Author Topic: Just shame, no comedy  (Read 9955 times)

Seradoc

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Just shame, no comedy
« on: July 18, 2016, 06:03:14 PM »
EPA projects that we will miss our emissions goals for 2025.  58% of vehicles sold in the first half of 2016 are trucks and SUVs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/19/business/demand-for-big-vehicles-threatens-emissions-targets.html

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13728
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2016, 06:35:39 PM »
EPA projects that we will miss our emissions goals for 2025.  58% of vehicles sold in the first half of 2016 are trucks and SUVs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/19/business/demand-for-big-vehicles-threatens-emissions-targets.html

demand for trucks and large SUVs spikes whenever fuel prices are low, and vice versa.  Three years ago there were stories about how US consumers were finally moving away from large vehicles and towards fuel-efficient small cars.  Then it flipped.  If fuel goes back above $3.50/gallon I suspect we'll see another spike in small car sales.  If the newer Teslas and other EVs do well in the next 2-5 years and fuel prices spike above $4/gallon we might see an accelerated demand for these vehicles.  But if fuel stays cheap and the tax credits expire demand probably won't go up much.  So it goes.  This is another example of how targets set for a decade+ into the future can either be easily obtained or hopelessly too high. 

Another important trend is that total miles driven has held steady since 2005 even as the population has grown.  So while the fleet-wide fuel efficiency targets may fall short of the 2025 goal, right now total US gasoline consumption is lower than predicted.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7068
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2016, 02:31:10 AM »
This post makes me sad.

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 633
  • Location: Canada
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2016, 03:38:25 AM »
I guess this is just another reason why the auto bailout was a mistake.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3056
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2016, 04:23:44 AM »
OK for us as it's a great time to buy an efficient used car, but bad news for the world.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2016, 08:07:39 AM »
CAFE is a chickenshit way of trying to push standards.  It puts the entire onus on carmakers with zero consideration of consumer demand.  You can't force a certain supply mix while completely ignoring demand.  If you truly wanted to drive standards, mandate a gas tax.  Otherwise, it's all just pissing in the wind.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13728
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2016, 08:39:45 AM »
CAFE is a chickenshit way of trying to push standards.  It puts the entire onus on carmakers with zero consideration of consumer demand.  You can't force a certain supply mix while completely ignoring demand.  If you truly wanted to drive standards, mandate a gas tax.  Otherwise, it's all just pissing in the wind.

I'll agree with this sentiment, though it should be said that we already have a federal (18.4¢/gal) gas tax and state taxes (ranging from 12¢ to 50¢/gal).
Various states and municipalities tax larger (heavier) vehicles more than small ones, and in some areas EV and compact cars are allowed access to HOV/Carpool lanes.

Chris22 - what would you recommend?

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2016, 09:02:05 AM »
CAFE is a chickenshit way of trying to push standards.  It puts the entire onus on carmakers with zero consideration of consumer demand.  You can't force a certain supply mix while completely ignoring demand.  If you truly wanted to drive standards, mandate a gas tax.  Otherwise, it's all just pissing in the wind.

I'll agree with this sentiment, though it should be said that we already have a federal (18.4¢/gal) gas tax and state taxes (ranging from 12¢ to 50¢/gal).
Various states and municipalities tax larger (heavier) vehicles more than small ones, and in some areas EV and compact cars are allowed access to HOV/Carpool lanes.

Chris22 - what would you recommend?

Correct, I should have said "significant INCREASE in gas tax".  My bad.


What would I recommend?  If you take as a given that we "have to do something", which I don't, but for the sake of argument, say we do...I would say we need A) baseline emissions requirements for vehicles <25 years old, 25+ year old vehicles have to keep OEM equipment or similar (which we basically do most places) and B) increase the gas tax by a buck, and let companies write it off on their taxes.  I also think the gas tax should be a floor, so gas prices never drops below a certain level, say $4/gal.  If it goes under that, a tax keeps it up to $4.  If it is over $4, gas tax floater dwindles out (still would be a separate $1/gal tax).  That would allow car manufacturers to plan their fleets accordingly, rather than deal with the seasaw of prices.  I would also banish the use of ethanol in fuel.

What bothers me about CAFE is that it penalizes potential, not actual, fuel use.  If you want to commute 2 miles a day in a V10 Ford Excursion that gets 10mpg, I don't really care.  Under CAFE, that's "bad".  But a person who commutes 50 miles in a 50mpg Prius is "good".  That's nonsensical.  Penalize ACTUAL fuel used, not potential fuel used.  I want everyone to chose what works best for them in their situation, and not have a government mandated 1 size fits all "solution" that doesn't make sense.  For most people, what will make sense is to live close to work and/or drive a fuel efficient car.  For others, they might be more creative.  I think the current CAFE rules are too much "SUVs/Trucks always bad" without any concern for usage patterns, and that's silly.

Aminul

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2016, 09:06:40 AM »

I'll agree with this sentiment, though it should be said that we already have a federal (18.4¢/gal) gas tax and state taxes (ranging from 12¢ to 50¢/gal).
Various states and municipalities tax larger (heavier) vehicles more than small ones, and in some areas EV and compact cars are allowed access to HOV/Carpool lanes.

Canada has a federal gas tax of 10¢ per litre.  So doubling the federal tax in the US might be a start.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2016, 09:21:53 AM »
CAFE is a chickenshit way of trying to push standards.  It puts the entire onus on carmakers with zero consideration of consumer demand.  You can't force a certain supply mix while completely ignoring demand.  If you truly wanted to drive standards, mandate a gas tax.  Otherwise, it's all just pissing in the wind.
Agree. If fuel economy really was a big issue (it is not) then just keep upping taxes on fuel until a standard is met.
Now there are terrible problems with fuel tax: politicization,  increased cost of (all) goods, huge regressive impact on the poor, etc. But it'll do the trick.
I say, burn the $hit out of those dead dinos, get that plant food back in the air where it belongs. Hello Garden of Eden V2.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13728
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2016, 09:30:31 AM »

I'll agree with this sentiment, though it should be said that we already have a federal (18.4¢/gal) gas tax and state taxes (ranging from 12¢ to 50¢/gal).
Various states and municipalities tax larger (heavier) vehicles more than small ones, and in some areas EV and compact cars are allowed access to HOV/Carpool lanes.

Canada has a federal gas tax of 10¢ per litre.  So doubling the federal tax in the US might be a start.

This is true - we do have a federal gas tax of 10¢CAD/l here in Canada, which is ~27¢USD.  That's about 50% higher than in the US.
Total excise taxes are between 16-31¢CAD (or ~46¢-89¢/gal USD), which is has a lot of overlap with the 40-68¢/gal taxes in the US, so total tax paid by the consumer is a bit harder to make apples-to-apples comparisons with (for example, some in NJ will pay less taxes than someone in BC or QC, but filling up in nearby PA or NY will pay considerably more than someone in Alberta)


Quote
What bothers me about CAFE is that it penalizes potential, not actual, fuel use.  If you want to commute 2 miles a day in a V10 Ford Excursion that gets 10mpg, I don't really care.  Under CAFE, that's "bad".  But a person who commutes 50 miles in a 50mpg Prius is "good".  That's nonsensical.  Penalize ACTUAL fuel used, not potential fuel used.  I want everyone to chose what works best for them in their situation, and not have a government mandated 1 size fits all "solution" that doesn't make sense.  For most people, what will make sense is to live close to work and/or drive a fuel efficient car.  For others, they might be more creative.  I think the current CAFE rules are too much "SUVs/Trucks always bad" without any concern for usage patterns, and that's silly.

This is a really good point, and one I haven't given much thought to.  My father lived about 5 miles from work and insisted on driving the same Suburban every day for 20 years.  Thank god he drove two other people, but I was always frustrated that he chose to drive such a ridiculous vehicle on suburban (ha!) streets every day.  His business partner chose to live an hour away so he could have a bona-fide mansion complete with horses and drove more fuel efficient and "sensible" small luxury cars (a cooper mini for a while, then a BMW 3 series). 
In sum though my father used way less fuel per year than his partner.  CAPE doesn't do a good job taking that into account (though his Suburban lasted 20 years while his partner burned through cars every ~3-4 years, driving them 100+ miles a day... so I think that eventually gets factored in...)

