Environment

 …maybe you hadn’t noticed, but it’s June when I’m writing this and it’s in the upper 90s. When I moved here as a teenager in 1991 most people didn’t have air conditioners. The time for argument is over, we’ve gotta do something. 

 We need aggressive penalties and taxes on emissions on industry polluters. We need to increase tax on gas while continuing incentives for cleaner fuel systems, and we need to take personal responsibility to make the best choices in regard to our personal consumption.

…yes- you read it right, I said more taxes. And I’m going to try to win a political race with no money. Yes, I realize how grim my chances are.

We pay some of the smallest gas rates and yet many continue to pretend that our prices are outrageous. I will tell you that 16 years ago my price at the pump was higher in non-adjusted dollars ($4.114 national average per gallon, which adjusted, would be $5.994 today). I remember it well, as it was the first time I spent over $100 on gas to fill my old Ford Explorer. When you hear people say gas has been at its highest price in the last two years, they are blatantly wrong. I lived it. We continued to drive at that price, and I was in a vehicle than got about 15 miles to a gallon, so I’m not blameless myself. My question is, why haven’t we pushed the auto industry harder to improve emissions? The answer is pretty easy - we’re scared of change, and we’re cheap. Hybrid and electric vehicles may be more expensive and may have some mechanical issues- that’s why we don’t embrace them now, right? Of course, ask any Kia owner about how many recalls they’ve had in the 4-5 years, and you’ll know the traditional engines also have plenty of issues with mechanics. The average gas engine in this country will carry a 50-100,00 mile warranty on the drivetrain, while most electric vehicles provide an 8 year or 80,000 mile warranty on batteries. So this seems comparable, and in California the state requires a 10 year, 100,000 mile warranty on batteries. So we all need to buy our electric cars back from California to Colorado.

You know what has fewer mechanical issues than any car? Horses. If this was truly a concern over of reliability, we would have never moved on from riding those. You get a good on 20-25 years with a horse with only daily maintenance; hay is markedly cheaper than gas (about $2.25 a flake), and they make cool noises when you accelerate. Let’s be honest here, reliability isn’t a big factor- if it was, Tesla wouldn’t have sold more than 10 cars to start.

What about cost? Electric and hybrid vehicles have a higher price point to start making them unaffordable. I think it’s funny that expense doesn’t seem to enter the equation when it comes to trucks- and the number one vehicle in this country is the Ford F series. The starting price for a Ford F150 is $38,760 and the base for a Nissan Leaf is $28,900. So, I really don’t see how expense is really at issue. When we buy our vehicles, we are a nation of spending on what we want, not what we need. The real issue isn’t the extra $10,000 for the upgrade to a truck; the issue is the additional $10,000 upgrade to the electric truck. So, let’s find out everyone’s real reason for the type of vehicles they buy and make up some difference in this price.

I suggest a $0.50 increase in federal tax per-gallon of gas and a $1,000 federal tax per mpg under 30 on all new vehicles to encourage efficiency. This will test the true intention of the consumer and give a true gauge of consumer loyalty and choice. This increased revenue will be split, right down the middle with 50% to supporting current federal environmental programs (and new ones I propose later in this section), and 50% directly to pay the national debt. So not only will the purchase of the combustion engine offset its carbon emission use, it can also be looked at as an expression of patriotism. My initial rough numbers indicate that the revenue generated from the gas tax at $90.45 billion, and from the mpg tax at $71.3 billion, if projected using 2023 miles driven and cars sold. While this would only cover about 12.26% of the interest of the national debt (yeah, it’s that bad so maybe we need more things like this, as interest alone on the debt in 2023 was $658 billion), it would explode the amount spent to combat climate change as that number is just over $9.5 billion in 2023 as reported by the US State Department.

….Elon, I am waiting by the mailbox for my thank you letter. 

There is an amazing amount of money being spent to save the Brazilian rainforest. We pledged $500 million over five years last year. France and Brazil announced a joint $1.1 billion investment over the next four years. England has pledged $100 million. And there are more. The Amazon fund has raised about $1.2 billion to combat deforestation in the Brazilian rainforest. But there is a problem- and we saw it 2019 when the Brazilian government froze spending from the fund until last year. And the Congress of Brazil has actually passed legislation to use some of those funds to pave a highway through the rainforest, which encourages deforestation and logging. Doesn’t exactly seem we are going to get what we paid for in this deal. To preserve the rainforest, and the investment from our country and many others, I propose that all pledged funds to the Amazon fund be applied to a 99-year lease of Brazilian rainforest land, and protected by a joint coalition of forces from the contributing nations that patrol for fire, poachers, and illegal loggers and miners. The fluctuations of Brazilian politics cannot hold the world’s climate hostage any longer.

I would continue to support the current EPA programs and the programs to encourage electric and hybrid vehicles, regulations on pollution, waste reduction, clean water, and sustainable development. I would also support furthering current efforts in the future put by the current administration to cut government emissions, promote energy efficiency, and investments in renewable energy. Additionally, the federal fight to reduce emissions will be supported from my proposed national service initiative with the infrastructure corps engineering and building with sustainable methods and building power generation plants utilizing green energy and the beautification corps assisting in greening of cities and communities. And of course, the financial increase from my proposed taxes can help with the expansion of all these programs. 

Unfortunately, we must depend on current and future science to ensure our environment’s future. We basically need to vie for the time, as our conservation efforts to catch up to our CO2 emissions won’t stop the current warming trends, and even the most optimistic projections foresee continued catastrophic consequences. So, we must go beyond the traditional thinking and invest in ideas to artificially adjust the world’s temperatures. We need to heavily invest in carbon capture on a massive level. The science to literally filter carbon out of the atmosphere exists today- but please google carbon capture right now- I’ll wait…

You get the same as me? First three sponsored sites are chevron, exxonmobile, and chevron again. Do you think that maybe they think to pump their money into both parties too to make sure they control the narrative- or do you think their money just stops with s.e.o.? (I‘lol help you find the answer- oil spent 124.4 million in federal lobbying in 2022. So maybe a little bit more than what they spend on google searches) 

We need to explore solutions to offset warming- to reflect back the sun’s rays into space by utilizing reflective shades flying in the skies and floating in the oceans, and we need to begin the investment in science and material to put a sunshield into space to provide reduction in the sun’s radiation in conjunction with our allies around the world. The power of the United States on the world is to lead projects that benefit all of mankind and our guidance is now needed more than ever; we can no longer allow internal bickering and mismanagement to delay our responsibility to this cause.