Americans See Warming as Threat, but don't Want "Carbon Gas Tax"

Real concrete solutions are going to require a serious lifestyle adjustment, like not driving alone or driving in gas guzzlers, that some Americans refuse to give up. There will also need to be governmental participation at all levels, hopefully leading to reliable, useful, practical public transportation in major US cities.

The US is behind the public transportation curve, and don't get me started about the city of Houston.

Imagine what Houston would be like if a practical, thorough, economical light rail/monorail system was built here in the 1970s and 1980s.

I would love to be able to walk 10 minutes from my house and jump on a light rail system that could take me anywhere I wanted in town. It's the one thing I hate about living here.

I live about a 10 minute drive from the only light rail we have, but I use it whenever I go downtown for ballgames or partying, and I often use it when I go to the Continental Club. It would be nice not to have to drive to get there.

 

We should have a substantial gas tax.

 

I think an increase in taxes is something the good people from the leftside of the political fence should emphasize...

 

So . .. basically
We saying the only way to make people change their habits is to CHARGE THEM MORE to do what they doing. The hope being that hitting them in the pocket book is the only way to change the behavior?

Sounds like this solution or even the thought of trying this as a solution . .seems like a Money Grab

Rocket River

 

I voted for a gas tax once when I voted for Perot.

 

It's true, other than the literally thousands of ideas that have been researched or proposed such as biofuels, carbon trading, hybrid vehicles, greater fuel efficiency, carbon offsets, etc etc etc there's basically nothing out there.

 

The problem isn't that people don't want to do anything with it. The problem is that 1) no one accept a tax for anything unless it is for something that they will be socially condemned for (ex. tax on cigarettes) 2) taxes don't necessarily work because the money goes into the beauracracy and gets lost or flipped into the military.

If the government wants to do something about climate change, they should just do it (they won't) and not tax people for it. Instead just take money out of all the programs and military tech we waste money on. Hell, we are spending a trillion dollars on this failure of a war and not getting taxed on it, why can't the government institute a program by being fiscally responsible instead of just taking the easy way out and taxing its citizens?

 

The problem is more that when you govern by referendum, people want to have their cake and eat it too. See California and its various financial crises.

 

How about something that would work? Something that works on the free-market. Something that would be good for the citizens. And the government wouldn't even have to do it themselves, they could just start issuing permits.

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

The discussion is really just seriously starting on this issue -- over the next 10 years those numbers will change significantly. Over the past decade we have witnessed the GW issue go from tree hugging fringe to a popular mainstream cultural movement.

 

yes, that's another part of the problem that equally concerns me, but I don't think it supercedes all of the other ones since even if you create the right bill, mismanagement of funds still leaves us with the same failures.

 

I don't agree that mismanagement is as rampant as you would believe - it is possible for governments to run surpluses, and I think a l ot of the glaring examples of waste distort the examples of money well spent, which is the bulk of it. I mean, off the top of my head, I can think of thousands and thousands of government programs that largely work despite glaring flaws. Police, fire fighting, the army, roads, market regulation, etc etc etc.

 

I really don't think this issue has much merit.

 

So now you accept anthropogenic global warming?

 

Overwhelmingly, the organizations that work best are run at the lowest level possible. City/district/precinct or county/parish. It's really the Federal government that is horribly bad at managing our money.

 

They're not inept, they're irresponsible. There's a difference.