Big vehicles kill

[Bakari]

with its high concentration of diesels, Europe does NOT have lower emissions. 

I said emission "requirements".  True, they have a different ratio of gas to diesel, but the emissions standards for gas engines is higher than our emission standards for gas engines.  In CA at least, we don't even test diesel emissions.

Second, Europeans have smaller, lighter cars because they have smaller, denser countries.  It's not about being smart or dumb or anything else, it's about buying the right tool for the job.  In America we aren't as size constrained so it isn't nearly as big a concern outside major cities.

This gets back to the initial topic.  Yes, we have enough parking space for big cars.  The question is whether having the space to fit them actually makes them "the right tool for the job".  If you are moving 1/2 a ton of scrap metal, a mattress, a sofa, and a bunch of random junk to be recycled and landfill (like I did between my last post and this one) than certainly a big truck is the right tool for the job.  If you are moving yourself from home to work, I don't see how urban density has any factor in whether a subcompact is the right tool.

[Chris22]

with its high concentration of diesels, Europe does NOT have lower emissions. 

I said emission "requirements". 

And emissions.

Cars are inefficient because American consumers want big powerful cars with power everything.
If you disagree, explain why Europe has higher emissions and safety requirements (with correspondingly lower emissions and lower fatality rates in accidents), yet has smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles.

True, they have a different ratio of gas to diesel, but the emissions standards for gas engines is higher than our emission standards for gas engines.  In CA at least, we don't even test diesel emissions.

Not sure what that means, but the EPA absolutely tests diesel emissions.

Second, Europeans have smaller, lighter cars because they have smaller, denser countries.  It's not about being smart or dumb or anything else, it's about buying the right tool for the job.  In America we aren't as size constrained so it isn't nearly as big a concern outside major cities.

This gets back to the initial topic.  Yes, we have enough parking space for big cars.  The question is whether having the space to fit them actually makes them "the right tool for the job".  If you are moving 1/2 a ton of scrap metal, a mattress, a sofa, and a bunch of random junk to be recycled and landfill (like I did between my last post and this one) than certainly a big truck is the right tool for the job.  If you are moving yourself from home to work, I don't see how urban density has any factor in whether a subcompact is the right tool.

It gets back to MMM's stupid and ridiculous comparison to drills. 

The Wrong Tool for the Job: this is what you are doing, if you use a full-sized pickup truck for anything smaller than hauling multi-ton loads. And I’m not even going to mention the folly of using a pickup truck to commute to an office job. Fuck.

It is very easy to own multiple drills.  I do, they're cheap to buy, minimal maintenance and easy to store.  Cars are not like that.  It does not make sense for most people to have multiple vehicles.  If they want to, great, I'm all for that (I have three cars for two drivers).  But for most people, commuting is the "easiest" thing their car does, and while they may spend the most time on that, it doesn't necessarily mean that they can buy their vehicle with ONLY that usage in mind.  Most people need more space than a subcompact offers at least some percentage of the time, so why shouldn't they accommodate that need in their sole vehicle choice?

[paddedhat]

Sorry, but after a 2 day long self-imposed absence in the thread you've had to call me out again.

Oh well, it was nice while it lasted. Are we going to suffer through more ridiculous "facts" this time?

Not sure what driving the vehicles has to do with it - a classic fallacy, you drive the big truck therefore everything you say about them is correct and anyone who drives a smaller car and interacts with them on a daily basis has nothing to say on the matter.

First, after decades of driving large vehicles for employment and recreation, driving them has a hell of a lot to do with it, and is far from a "classic fallacy" whatever the fuck that means?  Second your conclusion that everything I say is correct is odd. I'm not the one who, as at least two us has pointed out, states utter horseshit on the topic. Lets not forget your best work. "A 2011 Ranger is the size of a full size truck from the 80s"

And yes I have driven everything other than the rig in your list - not sure how this has any bearing on the  facts presented in the thread. Is  it really at all rare to drive such vehicles and therefore makes one who has an expert on all matters vehicle and accident related?


Finally, your last sentence is apparently trying to express something. Punctuation would help. Bottom line is that you jumped into a classic and meaningless thread here. There are certain hot topics that cause a limited number of members to drone on endlessly. In the real world there are not huge masses of commuters tooling around in loaded F350 trucks. They are a statistically insignificant subset that irritates the hell out of a limited audience here. One day they will be vilified on the wall of shame since it involves coworkers with a $500/month mortgage on one. Next week it will be because the don't get 50MPG, and some asshole is using a modified one to blow black smoke.  This week it's the "all heavy vehicles kill" angle. If you need to jump into that game and argue over the danger of a car that weighs 600LBs more than it did in 1984, have fun. Just don't get all butt hurt when you get called out for stating absurd "facts" to bolster your arguments.

[FIRE47]

Sorry, but after a 2 day long self-imposed absence in the thread you've had to call me out again.

Oh well, it was nice while it lasted. Are we going to suffer through more ridiculous "facts" this time?

Not sure what driving the vehicles has to do with it - a classic fallacy, you drive the big truck therefore everything you say about them is correct and anyone who drives a smaller car and interacts with them on a daily basis has nothing to say on the matter.

First, after decades of driving large vehicles for employment and recreation, driving them has a hell of a lot to do with it, and is far from a "classic fallacy" whatever the fuck that means?  Second your conclusion that everything I say is correct is odd. I'm not the one who, as at least two us has pointed out, states utter horseshit on the topic. Lets not forget your best work. "A 2011 Ranger is the size of a full size truck from the 80s"

And yes I have driven everything other than the rig in your list - not sure how this has any bearing on the  facts presented in the thread. Is  it really at all rare to drive such vehicles and therefore makes one who has an expert on all matters vehicle and accident related?


Finally, your last sentence is apparently trying to express something. Punctuation would help. Bottom line is that you jumped into a classic and meaningless thread here. There are certain hot topics that cause a limited number of members to drone on endlessly. In the real world there are not huge masses of commuters tooling around in loaded F350 trucks. They are a statistically insignificant subset that irritates the hell out of a limited audience here. One day they will be vilified on the wall of shame since it involves coworkers with a $500/month mortgage on one. Next week it will be because the don't get 50MPG, and some asshole is using a modified one to blow black smoke.  This week it's the "all heavy vehicles kill" angle. If you need to jump into that game and argue over the danger of a car that weighs 600LBs more than it did in 1984, have fun. Just don't get all butt hurt when you get called out for stating absurd "facts" to bolster your arguments.

It's called a logical fallacy.

At best your experience is anecdotal - how can you driving 1 out of  millions of such vehicles have any statistical relevance to the overall injury/fatality rate associated with such vehicles over the span of decades and over all types of conditions and environments.

And "my best work" if you really have nothing left to argue and need to go back to this, the length of the 2011 Ranger was right in the midpoint of the full-size truck ranges in the 80s and a full 2'' lower! - Which was actually closer than your claim that "trucks haven't grown in 40 years." Which I posted about days ago.

Neither fact has anything to do with the over all argument however.


I agree with your last paragraph about being a hot topic, however clearly it is a topic of interest and who are you to say what is and isn't worth discussing here - this was approaching a topic of interest from a new angle. If you have an axe to grind and a chip on your shoulder with regards to something maybe take it up in those threads and don't blow your top the second someone mentions trucks.

You literally have not done anything to refute my initial argument beyond continuing to dwell on "facts" that were actually closer to reality than some that you posted.

