TenuredVulture wrote:of course any talk about a new gas tax is beyond academic at this point I think dajafi the liberal baby eater has a better chance of becoming pope than a gas tax has of passing right now. If there was a time to raise the tax from a political perspective, it would have been back in the late 90s, when gas was 85 cents a gallon.

The Church could do a lot worse, lemme tell you. And for the record, my "youthful appearance" is all about the healthy glow of the computer monitor vs. y'know, sunlight.

Meanwhile, I think TP's concerns are valid, esp. #2--and while some adjustment like Friedman suggests is theoretically an option, I don't think any of us really trust Congress to figure out an efficient way to do that. More to the point is TV's observation that no new consumption-ish tax is going to pass while we're all terrified that a huge slump is in the offing.

So then the question becomes whether cap-and-trade (whatever it is ) is better than doing nothing. My instinct is yes, for the reasons doc suggests: sometimes there's something to be said for obscuring the pain. But that's a tentative yes, right now.

TenuredVulture wrote:of course any talk about a new gas tax is beyond academic at this point I think dajafi the liberal baby eater has a better chance of becoming pope than a gas tax has of passing right now. If there was a time to raise the tax from a political perspective, it would have been back in the late 90s, when gas was 85 cents a gallon.

You're missing TP's point, or at least the point inherent in the preponderance of his posts on matters of governmental activity.

A new tax is never good, never serves any socially beneficial purpose, is always frought with 'problems', always 'redistributive', especially 'now' - whenever now happens to be. When 'now' is then, it's easier to speculate on potential merits, but was not, nor will still probably not be, the right time, which is never.

Taxes that are not new, whether they are taxes de jure or merely de facto, need not be discussed, since those are already now, so are not new.

see how easy?

OT, I'm a little freaked out that all you guys are taking the same avatar. It's like the Borg or something.

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:of course any talk about a new gas tax is beyond academic at this point I think dajafi the liberal baby eater has a better chance of becoming pope than a gas tax has of passing right now. If there was a time to raise the tax from a political perspective, it would have been back in the late 90s, when gas was 85 cents a gallon.

The Church could do a lot worse, lemme tell you. And for the record, my "youthful appearance" is all about the healthy glow of the computer monitor vs. y'know, sunlight.

Meanwhile, I think TP's concerns are valid, esp. #2--and while some adjustment like Friedman suggests is theoretically an option, I don't think any of us really trust Congress to figure out an efficient way to do that. More to the point is TV's observation that no new consumption-ish tax is going to pass while we're all terrified that a huge slump is in the offing.

So then the question becomes whether cap-and-trade (whatever it is ) is better than doing nothing. My instinct is yes, for the reasons doc suggests: sometimes there's something to be said for obscuring the pain. But that's a tentative yes, right now.

Not to play Rush Limbaugh here or anything, but for the time being, I think high energy prices will without any regulatory intervention outside of those that will discourage the use of coal is necessary. I think building a couple of nuke plants is probably a good idea as well.

We absolutely need nuke plants.

I love how there are simpleton/smartest guy in the room types who are always "well, in Europe they..." (work 4 minutes a day, have 40 weeks of vacation, the government cares for your grandmama, start collecting unemployment at the age of 14, abort 2 year olds, etc) while denying the smart, useful, and relevant to the American experience type things they do, like use nuclear power almost universally.

I agree on the nuke plants. What is the reason there hasn't been any built in so long? (3-mile island type stuff?)

Woody wrote:I agree on the nuke plants. What is the reason there hasn't been any built in so long? (3-mile island type stuff?)

They're expensive, coal is cheaper, irrational fear, massive regulatory hurdles...

Woody wrote:I agree on the nuke plants. What is the reason there hasn't been any built in so long? (3-mile island type stuff?)

I agree as well, and I think you've identified the reason why. To me though, if anything the experiences of TMI and Chernobyl make it vastly more likely that whoever builds/runs the nuke plants would be exceptionally careful (and that federal regulators would do their jobs). I think there is some huge regulatory bottleneck, based on something I read a year or so ago--can't remember the specifics.

Vox, I actually think the fact that the Frenchies are so reliant on nuclear energy probably explains why Republicans haven't gotten onboard more quickly. Anything those cheese-eating surrender monkeys do must be bad, nu?

dajafi wrote:

Woody wrote:I agree on the nuke plants. What is the reason there hasn't been any built in so long? (3-mile island type stuff?)