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13728
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2016, 09:31:16 AM »

I say, burn the $hit out of those dead dinos, get that plant food back in the air where it belongs. Hello Garden of Eden V2.

I really hope this is sarcasm.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2016, 09:44:37 AM »
My father lived about 5 miles from work and insisted on driving the same Suburban every day for 20 years.  Thank god he drove two other people, but I was always frustrated that he chose to drive such a ridiculous vehicle on suburban (ha!) streets every day.

And that's the kind of thinking that has to stop if you want to make REAL progress, instead of just demonizing SUVs and trucks for no rational reason.  Too often it seems as though people just want to use efficiency/global warming/etc to criticize others' choices that they don't like.  Your view seems to be one of those.  Your father did nothing particularly wasteful, but here you are criticizing it because you don't like it. 

A gas tax would go a long way towards ending that, IMO.

fattest_foot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2016, 10:59:19 AM »
Only semi-related to this thread, but I was sitting at a red light yesterday behind a Suburban, and for some reason the Simpsons episode about the Canyonero came to mind. It aired in 1998 and was basically making fun of people who bought SUV's because of how ridiculous they were.

It's amazing how in less than 20 years, the SUV went from being something people mocked for how impractical it is, to something that encompasses a significant portion of the cars on the road.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2016, 11:21:47 AM »
It's amazing how in less than 20 years, the SUV went from being something people mocked for how impractical it is, to something that encompasses a significant portion of the cars on the road.

Except that's not really how it happened. 

What happened is that SUVs got increasingly less popular, and carmakers evolved into making CUVs, which are basically just tall cars.  SUVs were truck-based, largely had separate frames, rudimentary/heavy duty 4WD, etc.  CUVs are car-based, unibody, and most have simple on-demand AWD.  SUVs get pretty bad gas mileage, but CUVs are generally in the high teens to low 20s or better, not too much worse than a comparable car or minivan.

SUVs include:
-Toyota 4Runner
-Chevy Tahoe/ GMC Yukon/Cadillac Escalade
-Mercedes G550
-Toyota Land Cruiser

CUVs include:
-Toyota Highlander
-Toyota RAV4
-Honda Pilot
-Honda CRV
-Chevy Traverse
-Chevy Equinox

Etc etc.


As a demonstration, look at the sales of the Suburban/Yukon XL (same truck with a GMC badge) over the last 25 years (2016 was annualized):


nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13728
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #15 on: July 19, 2016, 11:28:22 AM »
My father lived about 5 miles from work and insisted on driving the same Suburban every day for 20 years.  Thank god he drove two other people, but I was always frustrated that he chose to drive such a ridiculous vehicle on suburban (ha!) streets every day.

And that's the kind of thinking that has to stop if you want to make REAL progress, instead of just demonizing SUVs and trucks for no rational reason.  Too often it seems as though people just want to use efficiency/global warming/etc to criticize others' choices that they don't like.  Your view seems to be one of those.  Your father did nothing particularly wasteful, but here you are criticizing it because you don't like it. 

I don't understand why some criticism isn't warranted.  My dad had no need for a Suburban. He didn't cart around 8 people (ever) nor did he tow boats or load it up with supplies or anything requiring a large amount of space.  The thing took up a redonculous amount of space in the driveway and on the road.  It was a 4x4 but I can't once remember him driving on anything more demanding than an occasional gravel driveway.  In short, it was completely the wrong tool for the job.  And it *was* wasteful for him because he a smaller vehicle would have met all his needs.  Granted on a per-year basis the difference wasn't huge, but on the lifespan of the vehicle it put out ~2x the emissions and cost at least as much.  That's an important distinction.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #16 on: July 19, 2016, 11:52:39 AM »
My father lived about 5 miles from work and insisted on driving the same Suburban every day for 20 years.  Thank god he drove two other people, but I was always frustrated that he chose to drive such a ridiculous vehicle on suburban (ha!) streets every day.

And that's the kind of thinking that has to stop if you want to make REAL progress, instead of just demonizing SUVs and trucks for no rational reason.  Too often it seems as though people just want to use efficiency/global warming/etc to criticize others' choices that they don't like.  Your view seems to be one of those.  Your father did nothing particularly wasteful, but here you are criticizing it because you don't like it. 