[seattlecyclone]

It is very easy to own multiple drills.  I do, they're cheap to buy, minimal maintenance and easy to store.  Cars are not like that.  It does not make sense for most people to have multiple vehicles.  If they want to, great, I'm all for that (I have three cars for two drivers).  But for most people, commuting is the "easiest" thing their car does, and while they may spend the most time on that, it doesn't necessarily mean that they can buy their vehicle with ONLY that usage in mind.  Most people need more space than a subcompact offers at least some percentage of the time, so why shouldn't they accommodate that need in their sole vehicle choice?

If you haul large things half of the time you drive, it probably makes sense to own a truck even if that means you use it sometimes just to transport yourself. The extra gas you waste on commuting probably compares favorably to the extra cost and energy you save by not buying a second, smaller vehicle. If you move furniture three times a year, buy a small car and rent an occasional U-Haul. It really depends on your usage patterns.

In my experience, people too often buy vehicles based on the heaviest load they imagine ever needing to carry, which means they drive too much car most of the time. Instead buy based on the 95th (or 99th) percentile load, and plan to rent a bigger thing a handful of times per year.

[Chris22]

It is very easy to own multiple drills.  I do, they're cheap to buy, minimal maintenance and easy to store.  Cars are not like that.  It does not make sense for most people to have multiple vehicles.  If they want to, great, I'm all for that (I have three cars for two drivers).  But for most people, commuting is the "easiest" thing their car does, and while they may spend the most time on that, it doesn't necessarily mean that they can buy their vehicle with ONLY that usage in mind.  Most people need more space than a subcompact offers at least some percentage of the time, so why shouldn't they accommodate that need in their sole vehicle choice?

If you haul large things half of the time you drive, it probably makes sense to own a truck even if that means you use it sometimes just to transport yourself. The extra gas you waste on commuting probably compares favorably to the extra cost and energy you save by not buying a second, smaller vehicle. If you move furniture three times a year, buy a small car and rent an occasional U-Haul. It really depends on your usage patterns.

In my experience, people too often buy vehicles based on the heaviest load they imagine every needing to carry, which means they drive too much car most of the time. Instead buy based on the 95th (or 99th) percentile load, and plan to rent a bigger thing a handful of times per year.

I don't necessarily disagree, but really the differences are not huge.  A basic Ford F150 will do give or take 20mpg under most conditions, better on the highway.  That to me is not unreasonable, unless you're commuting 50 miles a day.  If you want to throw rocks at guys with Suburbans and F350s and such who never load them up, I sorta get it, but there really aren't that many of those people in the grand scheme of things to get worked up over.  Joe average in his regular F150 isn't really doing that much worse than the guy in a Ford Fusion sedan, maybe 5mpg.  It doesn't really matter, a few hundred bucks a year (12k miles at 25mpg and $3 gas is $1440, at 20mpg it's $1800, $360 difference).

[Metric Mouse]

It is very easy to own multiple drills.  I do, they're cheap to buy, minimal maintenance and easy to store.  Cars are not like that.  It does not make sense for most people to have multiple vehicles.  If they want to, great, I'm all for that (I have three cars for two drivers).  But for most people, commuting is the "easiest" thing their car does, and while they may spend the most time on that, it doesn't necessarily mean that they can buy their vehicle with ONLY that usage in mind.  Most people need more space than a subcompact offers at least some percentage of the time, so why shouldn't they accommodate that need in their sole vehicle choice?

If you haul large things half of the time you drive, it probably makes sense to own a truck even if that means you use it sometimes just to transport yourself. The extra gas you waste on commuting probably compares favorably to the extra cost and energy you save by not buying a second, smaller vehicle. If you move furniture three times a year, buy a small car and rent an occasional U-Haul. It really depends on your usage patterns.

In my experience, people too often buy vehicles based on the heaviest load they imagine every needing to carry, which means they drive too much car most of the time. Instead buy based on the 95th (or 99th) percentile load, and plan to rent a bigger thing a handful of times per year.

I don't necessarily disagree, but really the differences are not huge.  A basic Ford F150 will do give or take 20mpg under most conditions, better on the highway.  That to me is not unreasonable, unless you're commuting 50 miles a day.  If you want to throw rocks at guys with Suburbans and F350s and such who never load them up, I sorta get it, but there really aren't that many of those people in the grand scheme of things to get worked up over.  Joe average in his regular F150 isn't really doing that much worse than the guy in a Ford Fusion sedan, maybe 5mpg.  It doesn't really matter, a few hundred bucks a year (12k miles at 25mpg and $3 gas is $1440, at 20mpg it's $1800, $360 difference).

But add that $360 dollars up and compound it over a decade! You'd have enough to go on a short vacation somewhere average, and burn just as many hydrocarbons as if you'd used it commuting!

[seattlecyclone]

25 MPG isn't all that great for a passenger car. Even assuming 25 MPG as the most efficiency you're willing to put up with (why?), the fuel isn't the only place you save money. The car itself is cheaper, and so is maintenance (new tires and other parts tend to be smaller and cheaper). This adds up to real money over time. All you need to do is choose a car that isn't way too big for most of your trips.

[Guses]

I don't necessarily disagree, but really the differences are not huge.  A basic Ford F150 will do give or take 20mpg under most conditions, better on the highway.  That to me is not unreasonable, unless you're commuting 50 miles a day.  If you want to throw rocks at guys with Suburbans and F350s and such who never load them up, I sorta get it, but there really aren't that many of those people in the grand scheme of things to get worked up over.  Joe average in his regular F150 isn't really doing that much worse than the guy in a Ford Fusion sedan, maybe 5mpg.  It doesn't really matter, a few hundred bucks a year (12k miles at 25mpg and $3 gas is $1440, at 20mpg it's $1800, $360 difference).

Dude, 20mpg absolutely sucks and those big trucks ( including the f150) are the best selling new vehicle in the US and Canada.

That is a shit ton of money when you multiply it by the number of trucks currently owned.

[Chris22]

25 MPG isn't all that great for a passenger car.

I think you need to be realistic about what most cars get.  I drive a 4cyl midsize sedan, and in normal suburban driving do about 22-23mpg.  If I made an effort to not use full throttle and such on occasion, I could probably squeak that to 24-25.  Yeah, things like Fits, etc, get better mileage, but realistically are you expecting to talk someone out of an F150 and into a Fit?  Maybe for some, but for most that's not the next best desirable option.

Even assuming 25 MPG as the most efficiency you're willing to put up with (why?), the fuel isn't the only place you save money. The car itself is cheaper, and so is maintenance (new tires and other parts tend to be smaller and cheaper). This adds up to real money over time.

With incentives, a new Ford truck is not that different in cost to a new Ford sedan.  Maintenance is low on both, there will be little difference.  And tires will be more expensive on the truck, sure, but over 100k miles that's probably a 1 time purchase, and it won't be that drastically different.

It's more expensive, but not drastically so, and obviously not different enough for most people to chose something other than what they want. 

[Chris22]

Dude, 20mpg absolutely sucks and those big trucks ( including the f150) are the best selling new vehicle in the US and Canada.

For mixed driving, it really doesn't, unless you're comparing it to extremely small, low-powered cars, like Civic class and below.

That is a shit ton of money when you multiply it by the number of trucks currently owned.

Why would one prospective owner care to multiply his gas cost by the number of trucks currently owned?  Why would that have anything to do with his decision making process?

[GuitarStv]

25 MPG isn't all that great for a passenger car.

I think you need to be realistic about what most cars get.  I drive a 4cyl midsize sedan, and in normal suburban driving do about 22-23mpg.  If I made an effort to not use full throttle and such on occasion, I could probably squeak that to 24-25.  Yeah, things like Fits, etc, get better mileage, but realistically are you expecting to talk someone out of an F150 and into a Fit?  Maybe for some, but for most that's not the next best desirable option.

Jesus, what are you driving?  My wife and I average 30-32 mpg from about 95% city trips in our 2006 Corolla.

[dycker1978]

25 MPG isn't all that great for a passenger car.

I think you need to be realistic about what most cars get.  I drive a 4cyl midsize sedan, and in normal suburban driving do about 22-23mpg.  If I made an effort to not use full throttle and such on occasion, I could probably squeak that to 24-25.  Yeah, things like Fits, etc, get better mileage, but realistically are you expecting to talk someone out of an F150 and into a Fit?  Maybe for some, but for most that's not the next best desirable option.

Even assuming 25 MPG as the most efficiency you're willing to put up with (why?), the fuel isn't the only place you save money. The car itself is cheaper, and so is maintenance (new tires and other parts tend to be smaller and cheaper). This adds up to real money over time.

With incentives, a new Ford truck is not that different in cost to a new Ford sedan.  Maintenance is low on both, there will be little difference.  And tires will be more expensive on the truck, sure, but over 100k miles that's probably a 1 time purchase, and it won't be that drastically different.

It's more expensive, but not drastically so, and obviously not different enough for most people to chose something other than what they want.

You need a better 4 cylinder car.  My parents have an accord, that gets better than 50MPG(they have clocked it and done the math) on the highway at 120 KPH.  it averages about 40-41 between in town and on the highway.  I have a Nissan Altima, which is a bigger car, and ge4 40-45 MPs on the highway at 120KPH and 31-32 in the city.

[Guses]

For mixed driving, it really doesn't, unless you're comparing it to extremely small, low-powered cars, like Civic class and below.

Why would one prospective owner care to multiply his gas cost by the number of trucks currently owned?  Why would that have anything to do with his decision making process?

1) Of course I am. Why use a sledgehammer to drive a nail when a claw hammer is perfectly fine?

2)I am not saying that the prospective owner should multiply his gas cost by the number of trucks. We are looking at the impact of big vehicles in general.

Most people buy trucks because they want to, not because they need to.

[Chris22]

25 MPG isn't all that great for a passenger car.

I think you need to be realistic about what most cars get.  I drive a 4cyl midsize sedan, and in normal suburban driving do about 22-23mpg.  If I made an effort to not use full throttle and such on occasion, I could probably squeak that to 24-25.  Yeah, things like Fits, etc, get better mileage, but realistically are you expecting to talk someone out of an F150 and into a Fit?  Maybe for some, but for most that's not the next best desirable option.

Even assuming 25 MPG as the most efficiency you're willing to put up with (why?), the fuel isn't the only place you save money. The car itself is cheaper, and so is maintenance (new tires and other parts tend to be smaller and cheaper). This adds up to real money over time.

With incentives, a new Ford truck is not that different in cost to a new Ford sedan.  Maintenance is low on both, there will be little difference.  And tires will be more expensive on the truck, sure, but over 100k miles that's probably a 1 time purchase, and it won't be that drastically different.

It's more expensive, but not drastically so, and obviously not different enough for most people to chose something other than what they want.

You need a better 4 cylinder car.  My parents have an accord, that gets better than 50MPG(they have clocked it and done the math) on the highway at 120 KPH.  it averages about 40-41 between in town and on the highway.  I have a Nissan Altima, which is a bigger car, and ge4 40-45 MPs on the highway at 120KPH and 31-32 in the city.

I have an "Accord" as well, an Acura TSX that's just an Accord in fancier clothes.  It can do 38mpg on the open highway with cruise at 75-80mph, but we're not talking about highway mileage.  I'm guessing in order to hit 50MPG they either have a hybrid or their doing some serious hypermiling stuff, that is certainly not normal usage.

You can see on Fuelly that most Accords are centered on the 25-27mpg mark, and that will include highway mileage.

[dycker1978]

25 MPG isn't all that great for a passenger car.

I think you need to be realistic about what most cars get.  I drive a 4cyl midsize sedan, and in normal suburban driving do about 22-23mpg.  If I made an effort to not use full throttle and such on occasion, I could probably squeak that to 24-25.  Yeah, things like Fits, etc, get better mileage, but realistically are you expecting to talk someone out of an F150 and into a Fit?  Maybe for some, but for most that's not the next best desirable option.

Even assuming 25 MPG as the most efficiency you're willing to put up with (why?), the fuel isn't the only place you save money. The car itself is cheaper, and so is maintenance (new tires and other parts tend to be smaller and cheaper). This adds up to real money over time.

With incentives, a new Ford truck is not that different in cost to a new Ford sedan.  Maintenance is low on both, there will be little difference.  And tires will be more expensive on the truck, sure, but over 100k miles that's probably a 1 time purchase, and it won't be that drastically different.

It's more expensive, but not drastically so, and obviously not different enough for most people to chose something other than what they want.

You need a better 4 cylinder car.  My parents have an accord, that gets better than 50MPG(they have clocked it and done the math) on the highway at 120 KPH.  it averages about 40-41 between in town and on the highway.  I have a Nissan Altima, which is a bigger car, and ge4 40-45 MPs on the highway at 120KPH and 31-32 in the city.

I have an "Accord" as well, an Acura TSX that's just an Accord in fancier clothes.  It can do 38mpg on the open highway with cruise at 75-80mph, but we're not talking about highway mileage.  I'm guessing in order to hit 50MPG they either have a hybrid or their doing some serious hypermiling stuff, that is certainly not normal usage.

You can see on Fuelly that most Accords are centered on the 25-27mpg mark, and that will include highway mileage.

Nope plain old gas one.  I don't know how they drive, but this is what they told me... Maybe they are using an imperial gallon for calculation instead of an American on(4.7 L vs 3.8 L) because we are Canadian?  That is why I prefer the L per 100 km rating.

[Chris22]

25 MPG isn't all that great for a passenger car.

I think you need to be realistic about what most cars get.  I drive a 4cyl midsize sedan, and in normal suburban driving do about 22-23mpg.  If I made an effort to not use full throttle and such on occasion, I could probably squeak that to 24-25.  Yeah, things like Fits, etc, get better mileage, but realistically are you expecting to talk someone out of an F150 and into a Fit?  Maybe for some, but for most that's not the next best desirable option.

Even assuming 25 MPG as the most efficiency you're willing to put up with (why?), the fuel isn't the only place you save money. The car itself is cheaper, and so is maintenance (new tires and other parts tend to be smaller and cheaper). This adds up to real money over time.

With incentives, a new Ford truck is not that different in cost to a new Ford sedan.  Maintenance is low on both, there will be little difference.  And tires will be more expensive on the truck, sure, but over 100k miles that's probably a 1 time purchase, and it won't be that drastically different.

It's more expensive, but not drastically so, and obviously not different enough for most people to chose something other than what they want.

You need a better 4 cylinder car.  My parents have an accord, that gets better than 50MPG(they have clocked it and done the math) on the highway at 120 KPH.  it averages about 40-41 between in town and on the highway.  I have a Nissan Altima, which is a bigger car, and ge4 40-45 MPs on the highway at 120KPH and 31-32 in the city.

I have an "Accord" as well, an Acura TSX that's just an Accord in fancier clothes.  It can do 38mpg on the open highway with cruise at 75-80mph, but we're not talking about highway mileage.  I'm guessing in order to hit 50MPG they either have a hybrid or their doing some serious hypermiling stuff, that is certainly not normal usage.

You can see on Fuelly that most Accords are centered on the 25-27mpg mark, and that will include highway mileage.

Nope plain old gas one.  I don't know how they drive, but this is what they told me... Maybe they are using an imperial gallon for calculation instead of an American on(4.7 L vs 3.8 L) because we are Canadian?  That is why I prefer the L per 100 km rating.

Yeah, most likely it's that goofy math used by people who haven't been to the moon :P

[Bakari]

25 MPG isn't all that great for a passenger car.

I think you need to be realistic about what most cars get.  I drive a 4cyl midsize sedan, and in normal suburban driving do about 22-23mpg.  If I made an effort to not use full throttle and such on occasion, I could probably squeak that to 24-25.

I get 20-25 out of my 1983 F-250 (which supposedly "gets" 15) - when I was into serious hypermiling I was getting 30.  Best ever tank was 38 (though that was mostly highway). 
I get around 45 out of my wife's Yaris (rated at 32 combined).


What a car "gets" is maybe 75% the vehicle and at least 25% the driver.

[Fastfwd]

I get 20-25 out of my 1983 F-250 (which supposedly "gets" 15) - when I was into serious hypermiling I was getting 30.  Best ever tank was 38 (though that was mostly highway). 
I get around 45 out of my wife's Yaris (rated at 32 combined).


What a car "gets" is maybe 75% the vehicle and at least 25% the driver.

I think it also depends a lot on where you drive(stops, red lights). Do a lot of stop signs on a heavy vehicle; that's a lot of gas to get all that weight moving again. Do real stops instead of slowing down? More gas. Idle a lot on a big V8? More gas. Drive relatively slowly on a country road with no stops or lights.. yay

My F250 was also not that bad on the highway but on the daily winter drive to the train station with many stops and idling it was bad; very bad. Very short drive so not that expensive but the L/100km (MPG) display was scary.

[Shane]

25 MPG isn't all that great for a passenger car.

I think you need to be realistic about what most cars get.  I drive a 4cyl midsize sedan, and in normal suburban driving do about 22-23mpg.  If I made an effort to not use full throttle and such on occasion, I could probably squeak that to 24-25.  Yeah, things like Fits, etc, get better mileage, but realistically are you expecting to talk someone out of an F150 and into a Fit?  Maybe for some, but for most that's not the next best desirable option.

Even assuming 25 MPG as the most efficiency you're willing to put up with (why?), the fuel isn't the only place you save money. The car itself is cheaper, and so is maintenance (new tires and other parts tend to be smaller and cheaper). This adds up to real money over time.

With incentives, a new Ford truck is not that different in cost to a new Ford sedan.  Maintenance is low on both, there will be little difference.  And tires will be more expensive on the truck, sure, but over 100k miles that's probably a 1 time purchase, and it won't be that drastically different.

It's more expensive, but not drastically so, and obviously not different enough for most people to chose something other than what they want.

See bold above.

This is the problem. People are only motivated by money, and gas prices in NA are too low right now, so nobody has any motivation to change. Recently I've heard several people IRL say something like, "We're thinking of getting a bigger car/truck...it would be more convenient...and comfortable...and once a year when we go skiing it would be nice to have the 4WD..."

If we raise gas taxes gradually but significantly to the point where gasoline costs at least $10/gallon, people will see the wisdom in changing their habits. Until then, nothing will happen. With gas prices so cheap, people have no incentive to "choose something other than what they want."

If gas were expensive, people would "want" to buy fuel efficient vehicles and they would drive them as little as they possibly could. People who live out in the country would either work from home, telecommute or farm or whatever, or they would move closer to town. People who drive F-350's just to haul their surfboards or skis around would "want" to get smaller cars because they wouldn't want to pay 30 bucks just to drive to work and back everyday.

As has been pointed out above in the thread, gasoline is massively subsidized by the U.S. government, including through the use of its military. Our only interest in the Middle East is oil, and the two wars our government started there in the past 13 years have caused the deaths of over 1 million people! This is the cost of driving stupid F-150's around, not a little bit more for tires or a few mpg worse fuel economy.

I agree with Sol. Why the fuck are we taxing employment income? We should gradually, but massively, increase fuel taxes to the point where gasoline costs at least 10 bucks/gallon, and give every worker in the U.S. an equally large tax rebate to spend as he wishes.

[JLee]

25 MPG isn't all that great for a passenger car.

I think you need to be realistic about what most cars get.  I drive a 4cyl midsize sedan, and in normal suburban driving do about 22-23mpg.  If I made an effort to not use full throttle and such on occasion, I could probably squeak that to 24-25.  Yeah, things like Fits, etc, get better mileage, but realistically are you expecting to talk someone out of an F150 and into a Fit?  Maybe for some, but for most that's not the next best desirable option.

Even assuming 25 MPG as the most efficiency you're willing to put up with (why?), the fuel isn't the only place you save money. The car itself is cheaper, and so is maintenance (new tires and other parts tend to be smaller and cheaper). This adds up to real money over time.

With incentives, a new Ford truck is not that different in cost to a new Ford sedan.  Maintenance is low on both, there will be little difference.  And tires will be more expensive on the truck, sure, but over 100k miles that's probably a 1 time purchase, and it won't be that drastically different.

It's more expensive, but not drastically so, and obviously not different enough for most people to chose something other than what they want.

See bold above.

This is the problem. People are only motivated by money, and gas prices in NA are too low right now, so nobody has any motivation to change. Recently I've heard several people IRL say something like, "We're thinking of getting a bigger car/truck...it would be more convenient...and comfortable...and once a year when we go skiing it would be nice to have the 4WD..."

If we raise gas taxes gradually but significantly to the point where gasoline costs at least $10/gallon, people will see the wisdom in changing their habits. Until then, nothing will happen. With gas prices so cheap, people have no incentive to "choose something other than what they want."

If gas were expensive, people would "want" to buy fuel efficient vehicles and they would drive them as little as they possibly could. People who live out in the country would either work from home, telecommute or farm or whatever, or they would move closer to town. People who drive F-350's just to haul their surfboards or skis around would "want" to get smaller cars because they wouldn't want to pay 30 bucks just to drive to work and back everyday.

As has been pointed out above in the thread, gasoline is massively subsidized by the U.S. government, including through the use of its military. Our only interest in the Middle East is oil, and the two wars our government started there in the past 13 years have caused the deaths of over 1 million people! This is the cost of driving stupid F-150's around, not a little bit more for tires or a few mpg worse fuel economy.

I agree with Sol. Why the fuck are we taxing employment income? We should gradually, but massively, increase fuel taxes to the point where gasoline costs at least 10 bucks/gallon, and give every worker in the U.S. an equally large tax rebate to spend as he wishes.

Not sure if you're intentionally exaggerating in an attempt to prove your point, but I can't say I've ever met anyone who owned an F-350 to carry surfboards around, and "people who live out in the country would farm or whatever" is just utterly absurd.

[sol]

the two wars our government started there in the past 13 years have caused the deaths of over 1 million people! This is the cost of driving stupid F-150's around, not a little bit more for tires or a few mpg worse fuel economy.

Preach it, brother Shane.  Oil doesn't cost $2/gallon at the pump, it costs American lives overseas.  It funds terrorists and caliphates.  Republicans and hawkish conservative democrats have been sounding the warning bell over this national security issue for decades, yet the most conservative Americans are the ones driving the biggest trucks, buying the most gas, contributing the most to this problem.

Why the fuck are we taxing employment income? We should gradually, but massively, increase fuel taxes to the point where gasoline costs at least 10 bucks/gallon, and give every worker in the U.S. an equally large tax rebate to spend as he wishes.

Usually, when a long and detailed argument, like one over carbon taxes in this thread, goes completely silent it means people mostly agree with it and don't think it worth debating, or they just got distracted by something else and forgot.  Rarely do the people who violently disagree with me just shut up about it.  So I'm putting out the call: who here thinks taxing carbon instead of working is a terrible idea, and why?  I'm genuinely looking for holes in the argument, because right now it looks pretty solidly obvious to me.

Do I need to start a new thread?

[JLee]

the two wars our government started there in the past 13 years have caused the deaths of over 1 million people! This is the cost of driving stupid F-150's around, not a little bit more for tires or a few mpg worse fuel economy.

Preach it, brother Shane.  Oil doesn't cost $2/gallon at the pump, it costs American lives overseas.  It funds terrorists and caliphates.  Republicans and hawkish conservative democrats have been sounding the warning bell over this national security issue for decades, yet the most conservative Americans are the ones driving the biggest trucks, buying the most gas, contributing the most to this problem.

Why the fuck are we taxing employment income? We should gradually, but massively, increase fuel taxes to the point where gasoline costs at least 10 bucks/gallon, and give every worker in the U.S. an equally large tax rebate to spend as he wishes.

Usually, when a long and detailed argument, like one over carbon taxes in this thread, goes completely silent it means people mostly agree with it and don't think it worth debating, or they just got distracted by something else and forgot.  Rarely do the people who violently disagree with me just shut up about it.  So I'm putting out the call: who here thinks taxing carbon instead of working is a terrible idea, and why?  I'm genuinely looking for holes in the argument, because right now it looks pretty solidly obvious to me.

Do I need to start a new thread?

I'm undecided on the merits of either, though I am curious how it would mathematically work out.

Let's say you eliminate payroll taxes and tax carbon instead, and eventually fuel consumption drops to a tiny fraction of what it is now.  Where's your tax revenue coming from? When housing costs skyrocket in major cities while values plummet in rural areas, how do you expect rural residents to be able to afford to move into a city?

It's solidly obvious to you because your propositions likely have a minimal impact on you.  For someone like me, there's a massive impact.  My hobbies are racing and offroad/expedition trips; I'm also in an international relationship so I fly fairly frequently as well.  Now if E85 stays at reasonable prices and actually existed everywhere I go, it'd be a lot easier to deal with (unless you want to tax that at $8.50/gallon too).

[seattlecyclone]

Usually, when a long and detailed argument, like one over carbon taxes in this thread, goes completely silent it means people mostly agree with it and don't think it worth debating, or they just got distracted by something else and forgot.  Rarely do the people who violently disagree with me just shut up about it.  So I'm putting out the call: who here thinks taxing carbon instead of working is a terrible idea, and why?  I'm genuinely looking for holes in the argument, because right now it looks pretty solidly obvious to me.

Do I need to start a new thread?

I'm undecided on the merits of either, though I am curious how it would mathematically work out.

Let's say you eliminate payroll taxes and tax carbon instead, and eventually fuel consumption drops to a tiny fraction of what it is now.  Where's your tax revenue coming from?

This would be a great problem to have. If it did happen we would need to increase other taxes to compensate.

Which taxes? I would tend to prefer sales tax and property tax, for the same reason as shifting taxes from income to carbon consumption makes sense. We should want to discourage inefficient consumption, while encouraging productive activity. Emphasizing consumption taxes over income taxes is a way to do this.

When housing costs skyrocket in major cities while values plummet in rural areas, how do you expect rural residents to be able to afford to move into a city?

When moving from a rural area into a city, you may need to adjust your expectations about what your home will look like. A detached house with a big yard near the center of a major city is expensive, and nothing can really change this. Some cities currently have very expensive multi-family housing as well, often because they use zoning to artificially keep the supply of housing well below the demand. This should be fixed.

I'm not sure I would suggest that everyone should be moving into cities though. If you prefer country living, go right ahead. I just want the energy usage that enables that choice to be priced appropriately. If that nudges people living in rural areas to install solar/wind farms on their land and buy an electric truck the next time they replace their vehicle in order to reduce their carbon tax, that's an outcome I would be quite happy with.

[Shane]

Not sure if you're intentionally exaggerating in an attempt to prove your point, but I can't say I've ever met anyone who owned an F-350 to carry surfboards around, and "people who live out in the country would farm or whatever" is just utterly absurd.

The amount of the fuel tax is just a guess. I don't know exactly how much pain it would take to get people to change their habits. $10/gallon seems like it might work. What do you think? At what cost would you be willing to change?

Obviously it's just anecdotal, but I ran into a guy at the beach once who was unloading a surfboard out of the back of a brand new F-350 with the stickers still in the windows. We started talking, and I asked him, "So, are you a contractor?" He said, "No, I've just always wanted to drive a full size truck, so I finally bought myself one." I was like, "Sooooo, you must use it for hauling or pulling a trailer or something, right?" With a smile on his face the guy answered, "No, right now the heaviest thing I haul around is my surfboard and my bicycle. Maybe, some day, I'm thinking of getting a boat, and if I do, then I'll be able to use the truck to pull it..." I'm not making this up. :)

My wife and I have lived in the country 25 miles from the nearest town where we worked for the past 20 years. The entire time we've worked full time at jobs in town and farmed part time to make extra money. Recently, I went through our tax receipts back to 1995, and it was amazing how much money we've spent on fuel and vehicle expenses over the years. Most of the driving we've done has been commuting 50 miles a day to work and back, most of the time in 2 separate cars (both 4WD's, which we needed for the farm).

In hindsight, I regret not being more assertive from the beginning. I've always said that we should quit our jobs and work full time on the farm. If the farm can't support us then it's just a luxury that we can't afford. Yeah, it's been nice to live in the country. Our nearest neighbor is ~1/4 mile away. It's super quiet at night. No traffic. Fresh air. But we've paid a price for that. Since we bought the land in 1997, I've wanted to quit our jobs and work full time at farming, but my wife has always been afraid. She felt more comfortable as a W-2 employee, because it was "safer" and was more "respectable."

Instead of living in the country on a farm, if we had just rented a small apartment in town, worked at our jobs, and dumped all of the money we've put into the farm and spent on vehicles into index funds, we could've easily quit working 5 years ago...

My point is that living in the country is a choice we made. If gas had been more expensive, say $10/gallon, probably we would've made different choices.

[Chris22]

If we raise gas taxes gradually but significantly to the point where gasoline costs at least $10/gallon, people will see the wisdom in changing their habits. Until then, nothing will happen.

The problem you have is that most people out here in free America don't see a problem with that. 

[Chris22]

So I'm putting out the call: who here thinks taxing carbon instead of working is a terrible idea, and why?  I'm genuinely looking for holes in the argument, because right now it looks pretty solidly obvious to me.

There are any number of reasons why I think it's a poor idea, but I don't feel like getting into a point-by-point debate over it. 

