After all, we have efficiency standards for everything from hot water heaters to air conditioners to toilets. Of course cars should have efficiency standards.

Everyone agrees that the goal of increased mileage standards is to increase average fuel consumption, so why not just mandate that, maybe add in a credit-trading scheme, and then let the car manufacturers comply any way they want?

Or we could let the American people make their own choices about what kinds of cars to buy. It's disturbing how quickly the liberal side of the blogosphere embraces enviro-fascism.

American Hawk -

When science and the auto industry can produce a vehicle which produces no net air pollution which inevitably crosses onto my private property and into my personal lungs, we can talk about how regulation of an industry can be considered "fascism". Until then, you're full of it.

- Bob R.

Everyone agrees that the goal of increased mileage standards is to increase average fuel consumption . . .

"Consumption?"

joe klein seems to have borrowed your metaphor on what it would take to make you believe the casus belli ...he says: if you're going to implicate the Iranian leadership, I want to see satellite photos of Ayatollah Khamenei personally lugging the bombs across the border before I come to any conclusions.

Kevin Drum: I'm also a fan of a gas guzzler tax/credit scheme, which taxes low-mileage cars while providing refunds to purchasers of high-mileage cars.

CAFE regs do this automatically, without any need for a separate program. Car companies will drop the price of high mileage cars and raise the price of low mileage ones to get a mix that ups their CAFE.

maybe add in a credit-trading scheme

A political lead ballon. "American" car companies will wind up paying "Japanese" ones.

Besides, while this is the sort of scheme that gets economists sexually excited, it's just an unnecessary complexity. A company can sell all the low mileage cars it wants, if it pays the penalty. I'd rather have that money go to the US Treasury than to another car company.

Simplicity is a virtue. CAFE works great. Probably needs some tweaks on how mileage is measured, and, of course, to up the standards. Anything else just adds overhead, leads to more loopholes, and causes economists to stain their trousers.

Wouldn't the tax credits only be on new cars? How many poor people buy new cars?

What's a "hot water heater?"

Only sociopaths can oppose higher Cafe standards across the board. If we hadn't been letting the energy/auto corporations lead us around by the nose for the last 30 years, most of our current environmental, poltical, and military problems would not exist. Artificially low gas prices in the US have enabled them to sell us a bill of goods. History shows that very prosperous countries have a tendency to, sooner or later, decline due to excess. As 'persons' corporations are sociopaths. Ours have pursued selfish policies encouraging excess.

Q. Creating extra rules and extra complexity is just an invitation to a bigger bureaucracy and provokes attempts to game the system by automakers. Why not funnel that energy into making better cars instead?

A. Because Bush wants to let his buddies in the auto industry continue to game the system.

Another in a series of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.

I don't really understand George Bush's proposal to make them "attribute-based" (i.e., different targets for different classes of cars).

The announced goal was to make every class of car and truck more fuel-efficient year by year. The CAFE standards might be better, depending on the buying preferences of consumers, but making all classes more fuel efficient is also good. I think it's hard to tell a prior whether a credit-trading scheme is really simpler or more effective.

Simplest of all would be to add a $0.25 additional tax to the price of gasoline, or to institute a roughly equivalent tax on the carbon-energy content of all fuel. That would provide most of the money for CO2 remediation and increase the incentive for fuel efficiency.

I would like to see some proceeds from gasoline and carbon taxes directed towards public transportation. No matter how efficient the vehicle, it still requires a certain minimum amount of energy and resources to build it as well as the transportation infrastructure to handle a growing number of private vehicles. The only way out of that is going to be some combination of public transportation and population control.

What's a "hot water heater?"

and why does hot water have to be heated??

MatthewRMarler, even if every class gets more fuel-efficient, the overall average gas milage can go down if the proportion of each class among the vehicles actually on the roads changes. If people are switching from cars to SUVs, it doesn't matter if the newer SUVs are more fuel-efficient than the old SUVs -- what matters is whether they're more efficient than the old cars.

Why not funnel that energy into making better cars instead?

Silly rabbit, because that's not the goal.

Also, once again, my proposal for limiting gasoline consumption:

An announcement that the federal gas tax would be going up by 5 cents per gallon, per month, forever. That would concentrate the mind wonderfully.

MatthewRMarler: Simplest of all would be to add a $0.25 additional tax to the price of gasoline, or to institute a roughly equivalent tax on the carbon-energy content of all fuel.

Tax the fossil carbon content of all fuels - there's no reason to single out motor fuels.

Here's an interesting problem though. Take steel. Making it releases lots of fossil carbon. So US steel producers would be penalized. But what about imported steel? How do you keep US producers on a level playing field?

Kevin has a nerve pointing out that "extra rules and extra complexity" are an invitation to bureaucracy and efforts to game the system after proposing an avalanche of new programs (I counted five) to deal with the same issue.

Look, the problem with focusing on CAFE standards isn't all that difficult to grasp. CAFE standard changes affect the people who are buying new cars now, and automakers who are designing cars they will sell in the future. Most people aren't buying new cars now, first of all. Secondly, mandating that cars get more miles per gallon doesn't effect how many miles people choose to drive. Finally, mandating fuel economy averages provides no assurance that consumers will buy the higher-mileage vehicles in an automaker's fleet.

Higher gasoline taxes would affect everyone. They would impose immediate pressure on drivers to drive less, and create pressure on automakers to make cars that cost less to run. All that would be required to make both kinds of pressure great enough to generate real reductions in fuel use is 1. that the gasoline tax increase be large enough, and 2. that it be sustained. Recent spikes in gas prices have not dramatically changed drivers' behavior because drivers do not believe they are permanent, as indeed they have not been. By the time Americans are persuaded that substantially higher market prices require them to change their driving and car-buying habits, it will be if not too late at least a lot later than it is now.

Kevin is a reasonably clever fellow; I suspects he understands all of this perfectly well. The problem is that increasing gasoline taxes is a very unpopular idea, and the idee fixe among Democratic Party types is that the evil, crazy, idiotic and generally malignant Republican era will never end if prominent Democrats associate themselves with any idea known in advance to be unpopular. There are Democrats in Congress who would vote tomorrow for every one of the initiatives Kevin throws out here (and more on top of them) except one: higher gas taxes. We should expect them to avoid thereby political damage. We just shouldn't expect a lot of progress reducing energy use in this country.

Zathras: mandating fuel economy averages provides no assurance that consumers will buy the higher-mileage vehicles in an automaker's fleet

Yes it does. CAFE regs have always applied to a sales weighted average.

They would impose immediate pressure on drivers to drive less

But would they respond? Motor fuel demand is notoriously inelastic.

The problem is that increasing gasoline taxes is a very unpopular idea

The funny thing about representative gov't is that it behooves lawmakers to avoid highly unpopular laws. Should we switch to a different system of gov't?

Or we could let the American people make their own choices about what kinds of cars to buy. It's disturbing how quickly the liberal side of the blogosphere embraces enviro-fascism.

The dumb-fuck faction checks in. The problem with anti-american chickenshit moron is that he was educated in East Germany, and therefore is a total boob.

You would think that even a total moron would be able to get the message of the last 10 years - let American car companies run themselves, and they will run themselves into the ground. Here, we need the Government to FORCE these companies to be competitive. If we had FORCED the CAFE to 35-40 MPG, we would have the same problems that they have with the prius - so much demand that people are bidding for them.

That's the problem that morons like Anti-American Chickenshit don't face - the capitalist system only works when conditions remain the same. It sucks when conditions change.

Mandate minimum fuel efficiency standards: it shall be illegal to sell any new gasoline or diesel fueled vehicle that gets less than 40 mpg.

"I don't really understand George Bush's proposal to make them "attribute-based" (i.e., different targets for different classes of cars)."

That's too easy, Kevin, and KCinDC explains it.

Really, the two approaches-- CAFE vs gas tax or the "attribute-based" one-- pit against each other two fundamentally different understandings of how markets work.

Gas tax/attribute says "let the buyers decide how much they want to pay."

CAFE says "car makers are merchandisers who can shift demand when and as they need to."

The first is in synch with market *theory* about autonomous consumers driving production, etc. The second is much more in synch with how modern marketing actually happens.

The first one also allows car marketers to make more money overall. Coincidence, or mere happenstance?

In principle raising the price of gas, via tax or whatever, and letting the market do its magic, is fine. The trouble is that for a lot of us, the amount of driving we do is a fixed quantity. I'd love to drive a hundred miles less every week, but can't. I've already eliminated most unnecessary trips. That's probably true for a lot of people. Whey they buy SUV's is a mystery to me, but MY country is in a foreign policy mess, MY environment is going to hell, and in part it's because THESE morons couldn't read the writing on the wall, and exercised THEIR freedom to buy a Ford Extinction that seats 12 and get on the highway with no passengers.

I don't know if stricter CAFE standards thirty years ago would have eliminated all our problems now, but they'd sure be a lot less severe. Stricter CAFE standards now might be too little, too late, but we have to try.

American Hawk wrote: "Or we could let the American people make their own choices about what kinds of cars to buy."

I would love that.

I want to buy an inexpensive, durable, reliable, ultra-low maintenance, compact, plug-in hybrid vehicle that recharges at night from house current, runs on a zero-emission battery-electric drive for trips of up to 80 miles, and then kicks in an on-board biodiesel-fueled generator for longer trips.

But the US automakers won't let me make my own choices about what kind of car to buy.

The regressivity of a gas tax is fairly easily addressed by increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit. Indeed, most major proposals for a significant gas tax hike also include an EITC increase.

"The trouble is that for a lot of us, the amount of driving we do is a fixed quantity."

No it isn't, you just haven't felt the cost enough to change your driving habits much. My father, for whatever reason, suddenly noticed how much he spent commuting from the suburbs ten years ago (about $10,000 a year) and within a couple years had moved into town and then started working from home.

"I'd love to drive a hundred miles less every week, but can't."

Sure you could, you just don't want it enough at the moment.

"Really, the two approaches-- CAFE vs gas tax or the "attribute-based" one-- pit against each other two fundamentally different understandings of how markets work."

Gas taxes also discourage driving more, not just driving less efficient vehicles.

CAFE targets vehicle efficiency per distance only. It probably actually slightly encourages people to drive more by making it slightly cheaper (though the first order effect is surely much larger).

One reason for having CAFE standards is safety related. Currently, if you can afford to drive a large car or SUV, you might choose to do so for safety reasons. If nothing else, you would want to protect yourself and your family in the event of a collision with another large vehicle. CAFE standards may tend to reduce the number of large vehicles on the road, and therefore reduce your incentive to buy another one as a defensive tactic.

The best approach might combine a stiff gasoline tax with CAFE or other regulations designed to reduce the number of large vehicles on the road.

jefff-- gas taxes can more effectively discourage driving than CAFE standards, for sure. As others have pointed out, though, driving behavior is extremely price-inelastic so an effective tax would have to be very high. It would be subject to all kinds of political pressures because it's so visible, and its incidence on low-income people who typically don't buy new cars has to be addressed. EITC might be a good way, I don't know.

CAFE has the virtue of being regulatory, which makes it less subject to broad political pressures and relatively easy to mandate. It wouldn't be ideal, and it wouldn't have a huge effect right away, but it would be a start.

The overall problem is how to affect individual behavior enough to make a significant aggregate difference. There's no reason to say our approach has to be all "free market" (ie manipulating the price of gas, so actually "market-based") or all regulatory.

