Avg fleet MPG: Today verses the Model T

[Fairweather]

It says $3 on my 1040.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I'm not buying.

 

but it's two for the price of one!

 

 

What a bargain!

 

[Fairweather]

Um, things have changed a little...

 

[ClimbingPanther]

wow, that hair transformation... JFK --> a wig on consignment at my grandpa's thrift store

[ashw_justin]

But Bush Co. has made WAY more money for 'some of us' than Billary ever did/will...

'Failure' eh? Depends on the mission statement, really...

 

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/26/news/companies/exxon_earnings/index.htm

[tvashtarkatena]

 

If fuel taxes were high enough, CAFE standards would not be necessary. They would have to be very high, however. Politically, that's not going to happen any time soon. CAFE standards, from a political standpoint, are an already relatively popular and therefore much more feasible way to reduce consumption and emissions. A combination of CAFE standards without loopholes, carbon taxes, and elimination of subsidies for gas guzzlers are the most feasible near term solution, politically speaking, to the problem.

 

Note bold text. Cough.

 

Make a law that revenues gained by the fuel tax will be offset by reductions in income taxes and I think that the political resistance to the idea would diminish, especially if the taxes were phased in over the course of several years.

 

I'm not sure what your coughing is all about. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that, when gas hits $10 a gallon or whatever the magic number is, people will do anything to avoid driving. Brilliant.

 

Your idea sounds good in theory...pure theory, given our deficit. Thanks to the administration you and yours voted in, I wouldn't expect a reduction in any form of federal taxation, even if it involves a straight trade, that has a remote chance of reducing revenues (and there would be that risk due to undcertainty with your plan) for the rest of your life.

Edited November 9, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

retards putting more tax on fuel will raise the price of every good and service nation wide and if it costs more to get to work we make less money, so its a dubble wamie in which creates even less usable income for the avg joe, to save and or spend on other nessities.

i do how everthink auto makers should be presured to make more efficent vehicals and simply forced to discountiue SUV and other useless, oversized cars/trucks.

 

Good observations on the effect of higher fuel prices - whether brought about by taxes or the market.

 

If commercial users were exempted, and the poorer you were the more of the gas-tax you got back, I think that you could avoid most of the problems associated with the tax that you brought up - at least in theory.

 

 

 

 

[ClimbingPanther]

I can just see it now... you get out of your car, swipe your national ID card with all of that IRS, commercial/private, etc. information and the pump flashes the price you get for your gas.

 

Either that or save all your gas receipts for your IRS return... ugh.

[tvashtarkatena]

retards putting more tax on fuel will raise the price of every good and service nation wide and if it costs more to get to work we make less money, so its a dubble wamie in which creates even less usable income for the avg joe, to save and or spend on other nessities.

i do how everthink auto makers should be presured to make more efficent vehicals and simply forced to discountiue SUV and other useless, oversized cars/trucks.

 

Good observations on the effect of higher fuel prices - whether brought about by taxes or the market.

 

If commercial users were exempted, and the poorer you were the more of the gas-tax you got back, I think that you could avoid most of the problems associated with the tax that you brought up - at least in theory.

 

 

 

Like a true blue Republican, you're already gutting the primary intent of the regulation, which is to reduce consumption and emissions. Given that commercial transportation emissions exceed residential, why bother?

 

Keep it simple. Everybody pays at the pump.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[ClimbingPanther]

there's other ways. the average liberal mind can grasp that gas tax is regressive and works against their supposed concern for the poor.

keep it simple. everybody gets the same ration.

[JayB]

 

If fuel taxes were high enough, CAFE standards would not be necessary. They would have to be very high, however. Politically, that's not going to happen any time soon. CAFE standards, from a political standpoint, are an already relatively popular and therefore much more feasible way to reduce consumption and emissions. A combination of CAFE standards without loopholes, carbon taxes, and elimination of subsidies for gas guzzlers are the most feasible near term solution, politically speaking, to the problem.

 

Note bold text. Cough.