I don't understand why some criticism isn't warranted.  My dad had no need for a Suburban. He didn't cart around 8 people (ever) nor did he tow boats or load it up with supplies or anything requiring a large amount of space.  The thing took up a redonculous amount of space in the driveway and on the road.  It was a 4x4 but I can't once remember him driving on anything more demanding than an occasional gravel driveway.  In short, it was completely the wrong tool for the job.  And it *was* wasteful for him because he a smaller vehicle would have met all his needs.  Granted on a per-year basis the difference wasn't huge, but on the lifespan of the vehicle it put out ~2x the emissions and cost at least as much.  That's an important distinction.

The differences are so small from an efficiency standpoint it doesn't matter.  The key is A) he didn't drive it far and B) he kept it for 20 years.  Was it the perfectly optimal solution?  No, of course not, but ridicule is for someone who bought a new Suburban every 3 years and drove it 50 miles a day.  At the excess your dad is at, it's a bit of harmless conceit, not exactly an exploding volcano of waste. 

Brokenreign

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 118
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Alberta
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #17 on: July 19, 2016, 02:57:48 PM »
Fuel efficiency standards seem like a silly goal anyway. For your listening pleasure:

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-efficient-is-energy-efficiency-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast

Virtually every increase in efficiency is met by a rebound effect in increased usage of energy. I've observed this anecdotally as well in that people who have purchased more efficient vehicles tend to drive them more often. I can't remember if it's in this episode (might have been the one on cities) but they've had an assessment of gas taxes as well (I believe it was critical of their effectiveness...) and espoused the virtue of a mileage-driven tax. At the very least, the latter would go a long ways towards drivers paying their share of costs (before the rabble rabble rabbling starts from frequent drivers, please keep in mind that these costs should include externalities).

I'm increasingly convinced that lowering total energy usage is a fool's errand, as trends have generally been going in the opposite direction (you can swing the statistics however it suits your purposes I'm sure, but the fact that we're using more oil and electricity than ever before seems apparent). I think the only reasonable avenue is to change how that energy is made. Or ride your bike - the general solution to all life's problems.

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1646
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #18 on: July 19, 2016, 03:29:32 PM »
Except that's not really how it happened. 

What happened is that SUVs got increasingly less popular, and carmakers evolved into making CUVs, which are basically just tall cars.  SUVs were truck-based, largely had separate frames, rudimentary/heavy duty 4WD, etc.  CUVs are car-based, unibody, and most have simple on-demand AWD.  SUVs get pretty bad gas mileage, but CUVs are generally in the high teens to low 20s or better, not too much worse than a comparable car or minivan.


The CUVs are now getting 30 mpg in most cases. Those minivans and CUVs could return even more fuel economy if the USA liked small diesels. Like 40 mpg.

I rented a V-8 Tahoe for a work trip (not my choice) and it got 25 mpg average over the trip. My coworker drove a Ford Expedition and saw ~17 mpg. A difference in driving style over the same route.

Also, why pick on the old cars? Most people I know who have old cars drive them occasionally. Doesn't matter if that old Ford gets 5 mpg, its a custom hot rod and only gets driven a little each year.

Or the low income person driving the 1990 Ford Exploder b/c that's what they have. How many vehicles that old are getting daily use at this point anyhow? Up north they've rusted away. In the rest of the country they are are used up and gone. Only in the southwest I suppose are they still in use b/c of the dry climate. 
« Last Edit: July 19, 2016, 03:31:16 PM by Mybigtoe »

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #19 on: July 19, 2016, 03:30:05 PM »
This is a really good point, and one I haven't given much thought to.  My father lived about 5 miles from work and insisted on driving the same Suburban every day for 20 years.  Thank god he drove two other people, but I was always frustrated that he chose to drive such a ridiculous vehicle on suburban (ha!) streets every day.  His business partner chose to live an hour away so he could have a bona-fide mansion complete with horses and drove more fuel efficient and "sensible" small luxury cars (a cooper mini for a while, then a BMW 3 series). 

Why complain?

Your father's driving left less of an "environmental footprint" than that of many smug Prius driving enviros, because he 1) drove very little and 2) car pooled.

I drive an old Chevy Silverado.  If any smug enviro (and I know a lot of them in my job as an environmental engineer) ever questions my choice, I slap them upside the head with Math.

