Why is California on fire? and Oregon? Who's to blame?

[Lumpenproletariat]

and Australia 6 months ago?

Did the same careless campers who started the fires in Australia come to California for the summer?

Governor Newsom says he has no patience with climate-change deniers. But what good is it to recognize climate change as the problem without recognizing the single best long-term solution:



Increase the gas tax!

and increase electricity bills (for electricity generated by coal).


Isn't Cap-and-Trade a farce we should stop pussyfooting around with? Don't we need a straightforward increase in gas taxes, to incentivize all drivers to switch to alternatives to oil?

How would this not be the best single approach to forcing the transition away from carbon? What is the reason not to increase the gas tax, other than the whining crybabies who would throw a tantrum because they demand instant gratification from their cheap gas? Except for this, why should the gas tax not be increased?



It's not caused by climate change?

There's a theory that the fires are not due to climate change, but to irresponsible forest management, because dead wood is not cleared away, like it used to be, and so the fires have increased every year.

Is this serious?

If so, there should be an experiment, to do extensive clearing, either in Oregon, or in S. California or in N. California. So that only one test area is used in order to test this theory.

If a huge clearing project is undertaken, after this fire season, to completely remove the dead wood from the test area, like they used to clear it (apparently, but don't anymore), then we will see if it makes a difference. If so, then next fire season the test area would be spared the bad fires, and it would prove or disprove the theory.

 

[TSwizzle]

First off, Newsom is an insufferable, ignorant prick.

In what way will raising gas tax impact the global climate ? How many degrees will the average temperature decrease ? How many inches will the sea level decrease ? How many more inches, feet, miles of ice will be regained?

Superstitious nonsense.

 

[RVonse]

Isn't Cap-and-Trade a farce we should stop pussyfooting around with? Don't we need a straightforward increase in gas taxes, to incentivize all drivers to switch to alternatives to oil?

How would this not be the best single approach to forcing the transition away from carbon? What is the reason not to increase the gas tax, other than the whining crybabies who would throw a tantrum because they demand instant gratification from their cheap gas? Except for this, why should the gas tax not be increased?

In theory yes. But how do you propose to get China to go along with your proposal? The entire globe is a continuous ecosystem even if the political entities are not.

 

[J842P]

Yes, cap and trade is a farce. A pigouvian tax on fossil fuels would be much more effective. That, and a strong push towards nuclear energy.

And all of this needed to have happened like, two decades ago.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Or you could read up about electric vehicles and find they are coming and coming fast. In five to seven years, the issue will be how to replace the lost revenue from the gas tax. We don’t need to force anything. It’s happening.

“Forest management”. Yeah, just like we managed the rivers. We dammed the rivers and the rivers damned us. The forests did just fine until we came along and forced our will upon them. It’s the policy of constant fire suppression that in part brought us to where we are today. We should have let wild land fires burn and just worried about threats to homes.

 

[J842P]

Or you could read up about electric vehicles and find they are coming and coming fast. In five to seven years, the issue will be how to replace the lost revenue from the gas tax. We don’t need to force anything. It’s happening.

“Forest management”. Yeah, just like we managed the rivers. We dammed the rivers and the rivers damned us. The forests did just fine until we came along and forced our will upon them. It’s the policy of constant fire suppression that in part brought us to where we are today. We should have let wild land fires burn and just worried about threats to homes.

Yeah, and most of those electric vehicles will ultimately be powered by coal, and maybe natural gas. So, not a great trade off, really.


Again, a pigouvian tax on all fossil fuels, and a national move towards nuclear would be what is required. Like two decades ago.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

First off, Newsom is an insufferable, ignorant prick.

In what way will raising gas tax impact the global climate ? How many degrees will the average temperature decrease ? How many inches will the sea level decrease ? How many more inches, feet, miles of ice will be regained?

Superstitious nonsense.

You don't understand that drivers will reduce their consumption of gasoline if the price they pay is higher?

You don't understand the principle of incentives to make something happen? You think if the price goes up $1 or $2 per gallon this would not result in less gas consumption and burning fossil fuels?

How about $3 increase? $4? This would have no impact on drivers to incentivize them away from gasoline and toward alternatives?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Isn't Cap-and-Trade a farce we should stop pussyfooting around with? Don't we need a straightforward increase in gas taxes, to incentivize all drivers to switch to alternatives to oil?

How would this not be the best single approach to forcing the transition away from carbon? What is the reason not to increase the gas tax, other than the whining crybabies who would throw a tantrum because they demand instant gratification from their cheap gas? Except for this, why should the gas tax not be increased?

In theory yes. But how do you propose to get China to go along with your proposal? The entire globe is a continuous ecosystem even if the political entities are not.

