How Should the US Reduce Petroleum Consumption?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Banning SUV's would be a good start, as apart from seriously wasting fuel your average SUV driver appears to be a complete inconsiderate moron on the road!

I like SUVs, so they stay .

well thats the good thing about a gas tax (or more broadly based oil or carbon tax)
Let say the tax raises oil to $2 a gallon. an suv gets say 10 mpg, and a lil ole compact gets say 40 mpg.

two folks both commute 40 miles a day. (radical simplification to assume all transport is commuting - you want more detailed analysis you gotta pay me )
So it costs 2 bucks a day for the compact, 8 bucks a day for the SUV.
Person A only slightly values the benefits of the SUV. Its not worth it to him, and we have one less SUV on the road.
Person B hates bending over to get in a compact, carries loads of stuff to work and back, etc. So to them maybe the 8 bucks a day is worth it and they buy the SUV despite the tax.
The market solution works - less SUV's are bought, but those who really want them can still buy them.

And even neater stuff happens.
Person A and B both usually go to a movie in the neighborhood movie theater (cinema for you furriners) "Harry Potter and trip to Alpha Centauri" is playing locally, but also at the giant screen theater across town which requires a trip of, you guessed it, 40 miles. It cost person B (who owns an SUV) $8 to go to the big screen, so he settles for watching harry on the local screen. Person A, who owns the compact, only has to pay $2 more for the trip across town, so he goes to see harry build a new civ among the aliens at the huge screen far away.
So thanks to our tax, the person with the gas guzzler is incented to avoid unnecessary trips (an SUV in the garage is no threat to the environment) while the person with the gas frugal car can still make their (not so) wasteful trips.

LOTM

[Makeo]

Oh don't be killjoys. Let people drive. It's fun.

[Victor Galis]

One problem LOTM. You assume Americans are rational and not short-sighted.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The market solution works - less SUV's are bought, but those who really want them can still buy them.

As long as you don't ban them. After all, SUVs are becoming more efficient as well. Hybrid SUVs are coming out soon.

If people want to pay more, they should be allowed to right?

The problem, of course, is that gas tax, as I've said before, is a bigger burden on the poor.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by November Adam
Wouldn't electric based vehicles just increase the necessity of power plants which seem to run on hydro-carbons anyways.

That's not necessary the case. Electricity can come from a bewildering number of sources including hydro, solar, geothermal, biomass, and even fusion.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The problem, of course, is that gas tax, as I've said before, is a bigger burden on the poor.

You could try to mitigate this by cutting taxes on other things that the poor consume relatively more of.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Electricity can come from a bewildering number of sources including hydro, solar, geothermal, biomass, and even fusion.

Yes it can come from those sources but at present around 90% of US power is generated from fossil fuels - indeed a far larger amount is from coal (which for a given amount of energy produces twice the amount of CO2 and half as much again as oil) then either Europe or Japan

So unless the US is willing to incur the costs of retiring a large amount of power stations before their time the widespread use of electrically powered vehicles could actually increase CO2 production.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by el freako


You could try to mitigate this by cutting taxes on other things that the poor consume relatively more of.

Such as?

Normally the only thing poor people would buy are staple requirements, things that the rich would buy in equal numbers anyway.

US power is generated from fossil fuels - indeed a far larger amount is from coal then either Europe or Japan

25% of US energy consumption compared to 20% in Japan and Europe, larger, but not far larger, especially compared to China's 64%. Germany gets 25% of its energy from coal. The only thing that saves Europe from figures as grim as the US is the French get nearly 45% of their energy from nuclear power.

I agree with your analysis, the only real benefit of electric cars at the moment would be reduced city smog.

[el freako]

Such as?

Well, maybe you could introduce different 'bands' of taxation into employee and employer social security contributions - this would mean that poorer people would get a far larger share of the costs of their employment and would also encourage firms to employ more marginal workers.

Or you could extend more tax-credits to working families, or make car insurance tax-deductable up to a certain level of income.

There's three suggestions straight off.


In regard to the percentages that we disagree about I think you are confusing total energy consumption (including fuel for transport etc) with the fuels used for electricity generation.

[bondetamp]

As a citizen of the second largest oil exporter in the world, I resent this blatant try to wreck the balance of the global economy.

If I wasn't being an egoistical ***, though:
I would go for tax breaks/ penalties, but I think that this can be much more than just the taxes.

toll booths on all the roads into the city centres. By the toll booths there would be massive parking lots with trains taking people into the centres. The toll would be steep, but parking and train fare would be very cheap. The trains would need to be clean and in excellent order with uniformed personell who could assist the travelers and stop troublesome elements.

Seeing how people are basically dumber than doorknobs, this probably wouldn't be enough for them to leave the car outside the city. One could therefor reduce the number of streets in the city, turning them into parks, one way streets or similar. Coupled with this there would be a massive mass transit system that could take people anywhere in the city faster and cheaper than a car would.

Automobile brands could apply for "green brands" for their new enviromentally sound vehicles. This brand could mean less taxes, free inner city parking and possibly even a cutback from the city. The cities would also be responsible for placing out electrical recharge stations for electrical cars. Coupled with this, there would be a massive gas-tax increase together with a tax break specifically aimed at the lower classes.

Many of these things can be done by the local governments and some has to be done federally. It could be an idea for the federal governments to give cheap loans and grants to the local governments that wanted to reduce the air polution in their cities.

[bondetamp]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
... "Harry Potter and trip to Alpha Centauri" is playing ...

That would be sweet!

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by el freako


Well, maybe you could introduce different 'bands' of taxation into employee and employer social security contributions - this would mean that poorer people would get a far larger share of the costs of their employment and would also encourage firms to employ more marginal workers.

Or you could extend more tax-credits to working families, or make car insurance tax-deductable up to a certain level of income.

There's three suggestions straight off.

I thought you meant change expenditure taxes, not change the bands on income taxes which already exist and only need a bit of tweaking to get the desired effect, eg raise the personal allowance and NI threshols a few thousand pounds.

In regard to the percentages that we disagree about I think you are confusing total energy consumption (including fuel for transport etc) with the fuels used for electricity generation.

Does it matter though? If cars aren't using the oil then would there be more power plants using oil?

I agree the removal of transport fuel would make coal usage seem higher, but it would quickly equilibriate to previous levels in percentage level - that is because new powerplants would have to be built, and if environmentallist had their way they would be quite a few renewable plants, and at worst oil based plants due to the sudden glut in oil.

Unless of course coal power stations are significantly cheaper to build and maintain over oil, hydroelectric or nuclear power plants. To this I do not know.

All of this is academic anyway because electric cars are not going to replace the combustion engine "overnight", only in a gradual process (if ever).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by bondetamp
toll booths on all the roads into the city centres. By the toll booths there would be massive parking lots with trains taking people into the centres. The toll would be steep, but parking and train fare would be very cheap. The trains would need to be clean and in excellent order with uniformed personell who could assist the travelers and stop troublesome elements.

Seeing how people are basically dumber than doorknobs, this probably wouldn't be enough for them to leave the car outside the city. One could therefor reduce the number of streets in the city, turning them into parks, one way streets or similar. Coupled with this there would be a massive mass transit system that could take people anywhere in the city faster and cheaper than a car would.

Or do what Singapore has done: make cars really expensive by levying a heavy tax and other charges on them.

Also charge people for using roads: the more passengers are there in a car, the cheaper the toll is.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Or do what Singapore has done: make cars really expensive by levying a heavy tax and other charges on them.

Hasn't worked in the UK, over 80% of all motor running costs are taxes, but it hasn't deterred motorists.

[Provost Harrison]

Hey, welcome back MOBIUS.

I have always been of the opinion that the best thing to do with any extra money raised in such a way through taxing larger vehicles should be pumped into improving public transport, and in this country, the rail network is in dire need of it...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Hasn't worked in the UK, over 80% of all motor running costs are taxes, but it hasn't deterred motorists.

Then increase the tax!