The Prius gets roughly 3 times the mileage of my truck.  However, I drive my truck 1500 miles per year. 

If the enviro weenie drives his Prius a typical 12,000 miles per year, he is having more than double the negative effect on the environment that I have.  Unless you KNOW you are having less impact, you should probably choose to STFU and let the person make their own choice rather than go into enviro bitching.

But here's the real fact:  Mileage is pretty trivial. 

Your overall CONSUMPTION habits have far more effect on the environment.

I can't tell you how often I listen to some preachy enviro bitching about pickups, while shopping for tons of junk to fill her huge house- that has huge environmental costs in production and transportation, to say nothing of disposal. 

Either that, or they keep their AC at 70-72 in San Antonio in August.  I actually know a Prius driving enviro who does this- keeps her 3,200+ square foot house chilled like a meat locker, yet considers herself a die hard liberal protector of the environment- always bitching about trucks, guns, and how hard it is to make ends meet (with her $450 electric bill).






Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #20 on: July 19, 2016, 03:32:56 PM »
This is a really good point, and one I haven't given much thought to.  My father lived about 5 miles from work and insisted on driving the same Suburban every day for 20 years.  Thank god he drove two other people, but I was always frustrated that he chose to drive such a ridiculous vehicle on suburban (ha!) streets every day.  His business partner chose to live an hour away so he could have a bona-fide mansion complete with horses and drove more fuel efficient and "sensible" small luxury cars (a cooper mini for a while, then a BMW 3 series). 

Why complain?

Your father's driving left less of an "environmental footprint" than that of many smug Prius driving enviros, because he 1) drove very little and 2) car pooled.

I drive an old Chevy Silverado.  If any smug enviro (and I know a lot of them in my job as an environmental engineer) ever questions my choice, I slap them upside the head with Math.

The Prius gets roughly 3 times the mileage of my truck.  However, I drive my truck 1500 miles per year. 

If the enviro weenie drives his Prius a typical 12,000 miles per year, he is having more than double the negative effect on the environment that I have.  Unless you KNOW you are having less impact, you should probably choose to STFU and let the person make their own choice rather than go into enviro bitching.

But here's the real fact:  Mileage is pretty trivial. 

Your overall CONSUMPTION habits have far more effect on the environment.

I can't tell you how often I listen to some preachy enviro bitching about pickups, while shopping for tons of junk to fill her huge house- that has huge environmental costs in production and transportation, to say nothing of disposal. 

Either that, or they keep their AC at 70-72 in San Antonio in August.  I actually know a Prius driving enviro who does this- keeps her 3,200+ square foot house chilled like a meat locker, yet considers herself a die hard liberal protector of the environment- always bitching about trucks, guns, and how hard it is to make ends meet (with her $450 electric bill).

Agree with all, and the other point is that by driving a vehicle for 20 years, he's also avoided the environmental footprint of vehicle turnover (disposing of the old and creating the new) which is pretty huge as well.

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1646
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #21 on: July 19, 2016, 03:40:03 PM »
Some might hate this but do the math:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h99gUlJB1Gc

Buy that for $4K.

Compared to the $45K SUV someone I know recently bought, just in vehicle cost alone - I could drive the big truck for 167,000 miles including the cost to buy it (12 mpg, $2 gasoline). ;)

And while the big truck has alot of appeal to me as a car enthusiast I probably wouldn't drive it very often. Drive it to work a few times just for giggles to make the hybrid drivers cringe. Park it like everyone else does their regular cars. Probably park it next to the 4WD pickup guys for bragging rights. And say nothing about it.

Actually I want the tandem axle version. Let's see - insurance, CDL, dry storage, etc. Would be a fun hardware store trip vehicle.

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1646
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #22 on: July 19, 2016, 03:41:14 PM »
Agree with all, and the other point is that by driving a vehicle for 20 years, he's also avoided the environmental footprint of vehicle turnover (disposing of the old and creating the new) which is pretty huge as well.

Anyone have a number for the equivalent number of miles energy wise to manufacture a new vehicle?

I read 11,000 miles.

BTDretire

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3078
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #23 on: July 20, 2016, 08:20:00 AM »
I would not have a problem with a gas tax as it would not have a huge effect on us. We probably drive under 8k miles a year.
  The problem I have, is giving the government another source of money and not taking it away in another area.
Why does government always want a bigger slice of an ever growing pie?
 Let the people decide how they want to spend their money!

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #24 on: July 20, 2016, 08:21:51 AM »
I would not have a problem with a gas tax as it would not have a huge effect on us. We probably drive under 8k miles a year.
  The problem I have, is giving the government another source of money and not taking it away in another area.
Why does government always want a bigger slice of an ever growing pie?
 Let the people decide how they want to spend their money!

Good point.  I forgot to mention, in my little fantasy world, that gas tax can ONLY be spent on infrastructure projects like building and repairing roads and bridges. 

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13728
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #25 on: July 20, 2016, 09:13:05 AM »

Why does government always want a bigger slice of an ever growing pie?
 Let the people decide how they want to spend their money!

Well, it's not true that government has been taking a bigger slice ("%") of an ever growing pie ("GDP"), at least not since the 1950s.  It's averaged about 17% for the last 50 years, and is currently below this average (at about 14.6%).  All told total revenue (which we can call "taxes") has been remarkably constant for the last 70 years, and is currently just below the 50y average.
What's changed is where in the economy that revenue comes from.



Quote
Good point.  I forgot to mention, in my little fantasy world, that gas tax can ONLY be spent on infrastructure projects like building and repairing roads and bridges.
The idea is great in theory, but runs aground because of the fungibility of money and budgets.  Currently the federal government spends ~$90B/year on roads and bridges, and collects ~$35B in fuel taxes, leaving the remaining $55B to come from the general tax pool.  Either we need to raise the fuel tax to the point where it will cover all spending on roads/bridges/etc (and that number is likely much higher than $90B given we are so behind on infrastructure), or money will still be coming in from elsewhere. Raise the fuel tax (to something like 60¢/gallon) and we might accomplish it.  otherwise, for every $1 that a fuel tax brings in some politician will be tempted to "redirect" the rest of the funds towards something else (maybe education, maybe drones, maybe increasing congressional salaries...).
Even if we do raise the fuel tax to meet all transit-related infrastructure spending, there will still be the temptation for lawmakers to either use the money that no longer comes out of the tax pool to fund other projects.  We would need to sandbox all funding for roads and bridges directly to fuel taxes - not a simple task. 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5280
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #26 on: July 20, 2016, 10:41:37 AM »
One would think that after the blazing success of Kyoto /s, few people would be surprised that the USA can't meet the emission goals it promises it will...

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 633
  • Location: Canada
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #27 on: July 21, 2016, 04:21:19 AM »
One would think that after the blazing success of Kyoto /s, few people would be surprised that the USA can't meet the emission goals it promises it will...

The USA never promised anything w.r.t. Kyoto. It was never ratified.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5280
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #28 on: July 21, 2016, 11:18:41 AM »
So this would fall more under the ethanol gasoline requirements of a few years ago that had to be rolled back because, like, reality, or the Clean Power Plan that the EPA got slapped down on by the courts; good intentions but terrible, unrealistic execution.

aasdfadsf

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #29 on: July 21, 2016, 11:41:41 AM »
I would not have a problem with a gas tax as it would not have a huge effect on us. We probably drive under 8k miles a year.
  The problem I have, is giving the government another source of money and not taking it away in another area. Why does government always want a bigger slice of an ever growing pie?

In the case of gas taxes, the government is taking a smaller slice of an ever shrinking pie. Gas taxes are a flat number of pennies per gallon, so as inflation has increased, the real value of the tax keeps going down. And vehicle miles driven peaked in 2005 and cars are more fuel efficient, so there are fewer gallons to tax.

Quote from: Chris22
I forgot to mention, in my little fantasy world, that gas tax can ONLY be spent on infrastructure projects like building and repairing roads and bridges.
 

That fantasy world is what the rest of us call the real world. Federal gas taxes are put into the highway trust fund, which is used to build...highways. The problem is, since the revenue collected has gone down in real terms, the tax no longer covers the cost of road building, to say nothing of the many other socialized costs of vehicle use. To make up for the shortfall, Congress keeps putting more money into the trust fund, meaning the rest of us are now subsidizing other people's driving habits. Underfunding has also resulted in infrastructure that's threatening to collapse on us. There's a really simple solution here, if certain people could just get over their taxophobia.

KCM5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 878
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #30 on: July 21, 2016, 11:52:35 AM »
So this would fall more under the ethanol gasoline requirements of a few years ago that had to be rolled back because, like, reality, or the Clean Power Plan that the EPA got slapped down on by the courts; good intentions but terrible, unrealistic execution.

I have yet to see that the Clean Power Plan had unrealistic expectations. In fact, the state I live in basically had to do nothing different from what was planned in order to meet the goals set by the CPP.  And it hasn't yet been slapped down by the courts - that historic stay of the rule before it went through the lower courts was ruled by a Supreme Court that included Scalia.

And the ethanol requirements were not particularly helpful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I do like how the CAFE standards and the CPP both have standards that allow them to be met in whatever way the regulated entity wants to meet them. And clearly we can't rely on the american consumer to make appropriate choices to meet the CAFE standards. But car makers can incentivise  purchases of vehicles with better gas mileage. And since it is fleet wide, there's no shirking by other car makers.

dougules

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #31 on: July 21, 2016, 12:06:16 PM »
My theory is that we're going deeper into the SUV-oil boom bust cycle.  Gas gets cheap, people buy SUVs.  More SUVs, more fuel usage.  Eventually demand outstrips supply and suddenly overnight oil prices double (1973/2004).  People frantically buy old Yugos held together by duct tape to save gas.  Oil prices stay high for years. High prices not only take gas-guzzling cars off the road, but they make it lucrative to develop amazing new ways to suck oil out of the Alaskan tundra or the bed of the deep ocean or out of the buttcrack of devil.  Suddenly there's an oil glut and prices plunge (1981/2015).  People take the old Yugos to the junkyard and get the latest shiniest luxury SUV.  Then the cycle starts again, but the cycle gets more frequent and sharper as it goes.  Plus, the general trend will be up even if people can't see the regression line.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5280
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #32 on: July 21, 2016, 07:15:12 PM »
So this would fall more under the ethanol gasoline requirements of a few years ago that had to be rolled back because, like, reality, or the Clean Power Plan that the EPA got slapped down on by the courts; good intentions but terrible, unrealistic execution.

I have yet to see that the Clean Power Plan had unrealistic expectations. In fact, the state I live in basically had to do nothing different from what was planned in order to meet the goals set by the CPP.  And it hasn't yet been slapped down by the courts - that historic stay of the rule before it went through the lower courts was ruled by a Supreme Court that included Scalia.

http://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/epa/carbon-pollution-standards-map

Some states have to cut emissions by over 40%. They happen to be some of the poorest states, with the least resources to do so. (Since the capital to fund any new projects, and pay for projects to be shut down that have not met their life expectancy will come directly from higher electricity prices, disproportionally affecting lower-income families.)  These numbers are also significantly different than the draft proposal submitted by the EPA to the states for comment in 2014; and when the final plan was revealed the EPA basically locked out public and industry comments on the new plan.

Again, the goal is great, and some of the aspects of the plan were fine, but the execution was terrible for large swaths of the USA, and the EPA did not handle the back-lash very well, from my reading.

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1646
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #33 on: July 22, 2016, 08:04:28 AM »
My theory is that we're going deeper into the SUV-oil boom bust cycle.  Gas gets cheap, people buy SUVs.  More SUVs, more fuel usage.  Eventually demand outstrips supply and suddenly overnight oil prices double (1973/2004).  People frantically buy old Yugos held together by duct tape to save gas.  Oil prices stay high for years. High prices not only take gas-guzzling cars off the road, but they make it lucrative to develop amazing new ways to suck oil out of the Alaskan tundra or the bed of the deep ocean or out of the buttcrack of devil.  Suddenly there's an oil glut and prices plunge (1981/2015).  People take the old Yugos to the junkyard and get the latest shiniest luxury SUV.  Then the cycle starts again, but the cycle gets more frequent and sharper as it goes.  Plus, the general trend will be up even if people can't see the regression line.

