« EIA Expects Oil to Hold Around $70 per Barrel for 2007; US Consumption to Rise 2% | Main | Pathways for Glycerol-to-Fuels »
CEO of AutoNation “Looking Forward” to Selling Plug-In Hybrids; Calls for Increase in Gas Taxes
13 September 2006
In an opinion piece published in the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, Mike Jackson, the Chairman and CEO of AutoNation, makes a case for plug-in hybrids.
AutoNation is the nation’s largest auto dealership group with 350 new vehicle dealers in more than 15 states. Its 2005 revenues were $19.2 billion.
Jackson believes that the plug-in hybrid will shatter the discrepancy between stated consumer interest in hybrids and actual sales.
That brings us to what I believe will be one of the technologies that ultimately will address America’s addiction to oil: the plug-in hybrid.
Next-generation batteries are significantly more powerful and can tolerate discharging and charging much more forgivingly than earlier versions. And that opens up the possibility of creating a vehicle that will deliver genuine benefits to consumers and society.
Consider an all-electric mode that has a 50-mile range before the gasoline engine kicks in. A vehicle that gets the equivalent of 100 mpg; can be fully recharged at night when excess energy capacity is available; relies on electricity produced in clean, safe domestic power plants; and delivers all the performance and comfort of a traditional gasoline-powered car without the damaging emissions or dangerous geopolitics.
That is a vehicle that I believe the American consumer will not just consider, but buy. We look forward to selling it.
—Mike Jackson
At the Reuters Autos Summit in Detroit, Jackson said that the United States should raise taxes on gasoline to encourage the development of more fuel-efficient technologies.
We’re at a tipping point here. We have to do something to favor the new technologies and send a message to American consumers that gasoline prices are going to be systematically higher. A gas tax is a statement from the government that this is an issue of national security and we’re going to do something about it.
—Mike Jackson
(A hat-tip to Felix Kramer!)
September 13, 2006 in Plug-ins, Policy | Permalink | Comments (99) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/6033095
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference CEO of AutoNation “Looking Forward” to Selling Plug-In Hybrids; Calls for Increase in Gas Taxes:
Comments
Feels Good (not cars) to have Mr. Johnson on board the PHEV train. I fully agree with him that revenues from a carbon gas tax could be used to accellerate battery and PHEV development.
My new home garage (by early 2007) will have a 120/240 VAC, 30 Amps outlets + 40 Amps electronic timer (275 USD for labour and materials) for PHEV/EV overnight charging. This type of outlet + timer should become a national standard. Retrofits are possible but may cost much more.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Sep 13, 2006 4:08:15 AM
While I agree that plug in hybrids are currently the way to go (and can't wait to buy one), I disagree that raising taxes is the way to get there. No politician will vote for raising the gas tax, they'd be out of office at the next election for sure. So if they really want to find money to fund developments of PHEV's then they'd have to look elsewhere. By doing that it defeats the purpose of a higher gas tax to begin with. Let the free market work. PHEV's make sense, the consumer can figure that out.
Posted by: Dave | Sep 13, 2006 5:43:07 AM
Dave, the consumer will not figure it out until it's too late. I have come to the conclusion that the general public doesn't focus on the future, they just complain about high gas prices when they go up. I think we need something like raising taxes on fuel to help people think about the future. Besides, the benefits of raising taxes would be two fold if the revenue was used for increasing efficiency/alternative fuels.
Posted by: sean | Sep 13, 2006 6:23:57 AM
The American public has NO memory. This drop in fuel cost will (a) appease the voting public into making the same mistakes twice, (b) send them out to purchase that
Hummer that they always wanted.
The problem with a higher tax is that it will be misused as most other forms of tax are. I like small cars & seriously want to give OPEC & the middle east the slip. To me it's as simple as national security.
Posted by: John | Sep 13, 2006 6:49:03 AM
Got to revise the CAFE requirements on auto mfg. and eliminate the Flexfuel and Big business SUV loopholes.
If you're going to tax anyone make it a big oil windfall tax.
Posted by: fyi CO2 | Sep 13, 2006 7:06:27 AM
How about the federal government stop subsidizing intra-state roads and let the states pay for them? (The states could raise gas taxes, make them toll roads, whatever they decide.) That would free up lots of money in the federal budget for all sorts of new technologies.
Posted by: Derek | Sep 13, 2006 7:53:39 AM
FYI C02?
Eliminate the Flexfuel loophole?
Force flexfuel down the auto company's throat. Have them leave out ONSTAR or the friggin ANTITHEFT system if they are short of money.
TAX CARBON NOW.
Posted by: John Schreiber | Sep 13, 2006 7:56:46 AM
This is not my idea, but I think it is a great one. Raise the gasoline tax one penny per month, forever. This will gradually make gasoline more expensive, but it will not be a huge shock to the economy. Use the money to subsidize hybrids and mass transit.
Posted by: Herb Sewl | Sep 13, 2006 8:07:32 AM
If plug in hybrids become common the demand for gasoline will drop significantly and hence the price. When the price drops people will go back to wanting big, inefficient automobiles. We need to consider a floating tax rate that keeps gasoline near a constant price so that hybrids, ethonal, etc remain cost competative. Otherwise, the price of gas will drop and we start the whole cycle of low mpg automobiles driving increasing demand driving increasing prices all over again. A floating tax rate will provide the price stability needed to allow new technologies to expand.
Posted by: Rick Budde | Sep 13, 2006 8:37:34 AM
Using taxes for social engineering, as many here propose, is wrong. It is not the goverment's job to manipulate gasoline demand via regressive fuel taxation. Period. End of story. I will vote out any congressmen who proposes it.
I guarentee you that such a system would start looking for other sources of revenue if it does reduce gasoline demand, and thus revenue. There is nothing more permanent than a temporary government program.
Posted by: Cervus | Sep 13, 2006 8:53:11 AM
I have an idea. Why don't we all stop the effort of commenting and let a robot fill in these threads.
It can go
"Raise gas taxes."
"Social engineering! Humbug!"
[repeat]
Then, after all the robotic human commenters leave (since their "jobs" have now been taken), people with something original and useful to say can repopulate these threads.
Posted by: rb | Sep 13, 2006 9:11:52 AM
John,
The flexfuel loophole (overexaggerated MPG credit for flexfuel vehicles, e.g. Yukon=33 mpg) has enabled GM and Ford to save hundreds of millions of dollars in CAFE penalties, and building more fuel efficient vehicles
http://trucks.autoblog.com/2006/06/14/thomas-friedman-talks-back-to-gm/
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/cars_pickups_suvs/flex-fuel-vehicles.html
Posted by: fyi CO2 | Sep 13, 2006 9:21:18 AM
if everyone plugs in a car at night there won't be any "excess" electricity available and it will just continue to increase coal generation. charging an electric vehicle still requires alot of juice. it wouldn't take to many electric vehicles to wipeout a windfarm. i still believe the best long term solution would be a diesel hybrid with a much greater percentage of bio-diesel working towards a 100%. We already consume something like 2 TW's of electricity now and a mass exodus into EV's would have a detremental effect on electrical generation. we don't have the renewable generation capability to even begin to solve the problem.
Posted by: Scott58 | Sep 13, 2006 9:22:20 AM
meant to write:
The flexfuel loophole has enabled GM and Ford to save hundreds of millions of dollars in CAFE penalties, and allowed them to continue building fuel INefficient vehicles
rb, guess a robot wouldn't have screwed that up
Posted by: r2d2 | Sep 13, 2006 9:25:33 AM
I'm sympathetic to those who are against raising the sales tax on gasoline. I know the money will not be spent efficiently. On the other hand, if we consider this an issue of national security then the federal government must be involved to change the direction of the country, possibly on an emergency basis. We raise money to support armies to defend us. Why not raise taxes to take money away from those who are killing us?
The nice thing about a tax is that it doesn't entail the creation of additional bureaucracies since the taxing mechanism is already in place. If we want to have something useful to do with that money, have it go to converting the armed forces to be powered by alternative energy sources.
Posted by: Ed | Sep 13, 2006 9:30:19 AM
RB,
If you don't like the threads here, why don't you go back to surfing porn?
Posted by: Joe Rocker | Sep 13, 2006 9:37:33 AM
"If you don't like the threads here, why don't you go back to surfing porn?"
Because naked pics of your wife are even more boring than reading robots like yourself.
Posted by: rb | Sep 13, 2006 9:42:15 AM
I'm not sure if it is as much about the tax itself as how it would be spent. Some may want pure bio-diesel, some 100% EV, some E85 etc etc. The debate would still rage on forever. Without having a clearly defined expected result. it's hard to say. Is it just about national security? Is it about an attempt at an improved environment? All the above? I don't like throwing good money after bad and we certainly have tendancy to do just that. I don't like jumping in with both feet without looking really hard first and i don't think we have accomplished that.
Posted by: Scott58 | Sep 13, 2006 9:43:46 AM
re: taxes.
Taxes are too low (see growth of US deficit & nat'l debt since W took office) to support gov't programs + war. We are funding wars on the backs of future generations, not asking anyone to sacrifice now. A stiff gasoline tax devoted to funding the 'war on terror' might have the salutary effect of making the average Joe & Jane think about the real costs of our policies and actions in the world. Reducing carbon emissions would be a significant side benefit.
Posted by: Nick | Sep 13, 2006 10:16:02 AM
"Using taxes for social engineering, as many here propose, is wrong."
So, you would vote against any politician that supported such intrusive social engineering programs as making mortgage interest deductible to promote home ownership? I'm sure no one wants anything that socialist. I guess VA benefits, gas tax allocation to highway building, zoning that promotes cars are all out of the question....(please note, this is irony).
"I guarentee you that such a system would start looking for other sources of revenue if it does reduce gasoline demand, and thus revenue. " The simple solution is a matching reduction in low end income taxes, which is the only thing that would get it passsed, anyway.
"There is nothing more permanent than a temporary government program." Like that temporary standing army for WWII, I suppose.
Posted by: Nick | Sep 13, 2006 10:40:09 AM
Scott58:
Current electricity consumption is only 440GW, and powering all 220M light duty vehicles would only raise electricity needs by 13%, because electric vehicles are 6x more efficient.
Posted by: Nick | Sep 13, 2006 10:43:45 AM
""Using taxes for social engineering, as many here propose, is wrong."
Also time to get rid of reduced capital gains taxes, I guess. Surely no one wants to promote increased capital investment at the cost of some social engineering. Time to get rid of investment tax credits, and reduced inheritance taxes. Who could imagine such things in the purity of our political process?
Posted by: Nick | Sep 13, 2006 11:08:59 AM
There is presently more than enough unused generating capacity during night to charge over 100 million electric vehicles. Even using dirty coal CO2 emissions would be less than half that used by gas and diesel fuel vehicles.
Posted by: tom deplume | Sep 13, 2006 11:17:00 AM
One step at a time friends.. Electrification of parts of the car--->hybrids---->plug-in hybrids--->total electrification of the systems---->all electrics. We have entered stage 2 which is hybrids, and the first stage is being completed one part of the car at a time.
When electrics surpass all of the advantages of the ICE, there won't be a point to install an ICE engine in every car at all. The market will demand it.
Posted by: aa2 | Sep 13, 2006 11:27:01 AM
Nick:
Our government has a finger in many pots, including where they shouldn't be. Frankly, I can do without the sarcasm from you. I can see the necessity for fuel taxes to fund roads and for other purposes. But when I see people here shouting for $3 in additional fuel taxes, I'm going to ask them to justify their positions for doubling the price I'm already paying at the pump. Because that money would come right out of my pocket, and I'm anything but rich.
And given the sorry state of our current government, I don't trust them with any more of my money.
Posted by: Cervus | Sep 13, 2006 11:34:40 AM
Cervus, What happens when you speed? If you are caught you face a fine of anywhere from $50 to $300 depending on state. Does speed cause accidents? No, careless & inattentive drivers cause accidents [unless of course the speed is very excessive] such as those driving too slow trying to merge on highways at 20-30mph slower than the rest of the traffic. Yet people pay a large fine for speeding constantly, everyday, and accept it unless we are the one who is paying the fine. I suggest the same should be done for those who grossly & excessively use gas...many municipalities & counties already having "no cruising" laws (but not for gas consumption reasons) where fines are levied. Examples of this sort are near endless and I suggest that those who use too much gas should have a similar incentive to use less gas.
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 13, 2006 12:21:23 PM
[Partially tongue-in-cheek]
Instead of more taxes on US users, how about eliminating some indirect subsidies that the US is providing to hostile petroleum producers' distribution channels?
As in, how about China's central bank forgiving some of that US Treasury debt as payment for the US Navy's protection of supertankers on the Iran-China route?
Of course they can say no, and negotiate better fees with the pirates in the straits of Malacca. Best of luck, so sorry about that boat you lost, etc.
Either way, a good amount of pressure would be applied on Ahmadinejad's profit margins.
Posted by: dimitris | Sep 13, 2006 12:47:54 PM
Patrick:
We already have a gas guzzler tax on cars. You may be able to convince me that SUVs should be included in that. But the regressive nature of the high fuel taxes--far above and beyond what is necessary for roads, which I do support--you and others propose here is a bad thing. A friend of mine takes home barely $1100 per month after taxes. Tacking on a couple dollars per gallon onto his monthly fuel bill would cost him dearly, and he doesn't even own an SUV.
Add to that the inflationary pressure that those fuel taxes would cause, because the cost of transporting goods would go up, and the situation is even worse.
The only people who would be seriously hurt by $2-3 in gas taxes would be the poor and middle class.
