« DOE Announces $17 Million for Plug-in Battery and E85 Engine Projects | Main | Tier 2 Bin 5 Diesel Jetta Makes its US Debut; Available in 2008 »
State of the Union Preview: Twenty in Ten
23 January 2007
Among the many policy initiatives President Bush will propose in his 2007 State of the Union Address tonight is the goal of reducing US gasoline usage by 20% in the next 10 years—“Twenty in Ten”—through a program that includes increasing the required use of renewable and alternative fuels and increasing fuel-efficiency standards for cars. The plan would result in reducing oil consumption by 10% in 2017, or 2 million barrels per day.
The White House released a compilation of all the policy initiatives today prior to the actual speech tonight.
To achieve the Twenty in Ten goal, the President will propose the following:
A 35 Billion Gallon Renewable Fuel Standard by 2017. This is nearly five times the 7.5 billion gallons by 2012 currently set by the existing Renewable Fuels Standard in law. Achieving the 35 billion gallon mark in 2017 would displace 15% of projected annual gasoline use.
The new proposal increases the scope of the current RFS, expanding it to an Alternative Fuel Standard (AFS) which includes sources such as corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, methanol, butanol, hydrogen, and other alternative fuels.
The EPA Administrator and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy will have authority to waive or modify the standard if they deem it necessary, and the new fuel standard will include an automatic “safety valve” to protect against unforeseen increases in the prices of alternative fuels or their feedstocks.
The increased and expanded fuel standard creates a tremendous incentive for research, development, and private investment into alternatives to oil, according to the Administration, and will encourage needed advances in crop yields, optimization of crops and cellulosic materials as fuel feedstock, and cost reduction in the production of cellulosic ethanol and other alternative fuels.
The 2008 Presidential budget provides $179 million for the President’s Biofuels Initiative, an increase of $29 million (19%) compared to the 2007 budget. The Biofuels Initiative aims to accelerate cost reduction and commercial development of cellulosic ethanol, which can be made from abundant biomass materials, including agricultural waste and forest residues, and from dedicated energy crops such as switchgrass.
Reforming Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards for Cars and Extending the Current Light Truck Rule. The Whitehouse suggests that the result would be a reduction in projected annual gasoline use by up to 8.5 billion gallons in 2017—a further 5% reduction.
Achieving that level of reduction assumes that on average, fuel efficiency standards for both light trucks and passenger cars are increased 4% per year, beginning in Model Year 2010 for cars and Model Year 2012 for light trucks.
The Secretary of Transportation will determine the actual standard and fuel savings in a flexible rulemaking process, according to the Administration. The President will insist that Congress not legislate a specific numeric fuel economy standard, but leave that to the Secretary of Transportation.
Congress reformed the CAFE rules for light-trucks in 2006 (earlier post), but left the rules for cars untouched. The reformed CAFE rules for light-trucks establishes individual targets for automakers based on a combination of different targets based on vehicle footprints and the composition of the automakers’s new car fleets. The President is asking Congress to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to apply the same kind of attribute-based method to passenger cars.
The proposal also would allow automakers to buy and sell CAFE credits.
Reducing Congestion, Commute Times and Associated Fuel Consumption. In 2003, drivers in America’s 85 most congested urban areas experienced 3.7 billion hours of travel delay and wasted 2.3 billion gallons of fuel, costing a total of $63 billion.
The 2008 Budget redirects DOT funds to a new $175 million highway congestion initiative for the demonstration of ideas to address this problem including: congestion pricing, commuter transit services, commitments from employers to expand work schedule flexibility, and faster deployment of real-time traffic information.
Stepping Up Domestic Oil Production. The President will call for Congressional action to authorize oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to develop legislation to encourage investments in refinery capacity, and to encourage all parties to resolve remaining issues regarding the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.
Doubling The Current Capacity Of The Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The President will propose doubling the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to 1.5 billion barrels by 2027. Doubling the SPR will provide approximately 97 days of net oil import protection, enhancing America’s ability to respond to potential oil disruptions.
The SPR currently contains 691 million barrels. Due to increased consumption, this represents only 55 days of net oil imports. In 1985, the SPR, with 493 million barrels of oil, represented 118 days of net oil imports.
Resources:
January 23, 2007 in Biodiesel, Cellulosic ethanol, Fuel Efficiency, Policy | Permalink | Comments (55) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/7603408
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference State of the Union Preview: Twenty in Ten:
Comments
Here are some ideas to lower the oil usage of Americans immediately and not ten years from now.
