Teller Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Alright ladies and gents. As some of you are aware, DjTj and I recently created a thread in which we're addressing some of the critical issues facing the United States these days. We have a "committee" of two liberals, two conservatives, and two independents working on these issues. We've decided that we'd come to a concesus on language for a potential "bill" and then turn it over to you, the entire board, for a final vote. So here it is, our first "bill;" a plan for U.S. energy independence. Or more accurately, a plan to DECREASE our dependence on foreign oil. Please vote in the poll (which will take a minute or two to post) and share your thoughts in the thread. Thanks, hog To reduce our dependence on foreign oil, the United States shall: Increase CAFE standards over the next 10 years to a total fleet average of 29 mpg by 2016. This will entail increasing the passenger-car CAFE standard (currently 27.5mpg) by 0.15 each year and increasing the light-truck CAFE standard (currently 21.6mpg ) by .64 next year and .64 each following year. (This will bring the passenger car standard to 29 mpg and light-truck standard to 28 mpg by 2016.) Beginning in 2011, automakers will have the option of complying with a total fleet average of 29 mpg rather than separately considering light trucks and passenger cars. In 2016, the increasing rates will end, and all automakers will have to comply with a total fleet average of 29 mpg; Temporarily repeal the tariffs on foreign ethanol; Impose a tariff on foreign oil at the rate of 5 cents/gallon; Reduce the federal gasoline tax (currently 18.4 cents/gallon) for blended fules by pro-rating based on gasoline content, so fuel that is 10% ethanol will only be taxed at 16.6 cents/gallon; Offer a tax deduction for one-quarter the travel expenses up to $1,000/year for taxpayers who use qualified public transportation to commute to work; Authorize up to $10 million every year for the next 10 years to be awarded at the discretion of the National Science Foundation for significant achievements in alternative energy technology; and Extend the hybrid car tax credit, which currently provides up to $3,400 for the purchase of a qualifying hybrid vehicle (See Energy Policy Act of 2005), to the first 60,000 passenger cars and the first 60,000 light trucks sold by each manufacturer. This tax credit shall be calculated in proportion to the percentage increase in fuel mileage from the 2006 CAFE standard for the relevant category, so an SUV or light truck with a fuel efficiency of 32.4mpg (a 50% increase) will receive the same tax credit as a passenger car with a fuel efficiency of 41.25mpg. Automakers who have not yet sold 20,000 hybrid vehicles will be entitled to a 25% increase in the corresponding credit until the they sell their 10,000th hybrid vehicle and a 10% increase in the credit until they sell their 20,000 hybrid vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 hog, there may be some people out there that just want to prove that your mission is impossible, thereby voting no. i'm tempted to do as much, so i'll refrain from voting...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 One thing I want to emphasize is that we had to all agree unanimously on this language, so it definitely doesn't go as far as we could on various issues. When voting on this, just ask yourself whether or not you would support it, not whether you think it's the best solution. ...and if you vote no, please post in the thread and tell us why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boofMcboof Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 spend your time and energy on Energy Conservation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 One thing I want to emphasize is that we had to all agree unanimously on this language, so it definitely doesn't go as far as we could on various issues.When voting on this, just ask yourself whether or not you would support it, not whether you think it's the best solution. Very good point. I voted yes. But I do have a question. Offer a tax deduction for one-quarter the travel expenses up to $1,000/year for taxpayers who use qualified public transportation to commute to work; What is so beneficial about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 Very good point. I voted yes. But I do have a question.What is so beneficial about this? Using public transportation reduces consumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 I'll vote YES because it's a start in a different direction. Over the course of the next 10 years, I would expect that there will be changes to this policy as needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Using public transportation reduces consumption. :doh: I was thinking you guys were giving tax cuts to people who were trying to help reduce global warming. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 :doh: I was thinking you guys were giving tax cuts to people who were trying to help reduce global warming. :laugh: SURELY you know me better than that! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 are the CAFE standards for trucks meant for the Semi's, or are they exempt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 are the CAFE standards for trucks meant for the Semi's, or are they exempt? No. Light trucks and SUV's only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 I voted no -- your stance of CAFE standards is entirely too lenient. Auto manufacturers possess the funding and capabilities to advance alternate energy sources, but lack the motivation. 