Letters to the Editor
-
Fossil fool
Somebody help me understand George Frost's argument:
1) The right thing to do would be to raise gas taxes by $2 or so.
2) Since that can't happen (dang those spineless politicians), the next best thing to do is to cut gas taxes to 0.
3) Cutting the transportation infrastructure budget by $9 billion won't matter because -- oh, wow, look at that!! Sorry, what were we talking about?
-
RE: Lawyer vs. 200 economists
But, but... the economists are all elitists!
Not at all like an undoubtedly salt-of-the-earth lawyer.
And Her Imperial Majesty wouldn't stoop to lying to us just to pander votes, would she?
-
Another Band-Aid Approach to Buy Votes
I disagree with this article. A temporary federal tax reduction of 18 cents is essentially meaningless and a true ploy to buy votes. The price of gas is determined by supply and demand, those who bid on commodity futures due to world events, and the current value of the dollar. In the last 18 months, the price has skyrocketed on these factors alone.. many times the 18 cent proposed reduction. If people feel a sense of relief from this change, they will be freer with their summer driving habits, and push up demand as is typical this time of year. The prices will continue to rise with or without this proposal, and seem destined to reach $4 or even $5 a gallon soon. We need to change our past habits.. fewer trips into town, fewer long distance trips, sharing rides with others.. and the longer term approach of switching to (and demanding ) fuel efficient vehicles and getting serious about finding alternative sources of energy. Its time for America and the US Gov't to stop thinking of short-term, band-aid fixits and plan for the very real changes that we have to deal with as a result of so many other thriving economies ( China, India, Russia, Brazil to name a few ) competing with us for finite resources.
-
The Approach is Linked to the Results wrt Energy Policy
Even though the author appears to be well-intentioned, I believe that he has made a blunder with regards to Clinton's gas tax holiday.
The problem with our energy policy is that it's so far off-track right now that the gas tax holiday debate can only serve to deflect our attention away from the conversations that we badly need to be having. But, even more than that, the very problem of energy policy is the pandering that's been going on for so long now. If Hillary is so willing to placate the public on this issue, then it calls into question her ability and willingness to deal with the much harder issues related to the oil corporations and government-sponsored energy programs.
But let's not be vague about it. What we badly need right now is a smart president who's willing to completely re-evaluate our energy options. We badly need a leader who's willing to create his own investigative panel on our country's energy policy. This panel must be created with the specific purpose of investigating and representing *ALL* claims regarding energy devices. That means actually consulting with critics of the scientific establishment -- the "fringe". Roger Mallove's MIT Cold Fusion Report, for instance, should be admitted as evidence to the panel and investigators should be sent out to visit the thousands of scientific researchers across the world who are claiming that cold fusion is real and only requires another $100 million of investment funds to productize ...
From http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html ...
# George Miley, who received the Edward Teller medal for innovative research in hot fusion and has edited Fusion Technology magazine for the American Nuclear Society for more than 15 years: "There's very strong evidence that low-energy nuclear reactions do occur. Numerous experiments have shown definitive results - as do my own."
# John Bockris, formerly a distinguished professor in physical chemistry at Texas A&M University and a cofounder of the International Society for Electrochemistry: "Nuclear reactions can occur without high temperatures. Low-energy nuclear transformations can - and do - exist."
# Michael McKubre, director of the Energy Research Center at SRI International: "I am absolutely certain there is unexplained heat, and the most likely explanation is that its origin is nuclear."
# Arthur C. Clarke, science fiction writer, futurist, and funder of Infinite Energy magazine: "It seems very promising to me that nuclear reactions may occur at room temperatures. I'm quite convinced there's something in this."
Despite Roger Mallove being nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for his investigations of the subject, claims that MIT's hot fusion group asymmetrically skewed their data sets to suggest that cold fusion was a farce remain to this day uninvestigated. We need a president that has the courage to investigate Mallove's allegations that a federal crime was committed by the MIT hot fusion group ...
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf
Discussions of a gas tax holiday completely divert us away from such real, substantive solutions. Hot fusion is always described as the energy of the future, but it will release horrendous radiation and only a fraction of the power of fission reactors. To date, no hot fusion reactor has ever generated more than 60% input power. Dismantle that program and shift all of the funds to people who claim to be seeing actual results right now -- the thousands of cold fusion researchers across the globe. Any panel formed on the subject will discover all of these facts on their own, as they are highly corroborated; and if intentionally built to include critics of our scientific institutions, the panel will make many very remarkable discoveries about energy policy.
-
Sigh
George, mate... you're an idiot.
-
let me guess
another Clinton surrogate pretending to have some objective ideas and facts? your full of it, buddy. Obama freely admits that he backed this idea in Illinois but that it didn't work.
what's funny is that jackasses like you and the Clintons actually think that 30 dollars over three months is a lot of money to typical americans. it's not. that like about 5 bucks say 40 years ago. i.e. nothing.
if the oil companies just raise the prices anyway, how could it possibly help?
-
Umm... no
How come every economist out there disagrees with the Hillary / McCain plan and agrees with Obama? I smell bullshit.