nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Limit

First let me apologize for ranting at you. I know you're not the problem. I do get frustrated with this free market cures all fallacy stuff though.

Brutal and chaotic? or non-existent? Which is it? Does the free market work, or is it just an illusion?

Click to expand...

I think you know what I'm saying: if oil were ACTUALLY subjected to the laws of the "free market" of true supply and true demand, at some point it would be brutal, chaotic, and would completely cripple our economy. Read up on 3 scenarios of the oil endgame at peakoil.org...and tell us they're just fantasy..

I think you also know that on the other hand I am saying that WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A FREE MARKET ECONOMY. Here is the one and only case evidence which PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that we DO NOT have a "free market economy": In the last few years, the federal government has given tens of thousands of dollars in "Mohair subsidies" to MULTIMILLIONAIRE NBA basketball stars (I think Shaq is one, but could be wrong.)


Do you call this a free market now??? Please don't T_Red, I can't stand to laugh too hard; my gut might bust open.

My point was, when oil is no longer the cheapest fuel, we will use something ..

Click to expand...

I know that is your point, and that is why I do apologize for jumping on you a little too harshly. I am sorry.

My counterpoint is: yes, but on what timescale? If that transition of "IF/WHEN" occurs over a 2 generation period or more...I'd gladly say you're darn right... no problems, and I'd happily join your "What, me worry?" chorus line.

But the reality is WE DON'T KNOW the actual timescale. We do know that when it comes to critically important resources, people (your free market for example) ACT TOTALLY IRRATIONALLY (hence the silver example used to illustrate this point.)

My bet is that the transition will be short, choppy, volatile, scary, chaotic, with EXTREME price swings due to speculative profit taking, national policies, etc...

If you care to bet against me go ahead. I will be in oil futures in a few months. You take the short side and I'll go long and we'll see who's right.

I didn't say there wouldn't be any pain.

Click to expand...

I apologize for misreading between your lines. My mistake.

Incidentally, silver went from $5 to $50. Gold from $250 to over $800. See, I do remember. I even remember soybeans quadrupling to over $12/bushel in 1973 or 1974. It was the year AFTER the bank took our farm.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. I was wrong on figures, but I'm pretty sure you still understood the illustative power of the example per my previous point. Am I wrong on this? I think you demonstate you DO understand the chaotic nature of a speculative market and how irrational it can get. You just laid out my case perfectly for this point ^^ Apparently it cost you your farm even, so the point is obviously not lost on you, no?


Anyway enough of my hijacking...do you think government has NO place in setting rational energy policy? What exactly do you advocate? Up to now I can only see vague hopes about a mystical free market which doesn't exist. How exaxtly is raising prices suddenly by wantonly wasting our most precious natural resource next to fresh water going to save us? Can you give an outline or explain this because you have me thoroughly confused how dramatic price swings, uncertainty, speculative runaways, and asinine levels of market volatility are going to save us...

Can government do NOTHING right in your opinion? Would you support putting SUV's into CAFE where they belong? I would think if you're a true blue free-market proponent you'd be against the current subsidies toward SUV's, right? Would you support any kind of speed limitations? Why is the current okay versus 55? After all, the interstate freeway system is designed for a 70 mph rate of travel (in good weather)...why is it 65 in many states? Mind you, I'm not a fan of 55. I think it creates more variation in traffic speeds, which is a dangerous condition...I'm just trying to get a handle on your reasoning which seems very vague. Please clarify it somewhat if you would.


Nick


Edited for minor changes of grammar and clarity.

Anyway enough of my hijacking...do you think government has NO place in setting rational energy policy? What exactly do you advocate?

Click to expand...

I think if government has any role, it should be encouraging the production, or removing the impediments to production, of as much cheap energy as possible.

That does not include coercive efforts to get people to switch to expensive sources of energy. And it doesn't include coercive efforts to get people to use less energy. If you can afford to pay $3 or $4 or $5 a gallon to fuel up your truck or SUV, that's okay. OTOH, if the high cost of fuel leads you to switch to a more efficient vehicle, that's fine too.

Can government do NOTHING right in your opinion? Would you support putting SUV's into CAFE where they belong? I would think if you're a true blue free-market proponent you'd be against the current subsidies toward SUV's, right? Would you support any kind of speed limitations?

Click to expand...

Theoretically, government can do good. But in the real world it doesn't happen very often.

I don't have much good to say about the current tax system; I'd toss it out and start from scratch. I understand the arguments in favor of straight-line depreciation and accelerated depreciation. Accelerated depreciation came into being because of high inflation rates in the 1970's and early 1980's. It makes less sense now, and keeping inflation low is better than solving problems created by inflation with tax law gimmicks.

I would get rid of CAFE standards.

Ford Excursions and Honda Pilots are both categorized as SUVs. The Excursion is a truck, the Pilot is a car. Redefining the Excursion as a car does not make it a car -- it's a truck. If you want to drive a truck that's not very good at hauling or towing, and gets lousy fuel economy, you're stupid... but that doesn't make it a car. So no, corporate fuel economy averages for cars ought not be changed to include trucks.

Speed limits? I hate them. But I suppose they are a necessary evil. I think there are better ways to fund local governments, however, than with traffic fines. Traffic cops would perform a more useful service if they saw their duty as helping motorists instead of ticketing them.

If I ever ran a traffic unit I would snatch the radars and lightbars off of half or more of the cars and send them out in stealth mode to hammer the really unsafe operators: those who tailgate and weave as well as the occasional moron camping in the left lane obstructing traffic.

If I ran the world speed limits would be unenforceable unless the limit is justified by an engineering study. I've been to hearings where speed limits are set on county roads. Residents, typically old people with nothing better to do who resent everything since the Dred Scott decision show up and advocate for the lower limit. If they live on or near a collector or arterial, what they want is a limit set to discourage traffic. This process clearly has no bearing on safety. Fortunately, the FL DOT is more rational on state highways. They actually raised the limits 5-10 mph on a couple of state highways transiting our notorious speed trap towns (Waldo and Lawtey) as well as put up official signs reading "speed limit strictly enforced" just outside those towns.

If, however, we do decide that fuel taxes should cover not just the pavement but also the costs of maintaining a muscular military to stabilize the mid east AND the costs of mitigating environmental impacts, I'd favor that as well, as long as the science underlying was well-founded.

Watercop, you make a lot of sense.

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

watercop, you are my hero. Here in overpopulated NJ we have highways with 10 lanes, and invariably you can drive faster in the far right lane than the left. I have always believed that if the keep right except to pass rule were enforced, we could fit twice as many people on the same highways. I see this everytime I drive in Germany, where people understand driving rules. I always wonder why US cops don't enforce the rule, I can't tell you how many times I've seen cop cars with sirens blazing held up by a grandma that doesn't understand the concept of a rear view mirror.

Scientific methods however don't always yield practical results. Engineers (and doctors :/) can be idiots also, DRLs, low flow toilets, and automatic seatbelts being some recent examples.

I think if government has any role, it should be encouraging the production, or removing the impediments to production, of as much cheap energy as possible. That does not include coercive efforts to get people to switch to expensive sources of energy. And it doesn't include coercive efforts to get people to use less energy.

Click to expand...

Ok. That's a reasonable position on it's face. But it assumes the price at the pump internalizes all the costs associated with petroleum consumption. Yet, we know this isn't the case. Externalized costs of petroleum consumption include environmental, health and national security concerns. Thus, it is in the public interest to reduce oil consumption.

I assume you are familiar with how maximization of individual gain can threaten the greater good, as occurs in the tragedy of the commons?

I would get rid of CAFE standards.

Ford Excursions and Honda Pilots are both categorized as SUVs. The Excursion is a truck, the Pilot is a car. Redefining the Excursion as a car does not make it a car -- it's a truck. If you want to drive a truck that's not very good at hauling or towing, and gets lousy fuel economy, you're stupid... but that doesn't make it a car. So no, corporate fuel economy averages for cars ought not be changed to include trucks.

Click to expand...

TR - Believe it or not, I completely agree with you that market forces generally work pretty well in this country. However, although our economy is based on capitalism, Nick makes a valid point; our system isn't a free market, since we've decided against laisse fare capitalism as a society. If we truly lived in a free market, we'd be driving airbagless, seatbeltless leaded gasoline powered cars built by 9 year olds. But we don't, as we've decided the government SHOULD constraint the market sometimes.

Your position on the CAFE standards for trucks versus cars is a great example of how one's perspective can result in a dimetrically opposed conclusion, even when sharing similar values and beliefs. Like you, I think letting the market decide is the way to go. That's why I think cap & trade pollution controls make so much sense. Give an economic incentive to innovate, and companies will.

Anyway, I don't want to stick words in your mouth, but it sounds to me like you find the inclusion of trucks under the CAFE standard to be an untoward manipulation of the market because cars and trucks are separate markets.

Conversely, I see all light passenger vehicles as exactly that - part of one light passenger vehicle market. As long as cars and trucks as roughly substitutable goods - and they are for many people - then it is inappropriate to have a regulatory environment that favors one over the other. Thus, in pursuit of allowing the market to decide, I think Congress needs to level the playing field so that trucks and SUVs no longer have an unfair advantage.

Thus, I'm curious: even if you don't support unification of CAFE standards for all vehicles because you think cars and trucks are separate markets, how do you feel about at least repealing the truck exemption currently found in the gas guzzler tax? Should a Viper have a $3000 penalty assessed when a SRT10 Ram pickup with the same engine and purpose doesn't?

This is a great thread! I am continually amazed at the level of intelligent debate found on this site. I'm glad that there are other people out there thinking about these issues.

I don't think most people appreciate, or even think about, the amazing energy that comes from a gallon of gas (or diesel) and how cheap it really is compared to other consumer goods. Think about it for a minute. Is there anything else that you buy that gives you anything close to the energy of a gallon of fuel? And yet it is still SO CHEAP.

People will pay $3 for an 8 OUNCE cup of coffee without blinking an eye then turn around and complain about $2.50 for a GALLON of gas. Which is more useful to you? Try pushing your car to work and back and see how much energy you are getting for that $2.50 per gallon.

I wish people would treat oil with the respect it deserves.

the amazing energy that comes from a gallon of gas (or diesel) and how cheap it really is compared to other consumer goods. Think about it for a minute. Is there anything else that you buy that gives you anything close to the energy of a gallon of fuel?

Click to expand...

Ding ding ding ding ding!!!!! Awooooooooogaaahhh! We have a winner! [Note Jkeller is a mechanical engineer, and jumped immediately to the core issue that others were missing or forgetting ]

Thank you for coming to the absolute heart of the matter. There is simply NO one <u>complete </u>replacement for oil based fuels that is:

a: so energy dense (a crucially important matter and not remotely trivial)

b: serves as the base-stock for a variety of goods for which no other subsititutes exist yet. i.e. hermetic food sealing, medical devices, consumer plastics.

c: has such a large rate of energy returned on both $ and energy invested.

d: is easily transportable liquid

I assert that oil is a unique substance on this planet for which no one substitute nor 3 partial substitutes combined can shake a stick at. Not even close.

Humanity has enjoyed during this last 100 years what should be termed the era of oil. Oil has allowed world population to boom due to oil-driven mechanized farming and living standards in the more developed nations to increase by leaps and bounds over anything that had come before. Today's paupers live much much better lives in terms of mobility, medical access, and material goods than rich people of 100 years ago. Yet this is almost solely due to advances which either directly or indirectly derive from inexpensive, transportable, multi-use petroleum and the energy it gives.



I'd like to pose this question(s) to the board, especially to T_Red:

Would you support an all-tollway supported freeway system?


I mean: if travel speeds were unlimited and ambulance service were privately contracted...and you had to bear the TRUE AND FULL COSTS of driving at high rates of speed in both fuel consumed and maintanance for the roadbeds...say $10 for 50 miles.

Whereas the poor Grandma's could freely drive (at posted limits) on highways, state routes, secondary roadways and city streets, paid for by her taxes...


I strongly believe that many, including TornadoRed, simply misunderstand the NATURE of the problem: namely, that we are on mismatched timescales with the coming energy crunch. It's all a matter of timescale. In T_Red's world, the "free market" magically snaps its fingers and suitable replacements materialize simply because there are profits to be had, and that is what capitalism does well. I contend that T_Red is simply forgetting about fundamental physical constraints involved; moreover, regulatory change, social changes, etc need to occurr along with technological change <u>and that takes time</u>, sometimes a generation or two. WE DON'T HAVE A GENERATION!!! At best I think we have 20 years, at worst 5 years or our economy will be absolutely crippled for lack of cheap energy. That means our one and only one chance to save ourselves from ourselves is to launch a huge international or national Appollo moon-landing type effort regarding energy. If we're lucky we can get somethings up in place and find and implement those half a dozen partial substitutes for oil by that time.


If you pollyanna's (TornadoRed's position is a pollyanna position, where all solutions materialize when there is a profit to be had, and that technology will always save us) of the world truly believe what they say--are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? As stated before, let the commodities markets hash out that debate: I'll take an agressively long position (buy) and you short oil (sell) and we'll see who comes out on top. Care to bet?

I see all light passenger vehicles as exactly that - part of one light passenger vehicle market. As long as cars and trucks as roughly substitutable goods - and they are for many people - then it is inappropriate to have a regulatory environment that favors one over the other. Thus, in pursuit of allowing the market to decide, I think Congress needs to level the playing field so that trucks and SUVs no longer have an unfair advantage.
... even if you don't support unification of CAFE standards for all vehicles because you think cars and trucks are separate markets, how do you feel about at least repealing the truck exemption currently found in the gas guzzler tax?

Click to expand...

Okay, let's treat cars and trucks equally. Repeal the gas guzzler taxes on cars. Repeal the CAFE regulations. Let people drive whatever vehicle best suits their purposes, without the government determining that the buyers of some vehicles ought to be punished.

Would you support an all-tollway supported freeway system?

I mean: if travel speeds were unlimited and ambulance service were privately contracted...and you had to bear the TRUE AND FULL COSTS of driving at high rates of speed in both fuel consumed and maintanance for the roadbeds...say $10 for 50 miles.

Whereas the poor Grandma's could freely drive (at posted limits) on highways, state routes, secondary roadways and city streets, paid for by her taxes...

Click to expand...

My answer would be... it depends. I'd do what the truckers do when they cross Pennsylvania -- they stay off the turnpike because the tolls are too high. But if the tolls are reasonable compared to the time saved, then I'd pay them.

WE DON'T HAVE A GENERATION!!! At best I think we have 20 years, at worst 5 years or our economy will be absolutely crippled for lack of cheap energy.

Click to expand...

Sure you are mistaken. If the situation is as desperate as you claim, the Democrats in Congress would not have blocked passage of an energy bill these last 3 1/2 years

Sure you are mistaken. If the situation is as desperate as you claim, the Democrats in Congress would not have blocked passage of an energy bill these last 3 1/2 years

Click to expand...

Come on T, you can do better than this. I gave a genuine post, you could respond in kind. Some rationale, logic, evidence, anything? Please be serious and don't sidetrack this into political mud.

Sure you are mistaken. If the situation is as desperate as you claim, the Democrats in Congress would not have blocked passage of an energy bill these last 3 1/2 years

Click to expand...

Come on T, you can do better than this. I gave a genuine post, you could respond in kind. Some rationale, logic, evidence, anything? Please be serious and don't sidetrack this into political mud.

Click to expand...

What mud? If there was an energy emergency, as you claim, the country would begin the expedited construction of dozens of nuclear power plants. We would have new LNG terminals on the east, west and Gulf coasts. We would have thousands of miles of new pipelines. There would be an end to boutique fuels. We would not be talking about drilling in 100 square miles of the ANWR, we'd be actively drilling everywhere in the North Slope, and the Gulf of Mexico, and in the Pacific off Santa Barbara.

But since there is no energy emergency, practically none of these things will happen. Until there IS an energy emergency.

uh huh... that supposes that politicians have backbone to tackle real problems.

Newsflash: they don't, and you darn well know that. This problem will have to be tackled by you and I.

And you know that simple conservation via CAFE or other means would EASILY 'outsupply' whatever drips and drabs we can get by drilling in NA.

T_Red, are you simply a contrarian? I haven't seen one clear position on anything yet from you.

How would YOU solve our problems, other than keeping your head stuck in the sand? We know what you're against, but what are you for changing?

This problem WILL require your input at some point. Bank on it. You can't sit on fences forever, my friend.

And you know that simple conservation via CAFE or other means would EASILY 'outsupply' whatever drips and drabs we can get by drilling in NA.

Click to expand...

Baah. There you go, ruining a perfectly good argument with those pesky facts things.

How would YOU solve our problems, other than keeping your head stuck in the sand?

Click to expand...

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
--Upton Sinclair


It is the nature of humans to ignore what is true but uncomfortable, and accept what is known to be false, but comforting.
--H L Menken

Oh balderdash.

First, on the "national speed limit." It was tried before you know. It was a joke. I lived during it, of course, and drove during it. It was a joke. It served only to provide revenue to states and cities - not conserve fuel. Not REALLY.

Second - on efficiency - the market IS a good driver. Fuel is CHEAP in real-dollar terms. Sorry, it is. Even at today's prices. That's why the 20mpg car is still being sold and demanded by the buyer, and the truck is still around for those who don't need it.

On the supply of oil - we have lots. Its just not economically recoverable at $30/bbl. We have another 50 years worth in shale ALONE, but without a stable price over $40/bbl or so, its not economic to extract. There are deep injection wells that can produce economically at $40/bbl too, but not at $30. Right now they sit idle. They won't for long if the current prices remain.

That they're not being cranked up now means the traders - and oil companies - do not believe that the prices will remain at or near $50/bbl for very long.

That's for starters. It ignores that aquaculture, using blue-green algae, can produce enough biodiesel to serve approximately 60% of our #2 road diesel consumption needs. Yes, including OTR trucks.

Why isn't it being done? The fuel is about $2/gallon to produce. You're forgetting that up to HALF of the current price of fuel is embedded taxes - and not just the "visible" taxes such as direct excise taxes. At $5/gallon for diesel fuel there will be a raging aquaculture industry producing B100.

We're not at the inflection points yet. We could get there, but we're not there now.

Calm down.

Reminds me of one of my favorite Monty Python's Flying Circus' episodes:

Man: (has just handed money to secretary outside office) ummm, hello? I'm here for my, uh... argument apointment?

Counselor: What?

Man: Uhhh, the argument. Uhh, I've paid five pounds to have an argument here.

Counselor: No, you haven't.

Man: Yes, I have!

Counselor: NOOOO, you didn't!

more back and forth banter

Man: This is not an argument, you're just contradicting me! I mean, I came here for an argument with a professional! I've responded to your advertisement for a professional argument, and I'd like to get my money's worth. This is patently deceptive advertising! I've paid for a professional argument, and all you do is contradict me. Well I can stay at home and get that.

Counselor: We've been arguing.

Man: No, we haven't!!! There's a clear difference between a genuine, carefully crafted and invigorating argument and what you've been doing.

Counselor: Time's up!

Man: NOOOO IT BLOODY ISN'T!!

I love Monty Python.....it tends to sum up SOOOO many situations

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

Want to buy a used parrot?

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

NOT if it is resting after a long squwak...THATS for SURE!.

O.K. all you "free market BAAL worshippers:" I just hope that when GM is going to go BANKRUPT we don't have TOM DE LAY introducing the "All American Car Protection Act" of 2007 (ie a government BAIL OUT of GM). Shrub (Bush II) said that 36 miles per gallon (by 2015) was an "arbitrary" standard and would hurt the American car companies. Fine...if government should not interfere with the "free market," then so be it: no talk from Congress about the big two going under because they don't have any fuel efficient cars. Remember Neo-Cons, Detroit resisted higher standards, and the Republicans in Congress coddled them.

Detroit didn't 'resist' anything.

The market didn't desire the higher fuel economy standards.

You can have them right now. I do. I get a solid 48mpg of diesel in my Jetta in mixed city/highway driving, and if I'd keep my right foot off the floorboards I'd get in the mid-50s on the highway (I don't, so I don't - 46-48 is pretty damn good for 80mph!)

When I can drive for 750 miles on a single tank of diesel that costs me $30 to put in the tank I'm doing ok. I also own a Suburban, which I NEED to pull my boat - the Jetta simply won't do it. However, it doesn't get used very much. I wonder why when it costs me on the order of $60 to fill it and guzzles through that fill in ~350 miles!

Why is it that your "answer" to people NOT wanting something is ALWAYS to force people - at gunpoint - to do exactly what they don't want?

Why is it that your "answer" to people NOT wanting something is ALWAYS to force people - at gunpoint - to do exactly what they don't want?

Click to expand...

If your Suburban was more fuel efficient would you complain? Of course not. The reason it is not more fuel efficient is that it's cheaper for Detroit to make a 15mpg SUV than an 18mpg SUV. I.e. - larger profit margin per vehicle.

The difference between 15 and 18 is 20%. That difference alone applied across the board would drastically reduce our dependance on foreign energy, increasing our nation's freedom - and <u>reducing</u> gunpoint politics.

It also represents a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions - and most likely reduces other harmfull emissions too - which increases the individual freedoms of Americans.

It also represents 20% more money you get to keep in your pocket, again increasing your freedom.

Therefore, increasing CAFE increases our individual and national freedoms and is unquestionably better for the long-term health of our nation.

The "market" would love increased fuel economy across the board. Not forcing people to drive smaller and slower vehicles - just making their large fast cars cleaner and more fuel efficient.

American automotive engineers can absolutely achieve this. American automotive bean counters are the obstacle, and from that perspective, Detroit absolutely did and is resisting CAFE increases.

I distinctly remember a representative from one of the Big3 stating a CAFE increase would "give an unfair advantage to our foreign competition" and in Presidient Bush's ~words "GM needs to learn to compete" (successfully, in a free market, against foreign competition).

If your Suburban was more fuel efficient would you complain? Of course not. The reason it is not more fuel efficient is that it's cheaper for Detroit to make a 15mpg SUV than an 18mpg SUV. I.e. - larger profit margin per vehicle.

Click to expand...

not really. detroit makes vehicles that people will buy. mileage is/was not a concern of the suv buyer.

The "market" would love increased fuel economy across the board. Not forcing people to drive smaller and slower vehicles - just making their large fast cars cleaner and more fuel efficient.
American automotive engineers can absolutely achieve this. American automotive bean counters are the obstacle, and from that perspective, Detroit absolutely did and is resisting CAFE increases.

Click to expand...

its not always about the "bean counters and evil business".
why doesn't japan make big fuel effecient suv's? it is not possible.

detroit thinks short term and make a quick buck while the market is hot, then suffers when the market cools down.
japan thinks long term and look at the big picture.

its different cultures and perspectives.

at gunpoint

Click to expand...

Hyperbole answered with hyperbole?



hmmmmmm....

why doesn't japan make big fuel effecient suv's? it is not possible.

Click to expand...

It's all relative. They do currently make SUVs that are 20+% more fuel efficient than Big3 offerings.

My parents own a 7 passenger Acura MDX. It has <u>plenty</u> of power, a towing package, and they it regularly exceeds it's EPA highway fuel economy estimate of 23mpg (it's returned 25+ on numerous occasions).

For TDI owners 25+ is repulsive, but a CAFE increase doesn't mean SUVs have to achieve stellar fuel economy - it just means that the vehicles of tomorrow have to be significantly more effiecient than the vehicles of today.

Increasing fuel taxes = political suicide, making SUVs disappear is probably wishful thinking, but increasing CAFE benefits everyone - even US auto makers in the long run.

The market didn't desire the higher fuel economy standards.

{snip}

Why is it that your "answer" to people NOT wanting something is ALWAYS to force people - at gunpoint - to do exactly what they don't want?

Click to expand...

Gunpoint, eh? Nice hyperbole.

But pretending you actually want a reasoned answer, consider this:


The market never wanted air bags.

The market never wanted seat belts.

The market never wanted unleaded gasoline.

The market never wanted catalytic converters.

But you know what? Those are 4 innovations I'm happy we have.

Nobody is willing to pay for clean air, yet ask any mother if she wants a child with asthma due to bad air quality, and you'll get a very straight forward answer.

Sometimes, as a culture, we decide that there are worthwhile things whose cost is externalized from the retail price. When this happens, we ask legislators and regulators to address our concerns.

There is a growing concern in this country, across the political spectrum, about our national energy consumption. Since this cost is externalized from retail prices, we're asking our legislators to do something about it, whether it be higher CAFE standards or tax breaks.

Frankly, I wish we could get past the "free market is better" and "regulation bad" rhetoric and discuss PROACTIVE ways to address this issue.

Don't like CAFE standards? Fine, how to you feel about a tax credit?

Don't like the budget implications of a tax credit? Fine, how do you feel about a revenue neutral Feebate system?

Are you a supply sider? Fine, how do you feel about increasing the supply of domestic renewables like biodiesel and ethanol?

What about leaving CAFE alone and just requiring all US vehicles to be E85 Flex-fuel vehicles? With modern EFI, this is effectively free, right?

So Genesis, you tell me this. I only see your reactionary responses. DO you have ANY positive suggestions? I came up with FOUR different solutions above. Which one do you like best? Got any other postive ideas?

why doesn't japan make big fuel effecient suv's? it is not possible.

Click to expand...

Maybe 25% import tariff on light trucks has something to do with it, eh?

If you were Japan, would you try to compete with Detroit when they have a MASSIVE advantage thanks to a 43 year old protectionist tariff.

But "consumer choice" only counts when choosing between American built pickups, right?

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

Just raise the #@&!%$*! CAFE standard from it's current (which should still be 27.5, if I'm not mistaken) by 1mpg per year for the next 15 years, and actually enforce it, and let the automakers sort it out.

You'll see more diesel vehicles, and more efficient vehicles in general. If SUVs remain king, you'll see more fuel-efficient ones in no time. Then think about making other changes.

Mike

The market didn't desire the higher fuel economy standards.

{snip}

Why is it that your "answer" to people NOT wanting something is ALWAYS to force people - at gunpoint - to do exactly what they don't want?

Click to expand...

Gunpoint, eh? Nice hyperbole.

Click to expand...

Really? Just try not doing what the government demands sometime and see how fast the guns come out.

But pretending you actually want a reasoned answer, consider this:

The market never wanted air bags.

The market never wanted seat belts.

The market never wanted unleaded gasoline.

The market never wanted catalytic converters.

But you know what? Those are 4 innovations I'm happy we have.

Click to expand...

Really? Are you happy that those airbags, which are mandatory now, have killed many kids - and small-stature adults? While you can say "put the kids in the back seat" what do you tell the 30 year old 4'11" woman?

"Tough crap, if you get in a wreck you die?"

This is not a theoretical discussion for me - my g/f is 4'10. Capiche? She can't buy a vehicle today that does not have the potential to KILL HER if she's driving it and gets in a wreck. Not due to the wreck - due to the "safety equipment." It is a violation of federal law punishable by years in jail and a $50,000 fine for anyone to disable her airbag system. Disobey and the guns will come out - again.

Nobody is willing to pay for clean air, yet ask any mother if she wants a child with asthma due to bad air quality, and you'll get a very straight forward answer.

Click to expand...

Why don't we start by jailing all the mothers who smoke, or even worse, who smoke while pregnant? Why, because that's not poltically correct. Yet that's responsible for far more cases of asthma than automobile pollution.

Sometimes, as a culture, we decide that there are worthwhile things whose cost is externalized from the retail price. When this happens, we ask legislators and regulators to address our concerns.

Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with the retail price including the embedded costs to society as a tax, provided that said tax is evenly applied across all causes of similar or identical impact.

However, that is NEVER what the government does. If it did, then the Diesel would win every time, because it produces TONS fewer pollutants in total (CO2 counts!) than the gasoline vehicle, simply becuase it burns less fuel.

There is a growing concern in this country, across the political spectrum, about our national energy consumption. Since this cost is externalized from retail prices, we're asking our legislators to do something about it, whether it be higher CAFE standards or tax breaks.

Click to expand...

No its not.

Our energy consumption is directly related to the price. Diesel fuel, in particular, can be manufacturered from other than crude oil quite efficiently. You might recall that Sir Rudolph Diesel's FIRST engine ran on peanut oil.

Why is this not done today? Because its cheaper to use the oil in the ground than to use the oil in canola, or rapeseed, or any one of a numeber of other alternatives. We can extract 200+ years of oil from shale (worldwide), but not at $20/bbl. At $30+, it is economic. Its not being done right now because the oil companies do not believe that oil will remain at the present price for a long enough time to recover their sunk costs in beginning that production.

Likewise, blue-green algae can be farmed to produce huge amounts of diesel fuel, and is a completely renewable and 100% carbon-cycle neutral resource. It is not being done because the fuel will cost somewhere around $2/gallon to make in this fashion, and the cost of production of diesel fuel from crude is half that. If and when its not, you will see that come online as well, simply for economic reasons.

Frankly, I wish we could get past the "free market is better" and "regulation bad" rhetoric and discuss PROACTIVE ways to address this issue.

Click to expand...

I have. You just don't like them.

Don't like CAFE standards? Fine, how to you feel about a tax credit?

Don't like the budget implications of a tax credit? Fine, how do you feel about a revenue neutral Feebate system?

Are you a supply sider? Fine, how do you feel about increasing the supply of domestic renewables like biodiesel and ethanol?

What about leaving CAFE alone and just requiring all US vehicles to be E85 Flex-fuel vehicles? With modern EFI, this is effectively free, right?

So Genesis, you tell me this. I only see your reactionary responses. DO you have ANY positive suggestions? I came up with FOUR different solutions above. Which one do you like best? Got any other postive ideas?

Click to expand...

I have already put forward positive ideas which you have rejected out of hand, because they do not fit the "must tax and damn people who don't go along with the King's agenda, and if they resist, shoot them" point of view.

Specifically:

1. You will NEVER get renewables such as biodiesel or ethanol to be commercially viable so long as you have farm price supports. Ever. Period. You want that problem solved? Get rid of the economic disincentives for people to buy said fuels. I have a flex-fuel Suburban along with my Jetta - it will run on E85 just fine. I need that vehicle to pull my boat and haul loads, which is when it is used. I won't buy E85 because the ethanol is significantly more expensive for fewer BTUs (read: less mileage per gallon), with virtually ALL of that additional expense in the form of farm price supports. I'll be happy to pay a parity price for E85 over E10 (what we have now) and suffer the lower fuel economy, but I won't pay twice - both out of wallet and out the tailpipe, with the difference going to prop up farm prices artificially. I'm already getting screwed on fuel economy due to the farm price supports and mandates to sell only E10 instead of pure gasoline. I'd prefer not to take any more dry ones, thank you very much.

2. CAFE standards do nothing of value. All they do is generate tax revenues. That doesn't change a thing. The "guzzler taxes" are paid, which doesn't solve the problem. Hard caps on mileage will simply cause people to either drive older cars and trucks (which is worse for the environment!) since they can't buy a NEW one that does what they want. Explain for me how I pull a 7,500lb boat with a "SUV" that has a tiny engine in it that meets CAFE requirements? I can't. Your suggestion is that we ban not only guzzler vehicles but also RVs, boats, 4-wheelers, horse trailers and other items that are hauled every day by those "guzzlers". We can get rid of all of these emsisions right now, of course. Doing so requires banning the motor vehicle, which forces us all onto the backs of horses, asses and mules. My kid would like the horse part, but I bet you wouldn't, especially when the next-door-neighbor's horse took a dump on the street right next to your home.

3. You say the free market doesn't work. I say it does, and point to the down sales of SUVs and trucks in the last year as hard proof. GM and Ford are in deep kimchee right now because so much of their profits have been tied to those guzzlers, and people aren't buying them with gas at $2.50/gallon. Surprise! The mix of vehicles sold is shifting, and no government regulation was involved. So much for the claim that the free market doesn't work.

4. Gas is still cheap, adjusted for inflation. Compared to the oil shock the last time around, it would have to be right around $5/gallon to be comparable in terms of true economic cost. Of course it isn't. If it was, there wouldn't be many SUVs on the road - only those that were needed to do a particular task. At $2.50/gallon fuel is actually not all that expensive. $60 to fill that Suburban sounds bad, but if it was north of $100 there'd be very few of them being driven around. Bottom line: The fuel isn't that expensive in real-dollar terms (e.g. compared to the cost of a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, a kilowatt-hour of electricity, etc.)

5. You like all these safety and emission controls. That's very nice. How about we do something about the tens of millions of illegal immigrants, and the kids they crank out at a rate which radically exceeds that of the rest of the US first? You want to know where the smog comes from? From lots of people. If we had solved that problem we wouldn't be so darn overcrowded. Oh by the way, if you think dealing with emissions issues solve the underlying problems here you're sadly mistaken. I direct you to the entitlement spending explosion that will ruin our economy within the next 10 years as my evidence. Mark my words on this, Social Security in 2042 sounds bad, but the real "oh crap!" date is approximately 8 years away, not 38. If you don't understand WHY, you need to sit down with some CBO reports, SSA reports, and do some reading. That's the 900lb gorilla in the room that people are ignoring because its damned inconvenient and all the real solutions are going to bite for most everyone - thus, they're politically suicidal. Don't worry, you'll learn about them in a few yearas when they get shoved down all our throats when the option to do something about it "later" expires.

That's for starters....

As for vehicles and CAFE, the market is working. Show me record SUV sales for GM with gas at $2.50/gallon. You can't - they're down, not up.

The evidence is under your nose - but you do have to be willing to look.

Welcome one and all to


Hyperbole Week in this thread*



This thread and Hyperbole Week (Registered) not affiliated with Tdiclub.com. See site disclaimer for all other legal mumbo jumbo.













































The thread is dead man; vivisection complete. Let's put this dead baby in the ground already!