I should have been more clear in yesterday's idea: the money would come from us in the form of tax dollars, not at the pump.
This spawns into another idea: tax imported oil and use the money to subsidize domestic oil production.
These are, of course, variations on a theme, as is today's more complex idea:
Yesterday’s idea too radical? Let’s try this on for size:
The US Government will form a corporation, initially government controlled and sponsored. Call it Patriot Gas. This company will only be allowed to purchase gas made from domestic oil production (including non-conventional oil). It will be allowed to produce, refine, distribute, and sell gasoline and related products.
During the setup period (call it two years) Patriot Gas will build or buy gas stations from other companies, set up their distribution network, etc. During this period, the US government will subsidize them to the point where their price per gallon is the same as the average for the region the individual stations are in (use AAA data). It will also guarantee startup loans so they can purchase and build their infrastructure.
After the setup period, a weaning-off period will start (call it two more years). The subsidy will slowly be reduced to zero. This will, presumably, cause the price per gallon to be greater than that of competitors. An add campaign will emphasize that Patriot Gas is made in the USA and point out where foreign oil is coming from, and what its paying for. People like me will still buy gas there, since we’re willing to pay the extra money to know where its going. Others, of course, won’t.
However, one long-term guarantee will be in place: the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve will only buy oil from Patriot Gas (i.e., only domestic production will go into the SPR).
At the end of the weaning-off period, we’ll see if this country really wants to get off foreign oil.
Tell me what you think!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well, this is a complicated subject that I do not have a great deal of knowledge about. Here's a few things that popped into my head as problem points.
"the money would come from us in the form of tax dollars, not at the pump."
All the dollars currently taxed are being used somewhere. This strikes me as a LOT of money, so what are you going to axe to pay for this? Is this more important than say(pick your favorite waste of government money)? You may think so, but the political reality is that anything that has a large amount of money devoted to it has political muscle defending it. That political muscle might even be right.
"The US Government will form a corporation, initially government controlled and sponsored. Call it Patriot Gas."
Set up a government-sponsored gas/oil/fuel company right? Set it in direct competition with currently operating companies, and give them special tax breaks, but not the other companies.
"However, one long-term guarantee will be in place: the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve will only buy oil from Patriot Gas (i.e., only domestic production will go into the SPR)."
This screams out that it is a government pork barrel project. Accusations that the government is funneling money directly to the rich would be hard to avoid.
What I brought up yesterday bears repeating. If we are in potential conflict with some groups, isn't it a good idea to get all the natural resources that we can from the area they might control before the hostilities break out and we lose access to said resources. Our real strategic reserves should stay in the ground, our ground, to be dug up and used only after our other sources have been exhausted. Our immediate use reserves of gas/fuel/oil, why shouldn't they come from somewhere else, just so long as they get here. When they stop getting here is when we switch to our (in the ground) backup.
Fair points all.
The major thing I'd argue is the advantage of "preserving" our energy stocks. Right now we're pouring money into the middle east, which is helping them, in some cases, start a self-sustaining economy. Yeah, a lot of it is funding Islamic fanatics and buying oil barons palaces that make California mansions look like a shanty town, but you can't throw that much at an area without some of it sticking.
Also, preserving a resource assumes you'll use it in the end. I don't believe that the US economy is locked into oil. Fusion is out there, for one thing, and while it isn't getting much press and seems to be perenially ten years away, progress is being made.
I'd rather burn the shale oil now and risk needing to invade the middle east in fifty years than build up the middle east for fifty years and have them invade us.
Post a Comment