Hi NBKBoston, you are right, there is defintely a knee-jerk reaction against establishing a pricing structure using a "gas card." Is it a ration card, nope. You can buy all the gas you can afford that is available. So to call it a ration card is again to use a loaded label, like "communistic" to avoid the reality that gasoline is a limited resource and should be conserved.

Next, would a "fuel comsumption tracking card" cost an enormous amount of money? Nope, count how many "cards" you have in your wallet now. "Costco, Ralphs, Credit, Debit, Driver's licence, AAA, and on and on. Not to get down into the weeds, but in California, we swipe our Driver's Licence to obtain our Airline tickets. The cards and the reading machines already exist. The tracking is as easy as a ATM card authorizing debits from your account. This is not rocket science.

Could folks share their driver's license authorizations? Of course! The conservation comes from folks avoiding going over the limit. The 60 gallon price break is our average consumption, so if I drive 30% of the family miles, and my wife drives 70%, if she hits the limit, of course I would fill her tank to avoid the surcharge. We would still be under the average.

Now lets say after two years of implimentation, gas consumption has not been reduced? Two actions are possible, lower the "price break" number and/or raise the surcharge percentage. But in my opinion, neither of these will be necessary, because our environmentally aware culture would make it "inappropriate" to use gas unwisely.

A ration system such as the above is silly for two reasons:

1. It will not decrease the average consumption.  People running under the average will sell their ration points at some discount to the surcharge rate.
2. It will create a huge database of where people buy fuel, even if they pay cash.  This ought to be unthinkable, a step towards a surveillance state.

E-P: collecting a tax is straightforward but rebating can get complex.

Do children get the rebate?

The US has ten to thirty million? people here that have no records or fake records. And many don't want to be located.

Give the rebate as a tax credit on the income tax. It leaves out those who don't file but can pick up children claimed as dependents.

The howls about unfairness to those not paying FIT would probably prevent passage. I don't see Congress, especially a Democratic one, passing the measure.

E-P,

Do you have a cellphone?

If so there is already a HUGE database of EVERY single flippin location you have ever been to while keeping your cellphone on you powered on. They have to register at every new base station when swapping cells, dead reckoning & delay time of transmission amongst multiple cells also pinpoints your location within 50m.

I'm afraid it is too late already.

This whole ration card talk is pretty scary talk. You can dress it all you like and pave the way down that road with your gold of good intentions, but not only is it unnecessary; it truly does resemble a more communist structure with govt surveillance of people's actions.

I'm curious. What about sales reps or business owners who have to use lots of fuel to make a living??? They should be hit twice as hard with an increased gas price after they use their "fair" ration? They're already forkng over a good portion of their income for gas, so they need to be punished for trying to make a living???

FYI, I do not have a cell phone.

K:  I'm fine with "non-existent" people not getting rebates, especially if they're illegal aliens (the last thing we need is to import people who'll aggravate our global environmental problems by consuming more than they would at home).  Children under 16 don't drive, and the parents wealthy enough to schlep them to multiple activities after school ought to be paying extra for the gas (or pushed into buying a PHEV or EV — which will probably appear on the used market in a few years!).  Last, the rebate should come in every paycheck as a reduction in Social Security witholding.  This avoids people having a crisis because they can't wait for a refund at the end of the year.

DB:  Seriously, what about them?  The cost of their goods/services goes up with fuel prices.  They are going to go up, the only questions are when and who will collect the money.  I think the answers ought to be "now" and "us", instead of "later" and "OPEC".

To say a purchase authorization card is a ration card is to label with intent to disparge. The amount available for purchase is not controlled by the card, therefore it is not a ration card.

EP observations are without merit, to label something as silly is name calling, devoid of content.

Of course it will decrease consumption, consumption of the gas guzzlers. The premise that the gas guzzlers could obtain the fuel authorizations of those trying to conserve fuel is highly unlikely. I might need that backlog of market price fuel in the uncertain future.

Bottom line, the solution is simple and do-able, and unlike the discredited methods used in the past like a vehicle tax and CAFE standards, or across the board price increases, it will create an incentive to conserve without punishing those who conserve.

And the data base exists for all who use cards to purchase anything.

There would be no exceptions for business, they would pass along the cost of the fuel they use, just as they do now. Those who use less fuel would have an economic advantage.

And it should be noted that creating an incentive to conserve would decrease Oil Company profits, since the surcharge would fund high MPG vehicle incentives. It is a win/win.

"Ration card" was an attempt to make the point vivid. What you're proposing to ration is not the gas itself, but the availability of tax credits. It's a ration card in this sense -- it's a card which the government uses to authorize the holder to collect a limited amount of a scarce commodity (in this case, tax credits on gas).

The privacy concern raised by Engineer-Poet is really the most important one here, followed, I think, by the question of expense. Just because we use a lot of cards doesn't mean that running a card system is free -- by the way. It's affordable, but there are still probably better things you can do with your money given the choice. Administrative overhead is always worth minimizing.

But back to privacy. The very structure you envision for your system betrays a deep insensitivity to privacy in your outlook. There is no functional difference between your system and a system in which the walk-up price for gasoline is P per gallon (assume a high price with lots of taxes), but in which each person is given a "gas discount card/coupon," which is gives discount D off the list price on up to G gallons per month. After you've used up your coupons, you simply pay the list price, in cash if you want, without swiping any cards. The difference is that in my new system, you don't have to swipe a card each and every time you buy gas, meaning that there is no centralized record of how much gas you bought, where you bought it, and when you bought it. There may be records of where you spent you coupons/credits, but at least the baseline assumption is that you can opt-out of this data collection by paying list prices with cash, and swiping no cards. If you want to make an extra effort, you could design the coupon system so that the user could choose between having a few more credits in a card based system, which may be cheaper to run but leads to a longer paper trail, or take a few fewer credits (covering the additional overhead) in the form of paper coupons, which can be redeemed anonymously.

Most of the people most of the time will not care about such recordkeeping, and will continue to use credit cards and such, and it won't matter. But I believe, and I think many other people do as well, that government programs should be structured in a way which maximizes the chances that someone who cares about his privacy actually has a chance to safeguard it.

Your desired result -- graduated pricing -- could have easily been achieved with a much less intrusive system, but you immediately leapt to a system design which maximized central data collection and retention. That's why people were shouting "communist" from the rooftops.

I have no fundamental problem with the idea of graduated pricing. I just think that the overhead costs may be an issue in the case of gasoline sales, and that the system you described for getting to a graduated pricing system was not the least intrusive option (in privacy terms) by far.

I am not rationing the availability of tax credits, I am proposing the surcharge be committed to funding incentives to my high MPG vehicles.

The privacy issue is a red herring. Most people use the "cards" use a cell phone, use a telephone, use electricity (ask Gore how private is electric bill is) and so forth. You cannot roll back the clock, the computer data storage and retrival age is here.

If anyone has a less intrusive graduated pricing structure idea, let's hear it, rather than make a vague reference to it. That is like the guy who said he was going to fight the war smarter.

Bottom line, Gasoline is a necessity and should be conserved in a similar fashion to the way water and electricity are conserved. My suggestion uses the available equipment and technology, and is no more intrusive than any other electronic transaction monitoring system, of which we have many.

One last thought, if a person purchased fuel without a card, they would pay the market price plus the surcharge, and so "no swiping of cards" would be required.

Van, there's a full non-intrusive proposal above, so stop claiming that nobody's posted one.

Neither have you addressed the weakness of the "discount card" scheme:  all consumption up to the average is at the discount price, so there's no extra incentive to save below that level.  EVERY gallon contributes to our petroleum dependency and environmental problems, and ought to be subject to the same incentive to save.  This means starting at the first drop.

Hi EP, thanks for pointing out that some might equate "a less intrusive system" with the more intrusive system posted above.

In my system, most people would use an existing card, such as a drivers licence, in the alternate "Most of the people most of the time will not care about such recordkeeping, and will continue to use credit cards and such, and it won't matter." That is not less intrusive, that is exactly the same level for "most of the people."

Next, for those who do worry, they do not use the cards or coupons, and pay the elevated price, therefore both systems have the same level of intrusiveness from a data base collection concern. However, now we must carry the coupons, obtain the coupons, and use the coupons which creates a more burdensome and therefore intrusive system into our lives.

The incentive to conserve below the price break amount is two fold, first the same incentive we have now to avoid wasting what is now recognized as a limited resource, but with more awareness due to the tracking reminders, and second, the accumulation of allowed gallons under the allowed rate of consumption, i.e the bank to be used on a rainy day or a trip to Florida or California.

In sum, the suggested method of creating an incentive to conserve gasoline by establishing a graduated price stucture is sound with no down side other than those who desire not to conserve will pay more. Me thinks they protest too much!

I do not see it in the above report, but a news report said demand in California had decreased from a year ago, which seems a response to the fact that gas costs 44 cents more per gallon than a year ago. So a 25% surcharge would seem sufficent to bring about a change in behavior.

Van,
Reducing corporate profits are a win/win? You just revealed your true identity, comrade. Do you have a 401k?

Communists attack people to sidestep issues, for them it is all about the severity of the charge. The win/win was to (1) conserve fuel through conservation, and (2) lower the market price of fuel through conservation. This was contrasted with conserving by raising the market price which also raises Oil Company profits. A fuel purchase authorization card we create conservation through incentive without punishing those who are conserving now. There is nothing wrong with corporate profits, but the compensation packages demonstrate the boards are not really accountable to the shareholders, and legislation needs to be written to stop the disproportionate compensation just like exists for other benefit package programs. Unregulated capitalism creates an unstable economy, overregulated capitalism creates a declining economy, finding the right balance is called politics IMHO.

3 bucks 5 bucks 8 bucks a gallon, when your making $10000 a month gas is disposable income. Go to college get a real degree in something economically useful like engineering or business management not useless liberal arts; where you can only teach more useless undergrads to be economically defective. Then you can afford the 3500 sq foot home, and 400hp SUV. My truck gets 12mpg, and I would not trade it in even if gas were doubled to 6 bucks a gallon. I’d happily pay the amount to keep my lifestyle. That is why I suffered poor through my college years. Y’all must cringe at the thought my boat rips through 40 gallons of premium a weekend wake boarding during the summer months. When you spend $50,000 on a boat, $120 in gas a weekend is well disposable. If the US could make ethanol at a no tax funded cost competitive to gasoline. Then I would fuel my truck which already is flexfuel thanks to GM, and might add in the Fullflex Tech ethanol mod box for my boats injectors. But since e85 has 83,263 btu/gal while gas has 114,132 btu/gal you need 1.32gals of e85 to equal on gallon of petrol. So e85 must cost only 73% as much as gasoline to make economic sense to switch. Still on the boat it means less range till tanking up no small feat when your miles from a marina. Your twin 24 gallons tanks now hold the equivalent of twin 17 gallon tanks. My boat eats 5 gallons an hour boarding. So your 9.6 hour run time is now down to 7 hours. On second thought I think I’ll keep the petrol in the tank of the boat its energy density just cant be beat.

There sure are a lot of communist in here, rationing? Master data bases? “progressive taxes”? Last I checked this was America. It’s a good thing we vote our leaders in office because if any one of them was foolish enough to even attempt what some of you are advocating they will be committing political, and economic suicide. Conservation is fine for those who chose to conserve but Stalinistic bordering on draconian laws? Come on who are you people kidding; this will never get in to law even if it did those who passed it would be out on there tails the very next election, and the law would be repealed. What’s a “political science” major to do if they can’t tax & spend the people's money in Washington. Short answer is the politicos are in office to get themselves rich. Matters not red or blue each party panders to there power base for funds, and returns the booty of taxpayer loot to the demographic that votes for them. Come on this is high school level government class people. No one in there right mind is going to put the ca’bash on the American economy for idealistic conservation and efficiency utopian dreams. Supply and demand live it, learn it, and make some money off of it. Every time oil goes up my portfolio makes money. Mad about gas prices buy some Exxon stock. Last quarter I made in dividends more than the increase at the pump cost me in my personal gas usage. How’s that for taking lemons and making lemonade.

There are DME developments in China today!

We see great potential for DME as a clean alternative fuel . The present diesel oil is a major source of air pollution from diesel engine of trucks and busses in large city like Tokyo. The potential market of diesel oil substitute is larger than LPG. DME is one of ideal fuel for diesel engine. DME vehicles were demonstratively manufactured in Japan, China and Korea and their driving test already started. Practical durability fleet test of a DME truck is under going in Japan.

We are pleased to organise a conference on China taking the lead in the DME market in production from coal and Japan and Korea activities.

If you would like to know more on COAL to Syngas to DME developments, join us at upcoming North Asia DME / Methanol conference in Beijing, 27-28 June 2007, St Regis Hotel. The conference covers key areas which include:

DME productivity can be much higher especially if
country energy policies makes an effort comparable to
that invested in increasing supply.
By:
National Development Reform Commission NDRC
Ministry of Energy for Mongolia

Production of DME/ Methanol through biomass
gasification could potentially be commercialized
By:
Shandong University completed Pilot plant in Jinan and
will be sharing their experience.

Advances in conversion technologies are readily
available and offer exciting potential of DME as a
chemical feedstock
By: Kogas, Lurgi and Haldor Topsoe

Available project finance supports the investments
that DME/ Methanol can play a large energy supply role
By: International Finance Corporation

For more information: www.iceorganiser.com

The toughest crew to encourage to change will be the folks like Van who argue their right to consume and seem to be blind to the environmentalist discussion.

These folks don't care that their choices affect us all. They are not a minority of any type - I mean there are millions and people around this world who don't think of their neighbor when they are making their consumption choices.

For me a choice to conserve began as an economic choice during college. I simply couldn't afford to drive a thirsty vehicle and I could go further on $20 on the weekends with my four cylinder. I also spent 3 years in Italy where I got a big dose of overcrowded cities and $5 a gallon gas (back when the USA was paying $1.25 a gallon). After a while I decided I liked the feel and performance of a 4 cylinder car. The old saying that goes "it's more fun to drive a slow car fast than to drive a fast car slow" applies here.

Still as impressed with Europe and the Italians as I was I did not want America (or my part of America) to become as crowded and expensive as Italy was. I kept thinking - why can't we see these people as a preview of America without wise choices? Not saying the Italians were not making wise choices but instead seeing us eventually living like the Italians if we don't regulate ourselves.

I have always been a "live and let live" kind of guy but as time goes by I am changing. I won't hang a political style on my feelings b/c while one group might have some good ideas, to be labeled like them means to me to embrace all of that group's ideas and I don't agree with ANYONE on EVERYTHING. I like the idea of smaller gov't. I like the idea of less intrusion BUT it's clear to me that people like Van who will never make wise choices that benefit us as a group. I once thought that the march of technology would outrun the need for those technologies - I mean "green tech" - but there are too many folks who given the chance would do without any "green technology" b/c they can afford to consume at an alarming rate. They consume and the rest of us deal with their pollution and the scarcity of resources left over.

So I think some sort of rising consumption tax might be a solution. One solution. Congestion taxes, taxed horsepower, high fuel taxes. We are debating things that have been in place in Europe for decades. How about looking to Europe and asking - "how's that working out?". Then we would be better able to make wise decisions based on the successes and failures of the European systems.

There simply isn't going to be a single solution that changes the way Americans spend and consume. It might be that the drive for economic growth needs to be curbed or slowed. The village model might be better suited (is I think) than the suburban development plan. Yes congestion rises but a person can actually walk or bike to their destination.

We might need to incorporate bike paths into our urban development. Around here (rural TN) we are lucky to get a road shoulder let alone a sidewalk. Our town is small enough that given a good bike path I could bike to most of my destinations but our current roads are DANGEROUS for pedal power. I'd like to see a path that doesn't follow the main road but parallels it at some distance to avoid the car traffic leaving and entering the businesses. call it the back alley approach.

Some pop culture changes might be in order though I have no idea of how to make that happen. Call up the marketing department!!! Strategically placed small, clever cars in movies, music and TV. Brains instead of brawn.

Whatever the case our family is making the changes to better suit our budget and what we think are reasonable vehicles better suited for a $5 a gallon economy.