An unpopular solution (Gasoline) - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

shakran · 05-06-2008, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

My thinking is that we should take the lazy way out and simply copy Europe's cars, like bringing over cars like the Smart ForTwo (which is now available in the US). 50 mpg gas and 69 mpg diesel is way better than anything the US has.

1988. Honda CRX HF. 50mpg.

Better has been around for two decades. We just haven't been interested.

Willravel · 05-06-2008, 07:38 AM

The CRX sold like hot cakes. We were interested, and then they stopped making them. We got the Civic HX, which only got 35 mpg. That sold a ton, then they stopped making them. Now we've got the Civic Hybrid, it's selling like hot cakes. What do you suppose happens next?

ottopilot · 05-06-2008, 08:03 AM

(sorry off topic)

will ... did you say (somewhere) that you are on the waiting list for a smart fortwo? If so, what's the current wait time?

They are also considering reintroducing the 4 seater based on the new "fortwo". I travel a lot and need a more practical ride. For family duty, we need the extra room (wife, child, big dog), so we'll probably loose the mpg and power if we went for the stretch model. The price, mpg, and safety specs make the 2 seater very attractive econo-utility option.

Willravel · 05-06-2008, 08:31 AM

The wait time likely depends on where you are. I'm near a few dealerships, but I'm also near some of the most liberal people west of the Mississippi. There were even waiting lists for the Escape Hybrid here. I'm most excited about the electric version, though. It's supposed to get the equivalent of well over 120 mpg and of course has absolutely zero emissions (besides having the recycle the battery many years down the road).

blahblah454 · 05-06-2008, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The wait time likely depends on where you are. I'm near a few dealerships, but I'm also near some of the most liberal people west of the Mississippi. There were even waiting lists for the Escape Hybrid here. I'm most excited about the electric version, though. It's supposed to get the equivalent of well over 120 mpg and of course has absolutely zero emissions (besides having the recycle the battery many years down the road).

I am not saying that electric vehicles are a bad thing, but they are most certainly not zero emissions. Where do you think the power comes from to charge those things? Oh yea, a plug in the wall.
What about the fossil fuels being burned to create our power. Environmental thinking has to be brought about on all fronts, not just the cars.

And to answer the OP, yes I do agree that taxes should be raised. My only concern is with people who have to pay for gas and drive for a living, like taxi drivers.

Cynthetiq · 05-06-2008, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The wait time likely depends on where you are. I'm near a few dealerships, but I'm also near some of the most liberal people west of the Mississippi. There were even waiting lists for the Escape Hybrid here. I'm most excited about the electric version, though. It's supposed to get the equivalent of well over 120 mpg and of course has absolutely zero emissions (besides having the recycle the battery many years down the road).

or creating the battery....

the run off from the manufacturing the collection of the materials from different locations to be brought to the manufacturing location and then to the car manufacturing plant. There's alot of shipping going on there.

Hidden Cost of Driving a Prius Commentary.pdf

Quote:

The nickel for the battery, for instance, is mined in Sudbury, Ontario, and smelted at nearby Nickel Centre, just north of the province's massive Georgian Bay. Toyota buys about 1,000 tons of nickel from the facility each year, ships the nickel to Wales for refining, then to China, where it's manufactured into nickel foam, and then onto Toyota's battery plant in Japan.

That alone creates a globe-trotting trail of carbon emissions that ought to seriously concern everyone involved in the fight against global warming. All told, the start-tofinish journey travels more than 10,000 miles - mostly by container ship, but also by diesel locomotive.

But it's not just the clouds of greenhouse gases generated by all that smelting, refining, manufacturing and transporting that worries green activists. The 1,250-foot-tall smokestack that spews huge puffs of sulphur dioxide at the Sudbury mine and smelter operation has left a large swath of the surrounding area looking like a surrealistic scene
from the depths of hell.

On the perimeter of the area, skeletons of trees and bushes stand like ghostly sentinels guarding a sprawling wasteland. Astronauts in training for NASA actually have practiced driving moon buggies on the suburban Sudbury tract because it's considered a duplicate of the Moon's landscape.

"The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants, and the soil slid down off the hillside," David Martin, Greenpeace's energy coordinator in Canada, told the London Daily Mail.

"The solution they came up with was the Superstack. The idea was to dilute pollution, but all it did was spread the fallout across northern Ontario," Martin told the British newspaper, adding that Sudbury remains "a major environmental and health problem. The environmental cost of producing that car battery is pretty high."

while it's not apparent to the end user, the creating of the product creates a lot of pollution.

My Neon seems to be better energy saver than your Mitsubishi via this study.

Quote:

Sizing Up Energy Footprints
AAA NY

A new study casts a different light on vehicles’ environmental effects. For the most energy-efficient vehicle—all things considered—you can’t do better than the Scion xB. That’s the word from a recent analysis of vehicles’ lifetime energy usage by CNW Market Research, an Oregon-based research group. Surprisingly, the Toyota Prius and other hybrids don’t look so environmentally friendly when viewed through CNW’s lens.

Researchers collected data on the energy usage of ’06 models from drawing board to scrapheap—or “Dust to Dust,” as the report’s title puts it. They included plant-to-dealer fuel costs, electricity used per pound of material, and hundreds of other factors, as well as more conventional and obvious measurements, such as fuel economy and emissions. CNW then translated the data into a simple number: lifetime energy cost per mile driven.

Under this analysis, the Scion xB had the lowest lifetime energy cost per mile at 49 cents. The rest of the top 10 included the Dodge Neon (64 cents), Chevrolet Tracker (67 cents), Saturn Ion (67 cents), Jeep Wrangler (70 cents), Toyota Corolla (72 cents), Chevrolet Aveo (74 cents), Hyundai Elantra (75 cents), Scion xA (76 cents) and Chevy S10 pickup (76 cents). By contrast, the Toyota Prius clocked in at slightly less than $2.87 per mile—only a little better than the industry average of $2.95. More costly manufacture, replacement and disposal of batteries, electric motors and other components contributed to the relatively high lifetime expense of this and other hybrids.

“If a consumer is concerned about family budgets or depleting oil supplies, it is perfectly logical to consider buying high fuel-economy vehicles,” says Art Spinella, CNW president. “But if the concern is of broader issues such as the environmental impact of energy usage, some high-mileage vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime.”

CNW's 'Dust to Dust' Automotive Energy Report

Willravel · 05-06-2008, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blahblah454

I am not saying that electric vehicles are a bad thing, but they are most certainly not zero emissions. Where do you think the power comes from to charge those things? Oh yea, a plug in the wall.
What about the fossil fuels being burned to create our power. Environmental thinking has to be brought about on all fronts, not just the cars.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/wind/overview.html
http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/index.html
http://www.energy.ca.gov/klamath/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynth

My Neon seems to be better energy saver than your Mitsubishi via this study.

That's for 06 models. Mine is a 95.

host · 05-06-2008, 09:18 AM

From my last post: This is a crisis of the declining dollar, oil use to the extent it is a grave excess, aggravates the problem. The Prius charges it's battery by converting energy from braking the vehicle, not from plugging in to the power grid. Raisint taxes on vital fuel, especially when advocated by high income individuals who live in areas with superior mass transit options, is what it looksblike....clueless and or indifferent to the difficulties of the 50 percent of the population not living near good mass transit who are just getting by financially as it is....sheesh.policies that little impact the wealthy...posted here over and over....

PlanG · 05-06-2008, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

My thinking is that we should take the lazy way out and simply copy Europe's cars, like bringing over cars like the Smart ForTwo (which is now available in the US). 50 mpg gas and 69 mpg diesel is way better than anything the US has.

You don't need to do that.. overkill mate, they are so tiny it's unreal.

However, you can get good economy from high performance engines in large cars.

For example, a car you are probably all aware of:

The BMW 330i:

39.2MPG (UK gallons) combined cycle (
272 Hp
6.1 0-60

We do have a lot of very small cars though. For example the Suzuki Swift, Ford Fiesta, Vauxhall Corsa, Fiat Panda. Do any of these sell in the US?

loquitur · 05-06-2008, 10:31 AM

short-term, host. Very short term. Longer term, 50% of the population won't live where there is no mass transit. That's the point. It also combats urban sprawl.

Willravel · 05-06-2008, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlanG

You don't need to do that.. overkill mate, they are so tiny it's unreal.

However, you can get good economy from high performance engines in large cars.

For example, a car you are probably all aware of:

The BMW 330i:

39.2MPG (UK gallons) combined cycle (
272 Hp
6.1 0-60

We do have a lot of very small cars though. For example the Suzuki Swift, Ford Fiesta, Vauxhall Corsa, Fiat Panda. Do any of these sell in the US?

Gas in the US is different than in the UK and Europe. The 330i in the US gets about 20/30 (city/highway).