Along with the CAFE increase (which I do see as very effective) and the gas tax increase, how about some sort of aid program to help the poor buy better cars?

After all, most of the big boats (ignoring those deliberately bought to be tricked out), like an old 72 Eldorado, are owned by people who don't feel in the position to do better.

Give them loan assistance, plus some sort of credit counseling, and get them into, at least, an 88 mid-size.

You'll save gas, and save air pollution by taking oil burners off the street.

"As others have pointed out, though, driving behavior is extremely price-inelastic so an effective tax would have to be very high."

I would say others have claimed driving is inelastic. I think they are wrong. The price of driving just hasn't gone up much (gas tends to be only about 1/4 the cost of car commuting, and gas is only up about 50% over the past few years so driving is only up about 12%, just what miraculous effects are people expecting from a 12% price rise?), and not enough time has gone by. Significantly stricter CAFE standards would take a decade to implement, and would only slowly have an effect as the car fleet turns over and a gas tax would start to have noticable effects in a decade.

Bring gas prices to european levels and people would start finding that they can indeed drive 100 miles less a week.

By all means do both, but CAFE does absolutely nothing to reduce miles driven or suburban sprawl development.

"...how about some sort of aid program to help the poor buy better cars?...You'll save gas, and save air pollution by taking oil burners off the street."

No, not really. Subsidizing car purchasing or operation means more car purchasing and operation. Also construction of a car uses lots of resources, including co2 emissions. Using todays old cars a few years longer is a definate win over building a new car. Not many pre 1980 cars are left anyway, and everything after that is pretty close to modern fuel efficiency standards.

Besides those older cars don't vanish, they get sold overseas. It already happens today. The US actually exports used cars (clothing too!) to other countries around the world, bizarre as that sounds.

Bob R.: "Until then, [American Hawk,] you're full of it."

And there you were, A.H., thinking it was just gas pains. Who knew?

CAFE standards are completely worthless. They are a waste of time and cost money for ZERO benefit.

If I want to buy two cars, one a fancy sports car that I drive 1,000 miles a year and a econbox that I drive 25,000 miles a year then why should the CAFE standards force me to pay additional money.

We really shouldn't care what car you have in the garage. We should care which cars is burning gas.

If we were to raise the gas tax by $1 or more a gallon then we would cut down on people driving cars that get poor mileage. We would probably also cut down on the sales of cars that get poor mileage. However, reducing gas usage is the goal.

CAFE standards don't meet that goal.

GAS TAXES do.

I know you have pointed to links claiming that CAFE standards reduced gasoline consumption but you basically showed that CAFE standards only improved the EPA mileage of cars sold. Your other link shows that people respond to gas prices. However, as you must know, it takes time for certain things to work through the system. People don't trade cars every day, unless they have a choice of cars in their driveway, but look at the average fuel ecomony of cars sold during a month with the price of gas during that month. The correlation is pretty strong, especially once you realize that Toyota can't produce extra Prius' just because gas has spiked.

It is important to look at the root causes and not just the headlines.

jefff: Bring gas prices to european levels and people would start finding that they can indeed drive 100 miles less a week.

So what?

You've got to keep the goals clear. I'm figuring that the goal is to reduce fossil carbon emissions. If so, why limit the tax to motor fuels? - tax all all fossil fuels.

CAFE does absolutely nothing to reduce miles driven or suburban sprawl development

Mixed motives. Apparently you have a secondary agenda.

"most of the big boats (ignoring those deliberately bought to be tricked out), like an old 72 Eldorado"

Most of the old full sized sedans are recycled into new steel driving around as new cars. The people I know who own cars like that are older people who don't drive much anymore, that's why they have 35 year old cars that are still running fine.

The average american car goes 13,000 miles per year, so will hit 200k in 15 years. Those few land barges you see today are generally being driven considerably less than average.

The problem with raising CAFE standards on an attribute basis it that it doesn't force individuals to make fuel efficient decisions. It allows car companies and consumers to game the system. We have had attribute based CAFE standards for a long time. The net result has been the development of a class of really inefficient (and in my opinion ugly) vehicles called the SUV. The SUV is based on the light truck which has a lower CAFE standard.

A big problem with the CAFE standard is that less expensive, lighter and most importantly, less costly cars are often more fuel efficient. This means a car company has an incentive to find a way around the CAFE standards. Big heavy SUVs just generate more profit per unit.

neil wilson: If I want to buy two cars, one a fancy sports car that I drive 1,000 miles a year and a econbox that I drive 25,000 miles a year then why should the CAFE standards force me to pay additional money.

Because if you can afford a fancy (new - not classic/restored) sports car that you drive 1,000 miles a year, in addition to your econbox that you drive 25,000 miles a year, then I'm not real concerned about the small unintended financial consequence of CAFE regs.

GAS TAXES do.

If the goal is to reduce fossil carbon emissions, then you should tax all fossil fuels. What's this obsession with gasoline?

"jefff: Bring gas prices to european levels and people would start finding that they can indeed drive 100 miles less a week.

So what?

You've got to keep the goals clear. I'm figuring that the goal is to reduce fossil carbon emissions. If so, why limit the tax to motor fuels? - tax all all fossil fuels."

So what? So car dependent people like to argue that they can't drive less. They are wrong, and there are numerous examples of it such as europe.

Oh yea, sure a comprehensive carbon tax would be better than a gas tax for sure. The additional gas tax ought to pay for all road construction, other automobile operational costs (eg emergency response), and more car specific pollution remediation, but the co2 itself would be better in a general carbon tax. Given that we have no such tax a gas tax is at least part of it.

"CAFE does absolutely nothing to reduce miles driven or suburban sprawl development

Mixed motives. Apparently you have a secondary agenda."

No, my agenda per this discussion is ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and resource consumption related to transportation. Miles driven is just as important as fuel used per mile. We have had CAFE standards for over 30 years and motor fuel consumption is up 40% in that time. How much fuel it takes to move a car a particular distance is a proxy for what we really care about and solutions that target it alone cannot fully address the problem.

All you guys with the big hard-on for huge gas tax increases obviously live in the cities and suburbs with public transportation alternatives. The people who live in rural areas, the remaining family farms that grow the food on your table, have utterly inelastic fuel consumption and driving needs, and to boot, have no choice about the use of gas-guzzling farm machinery and very little in personal vehicles.

When you live 30 miles from the nearest supermarket, harware store, department store, trust me, guys, you don't make that trip except when it's absolutely necessary. And when you do go, you spend an entire day going to a dozen different places to do your errands and you load your vehicle up to the gills with groceries and everything else. Even if you're single, you can't do that in a subcompact, and for a family with kids, forget it.

Please, please, please at least TRY to remember that a large part of the country is rural and that dramatically increased gas taxes would bankrupt people who've already been hit brutally hard by the increase in fuel prices.

Unless, that is, you're all happy to see the end of family farms and organic produce and feed yourselves entirely on factory-farm-produced food, milk from cows that never see the outside of the barn their entire lives, etc.

Don't be so damn myopic.

jefff: So what? So car dependent people like to argue that they can't drive less. They are wrong, and there are numerous examples of it such as europe.

What do you care whether "car dependent people" drive less? Suppose they choose to reduce their fossil carbon emissions by installing more efficient home heating/cooling systems (or just heating/cooling less), or fly less, or switch to a vegetarian diet? Why is that any worse than driving less?

the co2 itself would be better in a general carbon tax. Given that we have no such tax a gas tax is at least part of it.

It wouldn't be that hard to introduce a general fossil fuel tax. There's already plenty of tax structure and regulation around oil and gas, so all you need is a tax on coal.

my agenda per this discussion is ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Then why mention reducing "suburban sprawl"? While that could be a result of policies that reduce fossil carbon emissions, it's not a goal.

Ted Stevens, who along with John McCain is part of the elderly carpetslipper brigade in the Congress, was prepared before the recent Democratic congressional victories, to destroy Net Neutrality and turn the Internet over to a few big telehone companies. Though he was prepared to push his anti-Net Neutrality proposals in the lame-duck Congress that followed the elections and preceded the Democratic takeover, his die-hard position collapsed when Democrats made plain their oppostion and when even his erstwhile Republican colleagues deserted him on the measure as a lost cause. As a result, today you hear little or nothing about getting rid of Net Neutrality; quite the opposite, despite continued efforts by the telephone companies to influence the matter by pouring money into the campaign coffers of Congress members of both political parties.

Ted Stevens will continue to pad about the halls of Congress with John McCain and a few other old
goats, but it's long past time to trust him on anything.

Right from the start, CAFE standards made no sense. Ton miles per gallon is a real efficieny number that spans the field. This would remove the incentive to cheapen [lighten] the construction and make the competition for genuine efficiency, not parlor tricks.

Alex i'm starting to think you are being willfully obtuse.

"jefff: So what? So car dependent people like to argue that they can't drive less. They are wrong, and there are numerous examples of it such as europe.

What do you care whether "car dependent people" drive less?"

Because driving less = using fewer resources = emiting less carbon, etc. It's not that subtle.

"Suppose they choose to reduce their fossil carbon emissions by installing more efficient home heating/cooling systems (or just heating/cooling less), or fly less, or switch to a vegetarian diet? Why is that any worse than driving less?"

When did I say it was? Why are you lambasting me for your (incorrect) perception that I am wandering off the topic of transportation, then lambasting me for failing to explicitly include things other than tranportation? Attack me for one or the other, not both!

"the co2 itself would be better in a general carbon tax. Given that we have no such tax a gas tax is at least part of it.

It wouldn't be that hard to introduce a general fossil fuel tax. There's already plenty of tax structure and regulation around oil and gas, so all you need is a tax on coal."

Again this thread is about automobile transportation and CAFE vs gas tax. I didn't disagree with you about a carbon tax, obviously as I said I agreed. However again you are switching back and forth between demanding I narrowly focus on transportation and demanding that I broadly talk about everything. A gas tax is in part a partial carbon tax and that's a good thing.

"my agenda per this discussion is ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Then why mention reducing "suburban sprawl"? While that could be a result of policies that reduce fossil carbon emissions, it's not a goal."

Reducing suburban sprawl is a means to reduce carbon emissions. Policies that reduce suburban sprawl will reduce carbon emissions because suburban sprawl emits more carbon per person than denser development, in part because it requires people to drive more. Less suburban sprawl = less driving = less driving emissions. Sprawl is also less efficient in other ways, but I cant talk or not talk about that without upsetting you, so I'm pretty much screwed.

neil wilson: "If we were to raise the gas tax by $1 or more a gallon then we would cut down on people driving cars that get poor mileage. We would probably also cut down on the sales of cars that get poor mileage. However, reducing gas usage is the goal."

Not of this president and administration, which has gladly facilitated the current obscene increases in corporate profits for the Exxon/Mobils and BPs of the world.

Further, the optimum window of opportunity for passing any gasoline consumption tax was slammed hard shut the moment George W. Bush told Americans to go shopping in the middle of wartime.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, neil wilson, since on an academic level I'm entirely in agreement with you about gasoline taxes -- but in the world of BushCo, Inc. politics, things that don't make any sense whatsoever can still be very, very real.

And therefore, because you are a rational being who makes perfect sense, to the people running things at BushCo, Inc. you are advocating a type of politics that is all too firmly tethered to reality and terra firma, and which is something to be feared, resisted and denied at all costs. Paul O'Neill and Christine Whitman, dive under that bus!

However, because the Bush Administration does seem to be fixed upon setting in motion the final chain of events that tips the entire Middle East into the proverbial abyss, I would hazard to guess that unless Congress intervenes quickly to drop anchor on this ship of fools, the resulting disruption in the supply of oil from the Persian Gulf (and probably Venezuela) will drive its price well above $100-150 / barrel.

That, too, will accomplish the reduction of gasoline consumption that you desire -- just in far less pleasant fashion for a lot of people.

I want to see satellite photos of Ayatollah Khamenei personally lugging the bombs across the border before I come to any conclusions.
Posted by: jody on February 12, 2007 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

don't believe that shit. It's Karl Rove in a black robe with a fake beard.

- - - -

The thing about gas taxes is, it may encourage more people to live in tightly-packed cities. For many reasons, I sure wouldn't want to live in a city - and I especially don't want to raise my kids in a city.

For one thing, there's the pollution. It has a severe negative effect on health - and has been shown to permanently reduce lung capacity for kids who are raised in areas with poor air quality (ie. near major highways, or busy roads, etc.). Maybe some of this will change if less of us are driving, but there are a lot of other negatives too. The noise. The crime. The quality of education. Expensive real estate. Crappy commitment to public investment. Disease. There's a lot of legitimate reasons why suburbanites who know damn well they spend in excess of $10,000 per year commuting, and think it's worth every penny.

I may be sharply liberal on petroleum-dependency issues, but I don't believe that we should have to give up suburban or exurban lifestyles to accommodate that.

Besides, gas taxes aren't going to motivate people as much as FULL DISCLOSURE would. If people could trace their dollars paid at the pump directly to Saudi funding of wahhabist madrassas in Pakistan, of the kind that inspired the 9/11 terrorists, I'd bet there'd be a stampede for alternatives.

First of all, for some of you brilliant readers, I was using a hypothetical example. I drive a 2005 Kia Optima which actually gets pretty crappy mileage. I wish I knew that before I bought it.

Second of all, Mankiw,Bush's old economic advisor is in favor of a big tax increase on fuel. I think that you would have a political winner if you modified the old John Anderson idea of having a gas tax of 50% and then a rebate of income tax or FICA tax

jefff: Alex i'm starting to think you are being willfully obtuse.

No, being obtuse just comes naturally to me.

Because driving less = using fewer resources = emiting less carbon, etc.

That's one way to do it, but not the only way.

If you want to limit this thread to CAFE vs. gas tax (no other options), then I'll go for CAFE. It imposes less of a hardship. While it takes time to take effect, so do gas taxes. There's a notorious short term inelasticity in gas use. It's more elastic in the longer term. But then why not use CAFE if there's no great short term effect?

Second, I'm against a gas tax as opposed to a general carbon tax. There is no reason to force people to reduce their carbon emissions in that one narrow way. Impose a carbon tax and let people decide on their own tradeoffs.

Suburban americans have similar health profiles to urban americans four years older after correcting for income, race, sex, etc.

The suburbs are unhealthy. They encourage you to sit down, eat too much, and become socially isolated. Living in the suburbs you kids will be fatter and lonelier, on average, than if they lived in the city. They are also more likely to die in a car accident, which is thier leading cause of death.

The good old Senate has been and will continue to be the problem passing higher CAFE standards. First, you will need 60 votes and that will mean more than a dozen Republican votes. Conservative Democrats like Lieberman and Ben Nelson probably won't go along. Then you have Senators from the upper Midwest who equate voting for higher CAFE standards as some how opposing the UAW. Kevin, why don't you ask the UAW where they stand on this?

Give me access to European-like public transportation, and I'll happily -- joyfully -- deliriously -- adopt European driving habits!

Until then I'll just have to go for good gas mileage.

I love it when the wing-nut twats use words like enviro-fascism as it usually means progress is about to be made in a certain area and they are getting more than a little hysterical about it.
Does anyone know if that big fat federal tax loophole is still in place for people who buy Hummers?

jefff: Suburban americans have similar health profiles to urban americans four years older after correcting for income, race, sex, etc.

Fascinating. Any links or other cites?

I'm also a fan of a gas guzzler tax/credit scheme, which taxes low-mileage cars while providing refunds to purchasers of high-mileage cars.

I think the idea is to require that even the gas guzzlers should be made more fuel efficient. That way even the richest people who care nothing about the cost of fuel would consume less fuel per person.

Everyone agrees that the goal of increased mileage standards is to improve average fuel consumption

Actually the goal is to decrease total fuel consumption, in order to reduce costly fuel imports. Improving just the average fuel efficiency of the fleet has no good impact if the total number of miles driven also increases.

The other goal is CO2 remediation, which can come through a combination of CO2 sequestration and reduced carbon-based fuel usage.

Does anyone know if that big fat federal tax loophole is still in place for people who buy Hummers?

Hey, I need that Hummer! Only got three inches, and I need something to impress the babes with...

gyrfalcon made a great comment that went right over the heads of most of us. People who live in the country, and raise our food, will be very adversely impacted by a signinficantly higher fuel tax. That will mean that either food prices will go up or we will lose a lot of farmers. I am not sure which will happen, but the transition will not be pleasant for farm families.

Any bright ideas?

1.) Everyone knows that CAFÉ standards will not have a large, immediate effect, they are a long term, but effective, solution, as demonstrated in the late 70’s/early 80’s. If the system wasn’t short circuited in the 80’s, we would be in much better shape today.

2.) It has been stated many times and in many different ways, but once again, for all you "free market" idealists, MILES DRIVEN IS VERY INELASTIC TO GAS PRICE. I will type it once again, very slowly: MILES DRIVEN IS VERY INELASTIC TO GAS PRICE.

2.) The concept that everyone can rearrange their entire life to reduce driving miles is assinine. We have a society built on the concept of driving a lot of miles; it will take many years to change this. Miles driven is inelastic to price mainly because of how our towns are structured. Individual people may have a "choice" to significantly reduce driving miles, but the population as a whole, in the short term, doesn't. It will take government interaction, and many years, to change infrastructure, something the free market dreamers will abhor.

3.) Anyone who thinks the problem will be addressed by letting the consumers "choose" the correct car, doesn't understand the American marketing industry. "Free" choice is what they want it to be. If we give car companies incentives to make higher gas mileage cars more popular, voila, it will magically happen.

4.) We should copy what they do in Europe and Japan, impose a yearly registration of several thousand dollars for large engines. $3000/yr registration fee for a 4L engine will cut down on the popularity of gas guzzlers. Yes, this is regressive for people with large families or businesses that require hauling. Tax deductions can be used to address these issues.

5.) It is fairly obvious why Bush wants attribute-based CAFÉ standards, the Republican base drives large SUV’s and pickup trucks and they don’t want to give them up. The car companies also like the mammoth cars, as they have the largest profit margins.

6.) Of course increasing gas prices will reduce miles driven, but unless it is coupled with changes in mass transit and suburban layout, it will have a limited effect. High gas taxes will suck a huge amount of money out of the middle class into the government, which will then be funneled back to the top 1%. I’ve had enough of this game. Unless the gas tax is specifically earmarked to be used to reduce miles driven, increase gas mileage, or provide alternative fuels, I don’t want any part of it. Building more roads and bridges is not the answer.

7.) CAFÉ standards, gas guzzler tax, mass transit and increased research on new technologies are what are required to reduce our dependence on oil and reduce greenhouse gas emmisions. Transportation is only part of the problem, power generation and heating need to be addressed as well.

8.) I hope the American public as learned one thing in the last 6 years: KEEP BIG OIL OUT OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

Whey they buy SUV's is a mystery to me...Posted by: thersites on February 12, 2007 at 3:31 PM

Ask that guy who called in to News Talk saying he owned an Suburban and was proud of it. Everything half of the US does will have to counter-act what the other half of the US refuses to do. It is that You-Ain't-Telling-Me-What-To-Do attitude. The I-want-mine mantra!!!

And tax carbon fuels all you want. Poor folks walk and ride bikes already. So the middle class car-pool and reduce to one car per family. How many cities have mass transportation? How many rural areas?

For all that, you won't touch the rich. Money, it insulates. The rich keep driving. They will be the only ones on the LA freeways...yes, in their chromed SUVs, driving by you and me, chatting on their cells. I wouldn't want to see the ugliness bred in the middle class over something like that.

Poor folks may be used to getting anything remotely like luxury taken from them. But the middle class, you take away their "rights" to keep up with the Jones's and you'll have a vicious electoral revolt on your hands. The American middle class is getting squeezed and getting more cornered and more mad every day.

Convincing them to make better choices is the better choice, even knowing that some will go for the SUV, for ego, for status, sometimes even for utility.

Never get between an American and his dream...

Jeez, I didn't realize it was an either or situation. Either higher CAFE standards OR increased gas taxes. Surely those of us who can think farther into the future than next year want to do everything possible to reduce the consumption of carbon fuels. Gas taxes, yes. Higher CAFE standards, yes. Lower traffic speeds, yes. Alternate fuels, yes. Public transport, yes.

Personally, I'm in favor or rationing, but that will be a hard sell when gas drops below $60/barrel.

The argument that changes in fuel prices don't affect usage much is a short run thing.

Over a year, not so much effect. Over five years, big difference.

A prohibitive annual tax on big engines? Interesting idea.

Robert Merkel: Over a year, not so much effect. Over five years, big difference.

Same as CAFE.

Ron Byers: A prohibitive annual tax on big engines? Interesting idea.

Pointless. Displacement doesn't matter - mileage does. CAFE is effectively a low mileage tax, as car makers raise the price of low mileage models, and lower the price of high mileage models. That's one way to keep their sales weighted fuel mileage within the limits.

Anybody remember who was the first public figure to propose a carbon tax?

It was 15 years ago. Tall guy, kinda good-lookin', a little stiff and geeky ...

That's right: Al Gore. He called it a BTU tax, and the oil companies went berserk so Clinton dropped it, but just imagine if he'd fought for it ....

Al Gore. Still right - and a decade ahead of the conventional wisdom - after all these years.

gyrfalcon: Please, please, please at least TRY to remember that a large part of the country is rural and that dramatically increased gas taxes would bankrupt people who've already been hit brutally hard by the increase in fuel prices.

It would be worthwhile, and mandated under Bush's plan, and eventual with an increased gasoline tax, to make trucks and farm equipment more fuel efficient. Even people who need the high-powered pickup trucks don't need the maximum power very often. The technology to increase average fuel efficiency without sacrificing maximum power already exists, but without mandates, and without high fuel costs, nobody is much interested.

Since the fuel has to be imported from nations that are more or less enemies, it's patriotic to purchase trucks that consume less fuel. With composite materials, trucks can be made lighter without sacrificing strength -- but they are more costly. Over the 200,000 miles or so life of the truck, it would probably be advisable to get the lighter truck with fewer doo-dads but better fuel efficiency.

There is always special pleading: "I have to commute", "I have to tow", "I have to haul farm supplies", "I have to carry the soccer team". But we face common problems, and every vehicle class can be made more fuel efficient.

I agree with Secular Animist on another point. Without federal mandates of some kind, the American auto industry probably won't manufacture the vehicles I prefer to buy. I look at pickup trucks all the time, and nobody makes what I want to buy.

Anybody remember who was the first public figure to propose a carbon tax?

And they'd still crucify his ass! I'm afraid Zit's right; we live at the mercy of the 50% who think God gave them the right to drive an Extinction!

Five minutes from my house is an empty railroad right-of-way. The local gas station is on "station street." Why did we let this happen? Now, you can't even hike the right-of-way without some moron calling the cops.

TT: MILES DRIVEN IS VERY INELASTIC TO GAS PRICE.

I don't have a link, but I did read that Americans reduced their fuel consumption in response to the price increases last summer.

'big boats', I fish the backwaters of the Mossissippi and the big overpowered bass boats are an environmental disaster(literally and aesthetically). They go back and forth all day. When you pay $35K? for a boat like that, I think you feel compelled to justify the expense by high speed junkets; Isaak Walton would vomit at what passes for fishing these days. Tax the suckers big time!!

It's all about more tax and less mobility. Then the right people will not have to fight traffic and they can get to their government jobs easier, just in time for coffee break.

Walter E. Wallis: It's all about more tax and less mobility. Then the right people will not have to fight traffic and they can get to their government jobs easier, just in time for coffee break.

Say, comrade, sounds like you need a refresher course at one of our re-education camps!

Walter E. Wallis: It's all about more tax and less mobility.

NO. It's about the gradual exhaustion of cheap fuel, and the national security problems engendered by Venezuelan, Nigerian, and Middle Eastern oil. The best investments now both prolong the fuel supply and make the fuel cheaper.

Simplest of all would be to add a $0.25 additional tax to the price of gasoline, or to institute a roughly equivalent tax on the carbon-energy content of all fuel. That would provide most of the money for CO2 remediation and increase the incentive for fuel efficiency. - MatthewRMarler

As others have noted here, in fact gas consumption has proven remarkably unresponsive to price increases during the current hike in gasoline prices (especially as compared to that in 1979). In theory people ought to drive less or buy more fuel-efficient cars when prices rise; in fact, so far, they haven't. Given American affluence, prices might have to rise to $5 per gallon before we see really significant buyer-side effects on consumption. Conservation driven by price increases will begin with the poorest Americans, who will be hit hardest by this approach; and their only way to conserve will be to stop driving, because are less able to afford new, more fuel efficient cars.

So, what if there were a way we could put the burden of conservation on the shoulders of those most able to bear it? Given that this is a common national goal which is in all of our interests? Imagine, for example, that we could make those who DO buy new cars contribute the most to fuel conservation. Then it would be the richest Americans, not the poorest, who were paying to make our world less polluted and our country less dependent on Mideast oil.

Say! I've got an idea! What if we mandated that all new cars sold in the US have much higher fuel efficiency, and that the total mix of cars sold by any auto manufacturer meet that higher standard?...What? You mean someone already figured this out? Back in the '70s? Gee...then why are we still arguing about it?...

jefff wrote: Bring gas prices to european levels and people would start finding that they can indeed drive 100 miles less a week.

Ok smarty pants. Your drive to work is 25 miles one way making the round trip 50 miles per day. Times that by 5 days in the week. You don't do any extra driving. Please tell me how you can cut 100 miles out of that. And no, there is no carpooling available, at least not yet. This is rural America where I gripe about driving 12 miles to the county seat if I have to do any business there.

"jefff: Suburban americans have similar health profiles to urban americans four years older after correcting for income, race, sex, etc.

Fascinating. Any links or other cites?"

First article I found on google about the 4 years health profile:
http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/00045/48/
I have read studies of all the others and they aren't all that hard to dig up on google, but no luck immediately.

"please at least TRY to remember that a large part of the country is rural"

Something like 2% of the population is involved in food production, 20.7% was rural in 2000 (and dropping). There is also a federal gas tax credit for farmers already. They aren't paying the gas tax now, at least not at the full rate. I'd compromise on that sure. It's bad policy to exempt them from a carbon tax (though reasonable policy to exempt them fro a highway building tax for farm equipment they run on thier farms), but still a gas tax with some holes is better than nothing.

"People who live in the country, and raise our food, will be very adversely impacted by a signinficantly higher fuel tax. That will mean that either food prices will go up or we will lose a lot of farmers."

Even if they did have to pay the gas tax, which they might not given that they don't now, food prices could go up or less food could be produced. Surely some mix of the two, but I know how i would bet on which would predominate. This is, however, why any major gas (or carbon) tax increases need to be phased in over some years. People do need time to adjust. The farmers are also going to be hit with massive costs from global warming. Those costs will be higher the less we do to mitigate greenhouse emissions.

My uncle is a farmer and has never driven one of those giant pickups, he drives small beat up 2wd toyota pickups and even more efficient motorcycles. He actually drives cmall cars to town. I suspect some of the behemoths I see parked around all the condo construction sites where I live would sink up to thier axles in living soil and come up far short in pulling compared to his tractors. They remind me of a show I once watched where some people wanted to drive around the world. They had sponsorship from Jeep I think so had to take a few cherokees along with them. In siberia they were dragging the cherokees frozen so hard that thier wheels weren't even spinning behind these crazy giant russian siberia trucks.

Anyhow right now farmers don't pay the same gas tax as other people. That could be maintained. My uncle is already getting government subsidies greater than the income he gets from his farm anyway, what's a few thousand from another tax loophole?

Europe started down this route a long time ago. Gas or diesel is now $7-8 a US gallon. Their cars, for most people, 30-50 mpg. Sure the rich lord it over all the others and drive their Range Rover, etc. but that could be countered with an exponential carbon tax on vehicle sales price as mpg drops. Then people might not want to be seen dead in the guzzlers for what they represent. Well, there's a hope.

Of course there should be a carbon tax and it should be much higher and rising over time on fossil and non-renewable fuels; or carbon licenses for same reducing over time.

The object is to get to a point where all non-renewable carbon, methane, etc. production comes to an end. Mercury and other poisons, too.

If you haven't noticed industry has used the land, sea and air as a sink for their garbage and rarely paid any price. We saw part of this in the 70s with Love Canal, etc., but we have now reached the point of paying the piper and it needs to be tackled in a comprehensive way.