Quite frankly, and unscientifically, the whole "WE MUST TAX CARBON" thing feels like a giant grasp at trying to control the movement, and thus lives, of American people.  To which I say Back The Fuck Off.

[sol]

the whole "WE MUST TAX CARBON" thing feels like a giant grasp at trying to control the movement, and thus lives, of American people.  To which I say Back The Fuck Off.

I understand that sentiment, but doesn't it equally apply to every other tax we have?  Liquor taxes are disproportionately high, yet people still drink.  Property taxes are disproportionatly high in some counties but people still live there.  We still give tax breaks for having children or getting a college education or starting a small business.  Governments are always trying to subtly influence your decisions in ways that are good for the country and the economy, and I feel like gas taxes fit neatly under that category.

And as stated above, the idea is to give everyone a per capita tax rebate on their income tax equal to the average gas tax, so average people would see no difference.  People who want to burn more still could, just like they can drink more or live in more expensive property tax counties, and they would also be getting the income tax rebate to help pay for it.  The difference is that people who consume less would pay less, instead of the current system where we distribute most of those costs to everyone else just to benefit the few individuals who are most wasteful.

[Guses]

So I'm putting out the call: who here thinks taxing carbon instead of working is a terrible idea, and why?  I'm genuinely looking for holes in the argument, because right now it looks pretty solidly obvious to me.

There are any number of reasons why I think it's a poor idea, but I don't feel like getting into a point-by-point debate over it. 

Quite frankly, and unscientifically, the whole "WE MUST TAX CARBON" thing feels like a giant grasp at trying to control the movement, and thus lives, of American people.  To which I say Back The Fuck Off.

No, the idea behind taxing carbon is taxing consumption and capturing the externalities of pollution and the destruction of our children's future environment.

Feel free to spend your money how you see fit. But do realize that YOUR choices have impacts on OTHER people.

[JLee]

the whole "WE MUST TAX CARBON" thing feels like a giant grasp at trying to control the movement, and thus lives, of American people.  To which I say Back The Fuck Off.

I understand that sentiment, but doesn't it equally apply to every other tax we have?  Liquor taxes are disproportionately high, yet people still drink.  Property taxes are disproportionatly high in some counties but people still live there.  We still give tax breaks for having children or getting a college education or starting a small business.  Governments are always trying to subtly influence your decisions in ways that are good for the country and the economy, and I feel like gas taxes fit neatly under that category.

And as stated above, the idea is to give everyone a per capita tax rebate on their income tax equal to the average gas tax, so average people would see no difference.  People who want to burn more still could, just like they can drink more or live in more expensive property tax counties, and they would also be getting the income tax rebate to help pay for it.  The difference is that people who consume less would pay less, instead of the current system where we distribute most of those costs to everyone else just to benefit the few individuals who are most wasteful.

Not only do you get tax breaks for having children, the costs are paid for by everyone else who doesn't have kids.  Similar to what you argue for oil consumption, actually (costs unfairly subsidized by people who choose not to drive).

So I'm putting out the call: who here thinks taxing carbon instead of working is a terrible idea, and why?  I'm genuinely looking for holes in the argument, because right now it looks pretty solidly obvious to me.

There are any number of reasons why I think it's a poor idea, but I don't feel like getting into a point-by-point debate over it. 

Quite frankly, and unscientifically, the whole "WE MUST TAX CARBON" thing feels like a giant grasp at trying to control the movement, and thus lives, of American people.  To which I say Back The Fuck Off.

No, the idea behind taxing carbon is taxing consumption and capturing the externalities of pollution and the destruction of our children's future environment.

Feel free to spend your money how you see fit. But do realize that YOUR choices have impacts on OTHER people.

Might as well tax children too - since they have a dramatic negative impact on the environment and the planet is well on its way to unsustainable overpopulation.

[AZDude]

I'm generally a libertarian leaning person, but the obvious advancement of climate change combined with the exceptional stupidity and selfishness exhibited by many Americans, I think a carbon tax on bigger vehicles is a necessity. More than that, part of me thinks you should be forced to apply for and get approved for any vehicle over a certain weight and/or under a certain MPG milestone.

A majority of people will not change their habits unless forced to do so.

[JLee]

I'm generally a libertarian leaning person, but the obvious advancement of climate change combined with the exceptional stupidity and selfishness exhibited by many Americans, I think a carbon tax on bigger vehicles is a necessity. More than that, part of me thinks you should be forced to apply for and get approved for any vehicle over a certain weight and/or under a certain MPG milestone.

A majority of people will not change their habits unless forced to do so.

I think you're not nearly as libertarian as you think you are. :P

[Guses]

Might as well tax children too - since they have a dramatic negative impact on the environment and the planet is well on its way to unsustainable overpopulation

It's not the having of the children that is problematic, it is the buying of F150 (and other luxury consumables) by children that renders this unsustainable.

Besides, by definition, a carbon tax would apply to anything consumed by children and would effectively Tax their existence.

What about paying for their education and blah blah blah? Well, who paid for yours?

[AZDude]

I'm generally a libertarian leaning person, but the obvious advancement of climate change combined with the exceptional stupidity and selfishness exhibited by many Americans, I think a carbon tax on bigger vehicles is a necessity. More than that, part of me thinks you should be forced to apply for and get approved for any vehicle over a certain weight and/or under a certain MPG milestone.

A majority of people will not change their habits unless forced to do so.

I think you're not nearly as libertarian as you think you are. :P

Like I said... I don't like it, but people are destroying the world and generally don't give a shit. Worse, many people go out of their way to point this out as a way of "pissing off the hippies".

EDIT: used the wrong their... hate when people do that

[sol]

Not only do you get tax breaks for having children, the costs are paid for by everyone else who doesn't have kids.  Similar to what you argue for oil consumption, actually (costs unfairly subsidized by people who choose not to drive).

I think you're suddenly agreeing with me?

Yes, the government uses taxes to encourage some behaviors (like having children) and discourage others (like drinking alcohol).  When they offer tax breaks to encourage something, everyone shares the cost.

Right now, they are encouraging the wasteful burning of gasoline, by subsidizing it, and we all share that cost.  The idea behind the carbon tax is to move gas away from something we subsidize/encourage and toward something we tax/discourage, while at the same time doing the reverse to working for income.  We don't want to penalize people for working and then encourage them to waste gas, we want to encourage them to work and then discourage them from wasting gas. 

[Chris22]

the whole "WE MUST TAX CARBON" thing feels like a giant grasp at trying to control the movement, and thus lives, of American people.  To which I say Back The Fuck Off.

I understand that sentiment, but doesn't it equally apply to every other tax we have?  Liquor taxes are disproportionately high, yet people still drink.  Property taxes are disproportionatly high in some counties but people still live there.  We still give tax breaks for having children or getting a college education or starting a small business.  Governments are always trying to subtly influence your decisions in ways that are good for the country and the economy, and I feel like gas taxes fit neatly under that category.

I can choose to drink or not drink, college, kids, etc, but with a carbon tax you are literally trying to influence where I am going to live and how I move about.  That, to me, is fundamentally un-American.

And as stated above, the idea is to give everyone a per capita tax rebate on their income tax equal to the average gas tax, so average people would see no difference.  People who want to burn more still could, just like they can drink more or live in more expensive property tax counties, and they would also be getting the income tax rebate to help pay for it.  The difference is that people who consume less would pay less, instead of the current system where we distribute most of those costs to everyone else just to benefit the few individuals who are most wasteful.

