Why do we do this?

Discussion in 'Start Your Journey Here' started by stran, Jul 13, 2007.

  1. hobbit

    hobbit He who posts articles

    hmm.. I keep telling people it's not so much the speed,
    it's the proximity. Especially on secondary roads. Speed
    limiting would help on the interstates and the like, but
    I think the overall *safety* and consumption picture could
    be improved in many, many other areas than just decreasing
    the effects of air resistance. Increased safety and better
    driving would lead to fewer cars needing to be replaced,
    lower stress, and maybe even a community feeling of helping
    each other fix the problem by simple actions on the road.
    Even if you couch it in "starve a terrorist" patriotism
    rhetoric, though, they don't seem to listen.
  2. Chuck

    Chuck just the messenger

    I can understand speeding in places like the very open country of West Texas, but the senseless charging up to red lights, lane changing, etc is what I just don't understand.

    This would raise a gillion privacy issues, but I would not mind having a blackbox record of our driving the insurance companies could have access to. The threashold of "bad driving" would be set high, but heck there are plenty of drivers that would cross into that questionable area anyway. Just let the insurance companies give them high rates if the black box reveals they drive like a NASCAR reject.
  3. GrendelKhan

    GrendelKhan Well-Known Member

    Carbon tax. If you can afford to race around, then fine. Or afford to race around sometimes, then fine. But if gas cost more, people would drive better.

  4. MnFocus

    MnFocus hanging member :)

    Insurance industry already has a handle on credit records -it one of the "tools" they use to set my/your/our rates . That is a privacy issue - not their business at all . Individual driving habits should be the true measure of insurability. As for a 'black box' ? sounds pretty Big Brother to me - that opens 'nother can-o-worms .

    Another Tax? Oh no no no please ? How about we make sure the tax we already are paying is properly allocated ? A bunch of wasted money is there being used for unintended purposes - get that in check first .
  5. GrendelKhan

    GrendelKhan Well-Known Member

    Yes, another tax. Gasoline must cost more. It is the only answer that makes any sense to me.

  6. MnFocus

    MnFocus hanging member :)

    ...and that money will go where /for how long/will there be proof ? I love improvements but unless I know that money goes for its intended purpose, for whatever rationale, I would not support more tax . I do agree with you that it would wake up the crowd - but it won't solve the problem .I already lose 30-50% combined of my earnings to taxes . I'm just as greedy as big corporations -but I work pretty hard for my money . Show me that it goes to the right places ...I could be swayed . Audit the tax system ?
  7. ILAveo

    ILAveo Well-Known Member

    The revenue from a carbon tax could be used to reduce other less efficient taxes, for example income taxes, to have no net effect on tax rates. I am in favor of a more economically efficient tax structure; taxing the consumption of items that impose costs others leads to better outcomes because an appropriate taxation level transfers costs imposed on the others back on the original polluter. A carbon tax could be a tax of this sort. As always there will be some disconnection between economic theory and political practice. For a discussion of the idea by a reputable mainstream academic economist who shows up in the Wall Street Journal occasionally I recommend gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto.html .
  8. GrendelKhan

    GrendelKhan Well-Known Member

    I personally think it should go towards building solar plants all across the southwest, and wind farms on ridges, and offshore.

    But it doesn't really matter. If gas costs more, people will use less. That's all there is to it. Gas needs to cost more, so that people will use less. That is the only way that I can think of to solve the problem. Saying that it won't solve the problem, doesn't make it true. The fact of the matter is that if gas costs more, people will use less. And we need to use less.

    Will the govt use it for other things? Yes. Will some of those things be silly? Yes. But will the vast majority of what they use it for be useful? Yes. Do I care? No. For the most part, tax money goes back into the economy.

    Look, it's like this: Global warming is either real, or it's not. I'm convinced that it's real. If it's real, then we have to do something. We have to do something now. The longer we wait, the more we screw over our children. We have to put less CO2 into the atmosphere. We have to use less carbon. Much less.

    How do we do that?

  9. MnFocus

    MnFocus hanging member :)

    Odd thought : Don't call it a tax . Call it a price increase . Offer a service included with the purchase of each gallon of fuel . Double the gas price , the excess is used to fund Alt/Renewable energy sources as well as rebate/price cuts on hybrid/alt fuel vehicles and home energy reduction . Dumb as it may sound without adding the word 'tax' a greater majority of people would support it . Seems as though if the money would have a widely known destination it would go over well .
  10. MnFocus

    MnFocus hanging member :)

    I agree

    Its real - a natural phenomena exacerbated by humans and climbing at a much higher rate than 'normal'.

    By raising awarness & implementing true solutions that don't confound other environmental/social issues with other problems .
  11. ILAveo

    ILAveo Well-Known Member

    Although those sound like worthwhile projects, I think a "clean energy income tax rebate" funded by a carbon tax would get broader political support. Higher prices for dirty fuels with the carbon tax would boost the alternatives by making them relatively cheaper without going through the often corrupt and inefficient grant process.
  12. GrendelKhan

    GrendelKhan Well-Known Member

    Ok, but from my perspective, that's just semantics. It doesn't matter to me, but you are correct, it needs to be presented to the public the right way. The better it's presented, the better effect it will have. I'll have to leave the marketing of this, to people that are smarter than me. I couldn't sell a glass of water to someone lost in the desert...

    I wouldn't double the price right off. I'd do something to gradually introduce it over 10 years. Somewhere between 20 to 50 cents per year til 10 years, or $2.50 to $5.00/gallon "price increase" after 10 years. Introducing it slowly will give people (and the economy) time to react. Car makers and car buyers will be able to plan for the future. And we can go without a bunch of rules about which cars are allowed, and what mileage they should get, etc... If people can afford to drive a big car, then fine. But the vast majority of people will start buying more efficient cars. My guess is vastly more efficient cars.

    I think the funds from the "price increase" should go towards building solar and wind for electrical power, because we need help there too, to prevent CO2 generation. But your idea about rebates on efficient cars is a great idea.

    You're probably right about the psychology about calling it a "tax". I really don't know, but that's not my thing. All I know is something has to happen. Whatever they want to call it is fine by me. Call it a "save the children donation" for all I care, cuz that's what it's doing. :D

    Could you expand on this a little? "Carbon Tax" is bad. "Price Increase" is not as bad. What are some other terms that would help it sell?

    Thanks in advance.

  13. ILAveo

    ILAveo Well-Known Member

    Carbon discharge fee?
  14. GrendelKhan

    GrendelKhan Well-Known Member

    Well, I suppose it's just a matter of how much we have to do. The bottom line is, that we have to figure out how much carbon we can release per year, and move to that number. And I think that it's not going to be easy.

    I'm convinced that the choice is: Kill the planet (and our children) or allow CO2 generation under this level. And I don't know what that level is. The feeling that I get, is that the number is pretty darn low. And so we better get busy.

    And so we've got to start building solar, wind, and geothermal. Lot's of it. A carbon tax (sorry) just seems to me to be a good way to fund it.

    Look, I hope I'm wrong. I hope that I'm just being paranoid. But if things are going the way that I think they are, we'll all be convinced soon enough.

  15. hobbit

    hobbit He who posts articles

    I wish I could figure out a way to balance big-brotherism and
    personal privacy vs. some way to reliably hold people accountable
    for their own actions. The way they're talking about OBD-III,
    for example, is scary as hell with the idea of RF-based receivers
    along roads to read vehicle emissions status on the fly, but
    it would help keep the polluters off the road. The attempts
    to ticket based on tollbooth times fell to numerous privacy
    rights arguments. So what the heck do you do?
  16. madman

    madman Well-Known Member

    Everyone seems to have some decent ideas about what to do, but how about this..........

    Why does everyone ignore how much fuel is wasted just for public entertainment?
    What do we do about NASCAR, formula 1, NHRA, IHRA, offshore powerbout racing, desert racing, Stunt plane flying, waterskiing, personal watercraft, IRL, motocross, atv's, x-games, ultra-lights, autocrossing, 4-wheeling, going out for a sunday drive and anything else that burns fuel for no other reason than enjoyment?

    Should all motorsports be banned? taxed? limited?

    How about putting some of the finacial burden on the REAL wasters, we all need to go to work and earn a living, most of us need to use fuel to do this, but the people who use fuel just for the purpose of fun and entertainment should be the ones who get hit the hardest.

    How about an "off road tax" for fuel that is used for these reasons?
  17. GrendelKhan

    GrendelKhan Well-Known Member

    Because it'll be near impossible to:
    1 - come to a conclusion about who should be taxed, and how much; and
    2 - enforce it.

    Calls like this will be seen as, "They want to kill my NASCAR!", and will turn people away. I think trying to figure our who is most guilty, or trying to figure out a person's level of guilt is impossible. The discussions would be endless. Paralysis by analysis. And what's the fix? Making some things illegal? Rationing fuel? No-one will go for that.

    We (as a species) need to find a way to convince everyone to limit CO2. Making it expensive does this. And if the offshore powerboat racing people still want to run their races, and can pay for their fuel, then who am I to say anything about that? You and I might agree on which things are a "waste", or "how wasteful a certain thing is", but we'll never get a population to agree. And even if we could, getting it all coded into law would be prohibitively time consuming, I think. And this needs to be done across the country, and then across the planet. Within the next few years, I'm guessing.

    I knew a guy who died offshore powerboat racing... Silly sport.

  18. Mr. Kite

    Mr. Kite Well-Known Member

    We are closely related to one of the top guys in offshore powerboat racing. It is pretty crazy what those boats can do and how much fuel they burn doing it. My wife and I were given a ride in one of his boats. The speed was brought up over 100 mph just to show us. It was a wild ride. That was nothing compared to what the boat was capable of doing.
  19. xcel

    xcel PZEV, there's nothing like it :) Staff Member

    Hi All:

    ___Let the price climb due to supply side issues all by their lonesome and this problem may actually take care of itself … There will be plenty of bitchin from the Off-Roaders, Boaters, racing enthusiasts, fuel sucking pig drivers etc. however :rolleyes:

    ___Good Luck

  20. GrendelKhan

    GrendelKhan Well-Known Member

    That's true. Good point. It's race between the effects of Peak Oil and Global Warming.

    Bets anyone?

Share This Page