Clue fairy cometh!

Er, actually clue fairy came 30 years ago, but no one noticed until the clue fairy grew into a 3$/gallon gorilla.

Please feed the gorilla with a real reduction in VMT now! In the medium term, hopefully we can feed the gorilla with electrons from the first production EV.

It seems that Oil prices up again and it seems that we cant do anything about it. It will definetly have a lot on impact on us again. Hope that our government can do something about it.

Gee W...too bad there are so few "clean diesels" for sale here to be able to take advantage of any federal tax credit. Maybe a slight waiver on restrictive DOT and EPA regs would kick start a move in that direction.

What a crock. The Dems were arguing for a bunch of this stuff last week, to no avail.

Georgie's proposal consists of:
* tax cuts
* reduction on pollution controls
* reduction on government oversight of a part of the oil industry
* reducing tUSA's preparedness for an oil shock
* destroying the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve for another few months worth of oil

And this is a good plan. Bollocks. Here's [b]stomv[/b]'s plan:

* Tax increases. You buy a car that gets fewer than 25 mpg? Pay an extra $200 per gallon fewer than 25.
* Pollution controls stay. Tinkering with the air is off the table.
* Increase government oversight of oil industry. Why are they making record profits? Why are there so few gasoline manufacturers left? Why are they allowing so many spills?
* Keep socking oil away in the SPR. 30,000 barrels a day is small potatoes anyway.
* Leave ANWR alone -- it won't make a lick of difference in the long run anyway.

and also...

* invest more money in public transportation, particularly in cities colored green on that map, and cities nearby green areas. The goal isn't to break even with Amtrak and commuter rail -- the goal is to provide a way for folks to get from A to B without their own car or via airplane, so that we can increase American's freedom to travel, while reducing energy consumption and pollution. Subways should be expanded where appropriate (for example, Boston T's green line should be made 4 tracks wide between Park and Kenmore), and inquiries should be made about converting bus lines to subway lines in places (Silver line).
* reduce the tarriff on ethanol imported from South America.
* Reduce the speed limits on America's highways
* Remind Americans that they can reduce their gasoline consumption by 25% by merely (a) properly inflating their tires, (b) not speeding, and (c) not blasting their AC in the summer.

When fluid 16 ounces of gas costs more than 16 fluid ounces of Starbucks coffee -- or a 16 ounce bottle of water for that matter -- give me a call. Until then, this is simply not the national 'disaster' folks are making it out to be.

The ethanol issue is a short term problem. Every time we have a short term problem, Bush reaches for his favorite approach, relaxing environmental regulations. A few cents one way or another isn't going to break us, so let's quit reaching for these cheap solutions.

This admnistration has made it very clear from the beginning that it thinks conservation is for sissies, that it somehow violates the ethos of the American way of life.

Even now, it still can't really embrace the C world and tries to divert us with long term approaches to increase supply without focusing on the obvious fact that demand drives prices up and that we should do everything we can do decrease demand.

The conundrum, as always, is that a reduction in demand will decrease prices which will make the sense of urgency go away. Until we decide to make high prices a permanent and guaranteed fixture of our so called way of life, we will not give up our addiction until we have reached the bottom of the barrel, so to speak.

"Oh and clueless.. they already have a gas guzzler tax and in fact some cars already get taxed by it. Didnt do much realy."

t, I believe what stomy is proposing (amongst many other valid arguments) is a more significant gas guzzler tax compared to the current overestimated EPA 22.5 MPG (combined)= No tax. If reality isn't changing behavior, maybe the penalty should be increased.

What they say is one thing, what they do is another:

In October 2004, a House-Senate conference committee negotiated a roll back in the SUV deduction to its original amount of $25,000 as part of the larger Corporate Tax Bill. While tightening this loophole is certainly noteworthy, it is by no means the end of significant tax breaks for gas-guzzling SUVs. According to an analysis in the Detroit News, besides the $25,000 basic equipment deduction, SUVs will still qualify for "bonus depreciation," an added write off of 30 percent of the purchase price above $25,000. Beyond that, additional costs can be deducted according to regular depreciation rules, or 20 percent in the first year. For example, a business owner purchasing a Hummer H1, with a sticker price of $106,185, would be able to deduct $60,722 in the first year under the revised rules: a $25,000 equipment deduction, $24,356 in bonus depreciation, and $11,366 in regular depreciation.

Comparing the SUV incentives to Hybrid vehicle credits & The CLEAR Act
In May 2002, the IRS declared gasoline-electric hybrids eligible for tax deductions as "clean fuel" vehicles under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (PL 103-486). The deduction ceiling began at $2,000, with the tax deduction set to end in 2006, with $500 less available each year as the deduction is phased out.

Mmm, a business owner can deduct $60k for buying a Hummer - an individual can get $2k for buying a Prius.
Talk is cheap!

Reality check please: gas in Europe cost ~$6/US gallon. Diesel is taxed a little less severely - a sop to farmers and the haulage industry - yet contains 12% more energy by volume, plus diesel engines have better thermodynamic efficiency. Small wonder they are popular and advanced over here.

For those of you living in any US state other than CA, NY, MA, VT or ME, there are in fact a number of modern Eurodiesel vehicles on the market, e.g. from VW and Mercedes-Benz. In the US, these make sense if you tend to drive a lot of freeway miles at speed. Ask your dealer about particulate filters, these should become available sometime after the US switches to low-sulphur diesel in October and will increase your resale value.

If you live one of the 5 states mentioned above yet drive a lot of freeway miles, choose a vehicle with low aerodynamic drag, a small engine (2.0L is plenty), variable valve train, an AT with torque converter bypass clutch and two-wheel drive. If you need cargo space, choose a station wagon or CUV over a truck-based SUV.

A gasoline hybrids may be a better choice if your average trip is short or in stop-and-go traffic (including traffic jams).

If you already own a vehicle and cannot afford to switch anytime soon, check if your AT has an economy setting in which the gear shifts happen at lower RPMs. If you own a stick shift, get into the habit of shifting at lower engine sound frequencies.

In addition, maintain your tire pressure (incl. spare), remove unneccesary items from the trunk, remove roof/bike/ski rack when not in use, coast to stop signs and traffic lights, cut ignition for stops expected to exceed 60 secs, minimize driving with a cold engine, avoid running A/C at full power or with windows open, accelerate gently and, stay within the speed limit.

Separately, consider commute alternatives incl. (electric) bicycle, carpooling and working from home at least some of the time if you have that option.

The majority of American families can not afford to buy new cars. These families are stuck with the choices people made when gas was $1.25/gal. Perhaps we could have a new public works project converting old SUVs into plug-in diesel hybrids for the working poor. Put those closed factories and laid off auto workers back to work.

"Reality check please: gas in Europe cost ~$6/US gallon."

A good chunk of which is taxes, in contrast to the 19% or so we pay in taxes on average.

I wish people would stop making comparisons between unlike things.

President Bush should NOT award all hybrids a tax credit. Only those that significantly reduce fuel consumption should get the tax credit. Perhaps some measurement of CAFE standards should apply. Fuel economy improvements above 25% over the standard model, or, a basic measurement of say at least 35 mpg could qualify for a rebate.

Car manufacturers should not get an incentive to produce only luxury performance hybrids and hybrids that cannot evolve into super high mileage Plug-ins. GM's psuedo-hybrids which only offer the start/stop feature should not qualify for a tax credit or rebate.

"Car manufacturers should not get an incentive to produce only luxury performance hybrids..."

car based suv's

rav-4
crv
element
PT cruiser
highlander
RX 300

etc

yet these vehicles are sold as "trucks" and help the ave truck economy even though they get worse mpg than the cars they are based on.

Give it a rest, Skip. You're certainly not keeping things away from being partisan, so don't decry it when other do the same.

Lead by example.