For those who would like to see more fossil fuels taxes enacted, you can provide your input. Barbara Boxer is asking for a prioritization of the things we need to do to combat Global Warming. You can also include comments:

Rank the Priorities

She didn’t have taxes listed, so I put a "Cap & Trade" Carbon Emission System as my number 1 priority. This should provide a similar incentive to conserve as a tax. Have other countries successfully implemented a scheme like this? If so, I would like to see the details. I also included in my comments that I thought we needed higher fossil fuels taxes.

R-Squared
Thankyou so much for your leadership on the issues as they may pertain to Peak oil. I read as many of your posts as my schedule allows ....impressive and illuminating... My respect for you WestTexas Stuart Staniford and even Totoneila and the many others cannot be expressed. You all serve your fellow man beyond expectation... thank you all.
Should we collectively consider the formation of hard copy deliverables to the various members of congress in the form of solutions? Proffered in the following manner: 1. one page point paper. 2. three page amplification of same. 3. a white paper similar to a report with findings. 4. a Power Point briefing outlining #3.
Perhaps the collective wisdom of the Oil Drum should take pains to work on a set of deliverables to the main stream.
regards TG80

TG80,
I think that in terms of getting the most "bang for a buck" what would work best is a book of edited TOD postings. This anthology would be an introduction to the related issues of Peak Oil and climate change--as well as an interesting list of short discussions on topics related to these two main ones.

My guess is it would take about 2,000 hours of work for somebody to put this book together (Co-editors would work.), and in my opinion royalties sould go entirely to the editors (who could if they wished donate some funds to TOD). The book could be put in the form of an annual edition.

Books have credibility. With a book, you can get major TV exposure.

There are no guarantees in the publishing world, but it would not surprise me to see a best-seller titled "The Oil Drum" or something like that.

BTW, I am not volunteering to be an editor because I have another project underway.

Don Sailorman,
The reason for my suggestion is based upon my experience. The volume of digestable information in the halls of Gov't is less than that actually consumed. The point paper, white paper, power point briefing material are examples of documents that consolidate information to the consumable and digestable level. Imagine the mass of reading material that comes across the desk of a congressman.
I do not however disagree with your suggestion that a book is in order. This is a great suggestion and one that must be persued! I've of course read Kunstler and Simmons and use them as constant sources of reference and fact checking esp. Simmons. I have considerable knowledge about the Intelligence community and find that analysts in particular long for more data and are loath to submit findings ....always waiting for more information. However, I find the Oil Drum opinion and analysis quite mature and ready to approach the main. Decision makers and the analysts that support them would be hard pressed to wade through the stream of information on this august site. As I am not a frequent contributer to the Oil Drum but prefer to let the tempest rage my comments are given with hesitation. Moreover, the time may be right. Shall we "strike while the iron is hot" as it were? My successes were always limited by timing. My own desires were limited by the desires of the collective and decision makers who had other priorites the merit of the idea notwithstanding.
Regards TG80 sends

RR -- a very strange thing.

I noticed that Senator Boxer's list did not include investment in transit or walk-able, bike-able communities.

It appears to me that she is stuck in the "same old, same old" mentality of trying to continue and expand the very same infrastructure that we have now, just finding different fuel sources to continue "easy motoring" and "cheap air conditioning" and such.

I'm a bit disillusioned by this.

BTW, I did put the carbon cap and trade high on my list, and added a sentence about "carbon tax" and also one about "transit" in the comments.

Any other folks notice the ommission of transit?

Any thoughts?

I don't really find this so terribly strange. This biking-and-walking stuff is mainly for athletic people in their twenties and thirties, who are nowadays a minority.

As a Senator, she represents the State of California. Much of the interior of the state, especially in the south, is uninhabitable without inexpensive air conditioning, and was only very very sparsely populated before it came along. Biking and walking are potentially deadly activities for many people when the temperature approaches 120F/49C, as happens every summer in places like Palm Springs. If such places are to be inhabited, "easy motoring" must be available for the summer season, so the infrastructure must be there.

And these days, those places - as well as similar places like Phoenix, which is just as unlivable without A/C so that the old downtown is just a very few blocks - are inhabited by older people, who moved there because their doctors told them to stay indoors whenever it is icy. It is icy a lot in the North, so following that instruction is tantamount to placing oneself under weeks-long house arrest. And in addition, shoveling snow is a very hazardous activity for many people. We keep conveniently forgetting that in the nineteenth century, the population was mainly younger people, as the older ones often did not survive. And no one was having dangerous "medicines" that wreck thermal regulation shoved down their throats by doctors tweaking numbers arbitrarily and destroying quality-of-life for fear of massive lawsuits over statistically insignificant increments to lifespan.