Posted by: Cervus | Sep 13, 2006 12:49:56 PM
"Tacking on a couple dollars per gallon onto his monthly fuel bill would cost him dearly"
A couple of dollars has already been tacked on since Bush took office. But that's OK, right? If "the market" crushes your "friend", then that's fine. But if the government raises the price, that's bad.
Makes sense.
Posted by: anno | Sep 13, 2006 1:05:31 PM
From some comments here, I assume there is a presumption that the cost of energy will only go up if the government applies a tax. It appears to me that other forces can also raise the cost of enegy in very volitle ways.
If someone cannot afford higher gas prices then they make decisions accordingly such as using public transportation or car pooling.
The value of artifically raising the cost of energy now (by government action) is that we have the potential to gain more energy independence and reduce volitility. We must act together using our representative government to gain a greater good which, in my opinion, is the freedom from the threat posed by the despot regimes currently controlling most of the oil.
Posted by: Ed | Sep 13, 2006 1:25:45 PM
"A friend of mine takes home barely $1100 per month after taxes. Tacking on a couple dollars per gallon onto his monthly fuel bill would cost him dearly"
$1100 per month? I don't see how he could afford to drive even if the gas was free. Maybe he should take a bus?
Posted by: Herb Sewl | Sep 13, 2006 1:36:57 PM
Anno:
Nobody controls the market, though OPEC sure tries. But we, supposedly, control how much our goverment taxes us. That is the difference.
Herb:
Have you considered that he may not live in a town where public transportation is available? My friend is just one example. There are thousands of small towns with no buses, where a car, even an old junker, is an absolute necessity.
Posted by: Cervus | Sep 13, 2006 1:46:27 PM
Gas prices are down, the November election is starting up.
Just a coincidence? I think not.
Posted by: Dursun | Sep 13, 2006 1:52:36 PM
Cervus,
See, if there were an extravagant gas tax of some manner instituted many years ago then the current situation which began since 2000 would have had little to no impact as the taxes could have been lowered to keep the sudden spike in prices from being noticed at all. As supply stays steady or slightly decreases and demand increases such a cushion seems to be a no-brainer to me because as another major calamity occurs your friend will be SOL as he will have no time to adapt to the sudden increase in price. With a gas tax phased in over time (Yeah, I proposed something other than a gas tax in other posts) he would have time to adjust and a sudden spike in price would be absorbed by the gas tax being lowered. Making $7.50/hr, as your friend does with 40 hour work weeks, seems to indicate he has bigger problems than paying for gas.
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 13, 2006 2:13:14 PM
Patrick:
Not allowing the price to fluctuate with the market conditions is a recipe for shortage. Price controls are bad idea.
Posted by: Cervus | Sep 13, 2006 2:58:46 PM
Cervus, I think it would help people understand your position a lot better if you let everyone know that you don't really think green house emissions are a serious problem. At the very least that you think there is a high degree of uncertainty that they are a problem. You may insist that your attitude towards taxation are independant of GH concerns but I suspect that if you were convinced of their importance to the degree of many of us here, a carbon tax may make more sense to you. You and many of us here will never agree on the importance of changing the status quo when we are starting from quite different GHG assumptions.
Posted by: marcus | Sep 13, 2006 3:01:18 PM
Cervus, your sentiment is flawed in that you are applying the opposite of what I state: artificially controlling the prices to be below market value. I, only suggest controlling market prices through taxation to keep them above a certain threshhold at which point, if shortage becomes a reality the price would take it above what the taxes had it at anyways. This would in fact cushion the effects of a shortage and delay them. If the price is artificially higher there will be more supply as demand will be less. As the price rises and the tax is relinquished to compensate the demand will stay relatively the same (artificially suppressed) until the point at which the fair market value exceeds the lower tax threshold. The case you suggest, no taxation at all, would actually be far worse for supplies and cause demand to be great until market values are high causing the supply to run short much faster.
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 13, 2006 3:11:31 PM
Point of order: All taxes are social engineering. All tax deductions are social engineering. Either the taxing agency intentionally is doing social engineering or it is doing so unintentionally.
Personal opinion: I believe we need a carbon tax. It should start low and gradually but inexorably increase. It should tax all fossil fuels, not just transportation. (This would incrementally increase coal much more than oil or natural gas.) The revenue generated should be pooled and evenly divided among the citizenry and legal residents.
Posted by: Bill Young | Sep 13, 2006 3:52:38 PM
Marcus:
I think that the laser focus on CO2 ignores other significant climate forcings based on land use, clouds, and aerosols, "http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/04/27/what-fraction-of-global-warming-is-due-to-the-radiative-forcing-of-increased-atmospheric-concentrations-of-co2/">as explained by Dr. Pielke. I think that the level of uncertainty in GCMs makes their conclusions suspect. I think that the Wegman Report and the debunking of the Hockey Stick gives me reason to doubt the objectivity of a significant portion of the climate scientist community. And I think Dr. Lindzen's complaint that dissenters discouraged from speaking out holds some weight.
I also think that in the light of the lifestyle changes we're being asked to make by people like you, said science must bear very close scrutiny and a high level of certainty. Because if we do X when we should be doing Y, there might be no way to to Y. Especially if X involves restricting individual liberty.
I regard peak oil as a more immediate problem and I see the way to solve it are fuel algae bioreactors that, as fortune has it, also soak up a lot of CO2 from natural gas and coal-fired powerplants.
I would also prefer to find compromise rather than endlessly argue back and forth.
Am I clear?
Posted by: Cervus | Sep 13, 2006 4:01:26 PM
Oh my... Robotic purveyers of... I have heard no one suggest redirecting windfall profits from refiners into a fund specifically to build out alternative distribution. Consumers will not adopt a new fuel unless it is available. Since biofuels and ethanol both require retrofitting - how about asking the guys making 400% profit margins to kick in for their next gen pumps? Forcing people to adopt via higher costs precludes the idea that non-robotic people will see the benefit to 100mpg hardware. This requires less 'social engineering' and greater understanding of human nature.
Posted by: transparent | Sep 13, 2006 4:15:37 PM
I've stated my revenue-neutral ideas on US gas taxes often enough on this forum, so I won't do so again. I do, however, want to caution against the idea of having the government maintain a lower threshold for prices at the pump.
In e.g. Germany, fuel excise duty represents the second largest line item of federal government income. This has indeed achieved the effect of substantially and permanently shifting demand toward more fuel-efficient vehicles (relative to the US experience). However, switching from a fixed to a variable excise duty rate would concentrate all the volatility of world oil markets on the finance ministry, which is already struggling to get the budget deficit back under 3%. The US deficit, in spite of higher GDP growth, is currently already ~5%.
Note that the current high but fixed excise duty already sustantially reduces consumer price volatility. It is also far easier to administer and less prone to fraud.
Ergo: IF (big if) the US were ever to decide to tax gasoline and diesel as heavily as Europe already does, it should stick with the established fixed excise duty model and simply change the duty level.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Sep 13, 2006 4:33:53 PM
"Nobody controls the market"
Ri-iiiight. It's all "natural" movement -- like the recent precipitous drop in gasoline prices.
Posted by: anno | Sep 13, 2006 4:58:15 PM
"I would also prefer to find compromise rather than endlessly argue back and forth."
So, like flat earthers and sphere-earthers should just split the difference? The fact that there's an argument doesn't mean that what's right is in the middle, or that there is an equal number of people on sides of a given debate.
The climate change debate is over. Anyone still haggling about it at this point is fringe.
Posted by: anno | Sep 13, 2006 5:00:53 PM
Cervus, you are clear.
Hockey stick debunked??
The Wegman report never attempted to assess whether the deficiencies in statistical methodology they found changed Mann's overall conclusion. In fact correcting as Wegman et al suggest hardly changes anything! See here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/
Secondly, two congressional comittee hearings as well as a much more comprehensive review of the Hockeystick study by the National Academy of Sciences reinforces an overall conclusion that we are in a period of rapid warming and that it is likely to be caused by us.
I have already commented on your approach of cherry picking the people you choose to believe. It's a dead giveaway for someone who isn't going to be convinced no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary.
We really are only arguing back and forth about climate change since if I also thought GHGs werern't a big issue then I probably wouldn't want a carbon tax either. Until you have a some kind of change in attitude towards climate change you and I as well as many others will always disagree about the role of government in changing the economy.
Posted by: marcus | Sep 13, 2006 6:00:00 PM
Cervus:
Please tell us how you and your sefl-supported poors managed to survive when gas price (naturally) jumped for less than one dollar to $3+?
The answer is that you all survived and kept on buying more gas guzzlers.
We all know that OPEP and large oil firms fix the price of oil and gas as they feel like and $billions are going out of USA every week to enrich those guys.
The revenues from a progressive (one or two cents per month) carbon/gas tax would stay home and could be used to reduce the current high budget deficit, finance more costly wars of terror, raise national security, lower income taxes for the poors, enhance the national health program, help finance the bankrupt retirement program, build and repair roads, accellerate the development of more efficient batteries, PHEVs, cellulosic ethanol and butanol, progressively reduce fossil fuel consumption and eliminate oil imports within 20 years.
A good politician could win an election or two with all those goodies.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Sep 13, 2006 6:55:55 PM
Cervus whines:
Using taxes for social engineering, as many here propose, is wrong. It is not the goverment's job to manipulate gasoline demand via regressive fuel taxation.But it is government's job to subsidize gasoline demand through depletion allowances, the military, road building and other means? <cough>
The real cost of gasoline (all externalities included) is estimated to be about $8/gallon, and that's if it doesn't come from the Middle East. The ME adds about $3/gallon.
I used to be a flaming libertarian, but I grew up. As long as the US is a nation and has national interests, it may legitimately use its powers - including taxation - to promote those interests. If running US transportation on something other than petroleum (especially Middle-east petroleum) is in the national interest, the powers of government may be legitimately used to bring about that end.
Of course, crashing the economy is not in the national interest. This rules out extreme, sudden or unworkable schemes.
A friend of mine takes home barely $1100 per month after taxes. Tacking on a couple dollars per gallon onto his monthly fuel bill would cost him dearly....Would you like some cheese to go with that whine?
The US uses about 140 billion gallons of gasoline a year, plus another ~60 billion gallons of diesel. The US has about 145 million employed people. If there was an extra $2/gallon tax on motor fuel, it would yield about $400 billion dollars per year. Paid back evenly to each worker, it would come to about $2760 a head.
I seriously doubt that your friend burns more than 1000 gallons of fuel a year, even by proxy; he'd be way ahead with such a deal.
The irony is that "don't hurt the poor!" was the reason for imposing CAFE regulations instead of fuel taxes in the first place... and now look where we are!
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Sep 13, 2006 7:14:11 PM
Harvey:
When you start talking "Conspiracy!" I start snoring. Go watch the ups and downs of the commodities market on Bloomberg for a few weeks and get back to me. Recent events have flushed a lot of speculators out of the market, resulting in a drop in prices. This is how it goes.
As for the rest of you argument, the investment in alternative fuels will have to come from the private sector. Not some poorly-run, pork-ridden goverment boondoggle.
Marcus:
Until last year I didn't know that climate scientists like Dr. Lindzen and Peilke existed. It seemed like a good idea to give them a fair shake. So I have, and I've read up on the skeptics. They do exist. And they bring up points to ponder that tend to reinforce one another. Here's an article in USA Today from Dr. Craig Bohren:
Skeptics about global warming are often painted as hirelings of the oil and automotive industries. Such claims irritate me. I have never earned a nickel as a consequence of my skepticism. Indeed, I have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars by it. First, you have to understand how a large research university operates. The professors are expected to obtain research grants, and in the atmospheric sciences these grants come mostly from government agencies.In the atmospheric sciences it is difficult to get grants unless you can somehow tie your work to global warming, that is to say, to scare science. Because of my reputation, I immodestly believe that I could have jumped onto the global warming bandwagon. But I refused to do so because I would have found this repugnant.
At some universities, professors get only a fraction of their salary from the university, the rest coming from contracts and grants. Research associates and research professors often must scrounge for 100% of their salaries.
Professors not only directly profit from their research grants (summer salaries), they also indirectly profit. If Professor X has grants amounting to millions of dollars, this gives him leverage. He wants more money so he threatens to leave and take his bags of money with him if he doesn't get a whopping raise. Or he plays one university off against another. He gets an offer from another university in order to pressure his present university to increase his salary. I have seen this done many times. The system of federal grants, which hardly existed before (World War II), has created a professoriate with greater allegiance to government agencies than to their universities.
Professors who get research money to work on aspects of global warming are not doing anything dishonest or illegal. This is not graft. But when it is in the best financial and career interests of professors to raise the alarm about global warming (or anything), we should be skeptical.
You claim "cherry picking", but I don't think my skepticism is unfounded. I don't see why I should just dismiss these qualified scienstists out of hand.
As for the "Hockey Stick", the NAS panel never specifically endorsed Mann. See Steve McIntyre's posts:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=812
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=810
And an article about McIntyre and McKitrick's original work debunking the Hockey Stick:
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/32-Global_Warming_Bombshell.htm
Posted by: Cervus | Sep 13, 2006 7:35:13 PM
Cervus I think I have made my points adequately and your latest post just reinforces my arguments. I don't hope to change your mind, just debunk your posts.
Posted by: marcus | Sep 13, 2006 8:30:10 PM
Marcus:
Fine. It's not like I really expected to convince you of anything either.
Posted by: Cervus | Sep 13, 2006 8:45:33 PM
Cervus is a plain denialist. He doesn't want global warming to be true, so everything which indicates that it is must be faulty, a conspiracy, paid sycophancy, etc.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Sep 13, 2006 8:50:05 PM
"Recent events have flushed a lot of speculators out of the market, resulting in a drop in prices. This is how it goes."
Ri-iiiight.
Just because you can construct some storyline, doesn't make it so. The drop in pump prices has been particularly steep and rapid, outpacing declines in oil prices. You think this is all "natural"? That the "finding" of some massive reserve in the Gulf is just "naturally occurring" right as election season kicks in? And that events in the Middle East are unfolding "naturally"? And that somehow this "flushing out speculators" theory is even remotely plausible as the singular cause of some steep drop?
It sure must be nice living in a false reality like that -- where all markets are free and unfettered and uninfluenced. In my reality, I predicted this steep drop-off months ago -- and it had nothing to do with any sort of "market forces".
Posted by: anno | Sep 13, 2006 9:18:31 PM
"Fine. It's not like I really expected to convince you of anything either."
Then why post the same thing over and over again? Have you won anyone over with it?
Posted by: anno | Sep 13, 2006 9:19:55 PM
Nick:
That's isn't exactly accurate. Not sure about your 440mg (I may have been looking at world usage) But 6x more effecient doesn't mean 6 x reduced consumption. And the mileage figures don't add up in real world use. an EV would have to go 270 miles on the same btu's as my toyota tercel goes 45 miles and still maintain an acceptable performance level (or at least that of my tercel). it will take alot more then a 13% increase in power generation.
Posted by: Scott58 | Sep 13, 2006 11:10:03 PM
Power generation would need to be increased gradually as PHEV / EV users grew. There's no way millions of people are going to rush out and buy a rather expensive vehicle that's new to the market in an instant (GM assuming it should be that way is perhaps an indication of their level of competence) and many users may choose to power their cars with rooftop solar, as they did with EVs.
Posted by: Erick | Sep 13, 2006 11:50:36 PM
" ... I predicted this steep drop-off months ago -- and it had nothing to do with any sort of "market forces".
In that case, you can make millions in the options (futures)markets so you won't need to tax all your inferiors. You would be able to fund your own programs without forceing others to do your bidding.
Rick, an engineer and defender of freedom
Posted by: Freedom_First | Sep 13, 2006 11:52:52 PM
" ... I predicted this steep drop-off months ago -- and it had nothing to do with any sort of "market forces".
In that case, you can make millions in the options (futures)markets so you won't need to tax all your inferiors. You would be able to fund your own programs without forceing others to do your bidding.
Rick, an engineer and defender of freedom
Posted by: Freedom_First | Sep 13, 2006 11:53:56 PM
Additional taxes on gasoline will reduce gasoline demand, which will drive price of crude oil down. Since Arab’s oil is inherently cheaper then US, it will lead to decline of domestic oil production and to even more dependency on foreign oil for US.
There is no co-incident that proponents of gasoline taxes, carbon taxes, oil companies windfall taxes, and even car haters, tree huggers, and neo-paternalists are uniformly and brutally pushing GHG hysteria. This bogus offers unbeatable excuse to force the whole world to adapt their ideas.
Posted by: Andrey | Sep 14, 2006 2:33:31 AM
Thread Robot Battle Results
Team Score
"Social engineering! Humbug!" Nil
"Raise gas taxes." Won.
Posted by: Shaun Williams | Sep 14, 2006 5:21:15 AM
Scott58: Actual power delivered to wheels from motor fuel in the USA is only about 180 GW (the energy consumed is vastly greater, but that's due to low powertrain efficiency). This is about 40% of average electric generation, a mere 3% of which comes from petroleum. Moving most demand to electricity via PHEV's and making those vehicles more efficient could slash total energy demand (because stationary powerplants start at over twice the 14.9% efficiency of the average powertrain and go up to 4 times that).
Improvements from better vehicle design for lower drag, etc. would cut energy needs even more.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Sep 14, 2006 5:22:01 AM
Electric generation plants are more than twice as efficient as gasoline engines. It is the transmission, transformers, etc that drastically reduce the amount of available energy. If, as EVs and PHEVs exand across the US they simultaneously begin to improve the infrastructure no increase in power generation will be needed. Only around 34% of the energy from fuels gets to the end user as electricity...around 15-20% of those losses are from transmission.
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 14, 2006 7:51:31 AM
"In that case, you can make millions in the options (futures)markets so you won't need to tax all your inferiors. You would be able to fund your own programs without forceing others to do your bidding."
Thanks for completely missing the point with a fantasy driven from a selfish perspective. Point is - markets act about as naturally as humans do, which means not very much.
Posted by: anno | Sep 14, 2006 8:40:46 AM
"Thanks for completely missing the point with a fantasy driven from a selfish perspective."
It is the tax and spenders who are selfish. They believe that they know best and want to force others to conform.
It is like Mr. Bush and his war party forceing their way onto the Arabs. My perspective is,live and let live. Peaceful persuasion, yes. Compulsion, no thanks. Would you like to be forced to fund my plans?
I don't think so.
Rick
Posted by: Freedom_First | Sep 14, 2006 9:43:30 AM
Engineer-poet:
My point exactly it doesn't matter what the efficiency of one component is. It's the end result that matters. Ericks point is are only saving grace in that alot of people aren't going to rush out and buy one and that gives us the chance to increase gradually (if we are smart enough to do that) Not to mention the numbers aren't fixed. As our population increases the demand increases. btu for btu this is not going to be an easy replacement. Someone may say "it's only" 3% or "it's only" 13% or whatever, but that percentage point is equal to alot of btu's and the percentage needed this year is less then what will be needed in the future. We are not in a very good position.
Posted by: Scott58 | Sep 14, 2006 9:46:25 AM
"It is the tax and spenders who are selfish. They believe that they know best and want to force others to conform."
Where did I propose a tax? Any spending?
Thanks for playing.
Posted by: anno | Sep 14, 2006 10:49:29 AM
Rick,
"They believe that they know best and want to force others to conform."
You mean like requiring young children to wear seatbelts and the very young to be in a child safety seat?
On a list of additional features electronic stability control tends to rank dead last, yet such a feature could mitigate over 10,000 deaths and 150,000 injuries every year on the highways (due to roll-overs and accidents caused by loss of control). Because of this the automakers have been slow to move such technology into cars other than SUVs which have a much higher chance of rollovers...and now the Fed govt is about to introduce a rule requiring all vehicles to have such a safety system by 2012...once again I guess we should stop forcing people to take things they don't care about and let market forces rule right? BTW- since you believe that make sure you pay my share of the insurance costs induced by your choice.
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 14, 2006 12:15:38 PM
Scott58
Actually, we're in a great position. That's because wind is the single largest form of new electrical generation, and there's plenty of it. The only obstacle for wind is intermittency, and the charging of plug-in's would provide a wonderful cushion for electrical demand. Wind and PHEV's were made for each other.
Posted by: Nick | Sep 14, 2006 2:38:01 PM
Cervus,
I apologize for the sarcasm. It's never a good idea to make cheap points that way.
OTOH, my points still stand. When I hear someone complain about "social engineering", I suspect that they haven't really thought through the relationships between government and economics, and simply have different priorities for government action.
So, let me ask, in order to explore the legitimate uses of taxation: do you feel that such things as reduced capital gains taxes, mortgage deductions and elimination of inheritance taxes are ok?
Second, would you agree that markets are made more efficient by the inclusion of external costs, such as pollution?
Posted by: Nick | Sep 14, 2006 2:44:59 PM
The problem with just letting "market forces take over" is that works best when a commodity with a monopoly is very stable (like detergent for your clothes...you have choices like tide, all, etc but detergent is still nearly the only way to get your clothes clean and there will not be any major supply disruptions in detergent) or there are multiple disparate sources that could replace an item with a sudden disruption in supply (food for example: If mad cow desease suddenly causes beef prices to skyrocket and supply of safe cows to dwindle it is okay because you could switch to chicken, pork, or fish).
In the case of a commodity with no replacement (oil for transportation) that is highly volatile (supply disruptions in unstable or unfriendly countries) you need outside controls to help the market move appropriately otherwise the market will collapse (and you get poor people on CNN talking about how they are choosing between paying for food & gas). There is a reason why the govt. steps in to end certain strikes by unions...they don't want the market to crash. Unfortuneately, despite our foolhardy efforts, the govt. can't go into other countries to forcibly end their "strikes" (so to speak) and thus the only other way govt can try to control the market is by instituting controls. Europe used gas taxes and we used CAFE. Which nation has a more efficient fleet of vehicles (go ahead and exclude all diesels in the comparison to make it a *fair* analysis).
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 14, 2006 4:34:00 PM
"Where did I propose a tax? Any spending?"
If you do not advocate taxes, my remarks do not apply to you.
In your post, Sep 13, 2006 12:49:56 PM, it looked to me that you were trying to ridicule someone who opposed energy taxes. But, it is nothing personal. I am just trying to point out the immorality of theft and violence to all those who advocate them.
Posted by: Freedom_First | Sep 14, 2006 6:04:51 PM
"You mean like requiring young children to wear seatbelts and the very young to be in a child safety seat?"
Yes. Other people's children do not belong to you. You are not the ruler of other people's lives even if you want to be. What is wrong with peaceful persuasion?
"BTW- since you believe that make sure you pay my share of the insurance costs induced by your choice."
In a free society, there would be no mandatory insurance and you would not be forced to pay for accidents caused by others. You would only be required to pay for damages that you caused. I hope that you do not oppose personal responsibility.
Posted by: Freedom_First | Sep 14, 2006 6:20:44 PM
"If you do not advocate taxes, my remarks do not apply to you."
Then why are you replying to me?
"In your post, Sep 13, 2006 12:49:56 PM, it looked to me that you were trying to ridicule someone who opposed energy taxes."
No, I was demonstrating that prices have already gone up two dollars in the past few years because of the "market". From a demand perspective, what drives the price level is irrelevant. It's illogical to draw some sort of distinction that a "natural" market movement is acceptable, even if the effect is painful, whereas an intentional action to raise prices is somehow wrong.
"I am just trying to point out the immorality of theft and violence to all those who advocate them."
Theft and violence? Please. Perhaps you should move to Angola and readjust your notions about what theft and violence are. Funny thing, a country like that is far more "libertarian" than this one.
Posted by: anno | Sep 14, 2006 6:41:11 PM
"Other people's children do not belong to you... In a free society..."
In a free society, other human beings wouldn't be considered ANYONE'S property. What makes you think someone's children is their property?
Posted by: anno | Sep 14, 2006 6:42:50 PM
Freedom First, Other people's children don't belong to me, but when they suffer catastrophic brain injuries due to their parents irresponsibility, I (and you) have to pay for it, through higher insurance rates and taxes. If a "freedom loving" biker doesn't want to wear a helmet, and turns himself into a vegetable, guess who pays? Not only do we pay for his care, but we lose the investment that we made in educating him from kindergarten through 12th grade (or whatever). You mentioned personal responsibility above, and that's an important point. I want people to be responsible for their actions, and not stick me with the cost of those actions. If I and my fellow taxpayers have payed to educate that person, if that person has enjoyed the benefits of this society that many of us have payed for, then they owe us a return on our investment before they kill themselves. That's personal responsibilty. None of us live in a bubble.
Posted by: spider | Sep 14, 2006 8:03:19 PM
"In a free society, other human beings wouldn't be considered ANYONE'S property. What makes you think someone's children is their property?"
I don't. It is you who wants to control them and their parents. I want you to respect their right to control their own lives even if you think that you know better.
--Rick
Posted by: Freedom_First | Sep 14, 2006 8:08:46 PM
Hello Spider
"If a "freedom loving" biker doesn't want to wear a helmet, and turns himself into a vegetable, guess who pays? Not only do we pay for his care, but we lose the investment that we made in educating him from kindergarten through 12th grade (or whatever)."
I am opposed to forceing people to pay for other peoples responsibilities including educational services. The laws that force people to do so are wrong.
Posted by: Freedom_First | Sep 14, 2006 8:19:38 PM
Hello anno
"Then why are you replying to me?"
As I tried to explain, I was responding to all the people in this group who want to use government force to get what they want. It was not personal to you unless the shoe fits.
"Theft and violence? Please."
Theft as in taking someone's property against their will. How do you define theft?
"Perhaps you should move to Angola and readjust your notions about what theft and violence are. Funny thing, a country like that is far more "libertarian" than this one."
If you are saying that the Angolan government is more criminal than the U.S. gov, why would anyone want to move there?
Posted by: Freedom_First | Sep 14, 2006 8:34:55 PM
" I want people to be responsible for their actions, and not stick me with the cost of those actions."
I agree. But it is the current system that is stcking you, not them. You are being forced to pay for them.
Posted by: Freedom_First | Sep 14, 2006 8:45:39 PM
Interesting diversion from the focused exploration of green economics applied to automotive transportation.
Learning to construct an equitable society without demanding escalating taxes is, in action, taking personal responsibility. It is accepting the challenge of living within society's properly limited means. A healthy society is able to include people from diverse beliefs, lifestyles and backgrounds, i.e. acceptance of non-conformity is a strength. Education comes not only from public schooling but from the wisdom of family, friends and mentors - unpaid by anyone. To believe one is entitled to a 'return on investment' betrays the thinking of the moneychanger demanding his pound of flesh. Let's not forget how that turns out.
This forum's far more cerebral (and serious) than Popular Mechanics!
Posted by: transparent | Sep 14, 2006 9:29:14 PM
Here is my prescription for producing more fuel efficient, clean cars which does not require more taxes, laws, coercion, violence, prisons, or foreign invasions.
First. Because of the increase in energy costs, peak oil, and environmental concerns, There is a big demand for more fuel efficient, cleaner, and smaller cars. Not everyone wants them but millions do.
Second. There is an alternative to the traditional ICE auto that exists today. Namely, the serial hybrid. An electric drive train, battery pack, and an on-board, ICE generator. A small ICE (say 20 hp) that runs at a constant RPM under a constant load is much more efficient than the 100+ hp monsters with all their anti-polution devices. These monstrocities are another reason to go electric. They have gotten impossible to repair. There is no room under the hood. Changeing a simple part can an usually does require major surgery.
According to knowledgeable people here and elsewhere, such a machine can reduce gas consumption by 80%. A tremendous achievement by any standard. And, there is no need to wait for better, cheaper, longer-lasting batteries even though they are sorely needed. NiMH will work now.
The plan is to release human energy. Declare a moratorium on taxes, regulations, licences, permits, registrations, etc. for anyone who wants to build or work on these vehicles. Encourage thousands of individuals and groups to build efficient cars. The little guys can lead the way. Encourage thousands of Wright brothers, backyard mechanics, co-ops, etc. to join in. Design and build kit cars, etc. There is no technological barriers to building these cars, NOW.
By the way, if the Wright brothers had to work under the current tax and regulatory burden, they probably would not have gotten off the ground. They probably would have been arrested for not having all the correct papers.
More freedom. Lower the barriers that protect big business and the powerful from competition. Let the little guy in on the action. It is human energy that creates and solves problems. --Rick
PS. I just remembered seeing on this site a three wheeled car produced by some MIT students that looked more practical, efficient, and cheaper than anything I have seen from the big boys. It might sell millions if it were legal. And that was accomplised by just one small group of people. Inspireing.
Posted by: Freedom_First | Sep 14, 2006 11:23:40 PM
Rafael, A-u-u-u-u!!
Have you got my point that carbon tax is a non-sciencefiction for US?
Posted by: Andrey | Sep 15, 2006 2:08:09 AM
I like Freedom First's idea. I think all this talk about taxes is premature when America's top leaders haven't even *asked* the people to conserve gasoline. There's been no leadership, no rallying of the people to deal with the problem -- or even really admit that there's a problem. GW admitted America is addicted to oil, but stopped short of suggesting that anybody do anything about it. What kind of message is that? Big SUVs and hemi-powered musclecars are considered as American as mom and apple pie. Who is trying to change that attitude? Anybody? If the president came out and told the people they have a patriotic duty to burn less gasoline and help the country get off oil, the people would respond. (It sure would hack off the oil industry and SUV+musclecar manufacturers, though.)
Posted by: Zobeid | Sep 15, 2006 6:51:09 AM
Freedom First,
I have a lot of sympathy for your libertarian approach, but I think you're missing something: the concept of external costs.
If I grew corn, but my fertilizer ruined my neighbor's farm, I would be stealing from my neighbor in the process, and growing corn which might not be economic to grow if the cost to my neighbor were inclued. If the town measured the cost to my neighbor, and imposed a tax on my corn to reimburse the neighbor, that would be correcting the situation.
We're in the same situation with fossil fuels. There are many costs which are not included: global warming, acid rain, occupational health, military costs, etc, etc. To impose a tax is to reduce this theft, and make free markets more efficient by providing the proper price signals.
Does this make sense to you?
Posted by: Nick | Sep 15, 2006 8:28:05 AM
I see the robot's been very busy.
"Taxes!"
"Theft!"
[repeat]
Posted by: rb | Sep 15, 2006 8:37:52 AM
rb,
That's pretty funny, but too pessimistic. People can discuss things, learn, and change their minds. Heck, otherwise we're wasting our time here.
Posted by: Nick | Sep 15, 2006 8:54:03 AM
What have you learned on this thread, Nick? Particularly from the robotic "taxes! - that's theft!" volley?
Posted by: rb | Sep 15, 2006 9:03:16 AM
rb,
I haven't learned anything on this thread, but I learn things everyday from one or another.
If you want to improve things, I suggest you address your comments to an individual, and make them specific and detailed.
What are you hoping to accomplish by your comments? Just entertainment? If not, then you might want to engage more fully.
Posted by: Nick | Sep 15, 2006 10:41:18 AM
The current regulatory burden would not be there if the Wright brothers were making their first flight right now as regulations tend to be reactive not proactive in governing new frontiers. Did you notice how long it took for the Digital Copyrights acts to come out? Notice with the possible future for commercial space travel the regulations governing space vehicles are being released and lessened. Your analogy is inadequate.
Tell me, when mr. biker who doesn't likes helmets crashes and is in need of the services of a doctor but he lacks insurance (personal responsibility) or he lacks enough insurance (standard limits in place currently with our health care system) then your solution is non-interference and that since he can't pay he should only be given the level of care which matches his funds? Either you are rich or you better be extremely lucky and never end up in such a situation. I hope you plan to build your own roads as I would not want you driving on any roads my tax dollars helped to pave - that would be THEFT.
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 15, 2006 12:00:10 PM
BTW my short sighted "Freedom" fighter- how will you pay for the military to defend your country? As a mercenary force based on each mission of defense? How will they stay trained? You would be quite naieve to think a military is not a necessity for a country to protect its interests. It is actually quite naieve to believe that everyone will even bother to take personal responsibility for themselves. In fact, I think I'm going to go tell my kids they need to fix their own darn supper tonight because they should show some personal responsibility and they will have to find their own transportation means to the daycare and school. Don't expect me to stop at a red light while you cross the intersection either because I don't need any darn traffic lights or authorities controlling me and telling me when I can or cannot cross the road...[make sure you mail a check to the government to reimburse them for the infrastructure laid out to carry your data transmission before you reply so you can take personal responsibility for your internet use. Not all communications backbones are commercially owned and operated]
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 15, 2006 1:27:07 PM
Hello Nick
"If I grew corn, but my fertilizer ruined my neighbor's farm,.."
When the gov protects individual rights including property rights, no one has the right to pollute your property.
Global warming of one or two degrees does not alarm me. On the very remote chance that it becomes worse, there are many solutions such as putting molecules in the upper atmosphere that reflect radiation. Likewise, if we head to a new ice age, we could pump more GHG into the atmosphere.
I do agree with your analysis and my opposition to CO2
tax is not cast in stone. I could agree as long as some other tax is eliminated.
--Rick
Posted by: Freedom_First | Sep 15, 2006 5:26:36 PM
Hello Nick
"If I grew corn, but my fertilizer ruined my neighbor's farm,.."
When the gov protects individual rights including property rights, no one has the right to pollute your property.
Global warming of one or two degrees does not alarm me. On the very remote chance that it becomes worse, there are many solutions such as putting molecules in the upper atmosphere that reflect radiation. Likewise, if we head to a new ice age, we could pump more GHG into the atmosphere.