Cynthetiq · 05-06-2008, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Gas in the US is different than in the UK and Europe. The 330i in the US gets about 20/30 (city/highway).

umm no, gasoline is not different.

Diesel is different.

The only difference is the miles are imperial miles as are the gallons.

Bob, The Auto Answer Man

Quote:

Dear Bob,
I have a project I have to do for school on Octane. I need to know how the octane rating of gasoline is determined and which octane ratings are available today? I've searched the internet and can't get any straight answers, so if you could help, that would be great. Thanks!
Howard

Howard,
Your answer will vary greatly depending on where you live (region and country). For a definitive discussion on octane ratings, look up the procedures in the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) publications (major public libraries may carry it).

The octane rating is basically an anti-knock rating. Engine "knock" is also sometimes referred to as "ping". It is basically pre-detonation of the fuel before the piston is in the correct position (either near top of it's stroke or on its way down on the power stroke). Ping occurs while the piston is on the upstroke. Essentially, it is the elevated combustion cylinder temperature mixed with the now elevated cylinder pressure (compression) that will cause fuel it ignite without the spark.

In the United States, pump octane is an average of 2 ratings, research octane (RON) and motor octane (MON). If you look at any gas pump in the United States, you will see a yellow sticker that says "octane by R + M / 2" That is the basic formula for an average. These 2 numbers mean different things. You could make an analogy to that of a blood pressure reading (systolic and diastolic). Research Octane number is always higher than Motor Octane number.

In Europe, they only report the RON. You may hear people discussing that in Europe, the octane is higher. Well, that is not exactly true. You see, in Europe, you might find 96 octane at a local gas station. (wow 96, highest we have here is 94). Well, that 96 is equivalent to 92 here in the States.

The octane value of a fuel can be varied by several different processes. It can be refined to that value (usually more costly) or enhanced with different additives. Different people will argue which method is better. I hope that gives you a good basis for study!
Good Luck!
Drive Safely!
Bob, The Auto Answer Man

The tuning and peformance of the vehicle is different.

Chip tuning - hype or the real thing?

Quote:

Is it true that it is possible to gain more power from your engine, simply by replacing the main engine management chip? Most of us have heard both sides of this story, but if this is the real deal, then it's a very cheap way to gain more horse power. I decided to give it a go...

I am not sure yet about the use of K&N filters (going to check that next), but if you are installing one of these anyway, I believe a tuning chip will make a great addition. One of the larger K&N suppliers in Europe are YB Filters. Visit their site or eBay store for a great price.

First of all, let me start by thanking James and Jayson for supplying the chips. They made this review possible.

Secondly, please note that my car is the European version, not the US. Even though they appear to be the same, they aren't. Part of the Motronic engine management apparently differs, so if you drive a US version, you can not expect the below result with the Euro chips. The US chips which are not performing well on my car, should run perfectly good on US spec cars, whereas the European chips most likely will trigger a 'Check Engine' fault and performance should be down, compared to my results. Always go for the chip designed for your specific market if you want maximum performance.

There was a time, when doing a go-fast chip was for the major tuning companies only. But now quite a few hardcore BMW fanatics, with access to the right equipment, are making their own chips. AND making them available to the public too at a much lower price, of course. But just how big is the difference between the chips currently available?

As always, I must remind you that the info supplied here is as unofficial as it gets. I am not a BMW tech and I don't have any testing equipment. Instead I have a passion for BMW and the will to make it go faster! So when I test these chips, the result is strictly my own opinion...

All tests are done on my stock 525iA, 1989, M20. For the technically inclined, the DME is a 0 261 200 173 and the original chip is a 1 267 355 794...

It's a good idea to plan ahead for this, since your new chip will only run on premium gas. The standard chip on my M20 is designed for RON 91, but the new chips all require at least RON 95 or higher. Why? Because the tuning chips advance the ignition timing and that calls for a higher octane, or self detonation will be the result. On newer engines with knock sensors, the DME will readjust the timing to save the engine, but this will also take away most benefits of the new chip. Older engines may be subject to unreasonable wear, so take your precautions: with the old chip still in place, you should run the car until the tank is almost empty and the fill up with premium gas. Or maybe just fill it 50%, to save weight on your first test run :-)

A few words about octane... 91 octane is not just 91 octane, because Europe and the US uses different standards. Don't know about the rest of the world... In Europe, the Research Octane Number (RON) standard is used, whereas the US uses an average of MON and RON, the Anti-Knock Index (AKI). In comparison, AKI 91 octane in the US is the equivalent of RON 95 octane in Europe.