That's the other thing, I have zero, absolutely fucking zero, confidence that it would be revenue neutral.  I am 100% convinced it would be additive to our current tax burden, or at least would become so soon after implementation.  I mean, how long was the income tax supposed to last?

[Chris22]

So I'm putting out the call: who here thinks taxing carbon instead of working is a terrible idea, and why?  I'm genuinely looking for holes in the argument, because right now it looks pretty solidly obvious to me.

There are any number of reasons why I think it's a poor idea, but I don't feel like getting into a point-by-point debate over it. 

Quite frankly, and unscientifically, the whole "WE MUST TAX CARBON" thing feels like a giant grasp at trying to control the movement, and thus lives, of American people.  To which I say Back The Fuck Off.

No, the idea behind taxing carbon is taxing consumption and capturing the externalities of pollution and the destruction of our children's future environment.

Feel free to spend your money how you see fit. But do realize that YOUR choices have impacts on OTHER people.

Without trying to start a firestorm, I think that view is wildly overstated.  Localized particulate emissions?  Absolutely, let's regulate that.  The whole "anthropomorphic CO2 is ruining the world?"  Nah, sorry, I'm not convinced, and you've got a long way to go proving it before you're going to stick me in some urban high rise and only let me move about via shitty public transportation.  I quite enjoyed my mild Chicago winter, in fact.

[AZDude]

So I'm putting out the call: who here thinks taxing carbon instead of working is a terrible idea, and why?  I'm genuinely looking for holes in the argument, because right now it looks pretty solidly obvious to me.

There are any number of reasons why I think it's a poor idea, but I don't feel like getting into a point-by-point debate over it. 

Quite frankly, and unscientifically, the whole "WE MUST TAX CARBON" thing feels like a giant grasp at trying to control the movement, and thus lives, of American people.  To which I say Back The Fuck Off.

No, the idea behind taxing carbon is taxing consumption and capturing the externalities of pollution and the destruction of our children's future environment.

Feel free to spend your money how you see fit. But do realize that YOUR choices have impacts on OTHER people.

Without trying to start a firestorm, I think that view is wildly overstated.  Localized particulate emissions?  Absolutely, let's regulate that.  The whole "anthropomorphic CO2 is ruining the world?"  Nah, sorry, I'm not convinced, and you've got a long way to go proving it before you're going to stick me in some urban high rise and only let me move about via shitty public transportation.  I quite enjoyed my mild Chicago winter, in fact.

See, not to jump all over this guy, but this is why I can no longer just hope people will educate themselves and make good decisions. Chances are he is not a total asshole, and would legitimately care if he personally caused the ruination of someone's life, but climate change is a concept that is difficult for people to equate to their own lives. Thus, we need the government to force people like him to be responsible, even if they yell, scream, and throw a hissy fit over the law.

[JLee]

Not only do you get tax breaks for having children, the costs are paid for by everyone else who doesn't have kids.  Similar to what you argue for oil consumption, actually (costs unfairly subsidized by people who choose not to drive).

I think you're suddenly agreeing with me?

Yes, the government uses taxes to encourage some behaviors (like having children) and discourage others (like drinking alcohol).  When they offer tax breaks to encourage something, everyone shares the cost.

Right now, they are encouraging the wasteful burning of gasoline, by subsidizing it, and we all share that cost.  The idea behind the carbon tax is to move gas away from something we subsidize/encourage and toward something we tax/discourage, while at the same time doing the reverse to working for income.  We don't want to penalize people for working and then encourage them to waste gas, we want to encourage them to work and then discourage them from wasting gas.

That depends on your definition of 'agreeing'.  I don't have a problem with tax subsidies for oil going away.  I do have a problem with artificially inflating the cost to a point where it would destroy the financial feasibility of every major hobby I have (especially while I'm preventing far more environmental damage by not having children than I am causing by driving race cars).

Might as well tax children too - since they have a dramatic negative impact on the environment and the planet is well on its way to unsustainable overpopulation

It's not the having of the children that is problematic, it is the buying of F150 (and other luxury consumables) by children that renders this unsustainable.

Besides, by definition, a carbon tax would apply to anything consumed by children and would effectively Tax their existence.

What about paying for their education and blah blah blah? Well, who paid for yours?

You can't argue that population growth is not a massive part of the problem. Why not introduce tax penalties for those who choose to have children as well?

I was homeschooled, so I suppose my parents paid for it and blah blah blah.

That's the other thing, I have zero, absolutely fucking zero, confidence that it would be revenue neutral.  I am 100% convinced it would be additive to our current tax burden, or at least would become so soon after implementation.  I mean, how long was the income tax supposed to last?

It's impossible for it to be revenue neutral because it assumes that the additional revenue gained from the tax will go towards tax rebates. Once usage drops, then the rebates would also drop (otherwise it would run into a deficit)...thereby eviscerating the "it doesn't impact you if you're average" argument. One could argue that if "average" is now 3000 miles/year you are still not penalized unless you drive more than average, but that's resorting to politician math. :P

[Bakari]

I can choose to drink or not drink, college, kids, etc, but with a carbon tax you are literally trying to influence where I am going to live and how I move about.  That, to me, is fundamentally un-American.

How is where you live and your chosen method of transport any more or less an issue of personal freedom than the choice to reproduce or not or get higher education?

Also, how is taxing carbon related to where you live?  If you want to live out in the country, and work on your ranch or farm, or at the local small town pub, or work via internet from home, or have solar panels and a well and grow your own food, what ever you want, there is no particular reason you should need to use more fuel than someone who lives in a big city (and drives to work in rush-hour congestion that turns a 10 mile drive into an hour long commute of idling)


If you hate public transportation, and prefer to travel by bicycle, or carpool with your spouse or neighbor, or run your truck on biodiesel, or 95MPG modified Honda Civic, then no one is going to stop you, and a carbon tax will have little or no effect on you.

But if you choose to drive a truck 50 miles from the country to the city 5 days a week, well that choice effects other people, so why shouldn't they have the right to charge you proportionately to your impact?

[Chris22]

So I'm putting out the call: who here thinks taxing carbon instead of working is a terrible idea, and why?  I'm genuinely looking for holes in the argument, because right now it looks pretty solidly obvious to me.

There are any number of reasons why I think it's a poor idea, but I don't feel like getting into a point-by-point debate over it. 

Quite frankly, and unscientifically, the whole "WE MUST TAX CARBON" thing feels like a giant grasp at trying to control the movement, and thus lives, of American people.  To which I say Back The Fuck Off.

No, the idea behind taxing carbon is taxing consumption and capturing the externalities of pollution and the destruction of our children's future environment.

Feel free to spend your money how you see fit. But do realize that YOUR choices have impacts on OTHER people.

Without trying to start a firestorm, I think that view is wildly overstated.  Localized particulate emissions?  Absolutely, let's regulate that.  The whole "anthropomorphic CO2 is ruining the world?"  Nah, sorry, I'm not convinced, and you've got a long way to go proving it before you're going to stick me in some urban high rise and only let me move about via shitty public transportation.  I quite enjoyed my mild Chicago winter, in fact.

See, not to jump all over this guy, but this is why I can no longer just hope people will educate themselves and make good decisions. Chances are he is not a total asshole, and would legitimately care if he personally caused the ruination of someone's life, but climate change is a concept that is difficult for people to equate to their own lives. Thus, we need the government to force people like him to be responsible, even if they yell, scream, and throw a hissy fit over the law.

