Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Passing More Gas

Everybody is talking about global warming, but once again calling to mind the old adage and warning about confusing activity with progress. All of the politico's are posturing and positioning, preparing their stances so they can say "Look. Look at what I good thing I did to fight global warning." And while I am happy to see that the topic is finally being pulled out from under the carpet at last, I continue to be disappointed in the level of action.

Both at the state and the national level, the focus is being put on alternative fuels and increased domestic production. You guys just don't get it. Where's that 2x4? You need a good smack upside the head.

Global warming exacerbated by carbon-dioxide production that is a result of using hydro-carbons as a fuel source. That's gasoline, coal, AND ethanol. Plus, to grow all that corn, you need increased production and consumption of fertilizer (more petroleum product production) and then you need to convert it to ethanol, which requires more energy input using - guess what? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

No, if you want to do something right now to reduce CO2 levels, put a big, fat, tax on gasoline and gasoline products. That is the only thing that will get you and I to drive less and to start using something other than the ubiquitous Supreme Ubergazzolholic Vehicle to haul our overweight asses around while we talk over the latest goings on of Oprah with our best buds through a cell phone that has been permanently inserted into our ear.

Windmills won't do it. Ethanol won't do it. Nuclear power won't do it. Mandating another mile or two per gallon of gas won't do it. Only a sizable tax on gasoline will do it, AND it would do it right now.

Who's got the guts to put that in place? Not the Republocrats. When one filters out the political verbiage, the miracle cures, the oh-so-careful nudges that might move us in a too-little-too-late manner toward a "better" place vis-a-vis global warning - there is no one who has the gumption to propose the one thing that would have two big positive results - a reduction in driving and an increase in revenue. No one.

And who out there reading this (yes, I mean YOU - the one person to actually stop and read this far in the last two weeks) would agree to such a plan? I would bet that most of us would reject it. For it would mean we would have to think twice about firing up all six, eight, or ten cylinders in our eight foot high, 12 foot long, 14 mile to the gallon suburban land yacht to go get junior at the mall. Good God, can't have that.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home