OT: Cars, fuel economy, and such

[AngryScientist]

side topic, but closely related.

i still think the real way to make a different in how much fuel people burn/year is in improving and expanding public transportation.

it is absolutely mind blowing how many Americans NEED to drive just themselves to work every single day. almost anyone i know who has an hour+ car commute would absolutely LOVE to get on a train and fall asleep getting to the office.

if people had more options, i bet a whole lot would choose cleaner, efficient mass transit ways to get to work, but a very very small percentage of the american workforce have that option.

i know that's not easy, or practical in many ways, but i still that that's a great area of focus to start getting us out of individual cars.

[witcombusa]

Originally Posted by David Kirk

I think that realistically that any change in CAFE standards will have little effect on the cars offered for sale in the USA. The state of California (and about 12 other states as I recall) says it will continue to require that cars sold in that state meet the CAFE standards as they currently stand. The California market, combined with the other states, is too large to ignore and at the same time it's much too expensive for a car maker to develop, test, market and sell different vehicles in different states. It just doesn't make financial sense for the car maker.

I think they will relax the CAFE standards and much fuss will be made of it but in the end the car makers will stay on the same path.

dave

CA is not a good example of ANYTHING!
And any tax is just simple theft at the point of a gun. Period.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by witcombusa

CA is not a good example of ANYTHING!
And any tax is just simple theft at the point of a gun. Period.

I'm POSITIVE those, paid for with taxes, fire departments trying to save about 1100 homes above Boulder are thinking exactly that.

Probably not..tin foil hat time.

[Mikej]

Wasn't there talk of a per mile tax on vehicles so the Prius crowd doesn't get off easy? Or is that just Wisconsin?

[ceolwulf]

Originally Posted by Mikej

Wasn't there talk of a per mile tax on vehicles so the Prius crowd doesn't get off easy? Or is that just Wisconsin?

At some point there will be enough electric cars that they'll have to pay their share for road works somehow.

Granted that almost all damage to roads caused by vehicles is done by heavy trucks, which IMHO should mostly be replaced by rail.

[Ralph]

The CAFE standards have forced technology to come faster than it would on it's own....don't you think? Lightweight steels, more aluminum, some CF at hi end, aero designs, stop/start, hybrids, all electric, etc. Small engines with turbo charging....I know turbo's been around about 100 years.....but with modern electronics controlling spark....they work good in small engine economy vehicles.

Consider how (relatively) fuel efficient some large vehicle are these days compared to in the past. Do you think manufacturers would have spent R & D without being forced? I'm ready to see them loosened up some....or frozen at current levels a while....but think they weren't all bad. I would favor indexing Fed gas tax to inflation (probably politically doable) ....especially if ear marked to roads and bridges vehicles use....not public transportation systems. Fund competing systems another way.

[Ralph]

RE Gov't waste.....I know it's always fashionable to talk about how wasteful the Gov't is.

I had a class once in Graduate school where we looked at that topic. This was in the early 70's when I was in my early 30's. At that time.....we learned that most estimates put gov't waste at about 5%of money spent.....compared to if same job or projects were done in the private sector. And that number was believed to be fairly steady for the entire history of USA. Lots of reasons, but gov't just not motivated to be as efficient as private business. But point is.....gov't waste not nearly as much as most think.

These studies did not take into account whether or not these departments should exist, whether work needed to be done or not, etc.....just measured the effectiveness of gov't doing something VS private sector. These studies were generally done before Gov't started demanding Union wages on construction jobs in non union locations....things like that. Example....Medicare, SS, and Medicaid....are run very efficiently as a dept. (not saying the policies of who gets it are efficient) This is the price we pay to have gov't....is way I look at it. At any rate....I don't usually complain about general topic of gov't waste. And also believe there are some jobs gov't can do better than private sector.

[flydhest]

I will also add that the vast, vast majority of economists, if asked "what would be the best way to reduce the burning of fossil fuels to reduce the carbon footprint" would say "carbon tax." That statement is far from saying that the vast majority of economists would support a carbon tax. You have to buy into the goal etc. I would personally not be opposed to using the proceeds to raise the exemption level for income taxes to offset the regresivity for example and to provide some near-term offset to the economic drag. But of course, money is fungible, so this question of "what do you use the proceeds for" is inherently a bit of a silly one.

[estilley]

I took a really great graduate economics course on global climate change policy last year.

I remember the "goal" set for price per ton of carbon was about $30. Ideally this cost would be internalized and the extra revenue from the tax used to go towards abatement management. The other big take away, was that without a large scientific breakthrough we're kind of toast. I really like the idea of taxing carbon and then exclusively using the revenue for R&D and efficiency improvements. It all starts with EVERYONE buying in. And that is definitely the hardest part as we live short, finite lives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CunegoFan]

Originally Posted by estilley

I took a really great graduate economics course on global climate change policy last year.

I remember the "goal" set for price per ton of carbon was about $30. Ideally this cost would be internalized and the extra revenue from the tax used to go towards abatement management. The other big take away, was that without a large scientific breakthrough we're kind of toast. I really like the idea of taxing carbon and then exclusively using the revenue for R&D and efficiency improvements. It all starts with EVERYONE buying in. And that is definitely the hardest part as we live short, finite lives.

The large scientific "breakthrough" is already here. It's called solar. It will kill the treehuggers to admit it--so they won't--but the businesses that spread propaganda about global warming because they did not want to finance speculation about an uncertain future will ultimately be proved right. Declining carbon emissions won't happen from the idiocy of freezing standards of living at 1990 levels but by technology making solar cheaper than digging fuel of of the ground.

[Mikej]

Actually, the real scientific breakthrough is population control...

[ntb1001]

Higher taxes on gas don't stop you from driving...it just costs you more for something you can't avoid.
Gas is considerable higher as it is in Canada due to taxes and on top of that the Ontario government added a carbon tax this past January. I haven't heard of one less driver due to it.
I'm also dead against any carbon or green tax...it just gets lost with government waste.
I think in Canada, we already pay quite a bit in taxes and carbon taxes...our hydro is expensive because of wind turbines that we have to subsidise....then when we have too much power...it's given away for free, or worse pay someone to take it.
Until it's done on a world level, it's a complete waste of time and destroys local economies.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

[oldpotatoe]

Higher taxes on gas don't stop you from driving...it just costs you more for something you can't avoid.

Yup..people will get out of their cars when fuel is scarce. And then we'll have a lot more problems than the availability of gas.

[zap]

edit

Originally Posted by ntb1001

Higher taxes on gas don't stop you from driving...it just costs you more for something you can't avoid.

Higher fuel costs changes peoples purchasing decisions.

I'm willing to bet that US$5/gallon fuel prices will result in a dip in SUV sales.

[estilley]

Currently listening to NPR's How I Built This podcast and the guest is the founder of Lyft.

I really think that's a step in the right direction. It's pretty much eliminated people taking two cars to a place when they arrive together/leave separately etc. I know it's a small step, but in a city like Portland that isn't super urbanized, I think it's done a lot of good.

Ride sharing isn't the final solution but it's a component of what will be a diverse transportation future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk