Government and Energy
The production of ethanol requires a lot of energy, and takes corn away from farmers for feed, and consumers for food. When growing the corn it requires good weather, which is sometimes unattainable, and land which forests could be destroyed. There is also the issue that ethanol does not produce enough energy causing a lower gas mileage than gasoline in vehicles. Gasoline can be shipped through pipelines, but ethanol needs to be shipped by truck, barges, or railways. Since corn is usually in most food products, there could be a rise in food products, due to the shortage of corn. With all of this I would have to say I support oil subsides for companies instead of for ethanol, oil is easier to obtain than ethanol.
I would only agree in increasing the gasoline tax, if the tax revenues are used to come up with a plan to stop global warming. The only problem that I see with raising the gasoline tax is for the individuals who are already struggling in this economy. If the tax rate was to rise, it would lower the consumption of gasoline, lowering the greenhouse effect, and lowering our dependence on foreign oil. Looking at the gasoline tax as economist, the government could lower the income tax rate to help offset the gasoline tax, and to help boost the economy.
If I agree that the gasoline tax should rise, than the carbon tax should rise also. But the carbon tax should also have the offset of the income tax to help with low income families. Again with this tax, the consumption of the fossil fuels will go down, which in turn will lower our dependence on foreign oil.
I believe that car manufactures are being forced to create more fuel efficient vehicles, and they should. The first reason is to help reduce carbon emissions which will help with the reducing of global warming. The second reason is to reduce ourselves from being dependent on...