Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
55 and carbon tax. Two of the stupidest things liberals have dreamt up.
What??
Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon were Liberals??
55 MPH was started by the three west coast Republican governors in 1973 and Nixon as President followed their lead on the issue.
Bill Clinton removed the hammer of Federal funding for highways and allowed the Governors of the individual states to set speed limits on all roads in their states.
EVERY....DEMOCRAT governor can have a 55 MPH speed limit on ALL roads within the state.....tomorrow.
They just have to write an order.like Reagan did in 1973.
IF they really believe in climate change they should do it tomorrow. They might catch a bit of flak, but hey saving the planet is worth it.
Alight, I'll play according to the OP's rules, thus no comment on the validity of global warming.
Choice 1: $8 per gallon tax
As is well known in economics, the more expensive something becomes, the less of that thing is consumed. Such a massive increase in the cost of driving will undoubtedly result in less driving, which is obviously the intent. But then what? Will options to driving, such as mass transit, be increased? Maybe around the margins, but nowhere near enough to make up for the surge in demand. Many people will find that they can no longer afford to drive to work, and with no other options available, they will lose their jobs. Others will cut out discretionary travel, resulting in job losses in those industries that rely on the motoring public for their livelihood. Trucking companies will raise their rates to carry their cargoes, which of course will be passed on to the consumers. (Granted, some freight will be diverted to railroads and maybe even water-borne transportation, but the overall costs will still go up.) Everyone, and I mean everyone, will take a big hit in their wallet.
Choice 2: 55 mph national speed limit.
Of course, this has already been tried. And it failed. What it did do was cause widespread disrespect for the law, and by extension those who were tasked with enforcing it. A whole cottage industry -- CB radios, radar detectors, etc. -- sprouted up whose purpose was to enable people to evade the law. And a large amount of police resources had to be devoted to speed enforcement instead of more productive activities.
A free people need to decide for themselves what laws they are willing to submit to. Prohibition, and the national speed limit, were examples of laws that did not have broad public support, and thus were flouted -- and eventually repealed.
So, our choices are to either significantly damage our economy, or submit to a deeply unpopular law. Given the OP's stipulation that we must choose one or the other, I'll pick the national speed limit . . . and bide my time until sanity returns and it gets repealed, again.
Thank you for your post.....any other comments on these lines.
55 MPH was started by the three west coast Republican governors in 1973 and Nixon as President followed their lead on the issue.
Bill Clinton removed the hammer of Federal funding for highways and allowed the Governors of the individual states to set speed limits on all roads in their states.
EVERY....DEMOCRAT governor can have a 55 MPH speed limit on ALL roads within the state.....tomorrow.
They just have to write an order.like Reagan did in 1973.
IF they really believe in climate change they should do it tomorrow. They might catch a bit of flak, but hey saving the planet is worth it.
Started with Carter. The climate always changes. Slowing people down won’t do anything.
Started with Carter. The climate always changes. Slowing people down won’t do anything.
It was signed into law by Tricky Dick Nixon and went into effect in 1974.
And BTW Joe Biden, DID vote to impose the national 55 MPH speed limit. It was one of the first, of many many things he supported that absolutely did not do what it was supposed to do.
Transportation is the major source of CO2 emissions in western countries.
From the European version of EPA.....Transport is the only sector whose greenhouse emissions increased between 1990 and 2008. Transport’s total GHG output rose 25 % in the 32 EEA member countries (this excludes the international maritime and aviation sectors), accounting for 19.5 % of total emissions. CO2 is the main component of transport greenhouse gas emissions (99 %) and road transport is, in turn, the largest contributor to these emissions (around 94 % in 2008), thus accounting for 18.2% of total emissions.
As noted in this article, the French think reducing speed limits will reduce CO2 emissions by 30%!!!
The Democrats are proposing a carbon tax or cap and trade policy when it comes to C02 emissions. However, to get a 30% reduction via taxes would require a ADDITIONAL gas tax of THREE to FIVE dollars a gallon.
The alternative is much simpler and cheaper. Drop the speed limit to 55 MPH.
BTW....70% or more of the transportation CO2 emissions come from BLUE STATES. The Governor of the state has the ability to set speed limits for ALL roads in their states. No new laws to be passed, and there is nothing President Trump can do to stop it.
In fact, in 1973, the three Republican governors of Washngton (Evans), Oregon (McCall), and California (Reagan) imposed the 55 MPH limit overnight!! I remember driving from Vancouver, Canada to Berkeley, CA a few days after the speed limit was imposed. Easy to do.
Since "global climate change" is now "settled science. Every Democrat running for President and all their Governors support climate change it looks like an additional $4/gallon gas tax or 55 MPH.
Like to hear people's comments on which you prefer and why. Accept as a given that it is taxes or 55 MPH. This thread is not about the validity of global warming...thanks.
As is well known in economics, the more expensive something becomes, the less of that thing is consumed. Such a massive increase in the cost of driving will undoubtedly result in less driving, which is obviously the intent.
People who are against carbon taxes always (conveniently?) leave out the REBATE.
All carbon taxes are recycled back to taxpayers through a tax rebate.
This creates a huge incentive for motorists to buy electric vehicles and for factories to swap equipment because you come out ahead, you get a rebate but didn't pay the carbon tax.
That's the whole point.
A vast majority of economists say a carbon tax with rebate is the most painless way to address the ongoing climate crisis.
Started with Carter. The climate always changes. Slowing people down won’t do anything.
Nope....I was living in Vancouver, Canada and needed to drive down to Berkeley, CA. It was in the fall, around Thanksgiving. Before even the rest of the states acted the three Republican governors imposed 55 MPH....actually Washington state (Evans) imposed 50 MPH. I do remember driving down on I-5 at 50 MPH in the dark. The emergency regulation required lights out if a business was closed and a large portion of the streetlights were also shut-down.
Nice overnight drive with great friends. Safe.....not much traffic. The only issue was finding an open gas station after mid-night. Thank god, we were driving a Datsun 510!!
More than you care to know about 55 MPH. It does skip over the role of the three Republican governors. But it was their idea.
Well, Jim IF your still reading......it is the policy position of the Democrat Party.
I’m not surprised. And Democrats call Republicans authoritarian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509
Just a few weeks ago....the only thing that kept Oregon from imposing a carbon tax was the Republicans left the state so there was no quorum in the Legislature. After the next election, it might be a different outcome.
Hopefully not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509
I guess NOBODY wants to save the planet.....sort of like "everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die".
Save the planet from what? The US could stop using fossil fuels tomorrow and it wouldn’t make a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509
Then WHY are we spending so much time talking about climate change as a society??
Damn good question. I’ve watched the climate change argument morph from “aerosols are destroying the atmosphere” to “we’re heading into a new ice age” to “the icecaps are melting” to “we must tax cow flatulence to stop climate change”. I’m not sure why anyone listens to the alarmists anymore.
All that being said, we seriously, as a society, need to stop using taxes as a weapon. The founding fathers would kick our collective *** for letting the country go this route.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