(1) Increase the gas tax one penny per month for three years. So after 36 months, the federal oil tax would have raised 36 cents. Enough of an increase to change people's behavior, but low enough to not hurt people's pocketbooks. Plus, it is spread over three years.
(2) Have the Police enforce current speed limits without speed traps. Instead, the police cruiser will drive in the middle lane of a highway driving the speed limit (or 5 mph above the speed limit). The first person who passes the police cruiser to the left or right of the cruiser will be pulled over and given a ticket. This would upset many people, but it is the only way to get people to slow down (by hitting them with expensive speeding tickets). Plus, by people slowing down, the collective fuel economy of the nation would rise.
(3) Make all purchases of bus passes, subway passes, 100% tax deductible. Or better yet, let people take the bus or subway for free.
(4) Multi-passenger cars will not have to pay one toll in the country. This would encourage car-pooling. If cities/states/municipalities see toll revenue decrease, then raise tolls for people driving solo.
I can go on and on with more fascist like policies to lower oil usage, like banning all engines with more than six cylinders. Little things will help us in the long run.
Posted by: David | Jan 23, 2007 1:40:07 PM
I read somewhere that if the US car fleet had similar properties as the current European one, the amount of oil saved every year in the US would be equal to that of Russia's yearly production. This with existing technology... So the 20% in 10 years shouldn't be too hard of a goal.
Anyway I applaud Bush for this. Of course it could have happen sooner, and I don't agree with the AWR drilling. But, anyway, the direction is good.
Posted by: er | Jan 23, 2007 2:02:04 PM
er:
The difference between Europe and the United States is that our air quality standards are much stricter. We've therefore made a trade-off between air quality and fuel economy. We also have a higher birthrate and thus larger families, so we need bigger vehicles.
I'm still amazed that there isn't a hybrid full-sized SUV, though. A 30mpg Tahoe would make certain people grumble less.
One of the things I note is absent from this announcement is CTL. But then, the Democrats recently proposed a huge CTL bill. Oil prices also jumped over 4% on the SPD announcement.
Posted by: Cervus | Jan 23, 2007 2:12:31 PM
I'm disappointed that Bush didn't make a push for plug in hybrids or clean diesel...
Great ideas David, I'd like to add to them:
1. Have "Pace Cars" on heavily trafficked highways such as I-4 in Orlando, I-94 and I-55 in Chicago, etc. Basically a car in each lane traveling along side each other. They would travel at the speed limit, making it impossible for anyone behind them to speed.
2. Slap a $1 per gallon gas tax and have it fund either CTL or plug in hybrid development.
3. Have the DOE decide once and for all what fuels we will use going forward. E10 and B10 for the next 10 years would be a nice start. Having 10 different fuels will only confuse the consumer.
Posted by: John | Jan 23, 2007 2:31:17 PM
Most of these pie in the sky SUPPLY SIDE efforts to curb demand? Bush proposals won't make Ten in Twenty.
And then there is: "The President will insist that Congress not legislate a specific numeric fuel economy standard, but leave that to the Secretary of Transportation." - why?
And why no mention of dropping the E85 loophole?
Posted by: fyi CO2 | Jan 23, 2007 2:44:12 PM
BTW, nice points David!
Posted by: fyi CO2 | Jan 23, 2007 2:45:20 PM
How much did Archer Daniel Midland give to the Republican Party? The increase in corn to alcohol is a lobbyist's dream.
Posted by: Bill Young | Jan 23, 2007 2:53:57 PM
Smoke & mirrors and a double coat of Greenwashing.
Posted by: DS | Jan 23, 2007 3:00:18 PM
One major reason Europeans have more effecient cars is they have gas at 5-7 $ US / US Gallon of gasoline.
It the US had gas at this price, people would very quickly switch to more effeciant cars ( in 2-5 years ).
Noone "needs" a full size SUV, except perhaps a few farmers.
A 1$ / gallon tax would be a very good thing, even if you just used it to reduce the deficit.
The question is: do you bring it in all at once to get some "shock" effect or bring it in more slowly so people notice more - Say 3C / month for 3 years.
Even 5C / month for 3 years.
[ Or a "ratchet" tax - every time the price of Gas goes down, a tax is levied to take the reduction ]
The problem is could the government hold its nerve.
You could also consider providing health care for people with no insurance and that would offset the health problems associated with diesel fumes.
Posted by: mahonj | Jan 23, 2007 3:09:06 PM
I just read a report that said the true cost of gasoline (after you factor in all the subsidies) is $15.14 per gallon.
Just charge that. We'll hit the 20% goal (and then some) literally overnight. And probably also fix the budget deficit.
Posted by: DHofmann | Jan 23, 2007 3:10:14 PM
DHofmann:
Charging that much for gas would "literally overnight" plunge us into a Depression. Which isn't good for tax revenues. You would starve the poor and middle class alike.
When gas hit $3 last year the Democrats were using it to club Bush. I don't think they would do something that would hurt their constituents like a huge gas tax increase.
Posted by: Cervus | Jan 23, 2007 3:48:00 PM
Make a graduated tax starting at $30/barrel, such that at higher charges by OPEC, etc, there is an exponentially increasing tax to fund alternative research, efficiency, highways.... This would tend to buffer the OPEC price since we're not talking a free market.
Posted by: matt | Jan 23, 2007 3:55:49 PM
Twenty in ten is actually not only doable but a lowball estimate. Clean diesel is coming to the US, spark ignition engines are learning new tricks and, battery/ultracap technology is advancing by leaps and bounds. Not to mention there's now a booming market in domestically produced alternative fuels incl. ethanol. Much the same is true in Europe and Japan, further accelerating the global pace of innovation in fuel economy and energy independence.
What the Feds can sensibly do to nurse this process along is lay out a doable timetable for either
o phasing out CAFE + gas guzzler tax in favor of federal fuel taxes that rise slowly, predictably and for a long time or,
o aligning CAFE + gas guzzler MPG computation to the stricter one EPA will be using for showroom stickers PLUS closing the E85 loophole by switching to a metric of miles per lb of CO2 or miles per 1,000 BTU, whichever you prefer as a basis for comparison across different fuel grades. Note that PHEVs and BEVs can also be compared on this basis, if you use a realistic model for the electricity generating mix.
If ethanol is to be a key element of US energy security in the transportation sector, simply mandate E85 capability on 100% of new LDVs by e.g. MY 2010. The incremental mfg cost is only about $100.
o Individual states can help by shifting from vehicle license fees based on residual value of the vehicle to a new model based on EPA fuel economy estimates (based on new model) and the age of the car. Austria uses a mixed model, with a one-time fee based on fuel economy plus an annual fee based on rated engine power.
o The Feds and thee state of Michigan need to come up with some type of plan that allows both the Big Three and the UAW to gradually put their health care and retiree arrangement on a solid competitive footing. Any assumption of risks or operating expenses by state or federal government should, however, be closely linked to meeting negotiated performance targets in terms of fleet average fuel economy in excess of CAFE requirements.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Jan 23, 2007 4:53:14 PM
20%? Kid stuff.
We can get 20% in one day, literally.
I've seen several studies that say if people just eased off on the hard acceleration, it would save 25 to 30%. No new tech., no new taxes, no reduction in miles driven, etc.
Of course, getting Americans to do something like that in the real world would take a pretty extreme incentive, like a big gas tax increase.
My point is that we have a lot more "low hanging fruit" in potential conservation of energy, particularly in transportation, than many people (who don't read GCC) think, and that we can see pretty big savings with very little or no sacrifice, in any meaningful sense of the word.
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | Jan 23, 2007 7:22:36 PM
It amazes me that nearly all the proposed "solutions" here are to raise taxes. More and higher taxes aren't the solution to all our problems, they are problems in themselves. Give the public quality fuel efficient cars and they will buy them.
Posted by: ddashner | Jan 23, 2007 7:31:16 PM
Cervus,
Tahoe/Yukon 2mode hybrids are on the way (2nd half 2007), but they do not reach 30mpg...unless hypermiling or modded. Similarly with Silverado/Sierra 2modes.
Rafael Seidl,
Other uses for these taxes include:
a) Fully funding Dept of Transportation outlays (ie. highway, mass transit, rail, air, and sea transportation security and capacity improvement).
b) Fund R&D for new tech.
c) Fund pilot deployment programs (to get technology off the ground).
Posted by: allen_xl_Z | Jan 23, 2007 7:38:57 PM
A few days back I was reminded why few drive small cars in cummute here.
Morning rush to work.. 1 riny car slpattered with blood all over... then near destination anouther small car again utter wreck.
In each case tends of thousands were reminded that day why they wont buy a small car ever. We want tomake it home.
Posted by: wintermane | Jan 23, 2007 7:48:56 PM
Congress isn't going to raise gas taxes because they want to get re-elected, so stop dreaming! And who really that believes low oil/gas prices are going to stick around? People will buy higher mileage cars only when they have too. We can’t become more energy independent without a plan and at least this 20 in 10 is a start. It would have been helpful if Prez. Clinton had started this whole process years ago, but he other ideas/issues at hand! LOL
Posted by: DOA | Jan 23, 2007 8:21:32 PM
A few days back I was reminded why few drive small cars in cummute here.
Morning rush to work.. 1 riny car slpattered with blood all over... then near destination anouther small car again utter wreck.
In each case tends of thousands were reminded that day why they wont buy a small car ever. We want tomake it home.
Cars don't have to be dangerous to get good gas mileage, and they don't have to weigh seven thousand pounds to be safe.
Posted by: George | Jan 23, 2007 8:32:45 PM
It amazes me that nearly all the proposed "solutions" here are to raise taxes. More and higher taxes aren't the solution to all our problems, they are problems in themselves.
Taxes or CAFE limits. Pick yer poison. If you're really enamoured of the Free Market, then let's have one. That means externalities like the cost of oil wars, global warming, and particulate-induced illness need to be priced into the cost of gas.
Give the public quality fuel efficient cars and they will buy them.
It's easier to pimp out a Suburban, call it a Cadillac, and wait for the morons to show up with fifty grand.
Posted by: George | Jan 23, 2007 8:40:35 PM
If you're really enamoured of the Free Market, then let's have one. That means externalities like the cost of oil wars, global warming, and particulate-induced illness need to be priced into the cost of gas.
Give me a method that is apolitical, unbiased, and objective for determining the costs of those externalities and I just may listen to you.
It's easier to pimp out a Suburban, call it a Cadillac, and wait for the morons to show up with fifty grand.
Want to know why GM and Ford push these big, high-profit margin SUVs? They lose money on small cars, that's why. The big 2.5's legacy pension an health care costs make selling smaller vehicles at a profit nearly impossible and still be competitive with Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai.
Posted by: Cervus | Jan 23, 2007 8:59:43 PM
They lose money on small cars, that's why.
OMFG!!! My hear bleeds for Detroit! Those Evil Japanese!!
How DARE they make a profit selling popular & efficient cars.
Posted by: DS | Jan 23, 2007 9:23:08 PM
DS:
I'm trying to point out that there is a reason why Detroit cannot make money selling small cars, so this is why they make the choices they do regarding what products they develop and sell. I can't really fault them for that. GM and Ford have done some major renegotiations with the UAW in order to reduce those costs in order to stay in business.
Posted by: Cervus | Jan 23, 2007 9:28:38 PM
Cervus, while the unions have helped create their own mess I just want to clarify that what keeps being labeled "legacy costs" are really deferred wages. If workers had their normal place in the front of the line for their wages, banks and Wall Street would have quit lending money to the companies long before it reached this point.
Posted by: APosterFormerlyKnownAsAndy | Jan 23, 2007 10:07:36 PM
"At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving."
-- President Richard M. Nixon, November 1973
"Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977, never."
-- President James E. Carter, July 1979
"Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we have done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next ten years."
-- President George W. Bush, January 2007
At least he didn't go as far as Nixon and Carter and pretend that we would actually accomplish this goal.
Posted by: Planck | Jan 23, 2007 10:33:27 PM
Planck:
Nixon and Carter did not have anything in their sleeves at the time but more drilling. Now we have tons of new technologies.
I got a question. Pres. Bush calls for 35 B gallons of renewable and ALTERNATIVE fuels. Does CNG, LNG, CTL, GTL fuels, including methanol and DME from NG, and PT synthetic fuels from coal count as “alternatives”?
Posted by: Andrey | Jan 23, 2007 11:32:26 PM
Cervus, indeed Ford and GM do produce small cars in Europe and in Asia, and make a profit by doing just that.
Making a profit by producing the same sort of cars in the USA may be difficult, but surely is not impossible.
Posted by: Mad Max | Jan 24, 2007 12:00:31 AM
ddashner,
the point is not to raise taxes, is to raise taxes ON FUEL. This measure can be offset by a reduction of some other tax (you choose the most unpopular) so that the average taxpayer breaks even.
Posted by: Mad Max | Jan 24, 2007 12:08:42 AM
anrnie in CA told the same 20 in 10 stuff 1,5 weeks ago...
Posted by: sebastian | Jan 24, 2007 12:13:19 AM
arnie^^
Posted by: seb | Jan 24, 2007 12:14:26 AM
The solution to our addiction to foreign oil is simple and obvious, but the American people are unwilling to demand the solution. In this thread, not one poster has stepped up to the plate and mentioned the elephant in the room. Not one.
People will buy more fuel efficient cars AND drive them less, if fuel pricing was structured to provide an incentive for conservation.
For example, we in America "burn" about 2 gallons a day per licenced driver. That works out to be about 60 gallons a month. If the fuel retailers(or states or feds) issued a "Fuel (Gas) Card" which had to be used to authorize pump disbursement, then individual fuel consumption could be tracted. If a person had used less than 60 gallons in the last 30 days, the price would be market price. If and when the "cardholder's" comsuption went over 60 gallons, then a surcharge, say 50 cents per gallon, kicks in. The revenue from this tax would be used to provide purchase tax breaks for high mileage vehicles such as Plug-in Hybrids and Clean Diesels.
We use this method of pricing structure to conserve Electricity and Water, but not fuel. Instead we continue to advocate "solutions" that have not worked for more than 30 years. Amazing and sad!
Posted by: Van | Jan 24, 2007 4:25:49 AM
Van:
That's an interesting soltion, but how would these cards be distributed? Maybe with the purchase of a vehicle? If such a system were implemented it would need a higher limit for vehicles listed for work use. The contractor I work for goes through much more than 60 gallons per month per vehicle just getting to the jobsites everyday.
Posted by: John Ard | Jan 24, 2007 5:22:16 AM
Im saying every time you see a small car splat you increase the size of your next car;/ Its an obvious responce to an obvious risk.
Posted by: wintermane | Jan 24, 2007 8:23:02 AM
Come to colorado wintermane. When it snows there are always rollovers on the highways, some of which look pretty nasty. They're always trucks and SUVS. In fact, a disproportionate number of the abandoned vehicles in a snow storm are SUVs. The fact that SUVs are deathtraps in a rollover accident doesn't seem to deter people from buying them. Quite the opposite. The majority of vehicles here are SUVs.
Posted by: tripp | Jan 24, 2007 8:46:54 AM
Bush grabs an existing headline and touts it as his policy (al la Put a Man on Mars, following the Mars rover success).
20 in 10 is not a policy, just a slogan for political position. The market is way ahead of Bush on this. It is one of the few slogans he has hit on that may prove successful, simply because we are moving fast, with or without the Government. (Unlike the "Hydrogen Economy" which was likewise a play on publicity the Auto Industry was already putting out before Bush ever smoked Hydrogen.)
Posted by: JMartin | Jan 24, 2007 9:09:40 AM
To me this smells more like a plan put in place to prevent the democratically controlled congress and senate to put tougher measures into legislation. Especially this part:
"The Secretary of Transportation will determine the actual standard and fuel savings in a flexible rulemaking process, according to the Administration. The President will insist that Congress not legislate a specific numeric fuel economy standard, but leave that to the Secretary of Transportation."
Posted by: pete | Jan 24, 2007 10:52:50 AM
Regarding small car safety. In 2002 33% of all traffic fatalities were caused by rollowers according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. So enjoy your death trap SUV.
Posted by: peter | Jan 24, 2007 11:00:36 AM
Cervus:
The US automakers are gaming the system for CAFE numbers, not real economy. Raising real economy by putting a hybrid drivetrain in a Tahoe or Expedition would require a battery twice or more the size and expense of a Prius. Faking it by spending $100 on a flex-fuel sensor to exploit the E85 loophole yields far more CAFE bang for the buck, and the idiotic American consumer keeps buying them.
We need someone with patriot cred who will stand up and say that guzzling gas is giving aid and comfort to the enemy; it is treason, pure and simple.
"Pace cars" and whatnot lead to huge backups and dangerous braking waves. You'd have to be insane to propose such a thing; how much blood for oil, indeed?
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 24, 2007 2:12:11 PM
in ten years time what will the price of oil be, 50$ a barrel 100$ or 150$ my guess is it will be over 100$ if you can find somewhere to sell it to you
if people cant see or dont want to see this hard luck, in the next few years millions of fools will buy SUVs hummers ect, people like this will get everything they deserve
it is the rising cost of oil which will cut comsumption
people will change, only when they have no other choice
Posted by: antigravity | Jan 24, 2007 3:02:37 PM
We drive sedans so no we dont face rolovers:)
Its just AROUND HERE with all the heavy haulers small cars are just too deadly to daily commute. Truckers dont see you and there simply are too many uncontrolable disasters.
In fact every member of my family has been in an accident involving a semi. Every one of us. On several of those accidetans the police officer told us that if not for the car being as large as it was we would have died before paramedics got to us.
Oh and on suvs.In general unless its a midsized syv and low to the ground to boot you should not drive an suv unless you have driven a truck and understand how to handle them in accidents. Because no matter what its csalled most suvs and quite a few minivans are trucks. Abd suffer from the top heavy design.
Posted by: wintermane | Jan 24, 2007 5:00:06 PM
tripp,
if SUVs are really dangerous, let insurance companies to persuade drivers to switch to other model by means of higher premiums. After all, they should be able to assess risks.
Posted by: Mad Max | Jan 25, 2007 2:31:59 AM
John Ard, the "Gas Card" would be issued to a licensed driver, and would not be tied to any particular vehicle.
When it is inserted in the card slot at the pump, the display would show the gallons used in the last 60 days, such that folks would become aware of their individual consuption.
There would be no need to special exclusions, because the well connected would simply carve out exceptions for driving to work or taking the kids to school, and on and on. Just as today, when fuel costs go up, the cost is passed along in the price of the service or product, so business expenses would not need to be excluded.
As I said, the solution is obvious, it is the will that is lacking. We want to burn as much gas as we can afford to burn, that is the short and sweet of it. Drive down the freeway and notice that most vehicles are SUV's with one person aboard. We are wasting fuel big time, and paying for it with the coin of the realm, the blood of our sons. I believe it will take another attack here in the USA for us to do what is necessary to cut the funding of the terrorists.
Posted by: Van | Jan 25, 2007 5:55:09 AM
Van, if you think re-writing the software of all pumps with credit-card readers is a simple, cheap or quick thing (and what for the pumps which don't?), you're dreaming.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 25, 2007 6:38:07 AM
ddashner wrote:
It amazes me that nearly all the proposed "solutions" here are to raise taxes. More and higher taxes aren't the solution to all our problems, they are problems in themselves. Give the public quality fuel efficient cars and they will buy them.
But the problem is that quality fuel efficient cars are expensive! Otherwise they would be selling them.
The current low fuel price (compared to 6 $/gal in Europe) is that it favours spending little on engine technology and a lot cupholders and bulk.
For cars to be fuel efficient, the cost of the drivetrain has to take a greater share of the total cost of the car, which leads to smaller cars (not from SUV to subcompacts, but maybe one size smaller). This is percieved as a sacrifice of quality of life, which most people are unvilling to make. Myself included, even though I am a GCC reader...
A fuel tax (at least 1 $/gal) would shift the tradeoff between engine technology and car size towards smaller cars (which in itself increases gas mileage) with more efficient engine, PHEVs, etc.
I realize I am pointing out the obvious, but I felt it needed to be stressed that more economical cars will be more expensive for a given vehicle size.
This is why I believe a fuel tax is the easiest way of changing behaviour.
Posted by: Thomas Pedersen | Jan 25, 2007 8:21:54 AM
I spent several thousand dollars to achieve a 50% increase in fuel economy. I got a pretty good towing capacity along with it, though.
To get another 50% would require going from ~40 MPG to ~60 MPG. A PHEV would certainly do it, and a few thousand seems to be what it would cost. When it comes time to replace this car (another 7-8 years and 200,000 miles at the rate I go through them) I hope to have second and third generation PHEV's to choose from.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 25, 2007 2:57:11 PM
Hi Engineer-Poet, I can remember when the pumps did not have card readers, so altering them is a smaller step. And while many stations do not have pump located cardreaders, all the stations have card readers inside at the attendant location where pump use is authorized.
As I said, because solution is simple and obvious, the reason why we have not done it already is not technological, but behavioral, we are not ready to do what it takes.
Posted by: Van | Jan 25, 2007 4:39:32 PM
No, the simple and obvious solution is a straight fuel tax matched by other tax reductions or straight subsidies. It requires no changes in infrastructure, just a change in forms and software which changes every year anyway.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 26, 2007 6:35:15 AM
If we had stuck with the decreasing oil import limits plan of Carter we would have stopped importing oil long ago. Unfortunately we would have multiplied the use of coal via CTL.
Posted by: tom deplume | Jan 26, 2007 9:18:10 AM
If we completely went from an income tax to a sales tax then that would indeed get more people who drive large cars for no reason to drive smaller cars. But it wqould litteraly have to be a total comnversion frpm income to sales taxes and yes gop is very much for that.
What we wont go for is a new tax on top of income tazes and everything else. This would have to replace the old corrupt system with a new corrupt system;/
Posted by: wintermane | Jan 26, 2007 10:28:14 AM
Hi E-P, raising the price on the folks who use little gas is not the solution. We do not conserve water or electricity using that method. That is the failed "solution" offered 30 years ago and repeatedly since.
Posted by: Van | Jan 26, 2007 3:17:33 PM
Raising the price of something folks use little of doesn't exactly hit them hard, does it? And you can always cut their taxes by enough to make all but the most wasteful poor folks come out ahead. As I keep saying, 140 billion gallons is about 700 gallons per adult. An extra $2/gallon is roughly equal to the employee's FICA/Medicare taxes on the first $20,000/year of wages. The working poor who don't own cars could just pocket the money.
You said that the gas tax as a conservation incentive has "failed" (despite it working spectacularly in Europe and Britain), even though you admitted it has never been tried in the USA ("offered repeatedly", but never adopted). This is more than slightly ironic.
CAFE standards are the failure. They led to explosions in miles driven and urban sprawl, while fuel consumption continued to rise. I suspect that whatever you're still pushing, history has already proven it a failure right here.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 26, 2007 10:33:07 PM
A gas tax wont work now becaue we are on the edge of replacing gas;/
A switch from income to sales tax WOULD do the trick.. well income to vat tax realy. secialy if certain things had larger vat taxes.
The factal problem tho is alot of govenors know thier states DEPEND on tourism from other states... Alot of cties are completely dependant on travelers from overseas and the us. You can imagine what would happen to say disneyland or ;as vagas or new york if the gas prices doubled...
And if the domestic car makers had to make a dash to smaller cars.. they would do it by shuttering ameican plants and expanding mexican and chinese plants. They have already demonstracted as much.
And would tucking becomes more spendy andall food and everything else more endy even before the vat...
Ad who would be exempt? farms? schoopl buss fleets.. mass transit? gov cars? fat ass buricrats? that wierd guy down the street who never leaves his home yet owns more stuff then god ad doesnt mail order it....
And how many decades AFTER climate change has destriyed civilizarion will the burcrats be fighthing over who gets what?
I personaly think the fastest way that things will change is when mother nature beats the sheep out of us and KILLS a bis ass load of us.
Posted by: wintermane | Jan 27, 2007 9:33:06 AM
What do you mean, "a gas tax won't work now becaue we are on the edge of replacing gas"? That is the most nonsensical thing I've seen from you in weeks (and you post some doozies).
If we're almost in a position to replace gas, now is exactly the right time to tax it. Start the process a little earlier and give it a nice, firm push forward.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 27, 2007 7:06:30 PM
Hi E-P, the attempt to raise prices by an across the board tax, recall the BTU tax?, or the 50 cents a gallon tax?, has been tried repeatedly. Rather than tear down the tried and true method of conservation used for water and electricity, why not address the failure to adopt your strategy for the past 30 years.
Taxes on vehicles (the ol gas guzzer tax) or the vehicle based CAFE standards have failed, and I believe were doomed to failure from the get go.
Lets create a pricing structure that encourages conservation, rather than suggest one that disproportionally affects those least able to further reduce their consumption. They are alreadly driving old small cars as few miles as possible. Let's go after all the SUV's that is where the fat in our consumption is.
Posted by: Van | Jan 28, 2007 8:25:22 AM
Because no politico will waste that much p9olitical clout to get a gas tax going knowing it will generate revenue only for a few years and likely only from the poor.
They will suggest it but they wont fight for it.
ANDthe main moneybank of gas taxes is still roadworks and they are already working on a shft to other forms of tax to replace gas tax because gas usage is going to go down.
Posted by: wintermane | Jan 28, 2007 1:55:14 PM
