• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats propose further tax hike on offshore oil

I have no problem with using oil more efficiently.
To make that happen we are going to have to undue 50-60 years of pushing people to drive everywhere.
Like somehow disabling the national interstate system.

For what it's worth, Warren Buffet has aquired Sante Fe railroad and plans on putting most of the trucked dry goods on trains.
That is a positive direction in efficient usage of oil.

Since when do trains get better fuel mileage than a truck?
 
Since when do trains get better fuel mileage than a truck?

Trains by and large pull more weight per gallon of fuel than a truck wish it could.
You can load up to 4x as much goods inside a train car vs. a truck.

Don't get mad at me though, Buffet is the one pushing that.
Trucking is going to head in the direction of mostly short haul sooner or later.
 
Trains by and large pull more weight per gallon of fuel than a truck wish it could.
You can load up to 4x as much goods inside a train car vs. a truck.

Don't get mad at me though, Buffet is the one pushing that.
Trucking is going to head in the direction of mostly short haul sooner or later.
Your right except for a few things you may have not considered. One would be the infrastructure of the railroads, it gone and to expensive to bring back. Two would be yes rail is becoming more popular but it still takes up to four weeks to transport freight from one coast to another, in a truck four days. Trains are great for train loads but not LTL yet still needs trucks to go to door to door in most circumstances. I agree trains are on the rise again, I see everyday more and more trucking companies gearing themselves for train container work.
 
Your right except for a few things you may have not considered. One would be the infrastructure of the railroads, it gone and to expensive to bring back. Two would be yes rail is becoming more popular but it still takes up to four weeks to transport freight from one coast to another, in a truck four days. Trains are great for train loads but not LTL yet still needs trucks to go to door to door in most circumstances. I agree trains are on the rise again, I see everyday more and more trucking companies gearing themselves for train container work.

Well, we're not trying get rid of truck transport, but increase efficiency through the increased use of rail transport.
 
Trains by and large pull more weight per gallon of fuel than a truck wish it could.
You can load up to 4x as much goods inside a train car vs. a truck.

Don't get mad at me though, Buffet is the one pushing that.
Trucking is going to head in the direction of mostly short haul sooner or later.

It takes just as much energy for a train to pull a ton of freight as it does a truck to perform the same amount of work. Don't be tricked by the CSX commercials.
 
I agree we will have do to this sooner or later but not all at once nor should we tax the public as to persuade them. This will be a gradual thing and we have plenty of oil here in the U.S. to give us plenty of time to do so. That said we shouldn't punish the consumer by taxing them to death.

What we call gradual may be the problem. We've hardly been quick on this. And the government could do more to promote it and lower costs of promising efforts (like replacing existing fleet with hybrids or electric vehicles or whatever alternative is ready). Even a gradual move has to begin and progress.

As for taxes? I wouldn't punish. But if something costs us more to maintain (think gulf clean up) and BP folds, and the government has to pay to clean it up, wouldn't users of the product be next in line to pay? If not, who should pay?
 
alternate sources have - as of yet - proven too expensive to be a ready replacement for oil. You would have to jack the price of gasoline up enough to crash the economy to get enough people to switch. in 2008, we didn't see the beginnigs of actual change in behavior until gas hit about $4 a gallon; it's exceedingly inelastic because (as American points out), much of our consumption is tied to activities that we are not willing to give up - driving to work, going to pick up groceries, etc. and you would need to jack up prices significantly beyond that $4 a gallon in order to start seeing a mass-rapid switch to alternate energies.

'alternate energies' is not a magic wand that one can wave and pass into law in order to hook each of our electronic car batteries to a windfarm.

The oil companies are against alternative energy sources. They even buy up patents of alternative energy sources to keep them off the market, imo.
 
What we call gradual may be the problem. We've hardly been quick on this. And the government could do more to promote it and lower costs of promising efforts (like replacing existing fleet with hybrids or electric vehicles or whatever alternative is ready). Even a gradual move has to begin and progress.

As for taxes? I wouldn't punish. But if something costs us more to maintain (think gulf clean up) and BP folds, and the government has to pay to clean it up, wouldn't users of the product be next in line to pay?[b/


That's purdy much every person in the country. There isn't anyone who doesn't who their life to the use of petroleum.


If not, who should pay?

Everyone, from every state that has received oil and gas royalties.
 
The oil companies are against alternative energy sources. They even buy up patents of alternative energy sources to keep them off the market, imo.

You have proof of all this, right?

I am still trying to see why the oil companies would supress new energy technology. It doesn't make the first bit of sense. As I've said before, oil is the only show in town, that's why oil companies go after it.
 
I'm actually fine with an additional 3 cents on my gas if it would prevent this sort of thing. :shrug:



Also, Maybe we can shut down the MMS since its irrellevant to this mess and funnel that money into the 1994 plan instead. that may make it 2 cents more expensive...


I am not for some massive tax, just enough to fund cleanup and mitigation. It's going to cost us a lot more in the long run to clean this mess up as it is now.


That's my point.

How would the oil companies learn their lesson if the consumer is the one paying for that lesson?
 
How would the oil companies learn their lesson if the consumer is the one paying for that lesson?

BP is losing billions everyday and will keep losing money, even after the well is capped. How are they not, "learning their lesson"?
 
You have proof of all this, right?

I am still trying to see why the oil companies would supress new energy technology. It doesn't make the first bit of sense. As I've said before, oil is the only show in town, that's why oil companies go after it.

No, I have not. That's why I said, "imo".
 
You have proof of all this, right?

I am still trying to see why the oil companies would supress new energy technology. It doesn't make the first bit of sense. As I've said before, oil is the only show in town, that's why oil companies go after it.

Proof: Oil, Profits, and the Question of Alternative Energy | Humanist | Find Articles at BNET From the article: By the late 1970s, oil companies had bought out many of the patents for photovoltaic cells, and corporate giants like Atlantic Richfield, Amoco, Exxon, and Mobil took control of solar power companies. This trend would lead Alfred Dougherty, former director of the Federal Trade Commission's bureau of competition to warn, "If the oil companies control substantial amounts of substitute fuels ... they may slow the pace of production of alternative fuels in order to protect the value of their oil and gas reserves." Edwin Rothschild, a spokesperson for the Citizen Energy Labor Coalition, was concerned that the big oil companies "see solar power as a competing source of energy, and they want to control it and slow it down." However, ownership of solar technology by big oil was only the first step in the methodical dismantling of the alternative energy renaissance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car?
 
Last edited:
Proof: Oil, Profits, and the Question of Alternative Energy | Humanist | Find Articles at BNET From the article: By the late 1970s, oil companies had bought out many of the patents for photovoltaic cells, and corporate giants like Atlantic Richfield, Amoco, Exxon, and Mobil took control of solar power companies. This trend would lead Alfred Dougherty, former director of the Federal Trade Commission's bureau of competition to warn, "If the oil companies control substantial amounts of substitute fuels ... they may slow the pace of production of alternative fuels in order to protect the value of their oil and gas reserves." Edwin Rothschild, a spokesperson for the Citizen Energy Labor Coalition, was concerned that the big oil companies "see solar power as a competing source of energy, and they want to control it and slow it down." However, ownership of solar technology by big oil was only the first step in the methodical dismantling of the alternative energy renaissance."


So, I guess it's not you opinion, anymore?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom