[ExI] Dollar a gallon gas was Rationality and Irrationality
kevin at kevinfreels.com
Thu Dec 20 19:33:42 UTC 2007
> ### Great Idea!
> But, why not get serious, and impose a tax on all homes with more than
> 100sq.ft per occupant - after all, home heating and cooling puts out
> so much carbon dioxide? We all could fit into 1/10th of available
> apartment space!
I'm game. Of course, I would prefer a bit more. Maybe 500 sq foot per
person. But then you get into having to differentiate between
"conditioned" space and non-conditioned space. It gets too complex to
administer without too much additional cost of inspections. A usage tax
on excess energy usage over a base amount combined with a usage based
tax on oversized homes would be great though. That way you can tax those
who simply use too much instead of having the poor people without the
means to replace insulation and furnaces bear the brunt of the taxes.
> Now, actually, a guzzler tax is too timid - why not impose a 100,000
> tax on all cars that carry less than 50 passengers? We would hardly
> produce any CO2 if we all traveled in buses only.
Do you want to gain R&D revenue? Or is your goal to kill the economy?
And do you want something that can actually be done? You have just as
much chance getting a car ban passed. Then you just shift the burden and
no real research gets done. We need to find ways that allow people to
move about great distances quickly and independently using renewable
resources and that's the objective. The goal is improving the lives of
people for the short and long term. Not to simply speed up the process
of making life intolerable.
> And if you are really serious about your beliefs, why not impose a tax
> of 1,000,000$ on all new births? After all, each baby born is nothing
> but pollution, tons and tons of CO2 generated over her lifetime....
I think I am sensing sarcasm? This is silly. No one could pay it. Human
life would cease to exist. no one would be able to afford reproduction.
I really don't care about the CO2. I'm not yet convinced that global
warming is bad. It's just a question of funding the research necessary
to maintain our way of life while freeing us from having to be dependent
upon foreign countries for a non-renewable and limited energy source.
> OK, I admit I just can't contain my sarcasm when I read yet another
> call to threaten to kill somebody to get what "we" all "need". "More
> money needs" to be spent on your favorite project - hey, let's take a
> gun, stand by the gas pump and squeeze some jerks you hate for 1.50$
> per gallon? You get free cash, and a feeling of moral superiority to
So I was right. That's good. Who said anything about killing anybody? I
don't hate these people. And there's no moral superiority here. The
question was how to change behavior and encourage R&D without destroying
the economy. It's easy to point att he flaws in my ideas but do you have
alternatives? Or do you think that the status quo is sufficient for our
future needs and nothing at all needs to change?
> I prefer to get my feeling of moral superiority from saying "No to
> violence". "If you want something done, do it yourself, don't force
> others to do it". "You have no right to attack somebody unless he
> first provably and indisputably attacks you". Etc, etc.
Who is talking about violence here? Did I miss something? I never
endorse violence. Having a viable alternative to foreign oil would make
us less succeptable to what goes on in the middle-east and would reduce
the need for us to be involved in wars over there. I don't see where you
are getting this.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat