Archives

Tougher FE standards won't make a dent in US oil consumption because those with more fuel-efficient cars tend to drive more. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0626/p09s02-coop.html)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/2_99_Gasoline_Price_001.jpgRandy Salzman - Christian Science Monitor - Nov 7, 2007

Thank you for the find - Bruce!

Charlottesville, VA. - As an environmentalist, I was among the first to get a hybrid car, which helped me be among the first to admit that government-imposed fuel standards – known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) – don't work.

Before I bought my 2001 Toyota Prius (which gets 46 m.p.g.), I drove my old, low-mileage Suzuki rarely because I wanted to save on gas and pollution. I opted to commute as much as possible on my bicycle, as well as ride it for pleasure. Then I picked up the Prius, and before I knew it, I seemed to be driving everywhere.

I was proof of economist David Greene's "rebound effect" – that buyers of high-mileage vehicles drive more. With high-mileage cars, we pollute less per mile, but we cancel that benefit by spending more time behind the wheel. But with the rebound effect in mind and a son who was serving in Iraq, I cut back my driving to roughly its previous level. I am in the minority, however. The fact is that after more than 30 years of CAFE, oil consumption, pollution, and traffic congestion have soared, and automakers have found ways around the tightest standards.
...http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0626/p09s02-coop.html

I was proof of economist David Greene's "rebound effect" – that buyers of high-mileage vehicles drive more. With high-mileage cars, we pollute less per mile, but we cancel that benefit by spending more time behind the wheel.

That may apply to anyone buying a new car.

In my case, it isn't true. My Prius just turned a year old, with less than 10K miles on it. I am serious about using less gasoline. I walk to work, shop online more, and generally do without joyrides to nowhere.

Harry

Page 2 of the article advocates an incremental tax that rises by a dime each quarter (up to a limit) so it doesn't destroy the economy. Senator Dingell's proposed carbon tax has a similar phase-in period.

With everyone replacing their cars with more fuel efficient ones and all the construction needed for alternate forms of transportation, something like this might actually be good for the economy.

Yes, some of us do the right thing. I had an internship this summer 0.5 miles from the extended stay hotel I was staying in for it. I put more miles on my bike than my car that month. I had some classmates also doing the internship, I know they drove every day. They didn't carpool either because it was too difficult to match schedules and they didn't want to wait on each other. They is true to some extent, but at what price would this convenience no longer be worth it? $3.50 a gallon? $4.00 a gallon? $5? $10? I know myself that if gas was $10 a gallon I would make a lot less trips than the limited number I already make. Eventually there will be a point where they would have carpooled even if it was inconvenient, or perhaps ride a bike, like I proved as doable. People are not in the right mindset. We all need a good lashing.

While I tend to think that a gas tax is a good incentive to reduce consumption I fear any proposal won't give me the chance to cut my taxes. I see the author is not suggesting a shift from an income tax to a gas tax driven system. This large influx of income to the Feds will surely not be used as promised, whatever the highminded promises might be.

"Revenues from this user fee should go toward construction of mass transit and hiking and biking trails, as well as a publicity campaign that connects excess driving with traffic congestion, pollution, global warming, peaking oil, and foreign-policy issues"

Soon enough they will be taking in way more than hiking biking and publicity campaigns can consume. Mass transit projects will still be under utilized except where it already made sense prior, and will then become overwhelmed when prices finally hit the height needed for a majority to mass transit. No the money won't go towards an easy work commute for most people.

As one of my favorite artists Richard Thompson sings"

"I'll hurt you 'til you need me"

That's essentially what the gas tax has as a goal.:confused:

With everyone replacing their cars with more fuel efficient ones and all the construction needed for alternate forms of transportation, something like this might actually be good for the economy.

Most money taken from the economy and spent by the government is bad for the economy.

"an incremental tax that rises by a dime each quarter"

Best. Solution. Ever.

-Gren

Most money taken from the economy and spent by the government is bad for the economy.

How so? I'm inclined to disagree.

Richard Thompson is great. 1952 Vincent Black Lightning is one of my fav songs ever.

-Gren

Most money taken from the economy and spent by the government is bad for the economy.

Actually I think the gov't is pretty good at cycling money back into the economy plus some extra that it prints up just for fun. ;)

How so? I'm inclined to disagree.

Richard Thompson is great. 1952 Vincent Black Lightning is one of my fav songs ever.

-Gren

Money kept in the economy would have gone directly to personal spending or saving stimulating the economy directly. Money taken from the economy goes through the government money-go-round beauracracy at a loss of minimum 20 cents on the dollar and there is no guarantee it goes for what was originally claimed, or even equitably back to your state.

The highest ranking senator deciding how to dole money to the favored states isn't a good thing.

Rumor and Sigh is good, Pour Down Like Silver, and I Want To See The Bright Lights Tonight are great.:Banane08:

Actually I think the gov't is pretty good at cycling money back into the economy plus some extra that it prints up just for fun. ;)

And sustainable too.:confused:

And sustainable too.:confused:

Current gov't seems to think so; it has been awhile since we had a surplus.

Current gov't seems to think so; it has been awhile since we had a surplus.

Including social security, and of course we must, it's been a VERY long time since there has been a surplus.:(

Why not just cut the Big Oil Subsidies? The effect is the same and the public could swallow it much easier than a spooky gas tax.

"an incremental tax that rises by a dime each quarter".

A few humble questions, please.

1. Will this increase our cost of living?
2. Will most people get incremental raises to their salary of a dime each quarter to offset this increase?
3. Will the incremental tax increase the cost of things other than gasoline and oil?
4. If 3 is answewrd "yes", will most people get incremental raises to their salary commensurate with that increase?

You don't see "cost of living" and "standard of living" discussed much now a days. It is not a happy, uplifting topic. I estimate my own personal cost of living increase for the last 12 months at about 15%, even tho I went on an aggressive high MPG campaign that reduced my monthly gasoline bill from $400.00/mo. to $189.00/mo. Much more goes up when gasoline goes up that I had no knowledge of. To compound the problem, my family income only went up 1/2 of 1%! I'm sure many of us are in the same boat there!

The way I see it "an incremental tax that rises by a dime each quarter" will defenitely reduce gasoline consumption and reduce our dependency on foreign oil. It will also help our plight with global warming.

But most of all it will deepen the recession we have just entered. I think it would be very painful for most all Americans. Our standard of living will deteriorate faster than it is now.

Not a pretty picture. I wish we could figure a way out of this mess.