Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (684)	7/10/2008 3:16:47 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Well I have no problem with the idea of such a transition. I agree that oil use will be lower if we can say make 10 or 20% of the cars in to electrics (and presumably at the same time the average MPG of the rest of the cars will be increasing). But while I wouldn't oppose such a change, I don't like the idea of pushing/rushing/subsidizing it. The the extent that I would think about supporting any intervention which might help it happen it would be an increase in the gasoline tax. Not that I'm a supporter of that idea either, but if I had to support any intervention I would support one like this, which arguably internalizes externalities, without pushing a particular solution. I'd probably oppose this solution as well, but it might be possible to convince me, and even if I do oppose it, my opposition would be weaker (esp. if it was part of a plan that lowered and simplified income taxes, rather than a way to increase government revenue) And I'd also impose some additional costs on the oil industry in terms of avoiding subsidies and actions that have the effect of subsidies. (OTOH I would allow a lot more exploration and drilling which would have an effect of putting some downward pressure on the price of oil)