29mpg is way too low. Should be at least 35. Maybe even a sliding scale to gradually get up to 35-40. I believe you have to light a fire under their collective asses. This could be done with tax penalties for non-compliance, and huge tax-benefits for meeting and exceeding the requirements. Motivate them and they'll come through. I have a feeling auto-makers would laugh at these requirements...:2cents: EDIT: I also think ethanol-run autos is a dead-end approach. The fuel-cell/hydrogen powered autos is where the focus needs to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 No. Light trucks and SUV's only. are there any plans for semi's at all? because that would be of great significance. i guess i can vote this through for now, but i'd like something for those big rigs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 are there any plans for semi's at all? because that would be of great significance. i guess i can vote this through for now, but i'd like something for those big rigs. I think enforcing a switch to bio-diesel would be a good idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 I voted no -- your stance of CAFE standards is entirely too lenient. Auto manufacturers possess the funding and capabilities to advance alternate energy sources, but lack the motivation. 29mpg is way too low. Should be at least 35. Maybe even a sliding scale to gradually get up to 35-40. I believe you have to light a fire under their collective asses.You could have chimed in during the discussion in the other thread. I certainly agree with you, but last year Democrats tried to propose a raise of 10mpg but it got taken out of the bill ... the political will isn't quite there yet, and I think a modest increase focused on SUV's and light trucks would be a feasible step in the right direction.I also think ethanol-run autos is a dead-end approach. The fuel-cell/hydrogen powered autos is where the focus needs to be. Perhaps, but nobody really knows for sure which technology would be best right now, so the government can't really pick favorites ... the best thing to do is to support all efforts that make a difference where it counts - at the pump. are there any plans for semi's at all? because that would be of great significance. i guess i can vote this through for now, but i'd like something for those big rigs. Big Rigs are something that we didn't really talk about, and I guess it's not even quite on the Congressional agenda yet, but eventually there will have to be some movement in that area... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 How is ethanol dead? Everyday I see at least one commercial from an auto manufacturer flaunting E-85 or "flex-fuel" vehicles. Have yet to see one say a word about hydrogen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Why extend a tax credit for use of public transportation when we already subsidize the costs of it?...I already pay for the roads and others to who use mass transit and it is not even available in my area. Also the Hybrids are a waste once you figure the extra costs in manufacturing and disposing,maintaining them,therefore you are encouraging waste. A tax credit for moving close to work or a high gas mileage vehicle tax credit would be more effective ,rather than hybrid imo . I would also suggest a national gas blend standard as a way to simplify and improve air quality. I cannot vote for the proposal in good conscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 I cannot vote for the proposal in good conscience. Well, it's refreshing to learn that you at least HAVE a conscience. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 I just want to point out to those who are doubting this "bill" that there was and will be another thread where all of this is debated. I agree with the yes/no idea of this thread. BTW, when does the group get together for the next issue at hand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinthemboys Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 No. Why not drill for oil on our soil? why not open more refineries in the U.S.A.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Energy Independence? Quite frankly I don't care to be independent. If we're aiming to get less energy from abroad, we better be prepared to pay even HIGHER energy prices. Also, why not just permanently repeal the tariff on ethanol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 No. Why not drill for oil on our soil? why not open more refineries in the U.S.A.? i think we could start that as a different topic. i'd vote infavor of that bill assuming that its worded correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 BTW, when does the group get together for the next issue at hand? Whenever anyone wants to discuss the next issue in the other thread, they can. There's no set time for everyone to get together. Since you brought up the other thread (thanks) let me just reiterate that EVERYONE is welcome to post their thoughts there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 I voted no. I'm not interested in the proposal in the least. First off, I don't believe it's the government's place to tell private businesses or industries how to run themselves, which is exactly what this policy would be. Secondly, I don't believe that energy independence is a good idea when it is forced upon the people. If the INDUSTRY (note that didn't say government) believes that it's in their best interest (read: highest profits) to move to more fuel efficient vehicles or the consumer (note that still didn't say government) decides that they want fuel efficient vehicles and are willing to pay more for them, then that's what the companies should build. Until one of those things happens, I don't see this issue as any big deal, and definitely not something the government should be involved in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 you should add mandatory methane collection devices installed on all septic tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.