>>>>>>The Saudis et al have just ordered the biggest cutback in oil production history. I think the poor oil producing folks are addicted to money. Enough is enough! It's time to use the money for Detroit to re-tool the plants for electric cars. Let's turn off the money tap that leads to Arabia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28274997/
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps electric cars, or perhaps other tecnology, but the point is that the world needs to reduce its petroleum dependence.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is a book, "Carbonomics", that argues for an "untax" on carbon which is actually a tax on carbon that is returned to taxpayers through reduction of other taxes. While the emphasis of the book is taxing carbon as a way to reduce greenhouse gases, I think it is a more compelling concept to reduce petroleum consumption
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't particularly like methods such as carbon swaps because they lend themselves to fraud. A simple but significant tax per gallon of petroleum which is returned to taxpayers by reducing other taxes (and not eaten by the bureaucracy) seems a straightforward aproach that focuses attention on reducing petroleum use.
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW, I am not keen on drilling offshore yet for the simple reason that we should leave some petroleum in the ground for future generations.
>>>>>
>>>>>You can read portions of the book in the internet and even receive a PDF version from the author. http://stoft.com/p/42.html
>>>>>
>>>>>Alex
>>>>
>>>>Taxing carbon emissions pose great interest in some circles mostly because they are not taxed yet; truly a rarity our days. For some reason, taxation gets universal appeal in the same circles, i.e. if something is (perceived as) not good then it should be taxed and then it will become much (muuu...ch) better.
>>>
>>>Edward,
>>>
>>>Please don't look at it as an ideological argument but an effort to come up with a practical solution to a very big problem. Do you agree that the dependence on oil from unstable, and in some cases hostile, parts of the world is a security problem? Please notice I explicitly said I am not talking about taxing carbon emisions but petroleum consumption.
>>>
>>>Alex
>>
>>If it would be just a security problem then solving it could be easy enough. As the most practical solution, you could look at the fact that America has huge resources of traditional energy sources, i.e. oil and coal. Also, nuclear energy can provide ample energy source to end any kind of dependency mentioned in your message. It may indicate that purely security side of the problem is not really a problem.
>
>Security, balance of payments, there are many reasons why it is wise to reduce world consumption of oil. Carbon emissions is an additional argument, but to me it is secondary.
>
>Long, long, long term, fusion power is obviously the thing. In the mean time coal, fission, wind, tides, geothermal and plain old conservation are the best alternatives to reduce oil dependence. We've had this discussion before but since I've heard the argument of the "untax" as a way to increase the cost of petroleum without tanking the economy and frankly it seems like a good compromise.
>
>The need to maintain a high price for oil comes from the fact that markets respond to price signals. There is no need to give the money to OPEC in order to send a signal thruough a higher petroleum price.

It seems to me that you retract on your first proposition. You said that your concern is exclusively about dependency on foreign, unfriendly oil-producing regimes; and, when I countered it, you return back to 'other arguments'. Which one you want to discuss?