As Ms. Boxer is an elected politician who is supposed to represent the whole of California, I really can't expect her to promote socioeconomic suicide for large swathes of that State.

Very good post.

I met a friend at the library yesterday, who is a bit older than me, maybe 10 years, and they asked me if I was cold, since I was just wearing a t-shirt. I said no, actually it's quite nice. Then I observed to him that if I exercise, the general temperature of my body goes up, and that when I moved recently, the long days of intense exercise that entailed meant I was walking around in a t-shirt at night when it was really rather cold and most people were bundled up. So, since I've been exercising lately, I reasoned that this is why I was OK in a t-shirt.

Good point about the older folks dying more often in the old days, but it was not necessarily THAT bad, remember the Bible gives us 3-score and ten, and a fair number made it that far circa 1900.

This is nonsense. That's pretty pathetic if you think that biking and walking somehow is ended after your thirties. I still run, bike, hike, snowshoe, ski, etc. and I am 60. And I am hardly what you would call a naturally gifted athlete. I'd hate to think what sort of shape I would be in if I had quitted exercising in my 40s. If those who bike and walk are in a minority, that is simply a function of being lazy, not a function of age.

Most of Californians live on or near the coast where the climate is quite mild, so walking and biking would be a perfect solution for most of California.

As long as we are talking about infrastructure, let's make sure the infrastructure for walking and biking is available everywhere, for those days, even in the hotter areas, where biking and walking is feasible.

Snow shoveling is hazardous mostly for people who are out of shape. Yeh, if you sit on your ass all year and then go out and try to shovel snow, you are a candidate for a heart attack. But if you stay in good shape, which you should be able to do for your whole life, barring serious illness, you shouldn't have any problem with a reasonable amount of shoveling.

If you are older and out of shape, it is primarily a function of inactivity, not your age.

"But if you stay in good shape, which you should be able to do for your whole life, barring serious illness,"

That's a big exception. A lot of people can't bicycle due to health (illness or disability). Bicycling is a great option, but it can't be mandatory.

No one is asking for biking to be mandatory - just more convenient for those that are willing to do it.

Well, that's great. I wholeheartedly agree that we need infrastructure for safe and convenient walking and biking. I'm not sure everyone is quite as clear as you on the need for personal vehicles as well.

This was part of the original post:

"It appears to me that she is stuck in the "same old, same old" mentality of trying to continue and expand the very same infrastructure that we have now, just finding different fuel sources to continue "easy motoring" and "cheap air conditioning" and such."

That "very same infrastructure" for "easy motoring" is what people with illness and disability need to have "continue and expand".

Actually, I agree with the original post that we should not be expanding the infrastructure for automobiles. For one thing, such expansion always brings more traffic. For another, I suspect that we probably can't afford to maintain the extensive roadway system we've already built. We've got plenty of roads for those with illness and disability.

I think we should consolidate the many, many roadways we have back to streets, with sidewalks, that are part of cities and towns rather than building more bypasses and cloverleafs to the exurbs. I think such roads will be more amenable to a wider range of vehicles, from bikes to cars to buses.

BTW, I've been enjoying the http://pedshed.net/ series on connectivity.

Just my thoughts!

she is a career politician. i think its time to think beyond democrat or republican, (they are in the same bed, just swapping covers) perhaps it's time to find someone who will do the right thing, call it like it is, and take action.
these politicians treat us we are all fools, if they would only come clean and tell us like it is. I think we can all handle the truth. just give it to us!

i am not advocating libertarian, but i am disgusted with career politicians, they are all self serving! we just need someone to step forward and give us the REAL DEAL!

has carbon trading been successful?

Probably not based on the European Trading Scheme and controversy over Kyoto's offset provisions. On the other hand CFCs and SOX have been controlled to some extent but CO2 seems to be a lot harder because of fewer cheap substitutes. The EU scheme almost collapsed because of carbon starting credit giveaways and many now question whether 'clean development' (trees, new energy projects, methane flaring etc) is largely bogus; this has been discussed at length in Gristmill.

Here's some buzzwords in the literature; 'grandfathering', 'hybrid tax and trade', 'safety valve','revenue neutrality', 'import substitution', 'harmonisation', 'permit auctions'. Of course some doomers say CO2 reductions will happen anyway.

I think James Hansen is talking about 50+% emissions reductions within a decade. The lightweight schemes that will spring up in various coutries won't get near that unless there is a meltdown.