| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Gas guzzler tax |
Topic: Gas guzzler tax
| Author | Message |
| Letterbox | Posted – 5/21/2008 2:47:04 AM | show profile Well, GM did have the EV1 at one time. It was a nice experiment they never gave a chance. And there's a smattering of domestic hybrids including the Escape. It's Chrysler that's really out of it. GM and Ford at least had something in the pipeline, albiet late. Chrysler is coming to market a distant third with their hybrid platform. Pretty disgraceful. |
| PluckyPane | Posted – 5/21/2008 10:30:33 AM | show profile i guess one of the problems i have with the electric or hybrid cars is the size. there are 4 people in my family, so if we manage to add one more, those teeny hybrids are not going to do much for us. surely a station wagon has got to get better gas mileage than an suv? it really is going to require a shift in thinking to get people to think smaller. my m-i-l loves her massive suv even though she is usually the only person riding in it. she claims it's much safer than the "rice burner" my wife and i drive. but living in houston will cause that warped mindset i suppose. |
| chucho | Posted – 5/21/2008 12:42:02 PM | show profile >> But Chucho you just did what bugs me...you completely ignore your own green gas emitting travel by plane to focus on driving between high-density urban areas. << I don't ignore it. I'm aware of it. I fly about twice a year. I don't know how accurate those carbon counter thingies are, but driving 15,000 miles a year AND flying 18 hours a year is twice the carbon output as not owning a car and flying 18 hours a year. I am usually pretty cognoscente of my own level of waste, but by your estimates (based on the plane and car thing and this online emissions counter) I'm emitting half the carbon because when I'm not flying I'm walking to work. I don't even take public transport more than once or twice week (two ways). My world right now is pretty small, and people consider me a cheapskate and weirdo because I pick up trash when I'm hiking. And I don't think it's fair to say "well if you don't live like a prophet on the mound and have a carbon neutral footprint, then you're a hypocrite". I'm too vain to be a hermit, but I fairly certain my footprint is on the well-below average scale (in comparison to my fellow Americans, not Kenyan nomads). The national average is about 14,000 vehicular miles, so you're a little on the above-average drive distance with 15K. The highest mileage I've logged (not counting flying, fair enough) is 7,500 in a year, 10% of that on a long distance drive. But I also don't hop on an aircraft every three weeks, either. Twice a year, long distance I'd say about 20-26 hours annual flying time. All of this is going to change late next year, when I move back to the USA and buy a car, but I am hoping to be able to maintain my annual mileage under 9,000 and cut my flight time by at least half. Right now my biggest sins is air conditioning (which before last year I hadn't used since 1996) and too many plastic bags (unavoidable where I live, unfortunately). |
| Mag Girl | Posted – 5/21/2008 1:24:57 PM | show profile chucho's touching on an important subject there with his mention of air conditioning. With all the talk of transportation, it's actually BUILDINGS that use the most energy and contribute the most greenhouse gases. ANd air conditioning, heating and water heating, typically uses the most energy in a building. That said, the technology is already out there to build buildings that use way less energy than the average building out there. We just have to make it more of a common practice. There's ways to design buildings to where you can still be comfortable, but you don't need as much AC or heat b/c of how the building is situated, designed, materials, etc. And while there may be a 10 percent or so premium to building such a building, you get all that money back and then some within 5-10 years. But some things that reduce energy in buildings are free. It's just a matter of the mechanical and structural engineers working with the architect to make it happen. |
| catlondon | Posted – 5/21/2008 3:00:44 PM | show profile Chucho: I'm pretty cheap too, so I'm with you that. I used to carpool to work but then I changed jobs and while public transport is available, it's too expensive and takes twice as long. So I drive. However, I hate hate hate air conditioning and rarely if ever use mine. |
| catlondon | Posted – 5/21/2008 3:07:07 PM | show profile But I still maintain that climate change activists fly way too much and often for reasons of ego (because to prove you are someone important you have to be seen at the UNEP conference in Paris and the emerging country energy summit in China and down to see if the BRT lines are really working in Brazil and the funder conference in Hawaii, as well the Clinton Foundation event in New York). Bitter? Who me? |
| chucho | Posted – 5/21/2008 4:23:27 PM | show profile I can agree with that, on the other hand I do think you cut the "elites" a little slack. (I mean elites in the classical sense, not the wacky new re-definition by the wingnuts -- the political and private ruling elite, of which all political leaders belong, whether they prefer beer or wine.) If Al Gore flys a lot it's because he was vice president of the United States and he's rich and he does more to promote environmental issues than I've ever done. So, I am cautious to give "the elites" a little slack on this at times if I feel that they're not the Devil Incarnate and they're doing general good in the world. |
