OT: Cars, fuel economy, and such

[fuzzalow]

Dunno, haven't given it much thought.

As bad as vehicle emissions might be, the CAFE is probably adequate for the relatively small proportion of its global carbon footprint. And as noted, gasoline tax is already implemented and accepted so that carbon emissions loop is already tax-revenued. IMO rolling back CAFE means nothing other than a gift on corporate taxes for auto makers because their investment into meeting the higher CAFE standard is already a sunk cost.

Carbon tax/treaty is appropriate and much more arduous to implement on an industrial or country scale. The big dirty happens here. Perhaps it better to tax at the point of origin, more akin to a VAT with a higher tax for the how much dirtier the fuel is carbon-wise. Which puts the screws to the coal industry but that IMO is an unavoidable casualty. Frankly, the coal industry shouldn't be allowed to extract product that is taxed the same as other non-renewable energies. If that is the case than coal is given a free ride on the additional carbon dirtiness of the fuel above what other forms of non-renewable energy, if it is taxed at all other than as corporate profit at the end of the chain. I know nothing about the specifics of tax policy on energy extraction so I could be way off base on what I just wrote.

[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

[Mikej]

Instead of carbon tax, why don't we call it reduce pollution so we can be healthy? It sounds less like a tax that way, I mean seriously- it's for the children-
I think we need to have some type of rule about buying the biggest truck you can afford cuz that's what you like...oh then we will lose jobs...which is what carbon tax will cause.

[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

[Ti Designs]

I think the real problem is that we're a really stupid population. Cars keep getting bigger, more people driving trucks, then they come up with a new class - "crossover" which then gets bigger... If people could drive their houses around, they would. Then there's the safety thing, if everybody on your street drives something large enough to land aircraft on, and you're still driving your tiny car from two decades ago, you're gonna get squished.

I'm one of those idiots who doesn't replace things until something truly better comes along. I still ride 9-speed, 'cause nothing better has come along. In 1990 the Honda CRX Hf got 49 MPG. 27 years later the Prius does slightly better, but then the batteries cycle down and over it's life it doesn't.

The argument over safety between older small cars and newer monsters is very one sided - they only look at the safety of the people INSIDE the car. As a cyclist I have a serious issue with this. In my state, the law says that cars may pass when safe. What that means is safe for everyone, but that's not really what the driver is thinking. A Volvo CrossCountry is a very safe car (top safety rating), which means it can run over that cyclist who's making them late for work, without fear of injury to the driver - that's what "pass when safe" means...

Cars have gotten too good and driving is far too easy. People drive up and over Arlington heights in big SUVs without any thought about just how much power that takes. I think everybody should ride a bike for at least a month each year. You want to take something with you? Either throw it on your back or tow a trailer - that'll give them some idea of what it really means to drive a big car.

Or maybe ignorance is bliss...

[fa63]

Originally Posted by Ti Designs

I think the real problem is that we're a really stupid population...

The average American reads at a 7th/8th grade level.

[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.

[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

[thwart]

Originally Posted by 54ny77

People buy tiny cars in Europe because gas and diesel is double and triple the cost vs the US. And their roads still suck. They're also a heck of a lot narrower in metro areas.

Yeah... sorry but no.

European roads are generally in better shape than ours. At least in the several countries I've driven in.

And when you have roads within cities that are literally thousands of years old... they're likely to be narrow. Really narrow.

[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.

[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

[fuzzalow]

Originally Posted by fa63

The average American reads at a 7th/8th grade level.

I didn't think it was that high. So I took the first Google return link: Literacy in the United States. Snippet as follows:

The 15% figure for full literacy, equivalent to a university undergraduate level, is consistent with the notion that the "average" American reads at a 1st or 2nd grade level which is also consistent with recommendations, guidelines, and norms of readability for medication directions, product information, and popular fiction.

In fairness, I don't think it is quite as low as 1st or 2nd grade unless what I remember of my own 1st or 2nd Grade Catholic Elementary schooling was vastly different from what 1st or 2nd Grade public K-12 schooling is now. We're not that low now, are we?

I would guess that the average US reading level was in the 4th or 5th Grade level - just a guess on my part.

[fa63]

If they don't stop you from driving, then they generate income which can be used for R&D / abatement. Take responsibility for our actions, and pay for what we pollute, right? And if developed nations don't lead the effort, then who will?

[ntb1001]

Originally Posted by fa63

If they don't stop you from driving, then they generate income which can be used for R&D / abatement. Take responsibility for our actions, and pay for what we pollute, right? And if developed nations don't lead the effort, then who will?

Problem is that it just dosnt happen....it just feeds the Government waste machine.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

[thwart]

Originally Posted by fuzzalow

... unless what I remember of my own 1st or 2nd Grade Catholic Elementary schooling was vastly different from what 1st or 2nd Grade public K-12 schooling is now.

Really, the only difference is the absence of Sr. Ethel...