In other words: chip tuning requires you to use higher quality gasoline. If you are in the US, you should go no lower than 91. Europeans need 95 or higher...

Willravel · 05-06-2008, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

umm no, gasoline is not different.

The only difference is the miles are imperial miles as are the gallons.

I'll clarify what I was saying:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel, revised

[The systems of measurement of liquids like gas] in the US is different than in the UK and Europe. The 330i in the US gets about 20/30 (city/highway).

I wasn't trying to say that their gas is more special or anything.

Ustwo · 05-06-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

short-term, host. Very short term. Longer term, 50% of the population won't live where there is no mass transit. That's the point. It also combats urban sprawl.

I'm still shocked that you are willing to use taxes to herd the population together, I expect that from our other posters.

I'm not a fan of urban sprawl but having lived in high density areas, I'm not a fan of living in a hive either.

Willravel · 05-06-2008, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I'm still shocked that you are willing to use taxes to herd the population together, I expect that from our other posters.

I'm not a fan of urban sprawl but having lived in high density areas, I'm not a fan of living in a hive either.

How would you feel about ending government handouts to the oil industry?

QuasiMondo · 05-07-2008, 02:52 AM

The market is already moving in a direction that increased fuel taxes are redundant. Sales of SUV's are down, sales of fuel efficient vehicles are up. There's essentially no need to tax gasoline. I have a feeling, though, that no matter how expensive gasoline gets in the U.S., there will always be people pushing for us to be more like Europe.

I though taxes were to support the government and finance public projects. For that matter, I don't like how taxes are being used as a stick to alter public behavior. You wouldn't raise income taxes to get people to work less, would you? All I see are sticks, but no carrots. Why not a tax credit for anybody who buys a vehicle with high fuel efficiency? It kick-started the hybrid market, didn't it?

Cynthetiq · 05-07-2008, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'll clarify what I was saying:

I wasn't trying to say that their gas is more special or anything.

I guess you didn't know that their miles are also different, so the numerical adjustment isn't just to the gallon, but to the mile as well.

loquitur · 05-07-2008, 05:53 AM

Ustwo, automobiles are the biggest creators of negative externalities in the US economy. All I want to happen is for people to bear the costs of the externalities that their activities create. If they're willing to pay - great. If not, well, they should understand that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. I see no reason why cars should be subsidized.

dc_dux · 05-07-2008, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Ustwo, automobiles are the biggest creators of negative externalities in the US economy. All I want to happen is for people to bear the costs of the externalities that their activities create. If they're willing to pay - great. If not, well, they should understand that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. I see no reason why cars should be subsidized.

There is also absolutely no justification for treating SUVs as trucks for purposes of CAFE standards.....SUVs are personal/family passenger vehicles.

Cynthetiq · 05-07-2008, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

1988. Honda CRX HF. 50mpg.

Better has been around for two decades. We just haven't been interested.

You're right we're not so interested. We want more conveniences, safety and more luxuries in our vehicles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The CRX sold like hot cakes. We were interested, and then they stopped making them. We got the Civic HX, which only got 35 mpg. That sold a ton, then they stopped making them. Now we've got the Civic Hybrid, it's selling like hot cakes. What do you suppose happens next?

Actually, that's only partially true. The CRX DX and Si sold like hotcakes, the CRX HF did not.

A nice article describing the various differences of the 20 year old market and today's market.

Quote:

View: 57 mpg? That's so 20 years ago
Source: Money
posted with the TFP thread generator

57 mpg? That's so 20 years ago
57 mpg? That's so 20 years ago
Want to drive a cheap car that gets eye-popping mileage? In 1987 you could - and it wasn't even a hybrid.
Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNNMoney.com staff writer
December 20 2007: 1:13 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Car makers are confident they can meet new government rules calling for a national fleet average of 35 miles per gallon. But it will take a big technological push, they say.

You might wonder why, since twenty years ago the car that got the best mileage in the nation was a real techno-wimp compared to what's on the road today. It wasn't even a hybrid. But it got better fuel economy than any car sold now - even the Toyota Prius.

Looking back at the 1987 Honda Civic CRX shows us why cars use so much more gas today and about the trade-offs we've had to make.

The CRX HF got an Environmental Protection Agency-estimated 57 mpg gallon in highway driving. Today, the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid Civic you can buy gets an EPA-estimated 34 mpg on the highway. Even today's Honda Civic Hybrid can't match it, achieving EPA-estimated highway mileage of just 45 mpg. The Toyota Prius, today's fuel mileage champ, gets 46 mpg on the highway.

Why then, not now?
One answer for the mileage drop is that the rating system has changed. Beginning with the 2008 model year, the EPA began using a more rigorous fuel economy test that means lower numbers for most cars. But that's only a small part of the answer.

If the old CRX HF were tested using today's rules, its highway fuel economy would drop to 51 mpg, according to the EPA's calculations. That's still much better than any mass-market car sold today, including hybrid cars.

The bigger answer is that the Honda Civic has changed a lot in twenty years. Honda no longer sells a tiny two-seat version like the CRX. Even Civics with back seats are much bigger and heavier today than similar versions were in 1987.

It's in the nature of the car business that companies want to offer more - more legroom, more trunk space - with each redesign. As a result, cars get bigger and bigger.

Besides size, American consumers expect a lot more convenience out of a car than they did in 1985. Today, we expect power steering, power brakes, power windows and more.

The base CRX HF did not have power steering or power brakes. (As light as it was, it really didn't need them.) Air conditioning was optional, as it was on most cars in those days, so it didn't figure into the EPA's fuel economy ratings.

Today's consumers also expect safety. In the 1980s, car companies would sell cars that got one-star or two-star crash test ratings. Numbers like that would now cause car companies fits. Four out of five stars is considered the minimum acceptable rating.

The modern Civic has airbags front and side, electronic stability control and built-in crash protecting structures in the body. (See correction.)

Even the CRX's biggest fans wouldn't relish the thought of getting into a wreck in one of those cars. While actual crash test results are not available, even a Honda (HMC) spokesman admitted the car probably wouldn't have fared well by modern standards.

"Without the benefit of modern crash structure and extensive use of high strength steel, cars from two decades ago couldn't match the crash test performance of today's Hondas," said Honda spokesman Chris Naughton.

Increased safety, meaning more weight from airbags and crash structure, has meant lower fuel economy.

"It's kind of a classic engineering fight where safe cars compete with more fuel-efficient cars," said Todd Lassa, a writer for Motor Trend magazine and a CRX aficionado.

Lassa once owned a CRX DX, one step up in price and performance - and down in fuel economy - from the HF. (A 1987 sales brochure he still has provided some of the numbers for this story.)

A fun car to drive
Not that the CRX was a bad car. Far from it. Even before Honda introduced a performance version called the CRX Si, the lightweight, fun to drive Civic CRX was Motor Trend's "Import Car of the Year" when it first hit the market in 1985.

Even in its base HF trim, the CRX was considered a fun car to drive because it was small and responsive. Its zero-to-sixty time, though - about 12 seconds by some estimates - would put it well behind even a large, sedate family sedan like the Ford Taurus today.

Weighing less than 1,800 pounds, the CRX HF was powered by a 58-horsepower engine. Today's base Honda Civic weighs almost 2,600 pounds and is powered by a 140 horsepower engine. That's about 12.5 pounds less weight per pony today, despite greatly increased size.

"The lightest cars you can buy today are about 40 percent heavier than that car," Lassa said of his old CRX.

Comparing essentially similar Honda Civic sedans from the 1980s and today reveals that today's car gets considerably better fuel economy (40 highway mg vs. 32) despite having a larger engine with much more power (140 horsepower vs. 76).

Daimler is about to find out how much appetite American's now have for inexpensive little two-seat cars that emphasize fuel economy over performance. It's just begun selling the tiny Smart ForTwo here. But even the ForTwo, which is smaller than the CRX, will get about 41 mpg on the highway, according to Daimler. (Official EPA estimates aren't out yet.).

Rumors swirl today, as they have for years, that Honda is planning to bring out a modern version of the CRX. Lassa says he pushes the idea whenever he speaks with Honda executives.

This time, though, the CRX HF would have to be a hybrid, he said. (Perhaps the one the company just announced it will make for 2009.) There just isn't any other way to pull that off today.

Ustwo · 05-07-2008, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Ustwo, automobiles are the biggest creators of negative externalities in the US economy. All I want to happen is for people to bear the costs of the externalities that their activities create. If they're willing to pay - great. If not, well, they should understand that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. I see no reason why cars should be subsidized.

What I'm failing to grasp is how not exorbitantly taxing gasoline is equal to a subsidy.

If you wanted to talk about E85 then I'd be in agreement on this point.

opentocomments · 05-07-2008, 08:10 AM

A quote from the OP

Quote:

However i think the worst thing you can do for the market is to offer government subsidies on the price of gasoline how is the market going to correct itself if the consumers don't even feel the full brunt of the problem?

Ustwo i like how instead of addressing the idea of my post you take it all literally, do me a favor and address the idea of higher gas prices driving people away from buying gas. At this point in time big oil gets millions maybe billions in subsidies and they have their highest record profit margens ever. Its all part of the redistribution of wealth that you republicans have been working on for years. Maybe try thinking more in philisophical terms then political when you read one of my posts, its more the principle of higher gas prices weither it be through the reduction of subsidies increase on taxes or the free market itself. I personally think higher gas prices due to any of these would take the market closer to turning on itself and having the end consumer say "FUCK YOU BIG OIL"

Willravel · 05-07-2008, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I guess you didn't know that their miles are also different, so the numerical adjustment isn't just to the gallon, but to the mile as well.

The bottom line is that the 330i does not get 39 mpg in the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

What I'm failing to grasp is how not exorbitantly taxing gasoline is equal to a subsidy.

You aren't aware that the government is giving big oil money?

loquitur · 05-07-2008, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

What I'm failing to grasp is how not exorbitantly taxing gasoline is equal to a subsidy.

A huge amount of public infrastructure is devoted to cars: highways, local roads, street lights, bridges, street parking, etc etc etc. Especially the free parking. Yes, there are public benefits to having a lot of this infrastructure, but that doesn't mean that cars aren't massively subsidized. The public cost of private cars, including the negative externalities, is enormous.

Ustwo · 05-07-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

A huge amount of public infrastructure is devoted to cars: highways, local roads, street lights, bridges, street parking, etc etc etc. Especially the free parking. Yes, there are public benefits to having a lot of this infrastructure, but that doesn't mean that cars aren't massively subsidized. The public cost of private cars, including the negative externalities, is enormous.

Undoubtedly there is great expense, and I have always thought of infrastructure one of the few legitimate uses of government taxation.

I'm sure there are cases where such costs for automobile infrastructure were unjustified, much like many of the public works under the WPA, but for the most part it appears to me that such works are an acceptable expendature of the public coffers.

In Illinois it has long been an open secret that many road projects are nothing but political pork, but such offenses themselves need to be ferreted out for what they are.

loquitur · 05-07-2008, 09:33 AM

I agree that the infrastructure has public benefit. I didn't say it doesn't. But you have to recognize that it is also a huge subsidy for private cars, and that carries with it enormous costs.

And here is the main source for my support of raising the gas tax. Greg Mankiw, Prof of economics at Harvard, former economics adviser to Pres Bush and founder of the "Pigou Club."

Quote:

Friday, October 20, 2006
The Pigou Club Manifesto
In today's Wall Street Journal, I offer a manifesto for the Pigou Club, the elite group of pundits and policy wonks with the good sense to advocate higher Pigovian taxes. (Click here for a partial membership list.)

Raise the Gas Tax
By N. Gregory Mankiw

With the midterm election around the corner, here's a wacky idea you won't often hear from our elected leaders: We should raise the tax on gasoline. Not quickly, but substantially. I would like to see Congress increase the gas tax by $1 per gallon, phased in gradually by 10 cents per year over the next decade. Campaign consultants aren't fond of this kind of proposal, but policy wonks keep pushing for it. Here's why:

The environment. The burning of gasoline emits several pollutants. These include carbon dioxide, a cause of global warming. Higher gasoline taxes, perhaps as part of a broader carbon tax, would be the most direct and least invasive policy to address environmental concerns.

Road congestion. Every time I am stuck in traffic, I wish my fellow motorists would drive less, perhaps by living closer to where they work or by taking public transport. A higher gas tax would give all of us the incentive to do just that, reducing congestion on streets and highways.

Regulatory relief. Congress has tried to reduce energy dependence with corporate average fuel economy standards. These CAFE rules are heavy-handed government regulations replete with unintended consequences: They are partly responsible for the growth of SUVs, because light trucks have laxer standards than cars. In addition, by making the car fleet more fuel-efficient, the regulations encourage people to drive more, offsetting some of the conservation benefits and exacerbating road congestion. A higher gas tax would accomplish everything CAFE standards do, but without the adverse side effects.