Other countries will follow if the U.S. takes the lead. And actually most developed countries already tax gas higher than the U.S. current tax. If the U.S. took the lead, these countries would follow and do the same. China also would increase its gas tax.

 

[angelo]

Isn't Cap-and-Trade a farce we should stop pussyfooting around with? Don't we need a straightforward increase in gas taxes, to incentivize all drivers to switch to alternatives to oil?

How would this not be the best single approach to forcing the transition away from carbon? What is the reason not to increase the gas tax, other than the whining crybabies who would throw a tantrum because they demand instant gratification from their cheap gas? Except for this, why should the gas tax not be increased?

In theory yes. But how do you propose to get China to go along with your proposal? The entire globe is a continuous ecosystem even if the political entities are not.

Other countries will follow if the U.S. takes the lead. And actually most developed countries already tax gas higher than the U.S. current tax. If the U.S. took the lead, these countries would follow and do the same. China also would increase its gas tax.

Whatever you do, don't bet on it!

 

[RVonse]

Isn't Cap-and-Trade a farce we should stop pussyfooting around with? Don't we need a straightforward increase in gas taxes, to incentivize all drivers to switch to alternatives to oil?

How would this not be the best single approach to forcing the transition away from carbon? What is the reason not to increase the gas tax, other than the whining crybabies who would throw a tantrum because they demand instant gratification from their cheap gas? Except for this, why should the gas tax not be increased?

In theory yes. But how do you propose to get China to go along with your proposal? The entire globe is a continuous ecosystem even if the political entities are not.

Other countries will follow if the U.S. takes the lead. And actually most developed countries already tax gas higher than the U.S. current tax. If the U.S. took the lead, these countries would follow and do the same. China also would increase its gas tax.

Ha ha ha, that was funny. China would do nothing and watch the US implode. The real end result would be very similar to the so called free trading (but not fair) which also transferred massive industrial wealth into China. China would follow nothing receiving their huge energy cost advantage while the US fell on its own sword. The CPC might even bribe some US politicians to adopt this stupid idea! Is better than going to war.

 

[ruby sparks]

Other countries will follow if the U.S. takes the lead. And actually most developed countries already tax gas higher than the U.S. current tax. If the U.S. took the lead, these countries would follow and do the same.

I'm trying to make sense of that.......so the USA is way behind nearly all developed countries, so.......no, I'm having trouble. I think it's the phrase 'if the US took the lead'.

Other countries will follow if the U.S. takes the lead. And actually most developed countries already tax gas higher than the U.S. current tax. If the U.S. took the lead, these countries would follow and do the same. China also would increase its gas tax.

I read that China has been increasing its fuel tax more than most in the last decade. I read that its tax per gallon of road fuel is currently about 5 times that of the USA (which is still really low compared to here).

Maybe the USA needs to take the lead, and others will follow.

 

[ideologyhunter]

BTW...USA, behind? We're the number one debtor nation on the planet. Yeah. Numero uno!! USA!! USA!!

 

[Shadowy Man]

Yeah, and most of those electric vehicles will ultimately be powered by coal, and maybe natural gas. So, not a great trade off, really.

This is really a question of efficiency, right? Is it more efficient to create the energy at a coal/natural gas plant and transfer it as electricity to cars or to have each car have its own combustion engine converting gasoline to energy?

I'm sure somewhere this question has been addressed. But I'm guessing, perhaps naively, that producing electricity en masse at a power plant is more efficient than thousands of individual engines being run likely at sub-optimal efficiencies.

 

[Swammerdami]

I've reduced the font size following. Sorry if this is against the rules.

... Increase the gas tax!

Aren't you the guy who argues in another thread that unfettered markets produce optimal outcomes? That government intervention to reflect external costs or benefits is a symptom of HATE HATE HATE? I suggest you synchronize your ideologies.

... Or become a radical centrist like me.

 

[Treedbear]

Yeah, and most of those electric vehicles will ultimately be powered by coal, and maybe natural gas. So, not a great trade off, really.

This is really a question of efficiency, right? Is it more efficient to create the energy at a coal/natural gas plant and transfer it as electricity to cars or to have each car have its own combustion engine converting gasoline to energy?

I'm sure somewhere this question has been addressed. But I'm guessing, perhaps naively, that producing electricity en masse at a power plant is more efficient than thousands of individual engines being run likely at sub-optimal efficiencies.

You might find this article helpful -

An example is the comparison between an electric vehicle (EV) and a fossil fuel powered car. The EV has an overall efficiency of about 60% while the fuel powered car is about 20% (or less) efficient. When one considers the total path from primary energy, the efficiency of the electric car is 60% x 40% (grid efficiency) for a total of 24% while the fuel powered car has an efficiency of about 20%. When the bigger picture is considered, the two forms of transportation are not all that different.

