But Moving Cooler needs only one strategy: all we need to do is raise the gas tax (and I know it has been mentioned before, including by me)

I think it should be phased-in like this:

Gasoline/E10 (only 93+ octane would be sold)
Increase the tax by 1c per week over 2 years
Total would be $1.04 extra

E85
Increase the tax by 1c every two weeks for 2 years
Total would e 52c extra

Diesel, B5, and B20
Increase tax by 1c every other week for 3 years
Total would be 78c extra

B50
Increase tax 1c every other week for 2 years
Total would be 52c extra

B99
No tax increase

Half to the feds
half to the state in which you purchased the gas

Also, we can eliminate self-serve gas to create jobs
but keep self-serve diesel

Greenhouse gases such as nitrogen trifluoride, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons do not occur naturally. They are manmade gases and some have high global warming potential (GWP) even when only present in very small quantities. They have only occurred since the 1800’s. Carbon dioxide, which exists at the ~0.3% level in the atmosphere, affects ~50% of our global weather and global warming (note: this percentage changes to ~25% if one includes water vapor in with the greenhouse gases). The ices of Greenland and Antarctica have shown that the levels of carbon dioxide have remained relatively steady in at least the last 100,000 years until the 1800’s. Since the 1800’s, carbon dioxide has increased ~35% with no known natural events to cause those increases. Do you know something that has escaped the eyes of the 2000+ IPCC scientist, the tens of thousands of scientist in related fields, and the many, many millions of the scientist, news journalist, politicians, and others? Please be forthcoming with that information.

I think Matt the Un-stupid (I hope…) is correct. “Taxes always discourage behavior while subsidies encourage behavior.” But it has to be a proper balance. Taxes always hurt the poorest people the most while subsidies will help the poorest people the most. Taxes and subsidies have less of an effect on the wealthy since the taxes and subsidies are a much smaller percentage of their wealth.

I also think Bob Guimarin’s idea of “battery exchange capable cars” is a good idea and has some business potential for the future. But Anonymous is right: a battery exchange infrastructure is 20-30 years away. It would have to be some sort of battery standards and designed replaceability, agreed upon by all the manufactures, before the concept can reach any acceptance.

Dj

If we put our focus on converting some of the 245 million gas cars to 100% electric cars, at a reasonable price to the general public, then we could truly make incredible reductions in GHGs.

Don’t tell the American public to drive less, or drive a car that doesn’ t fit their needs. Let them have the same cars they drive today, at a reasonable costs. and help the earth…. Providing a battery exchange infrastructure, that negates the need for the “most optimized EV technological” design and vehicle build, will greatly accelerate the adoption of 100% EVs. Does it really matter if a converted Gas-Car can only travel 100miles on a $2 charge and then swap out for another battery that was charged by green energy sources, if we can get 10,000s of folks to get completely off gasoline decades ahead of the current., “Gas-Electric Hybrid” mantra?

Hybrids are not the answer, battery exchange capable cars are the answer.

If you want to reduce how much people use something, you make it more expensive. Really? No one ever figured that out before. Thanks for that brilliant insight.