The budget. Everyone who has studied the numbers knows that the federal budget is on an unsustainable path. When baby-boomers retire and become eligible for Social Security and Medicare, either benefits for the elderly will have to be cut or taxes raised. The most likely political compromise will include some of each. A $1 per gallon hike in gas tax would bring in $100 billion a year in government revenue and make a dent in the looming fiscal gap.

Tax incidence. A basic principle of tax analysis -- taught in most freshman economics courses -- is that the burden of a tax is shared by consumer and producer. In this case, as a higher gas tax discouraged oil consumption, the price of oil would fall in world markets. As a result, the price of gas to consumers would rise by less than the increase in the tax. Some of the tax would in effect be paid by Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

Economic growth. Public finance experts have long preached that consumption taxes are better than income taxes for long-run economic growth, because income taxes discourage saving and investment. Gas is a component of consumption. An increased reliance on gas taxes over income taxes would make the tax code more favorable to growth. It would also encourage firms to devote more R&D spending to the search for gasoline substitutes.

National security. Alan Greenspan called for higher gas taxes recently. "It's a national security issue," he said. It is hard to judge how much high oil consumption drives U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern politics. But Mr. Greenspan may well be right that the gas tax is an economic policy with positive spillovers to foreign affairs.

Is it conceivable that the policy wonks will ever win the battle with the campaign consultants? I think it is. Even after a $1 hike, the U.S. gas tax would still be less than half the level in, say, Great Britain, which last I checked is still a democracy. But don't expect those vying for office to come around until the American people recognize that while higher gas taxes are unattractive, the alternatives are even worse.

Ustwo · 05-08-2008, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

I agree that the infrastructure has public benefit. I didn't say it doesn't. But you have to recognize that it is also a huge subsidy for private cars, and that carries with it enormous costs.

And here is the main source for my support of raising the gas tax. Greg Mankiw, Prof of economics at Harvard, former economics adviser to Pres Bush and founder of the "Pigou Club."

Well I read that and I can't say I'm convinced.

First .10 a year is not going to change behavior on any but the poorest in my opinion, its just going to raise taxes. For this idea to work it would require a massive taxation on fuel, something I'm fundamentally opposed to, and I'm not sure of it doing anything besides stunting economic growth. Yes there would be changes in behavior but I don't see this as a major boon to nations already doing this massive taxation.

Really the only possible benefit, which we already talked about, I see happening is it would make early alternatives more economically viable since the government would be pricing the competition out of competitiveness. I just don't think we can count on a major innovation just because there is a need for one.

loquitur · 05-08-2008, 05:22 PM

you're right, .10/year isn't enough. It should be minimum .25 and the tax should keep rising until gasoline costs at least $6 or $8/gallon. We can talk about what to do with the money; to me that's secondary. I just want the price of gasoline to rise.

Ustwo · 05-08-2008, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

you're right, .10/year isn't enough. It should be minimum .25 and the tax should keep rising until gasoline costs at least $6 or $8/gallon. We can talk about what to do with the money; to me that's secondary. I just want the price of gasoline to rise.

Well we are just going to have to disagree with this one on a fundamental level I think.

dksuddeth · 05-09-2008, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

you're right, .10/year isn't enough. It should be minimum .25 and the tax should keep rising until gasoline costs at least $6 or $8/gallon. We can talk about what to do with the money; to me that's secondary. I just want the price of gasoline to rise.

so your libertarian viewpoint suggests that you think the government should force lifestyle changes through economic means, because the people won't do so?

Cynthetiq · 05-09-2008, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

so your libertarian viewpoint suggests that you think the government should force lifestyle changes through economic means, because the people won't do so?

that seems to be what happened in NYC with cigarettes. When I moved to NYC in 1992 the price per pack was $2.65, when I quit in 1996 it was $3.65. Now it is somewhere in the >$7.00 range. When they banned smoking in restaurants and bars, they jacked up the taxes. The city decides they need more money, they tax tobacco.

Smoking has been in decline steadily for NYC residents since the ban.

loquitur · 05-09-2008, 04:53 AM

My libertarian viewpoint is that externalities should be accounted for, and should be accounted for in the least freedom-constraining way. I don't want to force people to buy small cars if they want to buy big ones, or to live in the city if they want a yard in the exurbs. But if they make those choices they should pay for them, precisely the same as people pay for more expensive food or clothing if that is the choice they make. The difference is in how immediately the costs show up.