I agree as well, and I think you've identified the reason why. To me though, if anything the experiences of TMI and Chernobyl make it vastly more likely that whoever builds/runs the nuke plants would be exceptionally careful (and that federal regulators would do their jobs). I think there is some huge regulatory bottleneck, based on something I read a year or so ago--can't remember the specifics.

Vox, I actually think the fact that the Frenchies are so reliant on nuclear energy probably explains why Republicans haven't gotten onboard more quickly. Anything those cheese-eating surrender monkeys do must be bad, nu?

Again, I don't think you can discount the availability of cheap coal. If you don't care about carbon, then coal has lots of advantages over nuclear. There was no perceived need, on the basis of cost alone to build nuclear plants.

Woody wrote:I agree on the nuke plants. What is the reason there hasn't been any built in so long? (3-mile island type stuff?)

NIMBY

dajafi wrote:

Woody wrote:I agree on the nuke plants. What is the reason there hasn't been any built in so long? (3-mile island type stuff?)

I agree as well, and I think you've identified the reason why. To me though, if anything the experiences of TMI and Chernobyl make it vastly more likely that whoever builds/runs the nuke plants would be exceptionally careful (and that federal regulators would do their jobs). I think there is some huge regulatory bottleneck, based on something I read a year or so ago--can't remember the specifics.

Vox, I actually think the fact that the Frenchies are so reliant on nuclear energy probably explains why Republicans haven't gotten onboard more quickly. Anything those cheese-eating surrender monkeys do must be bad, nu?

I think more nuke plants is the way to go too, At this point it may be one of the cleanest forms of energy.

I think the regulatory bottleneck is that the licenses of all the older nuclear plants came up for renewal all at the same time. I have a friend who works at the NRC, I'll have to ask her.

Yeah, so Hillary just endorsed Obama

TenuredVulture wrote:

Woody wrote:I agree on the nuke plants. What is the reason there hasn't been any built in so long? (3-mile island type stuff?)

irrational fear.

probably the biggest reason- nowadays the technology makes the plants 100 times safer than before, plus they have built a huge waste disposal dump in Nevada that will store all of our nuclear waste output. But because of irrational fear and NiMBY, new ones will never get built. (just imagine how many more people have died from coal mining compared to those who have had exposure and death from nuclear power.

Yeah, you guys hit them all. NIMBY is a huge factor. I think lethal is right about the renewal of leases.

Meanwhile, Clinton just gave what I thought was a really strong speech of endorsement for Obama. Made the substantive case for why her supporters should go over to his side and pledged to work hard for him. Talk's cheap of course, but she certainly said all the right things.

I read on TPM that McCain will make a play for Clinton voters based on atmospheric/cultural arguments. Should be interesting to see whether economic self-interest (the old core Democratic argument to the voters in play, if you believe as most do that feminist-motivated Clinton supporters probably will come home to the Dem) trumps that Scary Black Guy/Thinks-He's-Better-Than-You factor. Also if Obama tries to turn the tables and point out that McCain isn't exactly Mr. Blue-Collar by birth, marriage, or lifestyle.

Where are you going to put all the waste material. There is a ton of radioactive waste producted from nuclear fusion. You can't just hide this stuff and it is too expensive to send it into the sun ala Superman and nukes. You end up with it getting into the ground water and causing cancer for babies.

Disco Stu wrote:Where are you going to put all the waste material. There is a ton of radioactive waste producted from nuclear fusion. You can't just hide this stuff and it is too expensive to send it into the sun ala Superman and nukes. You end up with it getting into the ground water and causing cancer for babies.

Yucca Mountain, Nevada

jerseyhoya wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:Where are you going to put all the waste material. There is a ton of radioactive waste producted from nuclear fusion. You can't just hide this stuff and it is too expensive to send it into the sun ala Superman and nukes. You end up with it getting into the ground water and causing cancer for babies.

Yucca Mountain, Nevada

Not that easy.

Disco Stu wrote:Where are you going to put all the waste material. There is a ton of radioactive waste producted from nuclear fusion. You can't just hide this stuff and it is too expensive to send it into the sun ala Superman and nukes. You end up with it getting into the ground water and causing cancer for babies.

Ah, but is nuclear waste more or less harmful than emissions and waste from coal plants, not to mention the horrible environmental damage done by coal mining?

Lots of people who live near refineries get cancer.

This is why there isn't more nuclear power in the US.

Disco Stu wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:Where are you going to put all the waste material. There is a ton of radioactive waste producted from nuclear fusion. You can't just hide this stuff and it is too expensive to send it into the sun ala Superman and nukes. You end up with it getting into the ground water and causing cancer for babies.

Yucca Mountain, Nevada

Not that easy.

Full by 2014?