OT of an OT: Ethanol

[Atrocities]

Thermodyne said:

The economic system is not the same here. Will you be willing to cut cane for $10 a day to make fuel for a car that you don't have?

No, that is what laborers from Mexico are for. Pay them $8.00 an hour to do it.

[Suicide Junkie]

I agree that with the sheer number of city dwellers that there are, it is sensible to encourage mass transit. Makes a lot of sense. But charging those who have no choice about travelling for how much they travel and putting it into the endless pit that is mass transit isn't a good idea, I think. But maybe that's just me.

Sounds to me like a great place for some of those exceptions and conditions and complex gyrations that the tax system is known for.

[Will]

re: requiring all newly built homes to have some kind of renewable energy capability built with it.
It's a good idea in theory. But, as always, the devil is in the details, and it would not be feasible to implement this as a federal law. The most that could be done is have a tax credit for builders making homes with this, or a grant to local governments if there are ordinances requiring such. This would give incentive to the private sector and municipal governments, respectively, to look into the renewable energy options. For both, the incentives alone aren't enough, but combined with increased value of the house, it pushes the return on the investment just that little bit higher to make it worthwhile. The value of the house would go up due to the improvements, which means developers can sell at a higher price, and the municipality can get more tax revenue from the property, and that's where the money really comes from.
Also, Renegade, you need not worry about the city folk needing to build turbines in their yard. You won't find a new house being built in the middle of a city, you'll find it being built on an empty plot outside of the city.

re: the company using TDP to turn agricultural and consumer waste into crude oil, methane, and minerals.
Sounds great, but the article is dated November 2003, and I haven't found any information on the company that goes beyond 2004. I'm going to guess that this particular venture, while still worth looking into after more research, is a bust.

re: Urban vs. Rural (and really, both vs. Sub-Urban) as far as taxes
I see nothing wrong with the fuel-efficiency tarrif, and I would add additional taxes on the price of gasoline as well. But I wouldn't implement it overnight, that is just asking for economic disaster. Even if people know increased costs are coming, it still costs a lot of money NOW to avoid those extra costs in the future. So if everyone had to pay more for it now, there would be problems. Have a 10-to-15 year plan, where the gas tax and fuel efficiency tax are slowly increased; by the end of the cycle, the majority of vehicles would be replaced anyway, and there is a good incentive along the way to encourage people to choose fuel-efficiency. So what if it ends up costing more for people who live 20km from the nearest place that could be called a town? The cost of living in rural areas are vastly smaller compared to urban and suburban areas, plus you can get a huge house for under $100,000, along with an acre or more of land around it. People choose to live there, and if the negligable costs comprared to cities is too much, they can move a little closer to the city.

And really, when you look at taxes, a disproportionate amount comes from urban areas, since that is where the majority of the wealth is created. A small part of that is invested back into cities as services, but most of it goes to... not rural areas. Rural areas in general recieve more money for services than is paid in those areas in taxes. A lot of that is in the form of Social Security, Medicare, etc., but also in education, safety (police and fire depts), military (a lot of bases are in remote areas), and transportation (especially if there is a significant route between larger cities). But rural areas only get a little bit more than they put in. The biggest chunk of tax dollars go to suburban areas. For example, the area I live in, Los Angeles County. LA and its five "satellite cities" comprise the largest industrial complex in the United States, has the largest international port on the West Coast, the largest financial center west of the Mississippi, etc. All of these are in urban parts of LA. And most of the tax income from these industries goes to... the Valley, and the southern part of the county bordering Orange, suburban areas. It's used to build new roads, new schools, new infrastructure, for a population that has been exploding since WWII.

re: tarrifs on imported goods unless certain policies are in place
I don't see the "stereotypical arrogant American attitude" in implementing tarrifs. It's simple economics. The point of all these little taxes and incentives is to guide the free market to make certain choices over what would otherwise be the most cost-effective choice. Most (or some would say all) rational people would agree that at some point, the developed world needs to stop using fossil fuels. If the US takes this view to heart, and implements these costs on American industry, then foreign products have a cost advantage. The tarrif isn't meant to change policy in other countries, but to offset the penalty that American products would inherently have. If, for example, Canada implemented similar taxes, then there would be no need to balance things out. And it wouldn't throw out NAFTA or any other trade treaty, since treaties supercede Acts of Congress in US law. Canada and Mexico would not be affected by the tarriff, and are free to do as they wish (however, reforms like this would be more likely to happen in Canada first, and right now the Mexican government is so weak, if the US does it, they probably could be coerced into doing the same soon after). Any country without a trade treaty that explicitly forbids tarrifs based on the country's policies would be subject to the tarrif.

[Renegade 13]

Will said:
So what if it ends up costing more for people who live 20km from the nearest place that could be called a town? The cost of living in rural areas are vastly smaller compared to urban and suburban areas, plus you can get a huge house for under $100,000, along with an acre or more of land around it. People choose to live there, and if the negligable costs comprared to cities is too much, they can move a little closer to the city.

Well this all depends on the size of the city you're talking about, but if you're talking a large city then yeah, cost of houses and land is considerably cheaper in rural areas. But take a look at the taxes for in a different light. People who live in rural areas are often farmers and ranchers. Namely, the people who need to fuel their tractors and other farm machinery. Add these taxes on when your fuel bill is already at a couple thousand (at least) per month, and you're going to be killing off a lot of small operations. Simple fix, exempt farms and ranches and the like from these new taxes, as they are already exempted from many taxes.

And really, when you look at taxes, a disproportionate amount comes from urban areas, since that is where the majority of the wealth is created.

I'm actually not sure about more going to rural than urban (though I am sure sub-urban gets more than both!). In Vancouver, billions are being spent on new rapid-transit systems. Billions extra, on top of the usual. All we get is cracks sealed on our highways, sometimes not even that. Can't cost more than a few dozen million per year. Of course, things you mentioned such as military bases etc. are for the benefit of all, not one single group, so it can't be counted in the equation. As are trans-continental highways and the like, since they're necessary for industry to occur in the cities as well, so they can't really be counted as solely rural either.

re: tarrifs on imported goods unless certain policies are in place
I don't see the "stereotypical arrogant American attitude" in implementing tarrifs. It's simple economics. The point of all these little taxes and incentives is to guide the free market to make certain choices over what would otherwise be the most cost-effective choice. Most (or some would say all) rational people would agree that at some point, the developed world needs to stop using fossil fuels. If the US takes this view to heart, and implements these costs on American industry, then foreign products have a cost advantage. The tarrif isn't meant to change policy in other countries, but to offset the penalty that American products would inherently have. If, for example, Canada implemented similar taxes, then there would be no need to balance things out. And it wouldn't throw out NAFTA or any other trade treaty, since treaties supercede Acts of Congress in US law. Canada and Mexico would not be affected by the tarriff, and are free to do as they wish (however, reforms like this would be more likely to happen in Canada first, and right now the Mexican government is so weak, if the US does it, they probably could be coerced into doing the same soon after). Any country without a trade treaty that explicitly forbids tarrifs based on the country's policies would be subject to the tarrif.

That's the thing, in a capitalist society the economy isn't supposed to be "guided" by the government. It's not capitalism then, it's closer to socialism. And yes, I think it is an arrogant attitude to think that the American idea is the best idea there is or can be! Tariffs for not doing as the States thinks is best is arrogant, since it's automatically dismissing the idea that other countries have the right to do as they wish with their own economic policy. If the States decides to implement such an idea, go for it, but don't try to force the rest of the world into doing what ONE country thinks is a wise measure. Of course, I'm sure I'll be disagreed with on this particular point.

[Suicide Junkie]

I don't see the "stereotypical arrogant American attitude" in implementing tarrifs.

It is not the idea itself, but the manner in which it is presented.

To me, it sounded aggressive; "if we're gonna do it, we're gonna hit you up for it too."
My impression is that Europe is way ahead of us slobs on this side of the pond.

[Captain Kwok]

Europe is primarily ahead of us environmentally because of the fact that have little to no resources left- so it's by necessity.

[Will]

Renegade 13 said:
Well this all depends on the size of the city you're talking about, but if you're talking a large city then yeah, cost of houses and land is considerably cheaper in rural areas. But take a look at the taxes for in a different light. People who live in rural areas are often farmers and ranchers. Namely, the people who need to fuel their tractors and other farm machinery. Add these taxes on when your fuel bill is already at a couple thousand (at least) per month, and you're going to be killing off a lot of small operations. Simple fix, exempt farms and ranches and the like from these new taxes, as they are already exempted from many taxes.

