headless — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:49:50 +0000

One of my first blog posts was an evaluation of motor fuel taxes collected in Wisconsin versus the now-repealed automatic gas tax indexing. Gas tax indexing was first implemented in the 1980’s to make up for reduced gasoline usage in a time of increasing fuel prices and more efficient vehicles. That is the situation that we now face.

What I found when I studied the numbers was that motor fuel tax indexing increased tax collections by 39% from 1990 to 2005. However driving more miles in less efficient vehicles actually accounted for a larger increase in fuel taxes collected, 47% more over the same period.

Even with today’s reduction in driving, we are far ahead of inflation when it comes to motor fuel taxes collected in Wisconsin. The problem isn’t too little taxation, it is too much spending on pork barrel road projects around the state.

http://headlessblogger.blogspot.com/2005/12/is-gas-tax-indexing-needed-in.html

By: lee

lee — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:17:43 +0000

Weird that you try to polarize this issue, tells me that that’s the lens you see the world through, wether it reflects reality or not. Everybody understands that it’s all about cheap energy, you don’t have to be left or right to get that. You also seem to be attaching biodiesel with the greenies… The lefties? This is something explicitly supported by bush and other republicans as its good for american agriculture, not particularly a leftist stronghold. Biodiesel is about reducing our dependence on foreign oil moreso than it is about being environmentally friendly. The only reason it’s even viable right now is because regular oil is so expensive now, ie everybody gets that its about cheap energy. So it really doesn’t make sense for you to polarize this topic like it is.

Btw, oxfam (full of poverty-fightin’ lefties right?) Is vehemently against biofuels, they don’t see it as being very green atZ