 

Make a law that revenues gained by the fuel tax will be offset by reductions in income taxes and I think that the political resistance to the idea would diminish, especially if the taxes were phased in over the course of several years.

 

I'm not sure what your coughing is all about. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that, when gas hits $10 a gallon or whatever the magic number is, people will do anything to avoid driving. Brilliant.

 

Your idea sounds good in theory...pure theory, given our deficit. Thanks to the administration you and yours voted in, I wouldn't expect a reduction in any form of federal taxation, even if it involves a straight trade, that has a remote chance of reducing revenues (and there would be that risk due to undcertainty with your plan) for the rest of your life.

 

You seemed to have dedicated quite a number of keystrokes to attacking this notion earlier.

 

The point is that while raising the price fuel directly via taxes will discourage fuel consumption, and will impose costs that are in direct proportion to the quantity of CO2 emitted, and the same can't be said for manipulating the sales price of vehicles via CAFE standards.

 

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

there's other ways. the average liberal mind can grasp that gas tax is regressive and works against their supposed concern for the poor.

keep it simple. everybody gets the same ration.

 

I remember gas rationing.

 

Huge lines at the pump, and a really, really pissed off voting population. Plus, an expensive and complicated program to administer.

 

It didn't last long.

[tvashtarkatena]

 

You seemed to have dedicated quite a number of keystrokes to attacking this notion earlier.

 

The point is that while raising the price fuel directly via taxes will discourage fuel consumption, and will impose costs that are in direct proportion to the quantity of CO2 emitted, and the same can't be said for manipulating the sales price of vehicles via CAFE standards.

 

Now now, none of that. Be fair and sincere. I argued out of the starting gate for a high gas tax...and real CAFE standards. Both. Not either/or. BOTH. That means the one and the other. Together.

 

And manipulating the sales price of vehicles??? I believe that would still be the decision of the manufacturer.

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[rob]

if they raise the price of gasoline, I hope they lower the price of fuel efficient cars.

[tvashtarkatena]

if they raise the price of gasoline, I hope they lower the price of fuel efficient cars.

 

Two different 'they's.

[rob]

They're both the man. If one doesn't fuck me, the other will.

Edited November 9, 2007 by rob

[ClimbingPanther]

The problem would be solved if everyone acted responsibly, right? Companies strived to produce more efficient cars, people drove less and bought locally produced stuff, etc.

 

What you're saying here is that people aren't adequately policing themselves to abide by an ethic you believe is right and necessary. So the government should do it for them. Hmmm, sounds like the same reasoning that would enrage you, were the subject abortion, gay marriage, etc.

 

I know rationing is ridiculous, but I don't believe tax is the solution either. Yes, of course, it is A solution, and it will work, but the poor are hit the hardest while the rich never skip a beat and continue to drive their hummers. Looking at the whole picture, we need a different solution, one that adequately controls emission without putting an undue burden on those least able to bear it.

 

Come on, people, be liberals and care about the poor AND the environment. I know you can find a way... right?

[JayB]

I can just see it now... you get out of your car, swipe your national ID card with all of that IRS, commercial/private, etc. information and the pump flashes the price you get for your gas.

 

Either that or save all your gas receipts for your IRS return... ugh.

 

 

I think that you could pretty much just index the rebate/tax reduction by income, and commercial users generally keep track of such expenses anyway, so it wouldn't be that big of a deal.

 

My main purpose in participating in this thread was just to demonstrate that using CAFE standards is an irrational and ineffective way to reduce either oil consumption/CO2 emissions.

 

I'm actually not terribly fond of the idea of a fuel tax either, but I think it'd be preferable to raising CAFE standards if I had to choose one or the other.

 

I also think that the nearly exclusive and obsessive focus on passenger vehicles that has characterized this discussion on the national level is extremely irrational - and has less to do with reducing C02 emissions than it does with a desire to limit the scope for choices and lifestyles that a particular sector of the electorate takes exception to. If they were actually serious about this, they'd be dedicating the most energy into reforming the sectors that generate the most emissions.