I do agree with your analysis and my opposition to CO2
tax is not cast in stone. I could agree as long as some other tax is eliminated.
--Rick
Posted by: Freedom_First | Sep 15, 2006 5:27:55 PM
Hello Patrick
"Tell me, when mr. biker who doesn't likes helmets crashes and is in need of the services of a doctor but he lacks insurance.. "
There are alternatives to compulsion and theft such as charity, the kindness of strangers, people helping people because they want to not because they are forced. The addiction to force is destroying the planet.
No one is guarranteed protection from life's problems, uncerntanties, and death. Rich people can be very unhappy and they die all the time despite their wealth.
The gas taxes that pay for roads are an example of a just tax because it is like a user fee.
The Wright Bros, Edison, Whitney, etc. were free to devote their energies to do what they want, not to do what they were told by people who are addicted to power and control.
Rick
Posted by: Freedom_First | Sep 15, 2006 5:44:40 PM
Hello Patrick
"BTW my short sighted "Freedom" fighter"
I don't like your insulting attitude but I understand
your immaturity.
"- how will you pay for the military to defend your country?"
The military does not defend me or my country. On the contrary, they engage in unnecessary, aggressive, and immoral wars. Wars of aggression, bombing and invadeing countries which have not attacked us are war crimes as defined by the Nuremberg trials which the U.S. supported.
FYI, the people who founded the U.S. were all opposed to a standing military. They studied history and knew that the biggest threat to liberty did come from foreign devils.
"I think I'm going to go tell my kids they need to fix their own darn supper tonight because they should show some personal responsibility and they will have to find their own transportation means to the daycare and school."
You are confusing adult and parental responsibilities, with children and making yourself look foolish in the process.
Rick
Posted by: Freedom_First | Sep 15, 2006 6:07:17 PM
rb
Do you have any objections with alowing people to build electric-drive vehicles, or fuel efficient cars, or parts without burdening them with licences, fees, permits, registrations, insurance, red tape, and lawyers?
Rick, freedom advocate and occasional robot for good causes
Posted by: Freedom_First | Sep 15, 2006 9:04:08 PM
I'm sorry you completely misinterpreted the point of a standing military. I do not mean how would you pay for the current US military as it is being run but in your imaginary idealistic society where everyone is magically good and wholesome, how will a military for defense purposes be funded?
The point with the statements in regards to children is just to emphasize the pointlessness of your sentiments and how they have little bearing on reality.
Now, as far as fees go for building electric drive vehicles I see that you are more of the "open source" thought where everyone should contribute for the good of all mankind and not for personal gain or profit. Unfortuneately it has been shown time and again with countless examples that the motivation for some of the most creative and ingenious individuals is just not there when they have nothing to gain. In general people are selfish at some level (they may work in a soup kitchen on the weekends or volunteer to rebuild housing New Orleans but still expect to be paid if they put several years into devising some ingenious invention that brings an improvement to the tables).
Would it be nice to actually have a world as you describe it? Sure. It will never happen though. There are too many who would take advantage and who would not conform to the system as you seem to believe it should be...
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 16, 2006 10:19:28 PM
Nice to see you backpeddling and contradicting yourself there Freedom Fighter. First you give a blanket statement that all Taxes are bad and now you claim taxes towards roads are just as they are a user fee. Why? All roads should just be privately owned and you pay your user fee to the owner of the road as you drive on it. There should be no taxes!
BTW- I'm the one who suggests the far more insidious instatement of gas rationing rather than carbon taxes. Eliminate gas guzzler fees on vehicles and instead institute an actual gas guzzler fee at the pump. Go over your ration and you tip into the gas guzzler fee so you could drive whatever you want as long as you don't actually waste gas (or you can just pay the fee for wasting gas). That would probably help companies more than consumers though as many people with a company car tend to abuse the heck out of it and I bet that would be reigned in quite quickly.
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 16, 2006 10:33:52 PM
The interesting thing about Mr. Jackson’s call for gas taxes was that it was from an industry insider/mogul representing a large group of car dealers. Does he have a dog in the fight, is he hoping that existing cars go obsolete sooner to boost new sales?
Libertarians should embrace the gas tax as if it was a user fee. Burning gas has the societal costs of road maintenance, safety & emergency as well as global warming and geopolitical strife requiring US defense. (Bush calls it defending the American way of life) Getting the revenue from gas sales is a good way to accurately assess the gas burners.
A good way to minimize driving is internet shopping. Public policy ought to encourage online shopping and subsidize/ securitize GREEN shipping and delivery.
Hydrogen power seems to make pretty good sense for fleet vehicles such as Fedex and UPS, buses, taxis, and governments bc they can refuel at their own depots, are used every day (not much evaporation) and can be maintained as a fleet. Also fleet owners are good at negotiating their own tax breaks and energy costs. Fleet owners could run their own cylinder exchange system, and buy green energy as a moral stockholder – customer preference.
People drive SUV’s bc they think they are practical, won’t get stuck, and increase their chances of survival in a crash. And for status and intimidation. None of these are factually very strong reasons for buying an SUV, but Green cars must answer those needs. Also people like the upright driving position. Some of the hybrids seem to be trying to carve a niche in these areas. The automakers besides going green should find a way to make small cars scream “SAFE” or “CARGO VERSATILITY” as well as the sporty, cute, goes anywhere etc. that they have explored in conventional small cars.
To achieve safety in small cars I believe external airbags should be used within a system that recognizes and distinguishes between collision threats. A graduated set of bags would discharge on the outside of the car appropriate for collision with a pedestrian, a deer, an SUV, a side or a rear impact.
Some small cars already have a lot of cargo versatility but haven’t broadcast it with their styling. EV’s should also explore upright driving and how to make a small car seem more intimidating.
Ford should reawaken the Miata badge and create a line of PHEVs with various attributes, like Safe4People, sporty, cargo, commuter, 4wd. As well as their original cute Miata franchise which they are walking away from. Build Miata as a brand within a brand similar to Scion within Toyota. (Ford owns 51% of Mazda)
Does anyone have a line on hi-performance electric go-karts for commercial go-kart track use?
Posted by: Tom G | Sep 21, 2006 7:38:02 AM
Tom G : Nice ideas.
From the usual car,suv,van,pickup mix, the market has now got the cuv's which has already outsold suvs.
And now the Wagons, Hatchbacks like HHR, Scion-xB are also becoming popular. It wont be a surprise if even smaller cars (less than 150 inches / 3.75 meters) hit the market.
Toyota has already indicated that they will sell more smaller cars.
Posted by: Max Reid | Sep 21, 2006 11:42:46 AM
http://moscow.skbkontur.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1416
Posted by: Tarpupservarm | Jan 25, 2008 2:29:53 PM
rosie@triad29.com
rosieponder@verizon.net
Not only do they try to rip you off, they send your email out and you get a ton of junk mail.
Posted by: coewmerinmeve | Mar 2, 2008 2:00:00 PM
