Re: DARPA, at least, has a clue

Stephen Fuld wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Stephen Fuld wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Logically, though, increasing the price of gas will lead to customers
buying higher-mileage cars, with the same result.

Not quite. Higher mileage cars plus higher cost gas is, for sake of
argument cost neutral for a given trip. Just higher mileage cars with
no increased gas cost means lower cost for a longer trip.

True, but you're assuming that lowering the per-mile cost will induce
people to drive more.

Its not an assumption, but what happened the last time we significantly
increased CAFE standards.

To what period are you referring? CAFE started at 18mpg in 1978,
increased gradually to 27mpg in 1984, dropped back to 26mpg in 1986,
rose to 27.5mph in 1990, and has stayed there ever since.

I can pull up the average miles driven per capita, but it's kind of a
pain so I'd like to know which specific years to look at.

Most gas is consumed commuting, and the average commute all over the
world is 45 minutes (each way), regardless of mode or price. Making
those 45 minutes cost half as much doesn't mean everyone will move an
hour and a half away from work.

I don't have a good source to refer you to, but I believe that average
commute in the US had been increasing prior to the latest economic mess.

It's been relatively stable for the century we've been collecting the
data, and the same number keeps popping up in other countries' studies
as well. That's just how long, on average, human beings are willing to
commute to work -- psychology, not technology or economics.

What changes is how far one can go in that 45 minutes, and that goes up
and down with road capacity, congestion, development patterns, migration
of employers, etc. And, of course, it's just an average.

The other issue, which I've never seen fully discussed (usually because
debates are so heated that they never get there) is what to do with all
that "carbon tax" revenue...

You missed one of my big points. The 100% of the revenue from the
increased gas tax going back to the consumer in the form of a per capita
creditable tax credit.

I was speaking to "carbon tax" plans in general.

If you mean something like the cap and trade plan passed by the House, I
am missing some knowledge about it. Perhaps you can help me. I
understand how it is supposed to work for fixed sources like power
plants, but for gasoline, who buys the credits? The oil companies? that
doesn't seem right. I heard one estimate that it would raise the cost
of gas by about 35 cents, which is hardly enough to make much difference.

Cap&trade systems are a horribly complicated and convoluted system that
only barely resembles what I'm talking about.

A true carbon tax would quite simply apply an excise tax (at a fixed
rate per amount of carbon) on the production or import of any fossil
fuel. There would be no way for consumers to avoid it since it'd be
levied directly on the producers and included in the price. There would
be no "credits", just like one can't avoid the excise tax on liquor by
purchasing credits from someone who doesn't drink.

Thus, it is cost neutral to the person using the average amount of gas.
And it is a tax that can be avoided by buying a more fuel efficient car,
etc. The hope is that this would allow the Republican's to vote for it,
as it isn't a net tax increase

There's a lot of folks, from both parties, ticked off at the idea
Washington takes our money and then makes us beg to get it back.

Agreed. That is why I proposed that no has to beg. It comes back
automatically.

Still, the idea of getting taxed just so that they can send the money
back to us is going to generate a lot of resistance.

And, realistically, what are the odds that the refund will last beyond
the next budget crisis?

You are more cynical than I am. :-(

Perhaps. A pessimist is rarely disappointed, though.

and the Democrats would accept is even though they don't get any more
revenue out of it because they want to see reduction in gas usage.

The tree-huggers you're thinking of want all fossil fuel (and, in
extreme cases, all fuel) consumption eliminated, not just a penalty on
folks who consume "above average" amounts.

I think you are missing something here. If the people who consume above
average reduce, then the average comes down.

OTOH, you're paying the people who consume below average, which gives
them more money to spend on gas. The result may well reduce deviation
from the average on _both_ sides or perhaps even increase it.

Thus everyone has an incentive to reduce. Its just that the people who
use more have a bigger incentive, which is what we want.

The people who use more tend to be the folks to whom the incentive will
matter least. Gas would have to cost five to ten times what it does
today before I'd really start to care enough about the cost to change my
behavior -- but you'd get the poor people out of their cars and onto the
buses and trains (or even bicycles) long before that.

This is designed explicitly to solve the political problems you mention
above.

IMHO, it'll never fly with folks from _either_ side, nor with the
plurality of the populace that is independent.

You may be right, but trying is better than implementing something that
we know, by experience won't work.

Expending the effort on a plan we know won't pass will reduce the
attention that can be garnered by other plans in the future. In fact,
this is a common tactic of politicians: preempt a reasonable law you
don't like by proposing one so hideous that nobody will even consider
the reasonable one (i.e. guilt by association).

With plug-in hybrids being the obvious next step, and battery technology
approaching the point that all-electric cars are becoming possible, you
cannot separate automotive consumption from general energy consumption.
It's becoming just one more consumer plugged into the grid.

You are more optimistic than I am about the rapid adoption of the
various electric transportation technologies. I have also heard
conflicting claims about how much additional baseline load will be put
on the power grid.

It'd be absolutely massive, bordering on apocalyptic, if adoption is
sudden and widespread. That's one of the reasons that I support
building many more nuclear power plants, transmission capacity, etc.
before the wave hits. The folks in that industry are well aware of the
looming problem, and they'd be busy preparing for it if the damn
politicians would get out of their way.

Still, I don't think it's going to be "rapid". We have a long way to go
before the prices come down to reasonable levels and they become a
significant fraction of the fleet -- but I think that's a reasonable
thing to fund, since it benefits us all with cleaner air.

There are also folks working on turning coal into oil, which will tie
the two markets very closely.

Yeah, and they have been for decades. Sort of like clean coal and
nuclear fusion power.

The latter two are, for now, scientific theory. Oil from coal is proven
technology and was even used in Germany during WWII. However, it will
require tens of billions of dollars in investment to get the kind of
volume that would be required to make a difference, and foreign oil is
just too cheap (and too volatile) for anyone to invest in it. If the
price of oil stays above $100/bbl for long enough, though, you'll see
coal conversion plants being built all over the country, particularly in
places with types of coal that aren't wanted by power or steel plants.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Isaac Jaffe
.

Relevant Pages

  • Im noticing people going a lot slower!
    ... I am noticing people going a lot slower in their cars. ... it cost him $200.00 to fill it up with the gauge ... The way gas is, you should only need a gallon of it to go over 100 ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: An oasis on the moon?
    ... > The cost of oil is already too expensive. ... The gas guzzling big cars ... Now you buy tiny effiecient cars, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: DARPA, at least, has a clue
    ... they don't reduce gasoline consumption as much as you would think. ... Logically, though, increasing the price of gas will lead to customers ... buying higher-mileage cars, with the same result. ... that "carbon tax" revenue... ...
    (comp.arch)
  • Re: DARPA, at least, has a clue
    ... they don't reduce gasoline consumption as much as you would think. ... Logically, though, increasing the price of gas will lead to customers ... buying higher-mileage cars, with the same result. ... argument cost neutral for a given trip. ...
    (comp.arch)
  • Re: How are the mid 80s models??
    ... This body was powered by gas and diesel engines. ... The cars were not designed for fuel economy or low maintenance cost as are American models. ... So if you don't drive much or the fuel cost and maintenance isn't an issue or you do your own the maintenance then buy one. ...
    (alt.auto.mercedes)
Loading