| PluckyPane | Posted – 5/21/2008 6:04:23 PM | show profile i guess we've kind of gone off on two different tangents. we can chat about saving the earth all day and never exhaust the subject, but the gas guzzling theme is really very different from the green idea. related, but with different motivations. i'm sure that most who drive those gas guzzlers are more concerned about the price of gas over the saving the environment issue. i think the best way to solve the problem is to impose a bigger, nastier tax every single year on those who drive the gg's while keeping gas prices at the current levels or with market flux so those who drive gas sippers won't be punished. it won't save the earth, but it will definitely kill the habit of driving gg's and promote car manus to be vigilant about producing smaller, more fuel efficient cars. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 5/21/2008 10:02:56 PM | show profile PluckyPane, I have to agree with you. I have relatives who are very smart, very well educated, democrats, and they would change their lifestyle/purchasing behavior more in direct response to gas prices than the threat of climate change. In fact, I recently talked to my brother, a very smart guy, about plug-in hybrids, and I was making the point that how good they are for climate change depends on where you live and the power generation in your area. If you live in an area that gets most of its power generation from coal, you are better off (climate wise) with a regular hybrid vehicle than a plug-in hybrid vehicle. He kind of joked, although serious, that all he cared about was saving gas. So I do think that probably the majority (perhaps large majority) are more influenced by high gas prices than by climate change. I think your idea that it would be better to penalize those who choose to drive gas guzzling cars is far better than increasing the price of gas is a good point. However, in my opinion we have little control over the price of oil or gas here in the US. That is, unless we choose to subsidize it and make it cheaper (going in the wrong direction). So, we have to deal with what we've got. |
| Letterbox | Posted – 5/21/2008 10:57:22 PM | show profile I've always been for more gas tax. Not only because roads and highways need more maintenance than they get, it also curbs the purchase of giant SUVs. Also, it can be used to reduce the growing deficit and the war can be blamed. From what I understand, plug ins are always worth it because even coal generated electrical generation is far, far more efficient and comparatively less poluting than gasonline powered engines. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 5/21/2008 11:15:53 PM | show profile I love taxes Letterbox, I'm pro-gas tax but we also have to be realistic here. How much gas tax are we talking about? If it's a dollar or two a gallon extra, forget about it. In the EU, some countries at least, they pay more than 2 times what we pay and yet they still use quite a bit of gas. Far less than we do, but quite a lot still. Our gas prices have increased by almost 400% in less than 10 years and how much less are we driving? A tiny bit less, but nothing in comparison to the price increase. So what kind of gas tax would we really need? If we're doing it both to discourage consumption and generate revenue ideally for alternatives, I'm all for it. But let's be realistic if we think it will do it all by itself then we are being delusional (especially if we're talking about a relatively small gas tax increase). On plug-in hybrid vehicles, at least the stuff I've seen (2007 report by Kromer and Heywood at MIT, etc.) indicate that their effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions depends a lot on how clean the power generation is. So all coal power generation (not sure what the threshold is... 60%? 50%?), results in PHEVs worse than regular hybrid vehicles in terms of GHG emissions. If you have seen something to the contrary I'd be interested to know what that is. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 5/21/2008 11:25:32 PM | show profile On energy in general, I'm no fan of Thomas Friedman (that ones for you Chucho), but I think he's on the mark as far as energy policy (from today's "Imbalances of Power": **** ...More and more, I am convinced that the big foreign policy failure that will be pinned on this administration ...will be ... the failure after 9/11 to put in place an effective energy policy. It baffles me that President Bush would rather go to Saudi Arabia twice in four months and beg the Saudi king for an oil price break than ask the American people to drive 55 miles an hour, buy more fuel-efficient cars or accept a carbon tax or gasoline tax that might actually help free us from what he called our "addiction to oil." The failure of Mr. Bush to fully mobilize the most powerful innovation engine in the world - the U.S. economy - to produce a scalable alternative to oil has helped to fuel the rise of a collection of petro-authoritarian states - from Russia to Venezuela to Iran - that are reshaping global politics in their own image. ...The next president will have to manage these new rising states and these new rising individuals and networks, while wearing the straightjacket left in the Oval Office by Mr. Bush.... NYT |
