First, Salon columnist Michael Lind came off sounding like Daniel Yergin, or Julian Simon, Michael Shermer and other cornucopians, claiming there is no such thing as Peak Oil.
In part of the column, he also pooh-poohed the seriousness of global warming.
His colleague at Salon, Andrew Leonard, called him out for these and other issues.
And now Lind has written a non-rebuttal "rebuttal."
It's a non-rebuttal because it starts out by claiming that Leonard has called him a "global warming denialist." And, Michael you put that phrase in quotes, in the header, implying (or so I infer) that you think Leonard called you that.
He nowhere said that Lind was a "global warming denialist." The word "denialist" isn't even in Leonard's column.
So STOP LYING. Andrew Leonard never called you a global warming denialist, despite your claim in your second column.
I never thought I'd see Lind stoop this low.
Showing posts with label Manhattan Project for Peak Oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Manhattan Project for Peak Oil. Show all posts
June 02, 2011
July 23, 2008
Yes to higher gas taxes and their benefits
MSN has a simple argument for how higher gas taxes could actually benefit the economy.
There’s only one fly in this ointment, but it’s a huge one. Author Vad Yazvinski agrees with Greg Mankiw that we ought to use the proceeds from a $1/gallon increase in the gas tax to cut corporate taxes.
WRONG!
Instead, the estimated $100 billion could be spent on mass transit development and urban neighborhood/traditional neighborhood design development.
But, the federal government should only support the latter in cities whose state governments have TND-friendly legislation.
Not all that $100 bil would go to these two areas, though.
Part of it would go to a voucher fund to help buy gas burners — and oil burners — off of poor people for more efficient cars of today. Texas has such a program at the state level.
Part of it would be used to fund aspects of the well-needed “Manhattan Project” to get us beyond the Age of Oil.
But, Yzvinski is wrong about how to use it, let alone wrong that the corporate income tax rate is not “ridiculously high,” as he claims.
There’s only one fly in this ointment, but it’s a huge one. Author Vad Yazvinski agrees with Greg Mankiw that we ought to use the proceeds from a $1/gallon increase in the gas tax to cut corporate taxes.
WRONG!
Instead, the estimated $100 billion could be spent on mass transit development and urban neighborhood/traditional neighborhood design development.
But, the federal government should only support the latter in cities whose state governments have TND-friendly legislation.
Not all that $100 bil would go to these two areas, though.
Part of it would go to a voucher fund to help buy gas burners — and oil burners — off of poor people for more efficient cars of today. Texas has such a program at the state level.
Part of it would be used to fund aspects of the well-needed “Manhattan Project” to get us beyond the Age of Oil.
But, Yzvinski is wrong about how to use it, let alone wrong that the corporate income tax rate is not “ridiculously high,” as he claims.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)