 

 

[JayB]

The problem would be solved if everyone acted responsibly, right? Companies strived to produce more efficient cars, people drove less and bought locally produced stuff, etc.

 

What you're saying here is that people aren't adequately policing themselves to abide by an ethic you believe is right and necessary. So the government should do it for them. Hmmm, sounds like the same reasoning that would enrage you, were the subject abortion, gay marriage, etc.

 

 

Yup.

[rob]

The problem would be solved if everyone acted responsibly, right? Companies strived to produce more efficient cars, people drove less and bought locally produced stuff, etc.

 

What you're saying here is that people aren't adequately policing themselves to abide by an ethic you believe is right and necessary. So the government should do it for them. Hmmm, sounds like the same reasoning that would enrage you, were the subject abortion, gay marriage, etc.

 

 

Yup.

 

You guys are saying that the decision to pollute the environment is akin to being gay?

 

crackheads.

[tvashtarkatena]

The problem would be solved if everyone acted responsibly, right? Companies strived to produce more efficient cars, people drove less and bought locally produced stuff, etc.

 

What you're saying here is that people aren't adequately policing themselves to abide by an ethic you believe is right an necessary. So the government should do it for them. Hmmm, sounds like the same reasoning that would enrage you, were the subject abortion, gay marriage, etc.

 

I know rationing is ridiculous, but I don't believe tax is the solution either. Yes, of course, it is A solution, and it will work, but the poor are hit the hardest while the rich never skip a beat and continue to drive their hummers. Looking at the whole picture, we need a different solution, one that adequately controls emission without putting an undue burden on those least able to bear it.

 

Come on, people, be liberals and care about the poor AND the environment. I know you can find a way... right?

 

There is no one way. A carbon tax is part of a 'basket' of policies needed to address two major issues: consumption (oil dependence), and emissions (global warming).

 

The gay thing is purely a social attitudes issue: there is no society wide, super shitty environmental cost to a couple of patent leather nazis in assless chaps having some super-fun. Whatever cost there is to such booginess exists only in the minds of those offended. The gay thing is also an equal rights issue, as defined in the Bill of Rights under the equal protection. Or so I believe. But I digress.

 

Yes, the poor will be hit hardest by any consumption tax, but in this case, the dire consequences of continued consumption at this level warrant such a measure. No policy is perfectly consistent with any one political philosophy, or without unintended consequences. Oh well.

 

Fuel efficient cars cluster on the cheaper end of the spectrum. Tax incentives for purchasing these cheaper, higher mpg cars could offset most of the burden on the poor. Funding more mass transit would also buffer this effect.

 

The egalitarian in me likes the idea of rationing, but the reality of it is just fucked up. In the end, all you get is massive pent up demand and a spike in inflation, and the associated economic shocks. While it occurs you get inefficiency because consumption patterns are not allowed to balance themselves.

 

 

 

 

[ClimbingPanther]

You guys are saying that the decision to pollute the environment is akin to being gay?

 

crackheads.

 

awww, are we being intolerant of polluters now?

[tvashtarkatena]

I also think that the nearly exclusive and obsessive focus on passenger vehicles that has characterized this discussion on the national level is extremely irrational - and has less to do with reducing C02 emissions than it does with a desire to limit the scope for choices and lifestyles that a particular sector of the electorate takes exception to. If they were actually serious about this, they'd be dedicating the most energy into reforming the sectors that generate the most emissions.

 

Not a little projection going on here. How about hauling out that "do gooder, anti GMO hippy cartoon", JayB, as long as we're missing the mark?

 

And 40% isn't a big enough sector for you? Where did you go to school, exactly?

 

This discussion was focused on transportation fuel consumption and emissions, but, as I stated previously, no one here implied or argued that other sectors should not also be regulated to reduce consumption and increase efficiency.

 

A focused discussion is not an 'obsessive' discussion.

 

Gay boy.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[ClimbingPanther]

Gay boy.

 

[JayB]

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.