Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

WANNA CUT GREENHOUSE GASES THE OBAMA WAY? MAKE GAS MORE EXPENSIVE, OBVIOUSLY

Posted by Andrew Roman on March 3, 2010

It’s only a bit of research by some Harvard “experts.”

But this just isn’t going to fly.

Although no one in the enviro-fascist camp really seems to be trying to tackle the problem of reducing the most abundant greenhouse gas of all – water vapor – the Obama administration stands steadfastly behind its goal to reduce other doomsday greenhouse gases that threaten the planet’s existence, like carbon dioxide.

You’ll recall that carbon dioxide is the stuff we – and all air breathing creatures – exhale.

(I thought it was worth restating).

And even though the hoax of manmade global warming continues to unravel on a daily basis, it isn’t keeping the true believers – like the ever-industrious President of the United States – from demanding that greenhouse emissions be cut before it’s too late.

But Obama’s standards are steep.  His goals are ambitious.

And if America is to save itself – and the world – from greenhouse death, it’s going to require that the price of gasoline go up, according to some researchers.

Way up.

How does $7.00 a gallon sound?

Sindya N. Bhando of the New York Times’ Dot Earth feature writes:

To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.

To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.

In their study, the researchers devised several combinations of steps that United States policymakers might take in trying to address the heat-trapping emissions by the nation’s transportation sector, which consume 70 percent of the oil used in the United States.

Most of their models assumed an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 a ton in 2030. In some cases researchers also factored in tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles, taxes on fuel or both.

In the modeling, it turned out that issuing tax credits could backfire, while taxes on fuel proved beneficial.

I’m curious … which governmental agency will be so lucky to benefit from the income generated by these tax increases?

Perhaps the new found revenue could be used to subsidize the poor, who will be hit hardest by such a price increase.

And let’s not forget those people unfortunate enough not to have access to a urine-soaked subway system, a sparsely travelled light rail system or a public bus.

A government-imposed $7.00 a gallon price for gasoline might hurt a little. 

It’s interesting to note that while stories about the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions continue to somehow find their way onto the pages of the New York Times, the continued implosion of the global warming charade – including the story of ClimateGate itself – is all but ignored by the Grey-haired Lady.

$7.00 a gallon gas?

Is the government-led dismantling of the transportation industry as we know it the goal here?

What’s next?

An attempt to take over the health care industry?
wordpress statistics

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: