Avg fleet MPG: Today verses the Model T

[JayB]

 

Gay boy.

 

 

Will that get me an invitation to meet you at Tiger Mountain, sugar?

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Mmmmmmm. Anytime, sailor. Hope you like 'em furry.

[tvashtarkatena]

Haven't seen many dipshits pasting "I'm changing the climate" stickers to airplanes, buses, trains, semis, delivery vehicles, container-ships or any other mode of transport that burns fossil fuels. The emphasis placed on a subset of passenger vehicles is totally out of proportion to their actual importance in terms of transportation related emissions, especially when you consider that the average mini-van, station-wagon, luxury-sedan, and sport-car hardly differs from most trucks or SUV in terms of their fuel economy.

 

Thus we have the celebrity with a 15,000 square foot house and a lear jet that's a paragon of eco-virtue because he owns a prius, and a working-class guy with a small house that keeps a close eye on the thermostat who's consigned to the other end of the spectrum because he drives a truck.

 

Look, those bumper stickers piss me off as much as they do you.

[Recycled]

I love how the "repressive tax will hurt the poor" gets trotted out whenever there's a discussion about aligning taxes with rational goals. Like taxing consumption (a resource "bad") more heaviy than income (a "good" if saved/invested). Tax impacts by income level can be varied by how the tax is levied (as discussed) or by straight income transfers. It is not an unsolvable problem.

 

The main point is to not insulate "the poor" from making rational decisions about energy use. For example, if you provide a $500-1000 tax/benefit offset per family, they can decide whether they want to use less fuel (through an efficient vehicle, alternative transportation or whatever they want) and keep the $ for other uses or blow all the money on a gas hog and pay the increased tax on fuel. At least the economic incentives will be aligned the right way.

 

If increased fuel/carbon taxes are revenue-neutral, the net effect to consumer prices is hard to predict. Sure, moving products long distances will cost more, but other products may cost less, depending on which taxes are reduced to keep things revenue-neutral. The point of this is that there are so many distortions in the marketplace one can't make blanket statements about the effects on consumers.

 

Except that the price of recycled biodiesel will probably go down.

 

[Peter_Puget]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ad770a0c-8c7d-11dc-b887-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

[olyclimber]

[joblo7]

tax the trouble makers.......less than 10mpg (except commercia)

tax-rebate the electric and +40mpg passenger vehicules.

[tvashtarkatena]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ad770a0c-8c7d-11dc-b887-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

 

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth.

 

Too bad we've a) all got to eat and b) Brazil, the poster child for biofuels, is losing topsoil due to sugar cane production (as is the United States, mainly due to corn production) at an unsustainable rate. And you don't get topsoil back.

[JayB]

The worst part is, the farm bill on the table now is mandating ethanol consumption that's several fold higher than present levels.

 

The funny thing is that the present regime of tariffs and subsidies for corn ethanol still isn't at a threshold necessary to render the vastly more ecologically sound and efficient cane-ethanol uncompetitive. Instead of taking the hint, look for subsidies and tarriffs to spiral upwards.

 

It would make more sense all around to just forgo the formality of actually growing the corn or making the ethanol, and just send direct payments to all of the parties concerned to do nothing - then remove the subsidies and tariffs.

 

Also - if we're going to convert food crops to energy, I'm willing to bet that it would be far more efficient to burn them and distribute the resulting energy via the electrical grid. Don't even bother to separate anything - just mow down the fields, toss them in the hopper and incinerate away.

 

Woo-hoo, "Energy Independence!"

[joblo7]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ad770a0c-8c7d-11dc-b887-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

 

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth.

 

Too bad we've a) all got to eat and b) Brazil, the poster child for biofuels, is losing topsoil due to sugar cane production (as is the United States, mainly due to corn production) at an unsustainable rate. And you don't get topsoil back.

 

IF WE ONLY COULD FIND A WAY TO REMOVE MAN'S GREED FROM THESES EQUATIONs we could find real solutions.i guess thats the problem.

[tvashtarkatena]

Scheduled farm subsidies have got to go. They've played a major role in the kind of large scale farming practices, which really came to the fore in the 80s, that are sending our midwestern topsoil into the Gulf of Mexico at a catastrophic rate. These same practices are also quickly depleting our fossil aquifers. What's worse, sustainable family farms almost never qualify, because they grow a variety of crops in too small a quantity to qualify, so sustainable agriculture is handicapped in the marketplace.

 

Get rid of farm subsidies altogether, allow sustainable agriculture to compete in the fair market with factory farms, and promote local control to enable communities to reject the installation of factory farms and require healthy, sustainable farming practices (after all, they're the folks that live there).

 

Oh, and get off the ethanol bandwagon which will destroy our topsoil just as quickly and more irreversably than our emissions are destroying the climate and focus on other solutions.

 

Ethanol will be environmentally sound part of the solution once we develop a cellulose (trees and other crops that can be grown sustainably) based refinement. We're not there yet, and as long as we burn corn, we won't bother to go.

 

The worst part is, the farm bill on the table now is mandating ethanol consumption that's several fold higher than present levels.

 

The funny thing is that the present regime of tariffs and subsidies for corn ethanol still isn't at a threshold necessary to render the vastly more ecologically sound and efficient cane-ethanol uncompetitive. Instead of taking the hint, look for subsidies and tarriffs to spiral upwards.

 

It would make more sense all around to just forgo the formality of actually growing the corn or making the ethanol, and just send direct payments to all of the parties concerned to do nothing - then remove the subsidies and tariffs.

 

Also - if we're going to convert food crops to energy, I'm willing to bet that it would be far more efficient to burn them and distribute the resulting energy via the electrical grid. Don't even bother to separate anything - just mow down the fields, toss them in the hopper and incinerate away.

 

Woo-hoo, "Energy Independence!"

[archenemy]

Ethanol will be environmentally sound part of the solution once we develop a cellulose (trees and other crops that can be grown sustainably) based refinement. We're not there yet, and as long as we burn corn, we won't bother to go.

There is already a company that can produce it from algae (which they grow in hanging plastic bags). It sounds like this would be a viable option. (the article I read on this was in a recent Scientific American)

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm way ahead of the game, here. There's already a substantial fuel supply in the crisper of my fridge.

[AlpineK]

Ethanol will be environmentally sound part of the solution once we develop a cellulose (trees and other crops that can be grown sustainably) based refinement. We're not there yet, and as long as we burn corn, we won't bother to go.

There is already a company that can produce it from algae (which they grow in hanging plastic bags). It sounds like this would be a viable option. (the article I read on this was in a recent Scientific American)

 

I've read a little about the algae fuel thing. It sounds interesting and possibly a good idea.