I don't want to make this a climate control thread, and I do truly believe that there has been a TON of worthwhile progress made on certain types of pollution and emissions, but the simple fact is that we've been told the sky is falling for so fucking long and exactly zero of the hysteria has emerged as reality.  My favorite is the "it's already too late!!"  Well, fuck me, it's already too late, so why the hell would I bother doing anything now?  You just told me it's already too late. 

[Bakari]

I get 20-25 out of my 1983 F-250 (which supposedly "gets" 15) - when I was into serious hypermiling I was getting 30.  Best ever tank was 38 (though that was mostly highway). 
I get around 45 out of my wife's Yaris (rated at 32 combined).


What a car "gets" is maybe 75% the vehicle and at least 25% the driver.

I think it also depends a lot on where you drive(stops, red lights). Do a lot of stop signs on a heavy vehicle; that's a lot of gas to get all that weight moving again. Do real stops instead of slowing down? More gas. Idle a lot on a big V8? More gas. Drive relatively slowly on a country road with no stops or lights.. yay

My F250 was also not that bad on the highway but on the daily winter drive to the train station with many stops and idling it was bad; very bad. Very short drive so not that expensive but the L/100km (MPG) display was scary.

Very true.  Unfortunately, I am in the city (and with no timed lights any where in the area), so, lots of stops (in a 5500lb empty vehicle - which is usually not empty).
However, the easy solution to idle time is: don't.  If you will be stopped more than about 30 seconds, shut the engine (true for any size engine)

[Chris22]

If you hate public transportation

Yes

and prefer to travel by bicycle

No

or carpool with your spouse or neighbor

No

or run your truck on biodiesel

No

or 95MPG modified Honda Civic

No

then no one is going to stop you, and a carbon tax will have little or no effect on you.

So clearly it will.  And that sucks.

But if you choose to drive a truck 50 miles from the country to the city 5 days a week, well that choice effects other people, so why shouldn't they have the right to charge you proportionately to your impact?

Because citation needed.

[seattlecyclone]

But if you choose to drive a truck 50 miles from the country to the city 5 days a week, well that choice effects other people, so why shouldn't they have the right to charge you proportionately to your impact?

Because citation needed.

There are 259 individual citations plus long lists of references and reports for further reading at the bottom of the Wikipedia article about global warming. I will incorporate those citations into this thread by reference.

[JLee]

But if you choose to drive a truck 50 miles from the country to the city 5 days a week, well that choice effects other people, so why shouldn't they have the right to charge you proportionately to your impact?

Because citation needed.

There are 259 individual citations plus long lists of references and reports for further reading at the bottom of the Wikipedia article about global warming. I will incorporate those citations into this thread by reference.

How do those sources determine the proportionate charge for a specific impact level?

[Chris22]

But if you choose to drive a truck 50 miles from the country to the city 5 days a week, well that choice effects other people, so why shouldn't they have the right to charge you proportionately to your impact?

Because citation needed.

There are 259 individual citations plus long lists of references and reports for further reading at the bottom of the Wikipedia article about global warming. I will incorporate those citations into this thread by reference.

Meh.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/22/why-calling-2015-the-warmest-year-on-record-is-problematic/

[AZDude]

So I'm putting out the call: who here thinks taxing carbon instead of working is a terrible idea, and why?  I'm genuinely looking for holes in the argument, because right now it looks pretty solidly obvious to me.

There are any number of reasons why I think it's a poor idea, but I don't feel like getting into a point-by-point debate over it. 

Quite frankly, and unscientifically, the whole "WE MUST TAX CARBON" thing feels like a giant grasp at trying to control the movement, and thus lives, of American people.  To which I say Back The Fuck Off.

No, the idea behind taxing carbon is taxing consumption and capturing the externalities of pollution and the destruction of our children's future environment.

Feel free to spend your money how you see fit. But do realize that YOUR choices have impacts on OTHER people.

Without trying to start a firestorm, I think that view is wildly overstated.  Localized particulate emissions?  Absolutely, let's regulate that.  The whole "anthropomorphic CO2 is ruining the world?"  Nah, sorry, I'm not convinced, and you've got a long way to go proving it before you're going to stick me in some urban high rise and only let me move about via shitty public transportation.  I quite enjoyed my mild Chicago winter, in fact.

See, not to jump all over this guy, but this is why I can no longer just hope people will educate themselves and make good decisions. Chances are he is not a total asshole, and would legitimately care if he personally caused the ruination of someone's life, but climate change is a concept that is difficult for people to equate to their own lives. Thus, we need the government to force people like him to be responsible, even if they yell, scream, and throw a hissy fit over the law.

I don't want to make this a climate control thread, and I do truly believe that there has been a TON of worthwhile progress made on certain types of pollution and emissions, but the simple fact is that we've been told the sky is falling for so fucking long and exactly zero of the hysteria has emerged as reality.  My favorite is the "it's already too late!!"  Well, fuck me, it's already too late, so why the hell would I bother doing anything now?  You just told me it's already too late.

Evidence is everywhere or why climate change is happening and the consequences. Hell, MMM just wrote a blog post about it. You are one of the last holdouts, either because you like your gigantic F150/SUV and refuse to believe anyone who says it bad, or because you are just ignorant and refuse to education yourself.

This happens all the time. Retired football players go crazy over rules designed to decrease concussions despite abundant and clear evidence that concussions are linked to all sorts of bad things in life. I have a relative who thinks vaccines are dangerous for average folk, despite decades of evidence to the contrary and the fact that actual disease really is dangerous.

Are these people saddled with the unfortunate reality of having diminished brain power, or are they just conditioned to believe a certain way due to their own circumstances in life?

Regardless, we cannot let people ruin society by refusing vaccinations, purposefully concussing athletes, and driving gigantic SUVs/trucks without any legitimate purpose.

[Chris22]

Evidence is everywhere or why climate change is happening and the consequences.

I just posted an article by a climate scientist refuting a lot of it.  You could argue with that data.

You are one of the last holdouts, either because you like your gigantic F150/SUV and refuse to believe anyone who says it bad, or because you are just ignorant and refuse to education yourself.

Or you could insult me.

Either way. 

[AZDude]

Evidence is everywhere or why climate change is happening and the consequences.

I just posted an article by a climate scientist refuting a lot of it.  You could argue with that data.

You are one of the last holdouts, either because you like your gigantic F150/SUV and refuse to believe anyone who says it bad, or because you are just ignorant and refuse to education yourself.

Or you could insult me.

Either way.

I don't need to argue with you. Literally thousands of educated professionals who work in the field have already done so. More than that, measurable results prove the theory. Why would you take my word for something while disbelieving thousands of scientists and lots of empirical evidence?

And its not an insult. It is an unfortunate truth.

[seattlecyclone]

But if you choose to drive a truck 50 miles from the country to the city 5 days a week, well that choice effects other people, so why shouldn't they have the right to charge you proportionately to your impact?

Because citation needed.

There are 259 individual citations plus long lists of references and reports for further reading at the bottom of the Wikipedia article about global warming. I will incorporate those citations into this thread by reference.

How do those sources determine the proportionate charge for a specific impact level?

They don't, but they do establish beyond any reasonable doubt that climate change is in fact occurring. Chris was trying to cast doubt on the very existence of human-caused climate change, which is simply false. I don't really feel like spending time arguing with people who think they know more about science than professional scientists. Good day.