Where I differ from the liberals/statists is that I don't believe in mandates or compulsion. Incentives, yes - compulsion, no. And for me, this is largely a foreign-policy initiative that is critical to the country's long-term independence and ability to maintain its principles without having to make concessions to the worst regimes on earth merely because they sit on a pool of petroleum. Before the need for petroleum we never had to put soldiers in the Middle East, and in fact pretty much ignored the area. We have soldiers in the Middle East now because of oil. We care about Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Iran because of oil. We don't have private foreign policy in this or any other country - this has to be a public policy issue.

05-06-2008, 08:03 AM	#43 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	(sorry off topic) will ... did you say (somewhere) that you are on the waiting list for a smart fortwo? If so, what's the current wait time? They are also considering reintroducing the 4 seater based on the new "fortwo". I travel a lot and need a more practical ride. For family duty, we need the extra room (wife, child, big dog), so we'll probably loose the mpg and power if we went for the stretch model. The price, mpg, and safety specs make the 2 seater very attractive econo-utility option. __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

05-07-2008, 02:52 AM	#56 (permalink)
QuasiMondo Wise-ass Latino Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA	The market is already moving in a direction that increased fuel taxes are redundant. Sales of SUV's are down, sales of fuel efficient vehicles are up. There's essentially no need to tax gasoline. I have a feeling, though, that no matter how expensive gasoline gets in the U.S., there will always be people pushing for us to be more like Europe. I though taxes were to support the government and finance public projects. For that matter, I don't like how taxes are being used as a stick to alter public behavior. You wouldn't raise income taxes to get people to work less, would you? All I see are sticks, but no carrots. Why not a tax credit for anybody who buys a vehicle with high fuel efficiency? It kick-started the hybrid market, didn't it? __________________ Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

05-06-2008, 07:38 AM	#42 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The CRX sold like hot cakes. We were interested, and then they stopped making them. We got the Civic HX, which only got 35 mpg. That sold a ton, then they stopped making them. Now we've got the Civic Hybrid, it's selling like hot cakes. What do you suppose happens next?

05-06-2008, 08:31 AM	#44 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The wait time likely depends on where you are. I'm near a few dealerships, but I'm also near some of the most liberal people west of the Mississippi. There were even waiting lists for the Escape Hybrid here. I'm most excited about the electric version, though. It's supposed to get the equivalent of well over 120 mpg and of course has absolutely zero emissions (besides having the recycle the battery many years down the road).

05-06-2008, 09:18 AM	#48 (permalink)
host Banned	From my last post: This is a crisis of the declining dollar, oil use to the extent it is a grave excess, aggravates the problem. The Prius charges it's battery by converting energy from braking the vehicle, not from plugging in to the power grid. Raisint taxes on vital fuel, especially when advocated by high income individuals who live in areas with superior mass transit options, is what it looksblike....clueless and or indifferent to the difficulties of the 50 percent of the population not living near good mass transit who are just getting by financially as it is....sheesh.policies that little impact the wealthy...posted here over and over....

05-06-2008, 10:31 AM	#50 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	short-term, host. Very short term. Longer term, 50% of the population won't live where there is no mass transit. That's the point. It also combats urban sprawl.

05-07-2008, 05:53 AM	#58 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Ustwo, automobiles are the biggest creators of negative externalities in the US economy. All I want to happen is for people to bear the costs of the externalities that their activities create. If they're willing to pay - great. If not, well, they should understand that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. I see no reason why cars should be subsidized.

05-08-2008, 05:22 PM	#68 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	you're right, .10/year isn't enough. It should be minimum .25 and the tax should keep rising until gasoline costs at least $6 or $8/gallon. We can talk about what to do with the money; to me that's secondary. I just want the price of gasoline to rise.

05-09-2008, 04:53 AM	#72 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	My libertarian viewpoint is that externalities should be accounted for, and should be accounted for in the least freedom-constraining way. I don't want to force people to buy small cars if they want to buy big ones, or to live in the city if they want a yard in the exurbs. But if they make those choices they should pay for them, precisely the same as people pay for more expensive food or clothing if that is the choice they make. The difference is in how immediately the costs show up. Where I differ from the liberals/statists is that I don't believe in mandates or compulsion. Incentives, yes - compulsion, no. And for me, this is largely a foreign-policy initiative that is critical to the country's long-term independence and ability to maintain its principles without having to make concessions to the worst regimes on earth merely because they sit on a pool of petroleum. Before the need for petroleum we never had to put soldiers in the Middle East, and in fact pretty much ignored the area. We have soldiers in the Middle East now because of oil. We care about Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Iran because of oil. We don't have private foreign policy in this or any other country - this has to be a public policy issue.