Re: [OT - US/Canada] E-85 - Strategic conservation
- From: Alan Browne <alan.browne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 20:41:12 -0400
J. Clarke wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
branches the following occured to me last night.
The United States spends an incredible amount of money to protect its
oil supply worldwide as a strategic economic neccesity. It pays in many
lives as well as taxpayer money.
Why does the United States not take a "strategic" initiative with
respect to reducing oil _consumption_? This would mean:
1) Mandating higher gasoline taxes for gas guzzlers and credits to
efficient cars.
With todays technology an RFID can easilly be mated to a vehicle licence
plate to tell the pump what tax rate/rebate to apply to a particular
vehicle. This is better than revising CAFE and will self adjust as the
mpg goal changes every few years. Even set a goal mpg where the
gasoline is free for vehicles that meet the goal (paid for by the worst
guzzlers).
So how many days do you think it is going to take before a market develops
in bootleg RFID devices which report to the pump that your Navigator is a
moped?
If a "Moped" comes to the pump, the pump will allow it x gallons. That RFID code is suspended for 24 hours.
2) Part of thje guzzler tax would go to the "efficient" users, part of
the taxes would go to funding for more mass transit.
What is an "efficient user"?
It begins with a choice of an efficient vehicle. If you _really_ need a larger vehicle, you'll certainy be willing to pay for it.
3) Mandating minimum ethanol content in all gasoline (10%).
Which accomplishes what other than a farm subsidy?
See other posts. Asked and answered.
4) Mandating speed governors on vehicles with a radio module that
receives speed limit data from road side transmitters. The vehcile
would be allowed a 10 mph above limit buffer, but no more.
So how long do you think it will be before people discover that putting some
tinfoil around the antenna or cutting the wire to it causes the governor to
respond as if it is in an area where control has not yet been implemented?
The next layer of this is enforcement of course. Much like if you sell cigarettes untaxed or sell moonshine.
Sure, you can come up with counterstrategies. In every case they will cost
more to implement than they will cost to defeat.
Since there are a lot of counterstrategies it would appear that they payoff. For example, last time I was in Munich, the subway had no attendants or turnstiles. You paid, you punched the right number of lines for the distance and off you went. From time to time there is an inspection party. Big fines for cheating...
The real point is not all the implementation details, but the recognition that left to their own freewill, most people will continue to waste energy prolifically. It is quite easy to turn that off.
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [OT - US/Canada] E-85 - Strategic conservation
- From: Roger
- Re: [OT - US/Canada] E-85 - Strategic conservation
- From: J. Clarke
- Re: [OT - US/Canada] E-85 - Strategic conservation
- Prev by Date: Re: shutter lag
- Next by Date: Re: digital camera and webcam
- Previous by thread: Re: [OT - US/Canada] E-85 - Strategic conservation
- Next by thread: Re: [OT - US/Canada] E-85 - Strategic conservation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading