Considering Katrina, I'm not sure this means much.

Also, a very large proponent of our growth is government spending. Iraq and disasters like Katrina exacerbate this.

We need to decrease fossil fuel consumption by at least 60% if we are going to have a chance of retarding global warming.

It is clear, from books like Natural Capitalism, by Amory Lovins, that we can go a long away towards conservation without cutting into the bone of our economy. Certain businesses, like Dow, have shown that there is money to be made by conservation in improving the bottom line.

Consumers can improve their "bottom line" too by plowing some of their income is to measures that will help them conserve in the long run.

As far as growth goes, it is a flawed measure of welfare. GDP counts everything, all the goods and all the bads. We need to focus on indicators that really reflect people's welfare, not just the gross product pumping through the economy.

We also need to consider that our natural environment provides billions of dollars of services to the economy. A healthy watershed provides billions of dollars of services ensuring that the water is clean for the citizens of New York. Without this watershed, clean water would requires billions of dollars of expenditures.

I think there a lot of people who want the potential for quick acceleration and speed but won't necessarily be able or want to use that speed and acceleration all the time. Be that as it may, I think Toyota is considering providing user programmable software to put their cars in different power modes depending on their desires/needs at any point in time. This would be especially applicable to hybrids as the electric/ICE mix is largely a function of optimization programming.

Most cars out there have more power than I would ever need or want. If the consequent fuel penalties involved with that potential power could be mitigated this would be helpful.

Wintermane:

Good point. We are offshoring our production and therefore demand for oil. That does not bode well for total demand, but may help explain the reason for oil companies not building refineries in the US (other than the lame bashing of environmentalists). Oil companies are businesses, and they can see trends.

wintermane may be right. A service based economy uses a lot less Oil and Energy than a manufacturing economy. Can a large industrial country like USA exist for a long time without a strong manufacturing arm???

We could easily reduce our current Oil/Energy consumption and GHG by 50% with better built houses, drastically more efficient vehicles, appliances, tools, lights, electronics, HVAC and fireplaces, schools, offices, stores, manufactures, farm instruments, trucks, VUS, buses, trains, boats, pleasure crafts, small and large airplanes etc.

The transistion will not happen until the price of Oil and Energy goes up beyond the affordabilty point for most people and industrial-commercial users. A $3+/gal (and $.10+/Kwh) it is a very first step. The effect will be more noticeable at $6+/gal and $.20+/Kwh. A carbon tax could progressively raise the price of fossil fuel while maintaining the price of clean electric energy reasonable. Otherwise, the Oil producing countries and refiners-distributers will do it and continue to get huge revenues for many years to come.

Referring to a $1 - $3 increase in gasoline tax...

I don't think that's going to solve anything and only penalizes the less affluent.

So, what would happen if it went up $0.20 per year for the next ten years? If you knew it was going to be going up, you'd know to buy a more fuel efficient car next go-round*. Since it wasn't a huge sticker shock all at once, it'd hurt less because nearly everybody cycles through a car in a 10 year period, meaning that most folks would have their chance at a better auto within five years, before the price went up a full $1.

It's true that consumption taxes hurt those who are less afluent. But, it's also true that government regulation resulting in higher priced cars (like demanding high mpgs) hurts those who are less afluent too.

If you want society to consume less gasoline, raise its price. It's the only way to get the results you want without additional strange behavior. Sure, it hurts in the short run, but a gradual increase in prices eases the pressure and gives people time to make decisions that will soften the blow.

Your thoughts?

* And by that I mean: a car with higher mpg, a house closer to work, work that allows more telecommuting, finding a friend to carpool, learning how to properly inflate your tires and lose the leadfoot to use less fuel, buying a bike, living in a place with mass transit or demanding that mass transit be expanded to where you live, etc.

Stomy -

I agree with your rationale for higher fuel taxes in the US and, the idea of ramping them up slowly but predictably.

However, by itself such a tax would substantially increasethe total tax burden, especially on less aflluent members of society. To compensate, the amount raised should be disbursed by way of flat income tax credits. That gives you a choice: drive a more fuel efficient vehicle or just plain less and you come out ahead. Drive a gas guzzler or a lot of miles and you end up with less cash in your pocket. The ramp-up gives everyone a chance to adapt to the new situation, initially with limited impact on the resale values of existing assets.

stomv,
I personally have driven my car for 7 years, I bought it used at a fantastic price which otherwise I wouldn't be ablel to afford. Under your theory, I should have already changed my car and supposing there were more options available in used cars that are more efficient, I should now be driving one. However, there aren't. Price of Hybrids is still very high, and a waiting list for new ones is extreamly long. It isn't a coincidence that hybrid sales are slow, it's because there aren't enough of them made to satisfy demand, and not too many are letting them go at affordable prices. Now suppose that I also lost my job, or that I have to drive longer, where do you get off making a generalization that we should just move to a city with mass transit if we aren't already living in one, buy a car with higher mpg, a house closer to work, work that allows more telecommuting, finding a friend to carpool? Do you live in some fairytail? I can't up and leave my family so that I don't have to drive longer to work! Why don't YOU pay for all of us to buy better, more fuel efficient cars! The manufacturers need to be made resposible for offering fuel efficient cars that are reliable. The burden shouldn't be put on the genereal public to pay for higher taxes. I didn't decide to produce more horsepower instead of fuel efficiency on ANY car. I'm not the one resisting making PHV! I'm not the one the claims the 15mpg is jaw dropping (GM!). I'm not the one that still advertises "more horsepower, more horsepower!" Hey, the used cars currently available DO NOT get good gas mileage. They suck, and that's not much better than the current car I drive, which is now 10 years old.
For Pete's sake, I already pay way too much taxes so that our govt can take us to war! Stupid generalizations of that nature take us a step backwards, and just make me sick. I hope you get stuck with more taxes, obviously YOU can afford it! Oh and if you're driving a mega efficient car, I'd like to buy it off you...for cheap!

The only sure-fire way to reduce petroleum use is rationing. The more than doubling in gas prices since 2000 has had little effect on consumption. If we cut oil imports by 1MMbbl/day each month then in 2 years what happens in Iraq or Iran or Venasuela no longer matters and we can keep our troops home. The $300 billion per year going to OPEC et al can be used to help working families and the retired to become more energy efficient.

Richard:

You are right, there is no workable aftermarket bolt-ons to somehow noticeably improve fuel efficiency. But there is some staff which could slightly improve fuel efficiency (aside of usual advices for defensive driving habits and new spark plugs)
1. Synthetic oil, if bought in Costco and alike, is affordable, last 50% longer, decreases engine wear by factor of two, and gives 2-3% improvement in max power and fuel efficiency.
2. Buy cigarette lighter plugging air compressor and digital gauge (30$), and maintain pressure in your tires – twice a month in your own garage and on cold wheels. I also carry it with me and about once a year have opportunity to repair and inflate punctured tire to me or my friend on the spot
3. Buy and change your transmission fluid – old one wastes noticeable amount of power and fuel.
4. Critical thing to maintain fuel efficiency (and pass emission test) is proper work of oxygen sensor. It is located where all exhaust runners are connected to one pipe. Just measure voltage between ground and one of the not-white wires coming out of sensor – on heated car it should constantly wary between 0.2 and 0.8 volt. Use digital multimeter only. If not working properly, replace immediately – you are wasting 10% fuel and place triple wear on engine. On internet generic oxygen sensors are fairly cheap.

Great, so we stop producing in the US where we do it (realtively) efficiently energy-wise, and move production of goods to China where they use more coal to produce more energy because they can't use the energy as efficiently. Then they ship the goods back to us, using even more energy in the transportation. Whoever thought that's a good idea is a bonehead.

I like the idea of a consumption tax, but it would never be enacted. Too much power in the hands of the people. Income taxes provide a dependable revenue stream, but people can control their spending to a much greater extent. Don't like the current Administration? Make your displeasure felt by delaying that new car purchase until after the next election.

It would also encourage people save more, and the financial industries probably wouldn't like that sort of thing either. They'd much prefer you to drive up your credit card debt than leave money just sitting in your savings account collecting interest.

"I like the idea of an oil import fee"
There's tens of Billion of dollars at stake. Do you think
Bush Co. would allow it!!!

Glad to see this site.
http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/
buy biagra [url=http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/]buy biagra[/url]