And farmers and ranchers already get huge subsidies. Slight adjustments to these would more than offset additional costs.

Renegade 13 said:
I'm actually not sure about more going to rural than urban (though I am sure sub-urban gets more than both!). In Vancouver, billions are being spent on new rapid-transit systems. Billions extra, on top of the usual. All we get is cracks sealed on our highways, sometimes not even that. Can't cost more than a few dozen million per year. Of course, things you mentioned such as military bases etc. are for the benefit of all, not one single group, so it can't be counted in the equation. As are trans-continental highways and the like, since they're necessary for industry to occur in the cities as well, so they can't really be counted as solely rural either.

Per-capita. It would be silly to look at total dollar amount going to a given area, you need to see how many people it is being spent on. If you just look at total amount, then yes, I could see where you get the idea that rural taxes pay for urban mass transit. But it's simply false, taxes from urban areas subsidize development in suburban and rural areas, not the other way around. And yes, while some things like major roads and military bases are for the benefit of all, the economy of the area immediately surrounding the (often rural) area gets a huge boost out of it.

Renegade 13 said:
That's the thing, in a capitalist society the economy isn't supposed to be "guided" by the government. It's not capitalism then, it's closer to socialism. And yes, I think it is an arrogant attitude to think that the American idea is the best idea there is or can be! Tariffs for not doing as the States thinks is best is arrogant, since it's automatically dismissing the idea that other countries have the right to do as they wish with their own economic policy. If the States decides to implement such an idea, go for it, but don't try to force the rest of the world into doing what ONE country thinks is a wise measure. Of course, I'm sure I'll be disagreed with on this particular point.

Economics 101, Renegade
You are wrong on one point though. While the economy in that case would not be a laissez-faire free market captialist economy, it is still a free market, and it is still capitalism. Socialism implies that at least some part of the economy is planned (presumably by everyone, but the government is a 'good enough' substitution). Canada has this in its health care system; entirely government owned, paid for by taxes, free to the people. And yes, that has problems. But if you think that any government intervention in economic issues makes the economy not capitalist, or socialist, then there is not a single capitalist economy on this planet. That would require no zoning laws, no emissions laws, no controls on banking, no oversight of accounting practices, no tax deductions or exemptions of any sort, and so on, and so on. We learned a long time ago that pure captialism, or pure socialism, or pure communism, is a bad idea. So, any economy in the world worth speaking of combines elements of all forms. These taxes would just be another form of it.

And you have missed my point entirely for the reason the tarrifs are valid. They are not a policy tool to force other countries to do as the US. And frankly, most countries don't need any encouragement, and will end up doing something similar regardless of US actions. The tarrif is meant to allow fair competition between US and foreign firms. For example, take steel. If it is estimated that the new taxes directly cause steel made in the US to be $10 more expensive per ton, then US steel is at a disadvantage to say, Chinese steel. But! If the US put a tariff on steel coming from China, to the amount of $10 per ton, then the two can compete evenly in the market. The tariff isn't forcing China to adopt the same policies at all, but it does force domestic buyers of steel to buy based on the controllable costs of producing the steel only. Otherwise, US producers would be saddled with the double burden of increased costs and cheaper competitors. The tariff doesn't apply to countries with similar policies because those policies result in the same costs for producers in that country, so no adjustment is required. The other government already took care of it.

Now, an "arrogant" way of forcing policy change would involve telling the other government they need to adopt certain changes, implement a tariff on their products that is very much in excess of the difference of costs based on the policy difference (take the above example, and make the tariff $100 instead of $10), threaten to put an embargo into effect, and 'accidentally' blow up a building during a training exercise. We're not talking about that though, are we now?

[Thermodyne]

Suicide Junkie said:

It is not the idea itself, but the manner in which it is presented.

To me, it sounded aggressive; "if we're gonna do it, we're gonna hit you up for it too."
My impression is that Europe is way ahead of us slobs on this side of the pond.

Perhaps it is an arrogant American attitude. Have you seen the treaties that have been proposed for placing limits on greenhouse gasses? The developed world cuts emissions and the third world gets to slash and burn rain forest so as to graze cattle. I’m not sorry that America has been more successful than most of the rest of the world, but I will be damned if I’ll make concessions on energy so that Asia can continue its 1950’s industrial revolution. I’m all for protecting the environment, but the sacrifices I’m forced to make have to be made by the rest of the world. The way I see it, much of the world has a lot of catching up to do on environmental issues.

[Thermodyne]

Captain Kwok said:
Europe is primarily ahead of us environmentally because of the fact that have little to no resources left- so it's by necessity.

Get out of the tour books and take a good look at Europe. I wouldn't advise drinking the well water.

[Thermodyne]

Renegade 13 said:

Inaccurate. There is no net release of carbon.

Where the heck are you going to get the energy to till, plant, harvest, ferment, and refine the alky? Do you have any idea how much carbon is vented by an acre of tilled land? Do you have any idea how many regulated chemicals are needed to grow a crop like hybrid corn? 0 waste carbon is an invention from some slick publicity agency. It only has value when only the actual carbon in the fuel in measured. When the Brazilians’ were doing it they were using some purpose grown crops and a lot of waste biomaterial from the sugar industry. They still had almost a man hour per gallon of fuel produced. It was never profitable and as demand for fuel rose, they couldn’t justify the costs of expansion. Bio alky is one of the biggest fictions of the decade. It’s typical politics and almost totally promoted by the bio industry. If you were Conaggra, would you rather sell a million tons of corn as feed and get $3.40 a bushel? Or would you rather turn it into alky and realize $5.00 per bushel. Of course feed corn will rise to the same level. So beef and chicken will more or less double in price. But the big Farm corporations will plant lots of corn and make lots of money. Their lawyers will be able to handle the subsidy paper work, and their congressmen will provide tax loop holes. The little guys with a 1000 acres or so will be right where they are today. The demand for fertilizer and chemicals will cause the prices to rise, absorbing any increase in the profits that they were expecting. Oh, and lets not forget the down side of speed fermenting, many of these fermentation plants will be located right in those nice quiet little country towns.

As you mentioned, in Northern areas this would not work. Winter isn't a great time of year for sunlight. I think wind turbines would be a lot more expensive than solar, and for that matter where would the average city-dwelling person put a wind turbine? You'd need a lot of them and a good, constant wind to be of any use. Wind is impractical in cities and solar is no good in Northern areas. So what do people in those positions do?

Mass production on this scale would reduce the costs significantly. The fan head on a 12 foot generator would be about the price of a good lawn mower. In cities, the tall buildings would provide excellent sites for generation units. And remember, they don’t have to look like aircraft engines. They can have ducted parallel blades also. These could be mounted on the sides of tall buildings.

As for solar panels, the technology to spray the materials onto a backing material with an inkjet printing process is in use today. If this was scaled up in size, it could economically be used in housing.

Again, I do not like this idea. Those of us who need trucks for the 4x4 ability, just to get around in the spring/fall when the roads turn to slippery ****e, should we take a massive hit just because of our geographical location? I don't think so.

Save that for someone who doesn't know better. You do not need a big Cummings Turbo powered 4x4 to get around in when the weather is bad. Hey, I feel your need, but I don’t buy the reason. I’ve got my full size Chevy 4x4 sitting out back. Biggest engine I could get in a half ton at the time. Heavy duty everything. But I drive a Honda Civic Hybrid to work everyday. And I’ve got a little 44 jeep that will go through any snow and muck that the truck will, on a quarter of the gas. Those big pickups could easily be replaced with smaller more fuel efficient 4x4’s. I have yet to see a farm that didn’t have tractors, wagons, and heavy trucks, what do you really need a big pick up for. Around here every farmer has several. The tax laws encouraged them to buy them. They ride around in them with 40 or 50 pounds of junk in the back and brag about how little fuel they use.


I won’t get into the rural vs. urban thing. I type way to slow for that. I will say that most big cities have a net loss on revenues. As do the rural areas. The revenue hogs are the outer suburbs where development has outrun infrastructure.

Oh, and while we are on the subject…….I thought that up there in the far north, people just got snowed in for the winter. That’s why all the birthdays are in the early summer