It will need a far more coordinated effort than this world and the US in particular has shown any will to do.

Thanks gyrfalcon for knowing about us rural folks.

Unfortunately, the number of true family farms is less than 4%. We still have a fair number of them, but even here it's dwindling as kids go to the cities for jobs and the farms are sold to the corps or some developer to carve into a subdivision. Feh.

"Ok smarty pants. Your drive to work is 25 miles one way making the round trip 50 miles per day. Times that by 5 days in the week. You don't do any extra driving. Please tell me how you can cut 100 miles out of that."

100/5/2 = 10 miles you need to move closer to work, or ten miles you need to find a job closer to home.

That would be about under $350 a month reduction in commute expense at average per mile costs, and it would probably save you half an hour every day.

"Say! I've got an idea! What if we mandated that all new cars sold in the US have much higher fuel efficiency, and that the total mix of cars sold by any auto manufacturer meet that higher standard?...What? You mean someone already figured this out? Back in the '70s? Gee...then why are we still arguing about it?..."

Because we did that back in the seventies and 35 years later we are driving more than twice as far as we were then and burning 40% more gasoline than we did then?

By all means lets increase efficiency standards, but miles driven needs to go down as well and efficiency standards don't help with it.

I don't know how it flies re world trade law, but if carbon tax is applied equally to domestic and imported produce, there is no differentiation and therefore OK as far as I know.

Re farmers: so food would cost a little more and we adjust poverty rates, food stamps and the rest to maintain status quo -- if that's what you want.

Personally I'd prefer a bigger move to help the poorer.

mattsteinglass: What if we mandated that all new cars sold in the US have much higher fuel efficiency, and that the total mix of cars sold by any auto manufacturer meet that higher standard?.

The president's plan advocates higher fuel efficiency in all vehicle classes, but leaves the mix of cars to the buyers. If the mix of cars changes so that CAFE does not increase, then the second step you advocate could be taken.

However, if people drive farther once they have bought fuel efficient cars, then there may be no net reduction in total fuel consumed.

Given American affluence, prices might have to rise to $5 per gallon before we see really significant buyer-side effects on consumption.

I think that phasing in a $2 per gallon tax on gasoline and diesel fuel might be a good idea, but is it a non-starter? It would be interesting to exempt biofuels.

The president's plan advocates higher fuel efficiency in all vehicle classes, but leaves the mix of cars to the buyers.

spider: no one is advocating not "leaving the mix of cars to the buyers". (What would they do, say, "No, you can't buy that Suburban, Chevy has already sold its quota"?) What they are advocating is that there be overall targets set for the fleet of cars, in addition to targets set for each model. Manufacturers will have to make calculations to ensure that, even with some leeway for changing buyer preferences, they meet the targets for the upcoming year.

Let's think about this the way that a competent business or organization would: a logical framework. The logical framework dictates that steps implemented should be designed to reach the overall goal. Now, what is our goal in this case? Our goal is a reduction of a certain level in overall American gasoline consumption. To achieve such a reduction, we need to know how much the overall fleet of cars being driven will increase its fuel efficiency, not how much a certain model will. Improving fuel efficiency on Corvettes is nice, but the most important improvements are those on the cars which sell the most models and consume the most aggregate gas.

This is basically a question of competence, logic, and rational cost-benefit analysis in government policymaking. CAFE is based on overall FLEET fuel efficiency because that is the statistic that matters in order to achieve our goal.

"...This is basically a question of competence, logic, and rational cost-benefit analysis in government policymaking. CAFE is based on overall FLEET fuel efficiency because that is the statistic that matters in order to achieve our goal."
Posted by: mattsteinglass on February 13, 2007 at 12:17 AM

CAFE changes are the best way to reduce consumption long term because it represents a structural change that is independent of fuel price instability due to supply fluctuations and economic cycles. This also can benefit the domestic auto industry since it would reduce the tendency of Detroit to build nothing but mobile homes because the competition won't bother (how lazy!). What good is it if the top 50% income earners continue to drive to work in a mobile home and pay an "inconvenience" tax and the bottom 50% income earners are seriously pinched or worse and don't have much CHOICE what type of vehicle they can buy or drive?

We will run out of oil in 35 years or less.

We need every drop of oil to switch to the non-polluting, solar-electric solution.

This is a massive project.

Time is running out.

CAFE standards are a fatal diversion.

Think sunlight to electricity to battery powered cars, homes and factories. This is existing technology.

The solar collectors will cover less than 0.5% of the continental US to produce all the electricity
we need.

Read about Solar Tres in Spain.

why is there even a disucsion on this - carter raised CAFE standards and our oil consumption proeceeded to drop like a stone. they are proven to work.

mattsteinglass: spider: no one is advocating not "leaving the mix of cars to the buyers". (What would they do, say, "No, you can't buy that Suburban, Chevy has already sold its quota"?)

If what you say is literally true, then the CAFE standards can not be enforced.

With or without CAFE, I still think is worthwhile to encourage/require increased fuel efficiency in all vehicle classes.

This is basically a question of competence, logic, and rational cost-benefit analysis in government policymaking.

There's more than one goal, more than one solution, and more than one point of view of what the costs are and who should bear them. As others have written, if people responded to higher fuel efficiency by driving more, you might have no net reduction of fuel consumption -- either for CAFE or the president's plan. The most rational solution is probably to increase the fuel tax in stages until noticeable reductions in fuel consumption start to occur. Unfortunately, the burden of that policy is borne more by the poor than the rich, so some sort of Rube-Golberg mechanisms for transferring the cost upward have to be devised.

I think the Democrats ought to have adopted Bush's plan (they may yet) and then come back later with stricter CAFE standards as needed. This isn't a problem that will be solved all at once and forever.

online pharmacy - online pharmacy store
discount pharmacy - discount online pharmacy