| HyancinthGirl | Posted – 5/22/2008 12:43:00 AM | show profile The problem I see with imposing a flat, very high tax on gas to discourage gas use is the infrastructure is not in place to transport people otherwise. I'm not just talking about buses and trains. We're, arguably, in a recession, and people are out of work or their money is going a lot less further than it did yesterday. It's not just because of gas. It's for all the industries that rely on transportation to get our goods to market. If there was a tax on fuel (higher tax) imagine what the cost of goods would be. Can you say inflation? It would literally cost people more to go to work than would be worth it. Not everyone can live very close to work for many reasons. People would be making the choice between food, rent, or fuel. We don't want people to stop living. We also don't want workers to stop funding things like their savings or their retirement funds. That could be a perfect disaster in 20+ years when people stop saving for their retirement and can't afford basic COL. Social security may not be around, so will those people go on welfare? With property taxes rising and states in bad shape, one more expense will kill some people. So I think PluckyPane has a good point about imposing taxes on SUV drivers or those who get bad gas mileage. Make it part of the annual registration fees, and make it really outrageous. It will also discourage people in the future from having very large families (I know it won't do much to help them now). And then impose some disgusting fees or taxes on the dealers and manufacturers who sell those SUVs. We want to discourage the behavior of using gasoline, but we can't make gasoline so cost prohibitive that common, hard-working people can't get to work or make ends meet. God knows the wages haven't kept pace with inflation. There absolutely needs to be another cleaner, cheaper form of fuel in place before these taxes are imposed. And please, why are the oil companies not being fined for pollution? Although they would likely pass the cost on to the consumer anyway. |
| catlondon | Posted – 5/22/2008 1:00:45 AM | show profile Some people have proposed taxing by mileage rather than a flat tax on gas. People who drive more, pay more. That seems fair at a glance, but Hyancith makes a good point that people can't always choose where to live based solely on transportation issues. In the San Francisco area for example, people of moderate income are almost completely priced out and many of the workers necessary to a city--police, teachers, administrative and other support staff--have to live farther out. So taxing them for driving more would sort of be liking taxing them because they aren't rich. The prohibitive cost of city housing is also something that will have to be addressed. As it is, you can live 70 miles from someone and still be considered to be in the same metro area. It's crazy. |
| catlondon | Posted – 5/22/2008 1:13:55 AM | show profile By taxing by mileage, I mean that even hybrid owners would pay a higher tax if they drive more, despite how much gas they do or do not use. The rationale is that even if they are not using as much gas, they are using roads and should be taxed accordingly. |
| Letterbox | Posted – 5/22/2008 3:30:35 AM | show profile Now that gas is over $100 a barrel there seem to be more noticable changes. It may not be reducing the amount of driving but it's changing what people drive. It's getting people out of full sized SUVs into smaller cars--or at least more reasonable sized cars. And it's pushing hybrid and alternative fuel development. There's nothing like a hit in the wallet and pocketbook to change people's minds. Hopefully the Hummer will disappear completely as a result. It's a start! |
| Letterbox | Posted – 5/22/2008 3:37:41 AM | show profile Also, people don't drive small cars in Europe just because the roads are smaller. Imagine how much less oil we'd consume and how much more parking we'd have if everybody in the U.S. drove Honda Civics sized cars. |
| HyancinthGirl | Posted – 5/22/2008 8:32:15 AM | show profile Letterbox, one would hope that the insurance rates would go down, too. Putting drivers on a level playing field may do wonders for the accident/death ratios. Think Civic-sized car hitting Civic-sized car. It's a nicer scenario than Hummer-sized car hitting Civic-sized car. And it will benefit the automakers too because we can have lighter weight cars. |
