some economist

How embarrassing...my first economic post, I misrepresent the information. As it turns out, the tax in question is assessed at the pumps and is not directly placed on the oil companies. My bad. I still feel the same way about its merits or lack of. Reassuringly, the more I read about the situation the more unlikely it seems it will happen.

So what are some good ideas for dealing with the current situation of oil companies profiting from global disasters and high demand while adding to the larger-scale issues of global warming and pollution? Is it by reducing demand by improving efficiency of other fuels, improving public transportation or even raising the gas tax speeding up the implementation of the former two suggestions? If the demand is reduced, therefore reducing consumption, therefore reducing oil companies' profit do we win?

One of the main problems with all of this is that oil companies have such a big hand in it all, right? I really am not sure how I feel about that. The folks running these companies make money because other folks buy their product. It was not Exxon, Shell and all of their buddies who decided to make cars (that nearly everyone would need) run on dinosaur bone oil. The demand side of things needs to take some of the heat. If the public wanted to take it into their own hands they could build veggie-mobiles or start investing in alternative fuel exploring companies or if your situation limits your action, convince people with the power to do these things that they should or take the bus, ride your bike, don't have family in the Springs, stuff like that.

But right now, with gas at $3.40 it isn't worth it to most people to go through with any extra effort other than moaning about it and dipping into their wallet. I think it will still be some time before gas prices hit an impeding enough price to encourage a large enough base of consumers to have a real effect on the direction our energy policies take.