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.
The tax they are referring to is in addition to the 18 cents a gallon you pay at the pump. overall about 62 cents a gallon national average when the state tax is included.
Yes, but not all electricity; only for electricity produced using the commodity being taxed.
But your other electricity already costs substantially more. For example there was the big wind farm in Mass. that was splashed all over the news a few weeks back. A week later not reported was the 21 cents per kilowatt hour the distibutor was going to be paying for it, that's wholesale and less than what the consumer is paying for it. Addtionally the contract called for something like a 3.5% increas over 15 years which will put it over 32 cents.
The cement industry is one of the largest emitters of CO2 in this country, I believe second only to the power industry. Depends on how the bill is written but the proposal they were toying around wuith last year would have increased it's cost by 40 to 50%. Roads, bridges, schools, airports, sidewalks...even the foundation below your home.
I think it's pretty safe to say there is no replacement for the coal they use to generate that heat.
I think it's pretty safe to say there is no replacement for the coal they use to generate that heat.
i disagree. it is a matter of cost, not technical ability. the state of South Carolina, for example, gets the majority of its energy from Nuclear power.
i disagree. it is a matter of cost, not technical ability. the state of South Carolina, for example, gets the majority of its energy from Nuclear power.
Nuclear may very well be a viable alternative but don't hold your breath waiting for them to get built. Firstly you have the NIMBY's and environmental groups that will drag such a project through the courts for years. Secondly last I read nuclear is not included as a form of energy that will be allowed to offset carbon emissions , power companies will be investing in much more expensive and wind generation to meet the mandates. You are in the same boat as a state that produces its power 100% with coal.
Nuclear may very well be a viable alternative but don't hold your breath waiting for them to get built. Firstly you have the NIMBY's and environmental groups that will drag such a project through the courts for years.
so streamline the process; screw an environmental assessment, we don't need one. we did it in oil rig drilling, it oughta work in nuclear, right?
bottom line is, this BP disaster is a perfect example of unforeseen environmental costs that neoconservative geniuses never did work into their little mental models of how the world is supposed to work.
straining the environment, whether you own a parking lot and are discharging chemically-laden stormwater runoff, or you're a major corporation spewing oil into public waters, has a cost. we just choose to ignore it via legislation, and we let the costs "drift downstream" to whomever has the fewest lawyers and lobbyists -- cities, states, federal taxpayers, nearby landowners, gulf fishermen, other nations.
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.