| chucho | Posted – 5/22/2008 10:56:22 AM | show profile By the way: I filled up a tank in Europe two weeks ago. The tank was a quarter-full. It was a standard Peugeot hatchback. It cost $95 to fill up three-quarters of a tank. Americans have for decades paid some of the lowest prices for gas for a country that imports fuel. The reason for this is that it isn't taxed heavily. In Europe they tax fuel heavily to help pay for transportation alternatives, and universal health coverage. The result? A society that drives small cars and has great public transport. Sure, they have a much larger middle class and a much smaller class of economic elites (it's harder for an individual to get rich in Europe) -- and unemloyment is higher (although our unemployment is deceptively low because of the way the US government determines the unemplyment rate), although the disparity gap between employment in Europe and the US is closing gradually. But I think in the end it's just a more sensible society, too. I really wish the US would adopt some of these views on living and social contract -- the bread, cheese and produce would be better anyway :) I'm not saying America needs to abandon what makes it distinct, I just wish there wasn't so much knee-jerk jingoistic reactions whenever anyone suggests that perhaps we should pay more for things (of much higher quality), and consume less of things that are of poor quality and made in China. He who dies with the most things . . . is still dead. Screw that: I want tomatoes from he grocery store that always taste like they were off the vine, and I'll pay for that and forego the "status-affirming" vehicle or the enormous Texas Tudor tract home. But I digress. Well, it's not digression actually: it a call for a complete re-think of the American Dream. Too bad it's gonna take $8 a gallon gas for people to wake up. |
| Mag Girl | Posted – 5/22/2008 12:53:20 PM | show profile Chucho- what you said. |
| HyancinthGirl | Posted – 5/22/2008 12:53:33 PM | show profile Chucho, wake up to what? The American people already know the disparity between having something and not having something. With CEO salaries several HUNDRED times that of his workers, when only 2 decades ago it was about 20 times, what do you expect? Will the salaries rise even a little bit if the gas goes to $8 or $10 a gallon? Doubtful. What will happen is workers will say ef it and will stop working and stop buying and the economy will tank like never before. You will have a welfare crisis out of control. Plus, there are no viable alternatives at this point to replace our dependence on oil. You can't suggest that people change their lifestyles without giving them a light at the end of the tunnel. We have choices in most everything; it's what makes us uniquely American. You can't punish the collective American people for something that has made a select group of Americans rich for a very long time. They pushed these SUVs and roadtrips and the love of the American car on us for decades and now they punish us for making them rich? The behavior modification cannot only come from the American people. It has to come from the companies and the government who put us in and got fat from this predicament. People have to get to work and sometimes need to take a vacation. |
| HyancinthGirl | Posted – 5/22/2008 1:02:05 PM | show profile Damn. Ignore my tirade. I read your post wrong. Talk about knee-jerk. I still do think that that change has to come from the corporations who produce these things. Tax the shit out of any company that produces a car with low mileage, then tax the consumer who bought it. No SUV exceptions. Put the money in a general fund ONLY for transportation and start building alternatives. We'll all be driving Focuses in no time. |
| chucho | Posted – 5/23/2008 6:15:27 AM | show profile I agree that regulating fuel consumption standards on car manufacturers is a good thing. At the same time I can see the conservative argument about individual choice and responsibility. From a philosophical standpoint the issue resides in the differences between "collectivism and social contract" (the government is there to place caps on what people can buy, and to financially penalize those that choose to, say, buy a Hummer to commute to work on a highway and those that choose to satisfy those personal longings by making these products) and "individualist freedoms", i.e. companies can make whatever (presumably safe and legal) products they want and people should have the right to buy these products at the lowest price without any government middleman making it more costly to satisfy the social contract through regulations. IMO, the problem lies in individual values. If people didn't want a Hummer to commute to work on a highway, the government wouldn't have to try to stop manufacturers form satisfying this desire. I do think the individual living in an open, democratic society like the US holds a great deal of personal responsibility. At the same time, I also feel that since people have these values it's something that needs to be addressed -- either by the society changing these values as a whole, or the "elites" (and I use this term, again, in the classic sense to mean anyone in power) implementing these changes to force people into a limited set of choices (by making Hummers more expensive). The debate continues. . . |
| catlondon | Posted – 5/23/2008 12:34:23 PM | show profile There was an interesting little article on the CNN website the other day about how heated the market is for, yes, fixed up Geo Metros. Evidently, its gas mileage is as good as a hybrid and while they are now going for well-above blue book, a used Metro will be around $8,000 as opposed to $20,000 something for a Prius. |
| Letterbox | Posted – 5/27/2008 4:35:49 PM | show profile A pretty interesting blog post about converting all gasoline cars into electric. Theoretically the cost would be zero. http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electric-cars-zero/ |
