"Peak Oil"

[brianca]

Re: "Peak Oil"

I don't completely disagree with that, but waiting for the market to "correct" itself could have some very painful short term issues

i think it'll be a smoother transition than you think. We won't run out of oil suddenly one day and be stuck. it'll be a gradual process, and as it happens oil prices will raise and people will be forced to look for alternatives. As oil use goes down, alternatives will grow. I think it'll be pretty smooth overall.

[GeckoGeek]

Re: "Peak Oil" and Hawaii

We have so much wind, sun, and wave energy, it's an embarrassment. Problem is we're just so complacent.

So what view are you going to clutter with windmills? What land are you going to pave over with solar collectors? What surf spots are you going to mess up with wave energy absorbers?

Sure, it's easy to talk about in abstract. Just wait until a specific place is chosen and the politics of "no" starts up.

And then go and ask just how much energy this will produce. I think you'll find it will only *reduce* our oil consumption, not eliminate it. So in just about every respect we would be right back where we started from - dependent on oil with all the problems that brings about. If we really want to make a difference, we have to stop thinking about "reducing" oil and all but eliminating it.

[Bard]

Re: "Peak Oil"

Well, Kaho`olawe for one... (man, everyone on here has big plans for that island! )

Getting rid of oil is definitely the only real long term goal that makes any sense. Unfortunately we are a few pieces of technology short between here and there, namely we still have no efficient way to produce portable energy from electricity, which is what's currently pumping out of all these generating technologies.

Read an article the other day that they figured out a way to engineer a blood protein such that it absorbs sunlight and splits water atoms into oxygen and hydrogen. Wouldn't that be a hoot! Throw it in a jar of water and let it sit in the sun for a few days for some fuel

[mel]

Re: "Peak Oil" and Hawaii

It really isn't dictating since people who no longer live in Hawaii don't have any power in choosing the current elected leaders. It's just a lot of opinion. Besides, those who no longer live in Hawaii still may have plenty of relatives that do and pay tax.

Relatives in Hawaii yes, but the fact that they live on the mainland exempts them from the tax.

Also, the GET tax is not just for locals. Any visitor that sets foot on Oahu and spends on anything will be contributing too. So you could even say you've made all the tourists subsidize the rail project.

That is the argument rail supporters always use. Tourists will pay for the tax. Somewhere they forgot residents also have to pay the tax, and since we are here practically 24-7-365, the impact is greater on residents and businesses than it is on tourists who spend at most 1 week in Hawaii.

I don't buy the rail is just some pet project of the construction industry, unions, banks, and property developers.

If you been to or saw the City Council hearings on the rail and tax bills, you'd see all of these union, banks, big businesses and property developers testifying for rail. This will impact residences and small businesses in a negative way very badly come next year.

If the tollway is chosen instead, which so many anti-rail folks champion, those same groups benefit. If you say it's special interests, you should take a look at honolulutraffic.com, an anti-rail site.

Perhaps, and yes I am familiar with honolulutraffic.com. However the City is so set on RAIL that none of the the other alternatives are on the table. Look at the mayor's big P-R campaign to sell the public on rail. Why does he need to use taxpayer dollars to fund the production and airing of a half hour propaganda informecial to champion rail? Already the waste of money for this has begun, not to mention the expensive study/report used to come up with the so-called alternatives.

As for neighbor islanders paying tax, the definition is that tax must be paid on income earned from business conducted on Oahu. How is that not fair? Isn't that what's already being done? Just that now there's an increase of 0.5%? It's not like neighbor islanders weren't already paying this tax?

From the Hawaii State Tax Department Website:
(emphasis added in color)

Q2. Who must pay the County Surcharge tax and what transactions are subject to the new tax?

* Businesses and landlords must generally pay the new 1/2% County Surcharge tax on any Oahu related transactions subject to the 4% general excise tax.

* Neighbor island (and out-of-state) businesses that do not deliver any goods or services to Oahu, and landlords that do not have any rental property on Oahu are not subject to the new 1/2% County Surcharge tax.

* Neighbor island (and out-of-state) businesses that deliver goods or services to Oahu and have a 'physical presence' on Oahu, and landlords that have rental property on Oahu are subject to the new 1/2% County Surcharge tax ('Physical presence' means, for example, having an office on Oahu, an employee or agent on Oahu, or a sales representative or agent traveling to Oahu to do business.)

o Only the portion of your business income generated from Oahu sales/services or Oahu rentals are subject to the new 1/2% tax.

* In general, any income earned from any transaction related to an Oahu customer is subject to the County Surcharge tax.

o Business activities that are subject to the 4% GE tax rate, such as retailing of goods & services, contracting, renting or leasing real property or tangible personal property, commissions, and interest income are subject to the 1/2% County Surcharge tax.

Some of this stuff is a little vague, but I suspect that any neighbor island business which include many retailers who do business or are part of a business on Oahu, will more than likely pass that increased cost on to neighbor islanders.

And while the present 4.16% GE tax covers everyone in all counties, the added surcharge which is only dedicated to funding Oahu's rail that neighbor islanders will never use, is unfair to them, even though they will be charged this tax on many occasions.

The tax is an increased and involuntary cost laid upon businesses by the state of Hawaii that will hurt them as well as consumers. Couple that with the increased minimum wage that also go into effect on January 1, the cost of doing business in Hawaii will certainly increase a lot more come 2007.

Very bad for our economy, very bad for consumers, tourists and residents living in Hawaii. More money taken away from your pockets.

People love their personal vehicles because it does provide convenience but also because it is insanely cheap. Maybe if the price of gas is more like $8 a gallon like in the UK, then that statement will change.

I'm sure there are some people who wish something like this will happen so that they can "force" us out of our cars.

I think ultimately people are more upset over the tax then the rail itself. Maybe people should call for a revamp of the state's tax structure. Instead of a GET, maybe a GST, or a plain old sales tax. Otherwise, you can hop on the superferry and buy your goods from Maui to avoid the 0.5%. People in Washington do it all the time by trekking down to Oregon since they have 0% sales tax.

Proposals to go to a straight sales tax have been floated in the past, but have all failed. The difference between Hawaii and the mainland is that the transportation costs to go to another county is cost prohibitive and inconvenient even with $29 air fares. On the mainland you can simply hop in your vehicle and drive to another county or state to get a better bargain. Impossible to do that in Hawaii.

As for opposition to the rail itself, that will grow once the route is chosen and those caught in the way find out that their properties will be negatively impacted (development rights sold along the way, more property tax, construction noise, ugly overhead rail lines, etc). As others say on this board, "the politics of NO" will hopefully kick in.

Also what happens if a diesel steel wheels on iron rails type of train is chosen? More dependence on foreign oil. An electric train will also increase dependence on foreign oil since the power has to come from somewhere to run the train. HECO????

Lastly with all of the whackos opposing the SuperFerry, that may seem an unlikely option in this business hostile environment.