There must be ways to make the electric grid more efficient, and if this can be achieved, the savings in both costs and emissions may be significant. If this can be done, the conversion to EVs may make excellent sense, while there is only a marginal difference on an average basis, if the EVs are charged randomly with electrical energy from the existing grid.

 

[James Brown]

Isn't Cap-and-Trade a farce we should stop pussyfooting around with? Don't we need a straightforward increase in gas taxes, to incentivize all drivers to switch to alternatives to oil?

How would this not be the best single approach to forcing the transition away from carbon? What is the reason not to increase the gas tax, other than the whining crybabies who would throw a tantrum because they demand instant gratification from their cheap gas? Except for this, why should the gas tax not be increased?

In theory yes. But how do you propose to get China to go along with your proposal? The entire globe is a continuous ecosystem even if the political entities are not.

Other countries will follow if the U.S. takes the lead. And actually most developed countries already tax gas higher than the U.S. current tax. If the U.S. took the lead, these countries would follow and do the same. China also would increase its gas tax.

So other countries are waiting for the U.S. to raise gasoline taxes, after which they'll gladly follow suit. But they have already raised gasoline taxes more than the U.S.

That doesn't make sense.

 

[Toni]

and Australia 6 months ago?

Did the same careless campers who started the fires in Australia come to California for the summer?

Governor Newsom says he has no patience with climate-change deniers. But what good is it to recognize climate change as the problem without recognizing the single best long-term solution:



Increase the gas tax!

and increase electricity bills (for electricity generated by coal).


Isn't Cap-and-Trade a farce we should stop pussyfooting around with? Don't we need a straightforward increase in gas taxes, to incentivize all drivers to switch to alternatives to oil?

How would this not be the best single approach to forcing the transition away from carbon? What is the reason not to increase the gas tax, other than the whining crybabies who would throw a tantrum because they demand instant gratification from their cheap gas? Except for this, why should the gas tax not be increased?



It's not caused by climate change?

There's a theory that the fires are not due to climate change, but to irresponsible forest management, because dead wood is not cleared away, like it used to be, and so the fires have increased every year.

Is this serious?

If so, there should be an experiment, to do extensive clearing, either in Oregon, or in S. California or in N. California. So that only one test area is used in order to test this theory.

If a huge clearing project is undertaken, after this fire season, to completely remove the dead wood from the test area, like they used to clear it (apparently, but don't anymore), then we will see if it makes a difference. If so, then next fire season the test area would be spared the bad fires, and it would prove or disprove the theory.

Cap and trade isn't a farce. It's a recognition that pollution happens and that there's a cost to causing that pollution--a cost that should be borne by those who cause it. Companies that avoid or minimize their carbon based pollution can sell their carbon credits to companies that are unable or unwilling to do what they can to keep their pollution under whatever cap is set. It's a bitter pill to swallow that pollution is a necessary evil but truthfully, it is. In theory, companies would become more and more efficient with regards to their carbon output in order to generate income or avoid paying for more carbon units.

 

[Toni]

Other countries will follow if the U.S. takes the lead. And actually most developed countries already tax gas higher than the U.S. current tax. If the U.S. took the lead, these countries would follow and do the same. China also would increase its gas tax.

So other countries are waiting for the U.S. to raise gasoline taxes, after which they'll gladly follow suit. But they have already raised gasoline taxes more than the U.S.

That doesn't make sense.

What Europe has done that the US has not done is to aggressively embrace efficiency in automobiles, HVAC, household appliances, industry, etc.

In the US, we are accustomed to cheap food and cheap fuel and being able to just go wherever we want without thinking very much about the consequences to anything other than our immediate pocketbook. And we've off loaded a lot of our more pollution dense industries to China and to other Asian countries and countries south of the US border with more lax labor laws and more lax environmental regulations. We also seem to believe that only what we personally do, as individuals and as a nation, counts. We seem to ignore that pollution knows no national or state boundaries and that the effects are felt thousands of miles away, and are cumulative.

We need to stop such self centered, short term thinking.

 

[ruby sparks]

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10327

 

[Loren Pechtel]

First off, Newsom is an insufferable, ignorant prick.

In what way will raising gas tax impact the global climate ? How many degrees will the average temperature decrease ? How many inches will the sea level decrease ? How many more inches, feet, miles of ice will be regained?

Superstitious nonsense.

You don't understand that drivers will reduce their consumption of gasoline if the price they pay is higher?

You don't understand the principle of incentives to make something happen? You think if the price goes up $1 or $2 per gallon this would not result in less gas consumption and burning fossil fuels?

How about $3 increase? $4? This would have no impact on drivers to incentivize them away from gasoline and toward alternatives?

The demand for gasoline is pretty inelastic.

Besides, you're coming at it the wrong way--if it is to be done it should be a general carbon tax, not taxing specific forms of carbon.