You assumed the above thoughts referenced gasoline. They didn't. The analysis pertains to the current bottled water phenomenon in the United States. Americans spend billions of dollars annually on a product they could obtain at a small fraction of the cost directly from the tap. It is actually provided for free with it flowing amply from public drinking fountains. As opposed to gasoline which ends up as carbons after our use, the after effects of bottled water are characterized by hard earned dollars literally being flushed down the toilet.
Effluent puns aside, the real harm of bottled water comes from its transportation and containers. Your fancy named water is actually a small contributor to the $4 you're also paying for gas. Truckloads of a commodity crisscrossing the nation's highways are burning fuel only adding to our already out of control demand. In the face of rising gasoline prices, America engages in wasting fuel by shipping water coming out of one spigot across the country to be consumed while sitting right next to another well working faucet. That does not sound like the American ingenuity of old. Until sales of bottled water plummet to nil, America has forfeited its right to whine about high gas prices.
The complaining and blaming over gas prices can be heard from Main Street all the way to from our top politicians. Recent nonsense such as a gas tax holiday are but symbolic statements that fail to take any real measures to confront the problem. We are not in need of a gas tax holiday, vacation or fling. When confronted with the fact that no expert in the field supported this silliness, Senator Clinton dismissed them as "elite economists". One presumes that refers to ones who actually possess a degree in economics.
So if we are not to whine, what shall we do? The logical path would be to fix it. America has always been a "can do" nation which the world held in awe watching the steady stream of innovation coming from within our shores. However, today it seems the best we can do is complain and engage in politically expedient measures like promoting ethanol to woo Iowa voters. It can be conceded a small fraction of our gasoline use can be defrayed if we stopped growing all food and did away with those land wasting livestock. One could argue that would be killing two birds with one stone solving both high gas prices as well as our obesity epidemic.
Sadly, while our leaders pursue futile paths, real solutions exist which can solve the problem in relatively short order. The first obvious path of attack relates to the average miles per gallon for cars on America's roads. Government mandate in this arena has been tried and it failed like most all other mandates. A more creative, free market approach exists. A baseline needs to be drawn for miles per gallon. For the sake of discussion we'll draw the line at 35 miles per gallon. All those owning vehicles who do not meet this threshold must pay into a fund via an additional assessment levied each year on top of normal vehicle registration fees. The amount begins with a minimal amount for cars just under the requirement, and it gradually increases as miles per gallon decrease. Those opting to drive 5 miles to the gallon muscle cars will experience oppressive, if not confiscatory, assessments.
Conversely, those who own vehicles performing over the baseline would benefit from the fund receiving a pay out instead of a bill. Pay outs would similarly increase as the miles per gallon increase. Instead of paying vehicle registration, drivers of a hybrid would get a decent sized check. Those who come up with a Flintstones style foot powered car will get a huge check each year. The invisible hand of the free market will rudely shove all of us towards high mileage vehicles. 35 miles to the gallon averaged nationally would bring us most of the way to oil independence.
How many of you have heard of Fischer-Tropsch? The answer is most probably very few of you, and it is a travesty. Fischer-Tropsch is a methodology for converting coal to gasoline no different than exists at the pumps today. Coal is to America what oil is to Saudi Arabia. Fischer-Tropsch process is hardly new, it has been around for decades. Yet we continue to sit on top of literally mountains of coal not putting it to this use. Instead of hearing debates about the fastest way to ramp up this production, we hear demagogic ranting. Why is America not proceeding with due haste building out Montana with these systems? There is not a good answer to that question.
America should stop crying and start doing. There are many options from Fischer-Tropsch to demand destruction via vehicle performance incentives. If we had rolled up our sleeves back during the oil crises of the 1970's pursuing these solutions, then we most probably would be celebrating crude's relentless rising prices seeing America would be a net exporter of oil now.
Published by d'nar nya
American Male View profile
- Why We Need Higher Gas Prices
- Gas Boycott Will Not Lower Oil Prices; People Will Purchase More Gas the Day Before
- Rising Gas Prices and SUV's Don't Mix
- Gas Prices Keep Skyrocketing
- Why Gas Prices Are so High




2 Comments
Post a CommentI like your idea of fee-based economic force, but I'd hardly call it a 'free market' concept. Nonetheless, it has potential. Sadly, America hasn't been a "can do" nation for some time - we've been indoctrinated by our 'fearless leaders' to just sit back and let the powers that be ease all our troubles for us. I'm afraid there are few of us left who are able to do much more than whine.
The idea of using taxation to affect consumer behavior is not new, and has been successfully used elsewhere (think mortgage tax deductions). Using it in this instance in a way that promotes gas efficiency would be very helpful. It can even be set up as a net zero tax if each year the checks to owners of high efficiency vehicles go out at the end of the year, and the amount on each check depends on the income from taxing low efficiency vehicles. This would side-step the likely howl from those who object to any tax increase. Liquified coal is an interesting possibility, but one which may keep prices from rising too far, rather than reduce them. As for the bottled water issue, while I see your point, I think there is no acceptable way to prevent it, except through those market forces which raise the price of water from near zero for tap water to over $1 for a 20 oz bottle.