Graham: How the United States could be the leader in green tech

"Americans are never........"

We'll see about that once a gallon reaches $6.

There are definitely issues in the United States that make it difficult to implement public transportation. Suburban sprawl is an example. But that doesn't mean that reform isn't possible.

And what is to say that the government shouldn't tax gas even more so that it can help develop new energy and invest in public transportation? Why is that bad? Will we all become commies then? Oh no, call McCarthy and Rand...

As the writer said. We are spoiled.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by hawkhawk on September 24, 2008 at 8:35 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Graham: How the United States could be the leader in green tech

and an anonymous commentator lecturing us on "the right ways" of private industry... sure, because government is incredibly inefficient with coming up with new technology, right? and what incentives are you talking about? tax breaks? how about a joint program? tax breaks for projects involving new technology funded by increased taxation of oil. we can also use those taxes to develop better public transportation.

oh, wait, the government would be involved in that... i guess that means it would automatically make it incredibly inefficient...

give me a break.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by hawkhawk on September 23, 2008 at 11:48 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Graham: How the United States could be the leader in green tech

Of course the government is going to have to be included. It's true that normally private industries are more efficient about coming up with new technologies, but that need not be the case if the government has the resources (taxes) and the incentives (less foreign dependence) to do so. Our infrastructure can be remarkably improved in relatively simple ways. Amtrak is a great example, about 4 out of every 100 trains make it to their destinations on time because they don't own the tracks they run on. If a government program could increase the number of tracks to expedite these means, or rather if it could help make subsidies to a private company, maybe even the auspicious possibilities of Amtrak, and increase trains and times Americans might start using them more often.

I fully support raising taxes on gasoline, good work Mr. Graham, smoke it vladislav

• Upvote 0
• Posted by tralinde on September 24, 2008 at 10:15 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Graham: How the United States could be the leader in green tech

Why, what is the problem with improving Amtrack?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by hawkhawk on September 24, 2008 at 11:38 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Graham: How the United States could be the leader in green tech

Petroleum runs this country because it is currently the most efficient energy source. The tax hike you suggest would be very damaging to our economy in terms of lost jobs, lost income, and lost tax revenues.

Pouring money into alternative energy research does not guarantee a new technology. This is not to say that research shouldn't be done or that the federal government shouldn't lend a hand (as it does with NIH, for example.)

If this was a choice between raising taxes or never developing a new technology, I would be all for it. As it stands, however, we are already working towards new technologies in both privately and publicly funded research labs.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on September 24, 2008 at 12:23 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Graham: How the United States could be the leader in green tech

Are you trying to kill the industrial transportation industry?

We aren't an island. We're big. We need gas to move products around. Ever see semi-trucks?

As far as public transportation goes - again. This isn't an island. We don't have 60 million people packed into a country the size of Ohio like other places do.

Public. Transportation. Is. Not. Feasible.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by handy on September 24, 2008 at 10:21 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Graham: How the United States could be the leader in green tech

As the writer of this article I feel it's necessary to point a couple things out. First, Vladislav, you are right in a sense. The private sector is a main source of innovation and should be THE MAIN SOURCE. I would be stupid to deny that. But at the same time, the government has the ability to control monetary resources in a far more drastic measure than the private sector. I'm not saying that taxes are good, but where is this funding going to come from? If you knew your investment may expire and be deemed null after one year or your tax strata may change, would you invest? Private dealers have to rely on government tax breaks to make sure that their investments have a standing and to make them guaranteed. That's the key: If they know that their money isn't going to be wasted, they are going to invest. And I know of gas taxes, but why shouldn't they be more? Canada is where we get most of our petroleum but after that? Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, Angora, and uh hum...Iraq. Those sound like pretty static countries. And oil is only major source of energy because of our lack of future-telling. How can we afford to pay for oil when China and India and Brazil are about to go berserk on the market? We don't have the power anymore. But if we get off of these fossil fuels, we may have the ability to gain our power back. The economy is toast because of a mismanaged housing market, oil prices, food prices, no employment, etc. and odds are it won't change soon. I appreciate your views and more open discussion is needed because it seems like nobody really cares or notices that this is happening, but as we've seen lately, the free market seems to have hit a snag. What seems like the better investment? $700 billion to bail out non-responsible, neglectful corporations that make bad decisions or putting it towards better environmental standards and the like? I'm pretty sure that creating a whole new economic sector would create jobs and corporations, too. If $700 billion dollars (along with our $500 budget deficit=1.2 TRILLION) could be used instead of taxes, please, go for it. But it's not and we should get used to it. China can't fund everyting. And the exercise physiology dig, yeah, that's my scholarly dedication. However, that doesn't mean that my viewpoint is any less valid or poignant just because it doesn't align with yours. Do you listen to your friends? Unless everyone that you know is an economist, then whenever they talk, you should tell them they are not qualified. My field of study doesn't mean I'm not qualified to talk about it: It means I can't do my thesis about it. So let's keep this discussion going...

• Upvote 0
• Posted by zgraham on September 24, 2008 at 11:36 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Graham: How the United States could be the leader in green tech

Sooner or later we will be paying eight bucks a gallon for gas. why not raise taxes on it now to find that alternative enegy source that will reduce our dependance on foreign oil? As the old saying goes " pay a little now or a lot later." I don't know about any of you but I sure as heck don't want to be paying ten or fifteen bucks a gallon in twenty years. If fuel taxes are raised slightly now and put into research we might be paying fifty cents per cubic foot for hydrogen or however it would be measured in the same twenty years. I'm pretty sure that the majority of the federal tax on gas is spent maintaining the interstate and U.S. highway infrastructure, so little is left for alternative energy research. Whoever or however a new source of energy is found I would rather the tax I pay on fuel be used for finding it than to continue spending large amounts for many years to come lining the pockets of oil executives and princes who have nothing better to do than spend time thinking of what they can build or buy that will make them feel like they are important people. Government jointly funded research has produced many of the technologies in use today, more specifically military research. The writer seems to have done his research on the topic and shows sincere compassion about it as well. As for those who think he isn't qualified to discuss or have an opinion on the subject needs a reality check. This is an opionion article. Anybody who is alive today in the United States, pays taxes, and consumes gasoline is qualified to talk about it. Just because I work in the private security industry and do not posess a college degree doesn't mean I'm clueless on the subject or cannot have an opinion on how my tax dollar is spent. Right? Nice work Zach and Go Bucks!

• Upvote 0
• Posted by jnborchers on September 25, 2008 at 3:14 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Graham: How the United States could be the leader in green tech

Too suggest that electric cars would ruin the current transportation infrastructure and leave people jobless is rediculous. Electricity already flows theoughout the entire united states. It seems that the transition, althought costly, could be made easily from fuel stations to charging stations; not to mention all the jobs created by the overhaul of said infrastructure. The electric and internal combustion vehicle were developed around the same time. The dominance and eventual development of internal combustion vehicles won. It could just as easily have been the electric vehicle that was prefered, and then perhaps we would not be having these discussions.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by LJOE on September 25, 2008 at 12:38 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Graham: How the United States could be the leader in green tech

maybe if you were able to express it without being a jerk.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by oliveira on October 5, 2008 at 11:47 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal