Should a gasoline tax be levied to subsidize/jump start the ethanol industry?

[Padfoot]

I'm not advocating either position I'm just interested in how people would feel about this.  Does not supporting such a tax automatically make you anti-ethanol?  If you advocate ethanol as a replacement for gasoline I don't see how you can vote against this.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There has not been evidence that ethanol would be a reasonable energy source. Sure, do some more research, but there's no need to subsidize anyone.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yes but spread this investment among all types of alternate fuel/power sources. Also use it to pay for nuclear power.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Taxes should be used for one purpose only: Raising general government revenue. Using them for anything else just doesn't work.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

So you'd like to keep our current oil guzzling system and get even more fucked when Peak Oil hits(if it hasn't already hit yet)? As things stand America is pretty much a petro state(as in if the oil supply got disrupted we'd be in for BAD times for at least a decade until we retooled our energy supply/infrastructure)...

[TomC]

So you'd like to keep our current oil guzzling system and get even more fucked when Peak Oil hits(if it hasn't already hit yet)? As things stand America is pretty much a petro state(as in if the oil supply got disrupted we'd be in for BAD times for at least a decade until we retooled our energy supply/infrastructure)...

Exactly. Bad times might get a true market response. For taxes to impact the gasoline market, it'd have to be one hell of a hike.

[2952-0-0]

Nah. I think the way corn is used for ethanol, it uses almost as much energy as simply burning gasoline. It's just an excuse for those agribusiness to reap billions in subsidies all in the name of mitigating global warming, especially when the US government essentially picks the slack for 78% of ethanol costs. Yeah right. If they're really serious about ethanol for cleaning the environment, they should abolish tariffs on imports from Brazil. At least they no longer rely on Brazilian government subsidies. Brazil has its imperfections with its ethanol industry, but it's far better than the E85 agribusiness is pushing for.

[MasterJedi]

No, I support the use of ethanol but this would hurt more than it would help.

[Inverted Things]

I don't really see the point. As far as I can tell, ethanol has precisely one advantage over gasoline: it's renewable. There are therefore two possible scenarios:

(Anticipatory Market)
1. Ethanol supercedes gasoline before major gasoline shortages happen, or
(Reactionary Market)
2. Ethanol (or something better) supercedes gasoline after a market panic.

I'm over-dramatizing a bit here. Option 2 shouldn't hurt badly, prices of gasoline will go up as a result of a little scarcity and the ethanol will start looking really appealing...

Anyway, ethanol (or something better) is going to win. We don't need taxes to ensure that.

[??????????]

The usage of ethanol through corn will drive up the prices of other corn based products.

[specific_name]

This certainly would help the energy companies make a killing if/when they switch over to non-petro fuels.

By the way, "peak oil" is being used as a scare tactic. Act before it's too late!

[MODU]

No.  There isn't a need for an additional tax.  The government has enough money being wasted on pork that could easily be redirected to building an ethanol infrastructure.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Ethanol? We're not going to have one single silver bullet. Invest into hybrids, electric vehicles, hydrogen vehicles, nuclear power, public transportation AND ethanol.

[MODU]

Ethanol? We're not going to have one single silver bullet. Invest into hybrids, electric vehicles, hydrogen vehicles, nuclear power, public transportation AND ethanol.

That's a given. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The usage of ethanol through corn will drive up the prices of other corn based products.

That'll include High Fructose Corn Syrup, therefore making it a good thing.

[bullmoose88]

i agree with jfern, and states...err...weird.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The usage of ethanol through corn will drive up the prices of other corn based products.

That'll include High Fructose Corn Syrup, therefore making it a good thing.

Agreed.  I don't favor ethanol subsidies, but I can support a two-tiered tax on fossil fuels.  A carbon tax on fossil fuels to discourage their use, by substitution to renewable sources, and by greater energy efficiency.  I also would favor an energy-independence tax on imported fossil fuels so as discourage our dependence on them.

I'd also be mildly in favor of a mandate that utility costs for rental property be shared by both the lessor and the lessee.  That way the lessee has an incentive to reduce usage and the lessor has an incentive to install efficient appliances and other fixtures.

[Reignman]

I'll pass.

[Speed of Sound]

Ehh.........uuuuuhhhhhh..........no. Why dont we put more of a squeeze on the companies than on the drivers? Just a thought. I think this plan does two things:

Fails to correctly estimate the fact that people still have no access to ethanol and will have to pay out the ass until they do

Fails to correctly estimate the amount of pressure the public will put on the companies after this to get ethanol rolling: none.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No - it's not the gov't's place to do that - that would give them the right to tax PC's b/c they want us to buy Apples (only Dems would do that though ).

[Ban my account ffs!]

The usage of ethanol through corn will drive up the prices of other corn based products.

Which is pretty much everything you eat besides meat and produce.

[muon2]

The most important use of a gasoline tax is to support the transportation infrastructure, since it putsthe tax burden on those using the system. A reduced tax for those using ethanol or other less carbon-intensive fuels can encourage a growing market, but a new tax to create direct subsidies is probably not needed at this point since there is a growing market.

In the long term a new question will be how to best support transportation infrastructure if significant numbers of vehicles use technologies that avoid a gasoline tax. Should there be a mileage/weight assessment on vehicles, much like there is for trucks?

[Nym90]

The government has enough money being wasted on pork that could easily be redirected to building an ethanol infrastructure.

True, for example, the war in Iraq. In terms of fighting terrorism, we'd be far better off investing all of the money we spend on the war into alternative energy instead, as eliminating the importance of the Middle East in terms of our reliance on oil is the only true long term solution to the problem of terrorism (and oh yeah, it does have the side benefit of also reducing global warming and all that as well...).

Ethanol isn't a long term solution. It's one piece of the puzzle, but cars get worse fuel economy running on ethanol due to its lower energy content. We're better off directing the money toward hybrids, biodiesel, and hydrogen fuel cells.

[??????????]

Hybrids are pretty much a joke Nym, even the car dealers themselves will admit it. You can buy small jap cars that can compete with/outdo hybrids that are using conventional combustion engines. Plus another negative is hybrids have very expensive fuel cells to replace (1500-2000$).

[DuEbrithil]

Hybrids are pretty much a joke Nym, even the car dealers themselves will admit it. You can buy small jap cars that can compete with/outdo hybrids that are using conventional combustion engines. Plus another negative is hybrids have very expensive fuel cells to replace (1500-2000$).

you are pretty much a moron. No car dealership in the world would want to dissuade you from buying a car. there is strike #1. strike #2 is no Japanese car can get 60+ mpg. oh and strike 3 is your name is statesrights.