<div>I suppose the analysis, "Plan B," at the website below, from the Earth Policy Institute, is not worth reading, compared to the "critique" you praise, given that you "don't think anyone has said it better?"</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/pdf/80by2020doc.pdf">http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/pdf/80by2020doc.pdf</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>To more fully flesh out the tax issue regarding fossil fuels: "Taxing everything that uses fuel... is economic suicide" the no one has said it better critique states. <strong><em>Yet the Earth Policy Institute analysis I reference advocates what is regarded by prominent economists as a reasonable economic policy to assist the transition away from fossil fuels to other energy sources, "tax shifting.</em></strong>" </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Income taxes, for example, are lowered, to offset taxes on fossil fuel emissions. The tax burden on the consumer and the tax revenues to the government can remain stable. The full economic implications require a professional economic analysis, beyond the scope of this post.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But to make broad and hyperbolic statements about "economic suicide" from taxing fossil fuels is to not address the complexities of some of the proposals on this issue from professional economists. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are several other oversimplifications, misrepresentations and logical errors that should be addressed. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>But this thread once again so far is just restating from the same participants the same positions in general terms that have been parsed over and over on Vision2020. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'll offer a proposal for fossil fuel oil domestic security that I do not recall being advocated often, if ever, on Vision2020.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The argument is that we cannot "realistically" lessen our dependence on fossil fuel oil soon enough to avoid these more environmentally damaging developments, such as the Alberta tar sands.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong><em>Therefore, given this logic, why not open the oil shale in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming to full scale development? This is the largest fossil fuel oil deposit in the US, by far. Why is there no advocacy for this from those arguing on Vision2020 for the saneness of the Alberta tar sands development? Would they rather Canada shoulder the environmental damage, rather than the US, if we developed our domestic oil shale?</em></strong> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I understand from my reading that one of the problems with shale development is the huge amount of water required. But for those who are "realistic" about our needs for fossil fuel oil, they won't object to Idaho's water resources being diverted to Wyoming for shale development, assuming this is feasible, correct? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The most "commercially attractive" oil shale are mostly on federal land (read "Oil Shale and Tar Sands Program EIS" info at website below). But if we can stop those big government regulators and bureaucrats and environmentalists, who might block development, the free market can work it's magic for domestic oil security. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Info on the immense US oil shale at websites below, with arguments that this resource can be "realistically" developed:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>From "Oil and Gas Journal":</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010-373.pdf">http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010-373.pdf</a><br> </div>
<div>From "Oil Shale and Tar Sands Program EIS":</div>
<div><br><a href="http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/">http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Domestic fossil fuel oil, more than Saudi Arabia! </div>
<div> </div>
<div>After all, let's be "realistic."</div>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/2/10, <b class="gmail_sendername">lfalen</b> <<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Paul<br>An excellent critique. I don't think anyone has said it better.<br>Roger<br>-----Original message-----<br>
From: Paul Rumelhart <a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a><br>Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:34:48 -0700<br>To: "<a href="mailto:nickgier@roadrunner.com">nickgier@roadrunner.com</a>" <a href="mailto:nickgier@roadrunner.com">nickgier@roadrunner.com</a>, Ted Moffett <a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Alberta's Tar Sands and Idaho's Wilderness Gateway<br><br>><br>><br>> --- On Tue, 6/1/10, Ted Moffett <<a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Some argue that it is a matter of national security and economic necessity to develop and gain access to this huge oil resource that can reduce oil dependence on other foreign oil sources, while we work on alternative energy sources. But this is short sighted, given that climate change is a national security and planetary wide risk that is increased with continued greenhouse gas emissions, while time is running out to prevent climate change tipping points that will be difficult to stop. <br>
><br>> I wouldn't call it "short sighted", I'd call it "realistic".<br>><br>> Here's how my logic goes:<br>><br>> 1. We need power. We need it for a lot of things. Transportation of goods, heating and cooling, powering factories, running our financial systems, gathering resources, military defense, etc.<br>
><br>> 2. It would be better, for a lot of reasons, if we weren't dependent upon fossil fuel use.<br>><br>> 3. There are no alternative energy solutions of sufficient size that we could turn to today to completely remove our dependence upon fossil fuels, except nuclear (which the same people that are telling us to get off of fossil fuels are throwing bureaucratic roadblocks in the way of).<br>
><br>> 4. There is no way that we could nix fossil fuel use within 20 years, maybe even 50, even if we had the will to do it.<br>><br>> 5. Using fossil fuels produced in politically insane countries that are politically our enemies is unwise.<br>
><br>> 6. Given all the above, it would be better (in my opinion) to switch our fuel usage as much as possible to local fuels or fuels from politically sane countries in the short term, build up a network of nuclear power plants to handle our minimum energy needs, switch over to electric cars, implement a "smart" electric grid, and supplement with alternative energy as needed and as they are developed.<br>
><br>> If the right incentives were given at the right times, it might be the quickest way to remove our fossil fuel dependence. Taxing everything that uses fuel, which is everything of any use to anybody pretty much, is economic suicide. I'd rather that the government implement a Manhattan-style project to bring up nuclear power, preferably using breeder reactors and the latest technologies, and quit naively hoping that if we tax the hell out of everybody they will magically find a better alternative instead of just doing without and reverting to an agrarian society. Meanwhile, China and India will continue to burn fossil fuels and (assuming anthropogenic global warming is as dire as they say it is) we won't have the resources or ability to handle the disasters as they happen.<br>
><br>> Anyway, that's my take on it.<br>><br>> Paul<br>><br>><br>><br></blockquote></div><br>