Remember that not only must CAFE go up, safety must be constantly improved as well. So because of this wonderful contridiction in our government's priorities, we could all be driving 4,000 pound coupes equipped with 150 HP 4 cylinders someday. Yay!

 

E85 is a really dumb idea for western states, especially those of us on the Pacific. Costs for shipping the stuff in from the midwest are so high that it would probably be $4.00+ per gallon out here. Plus, so much oil is used for growing corn and then shipping it that hardly reduce oil use, again, especially when a diesel tanker truck has to haul the stuff here on I80.

The main purpose of E85 is to get the corn vote (ADM, anyone?).

More refineries would help, so that when one goes down we wouldn't have a shortage.

I don't like expensive gasoline, but that's really the best way to encourage saving gas. I'd rather see it be expensive due to tax than from lining the pockets of the oil producing nations and oil companies (more concerned about oil producing nations than oil companies -- Chevron doesn't send its profits to terrorists).

 

Thank you.

 

1. Build more refineries.

2. Create a single blend of gasoline.

3. Set a progressive tax rate on oil companies profits just like we have on income taxes (the more you earn, the higher percentage you pay).

Good portion of problem solved.

Bonus:
a) Convert all city, state, and federal government vehicles to alternative fuel vehicles ov er a perscribed timeframe.

b) Fuel economy standards based on vehicle weight and or class, with an exemption for commercial vehicles.

c) Move all oil burning powerplants to alternative fuels within a perscribed timeframe, with the ability to deduct 100% of conversion costs from state & federal taxes until full amount is reimbursed.


Makes better sense than a kneejerk raise in CAFE standards, or a boneheaded federal finance melting $100 to 150+ million tax payers which would cost the treasury $150,000,000,000 (about what we've spent in Iraq so far).

Gee.... just half of that would be enough to fix New Orleans.

 

I agree, while its true there have been no ALL-NEW refinaries made, but Exxon and others have increased the size and capacity of existing ones over the last 30 years. The fact there hasn't been any new ones built is a huge problem and alot of it has to do with the 'Not in my backyard' mentality as well as environmental policies 'gone wild' .

True, the fact that different parts of the country have different blends means we cant just redirect fuel to another region that might be in short supply while another might have an abundance. If the country needs to adopt California's blend then so be it, but at least there would be a national standard.

Exxon for example already gets taxed 34% on profits while other large Corporations like GE only get 17% on profits so I don't know if higher taxes are really the solution.

 

I hope 2008 Presidential candidates are taking notes. Energy and Defense (or offense in Iraq's case) could win the election IMO.

 

There's not that much oil used to create Corn based on the amount of Ethanol you recieve back.

They don't have to ship ethanol. It can be piped just like Gasoline. They'd just have to update the Piping system which really needs to be done anyway. If they'd take 10% of the total costs of the "Proposed $100 Bill" they could have brand new ethanol capable piping to all you'all in California.

 

The simple fact that average fuel economy is lower now than it was 20 years ago leads me to believe that CAFE doesn't work for ****.

 

There already is a progressive income tax on the taxable income of corporations. The rate ranges from 15 to 35 percent.

 

That's because sales of trucks are much higher than 20 years ago, and the CAFE on trucks is lower than for cars.

 

E85 isnt going to be a permenant solution, but its a start in the right direction.
Whats E85 going for these days at the pumps around the U.S??

 

No. $100 to 150 million taxpayers (are you sure about that number?) would be $15 billion, not $150 billion.

 

When you add the fertilizer and the tractors and the cost of conversion, I've heard you don't get much. When you add the diesel burned shipping it here, you lose.

There are no pipelines from the midwest to California (at least not for liquids). The various mountain ranges would make construction and operation pretty expensive.

When a couple of refineries went offline a few years back, they brewed some CA-spec gasoline in Texas and put it in a tanker and sent it here.

 

Exactly. "Trucks" is a gigantic loophole in the whole CAFE scheme.

 

You can't put ethanol in a pipeline supposedly. It will absorb too much water.