I always thought of it as the oil producers ensuring another decade or two of addiction to gasoline. Make it cheap, get people to upsize their transportation habits (and the distances they drive) and then slowly ratchet the cost back up. Side benefits - it kills the competition from EVs and green technologies.

I noticed the EV charging station at a local store is turned off now. When it was first put in about eight years ago people used it regularly. Then gas got cheap and it fell into disuse. Then disrepair. And now it looks like the store is going to remove it entirely. What a shame.

A diverse mix of power sources is better in my mind.

KCM5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 878
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #34 on: July 22, 2016, 10:47:37 AM »
So this would fall more under the ethanol gasoline requirements of a few years ago that had to be rolled back because, like, reality, or the Clean Power Plan that the EPA got slapped down on by the courts; good intentions but terrible, unrealistic execution.

I have yet to see that the Clean Power Plan had unrealistic expectations. In fact, the state I live in basically had to do nothing different from what was planned in order to meet the goals set by the CPP.  And it hasn't yet been slapped down by the courts - that historic stay of the rule before it went through the lower courts was ruled by a Supreme Court that included Scalia.

http://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/epa/carbon-pollution-standards-map

Some states have to cut emissions by over 40%. They happen to be some of the poorest states, with the least resources to do so. (Since the capital to fund any new projects, and pay for projects to be shut down that have not met their life expectancy will come directly from higher electricity prices, disproportionally affecting lower-income families.)  These numbers are also significantly different than the draft proposal submitted by the EPA to the states for comment in 2014; and when the final plan was revealed the EPA basically locked out public and industry comments on the new plan.

Again, the goal is great, and some of the aspects of the plan were fine, but the execution was terrible for large swaths of the USA, and the EPA did not handle the back-lash very well, from my reading.

None of the states that require more than a 40% cut are particularly poor. I live in one of them, and like I said, with the planned closures, wind projects, and conversions to natural gas for other reasons (its cheaper, MATS requirements), we'd have to do little if anything different to meet the goal. I haven't spent any time talking to other people in other states about the requirements though, so I acknowledge that other states with similar percentage cuts could have very different outcomes. I think the general hysteria around the CPP really comes down to the fact that people don't think its necessary to regulate carbon emissions. And any new regulation - particularly one like this where each state can regulate it differently, leading to a lot of uncertainty - is generally met with resistance.

dougules

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #35 on: July 22, 2016, 10:50:54 AM »
My theory is that we're going deeper into the SUV-oil boom bust cycle.  Gas gets cheap, people buy SUVs.  More SUVs, more fuel usage.  Eventually demand outstrips supply and suddenly overnight oil prices double (1973/2004).  People frantically buy old Yugos held together by duct tape to save gas.  Oil prices stay high for years. High prices not only take gas-guzzling cars off the road, but they make it lucrative to develop amazing new ways to suck oil out of the Alaskan tundra or the bed of the deep ocean or out of the buttcrack of devil.  Suddenly there's an oil glut and prices plunge (1981/2015).  People take the old Yugos to the junkyard and get the latest shiniest luxury SUV.  Then the cycle starts again, but the cycle gets more frequent and sharper as it goes.  Plus, the general trend will be up even if people can't see the regression line.

I always thought of it as the oil producers ensuring another decade or two of addiction to gasoline. Make it cheap, get people to upsize their transportation habits (and the distances they drive) and then slowly ratchet the cost back up. Side benefits - it kills the competition from EVs and green technologies.

I noticed the EV charging station at a local store is turned off now. When it was first put in about eight years ago people used it regularly. Then gas got cheap and it fell into disuse. Then disrepair. And now it looks like the store is going to remove it entirely. What a shame.

A diverse mix of power sources is better in my mind.

I think there is some intentional interference, especially by the Saudis, but even they can't hold out against the market that long.  It's just a natural cycle because there is so much lag on either force.  If the Saudis don't scale back they'll run out of the cheap stuff sooner or later. 

I completely agree that the big problem is how hard the cycle hits sustainable energy as well as energy efficiency.  They'll eventually get there.  It's the only way out. 

gooki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Location: NZ
Re: Just shame, no comedy
« Reply #36 on: July 23, 2016, 01:36:47 AM »
I think there smart and trying to sell down all their oil. In 20 years time what's going to be left running in gas?