Politics As Usual

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I find this idea pretty fascinating. I think it's going to take some strong intervention to get this country off its current gas guzzler course, and maybe a plan like this would be the ticket.

With everybody hopping on the "let's get off the oil bandwagon," I'm wondering whether anybody has considered the geopolitical ramifications of the entire Arab world having essential no goods or services to sell to the market place.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by sgtclub
With everybody hopping on the "let's get off the oil bandwagon," I'm wondering whether anybody has considered the geopolitical ramifications of the entire Arab world having essential no goods or services to sell to the market place.

Oil is the new Betamax.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
With everybody hopping on the "let's get off the oil bandwagon," I'm wondering whether anybody has considered the geopolitical ramifications of the entire Arab world having essential no goods or services to sell to the market place.

I'm no economist, but I'm thinking this isn't going to happen overnight. Rome seems to do okay, even though after The Da Vinci Code pretty much everybody agrees Christianity is total bullshit.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Lest I be accused of calling taxation Utopian, my point was merely that, unlike cigarette taxes in which the policy behind the tax is to discourage smoking in toto, the taxes used to effectuate the ultimate goal of minimizing petroleum dependence needs to accomodate the overall desirability of cheap and easy transportation. In other words, it has to account for the possibility that we might inadvertently raise the overall cost of getting Person A from point B to point C. Which is something like enacting a tax on breathing because some breathers smoke, and smokers tend to take more (and shallower) breaths.

Excellent point, except to add that I don't think it would be inadvertent.

Ours is a (comparatively speaking) dispersed, decentralized society without the infrastructure to accomodate fundamental shifts in the costs of mobility.

Gas taxes work well in Europe for a variety of reasons, not least of which are the relatively compact areas in which people live, and the fact that their infrastructure (the train system, for example) has evolved over decades to accomodate for the fact that driving from Brussles to Rome would be pretty goddamn expensive.

That said, we still need to tax consumption, at least to some degree. This country doesn't have to spike aggregate prices to $5/gal in order to achieve different patterns of behavior and reduce dependence. $3/gal, maybe (although here in SoCal, we're near that already). Taxing the guzzler to encourage better cars is a good part of the mix, too. One could use at least part of the money raised to finance the transportation infrastructure we need.

Ok, I'm babbling now. Time to obey the Law Of Holes and stop digging (in MR's backyard), at least for the moment.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
[T]he taxes used to effectuate the ultimate goal of minimizing petroleum dependence needs to accomodate the overall desirability of cheap and easy transportation. In other words, it has to account for the possibility that we might inadvertently raise the overall cost of getting Person A from point B to point C.

The theory behind this taxation is that the price of transportation doesn't reflect its real costs -- e.g., $200 billion to try to democratize Iraq to help ensure our supplies of oil in the future.

To say that incenting the selection of fuel efficient replacement vehicles is bad policy tends to show that you don't live in the real world --- a brutal reality check that conservatives usually aren't usually accused of failing to take.

No one said it's bad policy, but it's not as good as Burger's alternative.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
My idea is that, because not all people can be forced into petroleum-independent forms of transportation, we live in a world in which encouraging the production of cars that are more fuel efficient makes sense for the drivers who are so dependent on petroleum-consuming transportation that they are price-insensitive to gasoline. They need to drive 40 miles a day, no matter what it costs.

Given a sufficient amount of time, however, cost incentives on private fuel consumption (whether in the form of a tax on gasoline or the cars that burn it) will have the effect of creating petroleum-independent forms of transportation.

American cities had a perfectly functioning network of cable cars, trolleys and light rail systems until cheap gas and cheap busses (and a significant amount of lobbying by the manufacturers of both) lead to their dismantling in the 30s and 40s. The reason people live 20 miles from work is because they can; because they can afford the cars and can afford the gas that runs them. Jack the cost of cars and gasoline up and not only will the average car on the street become more efficient, but the average commute will become shorter (and take less time), the average yard will become smaller, and the average price of a townhouse downtown will skyrocket. Public transportation will become a reasonable consideration even for people to the right of Nader. Especially if one exempts from energy taxation the forms of public transportation, further increasing the cost differential.

Hell, to make it really palatable to the powers that be, let's tax it not at the gas pump, but at the refinery head. And only tax foreign supplies.* Not only does total consumption go down, it puts Midland** back on the map.

* It almost goes with saying I didn't come up with this idea; it came from a Congressman trying to get a little protection for his local oil industry in the face of plumetting (at the time) oil prices.

**The Tikrit of the US.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch


My idea is that, because not all people can be forced into petroleum-independent forms of transportation, we live in a world in which encouraging the production of cars that are more fuel efficient makes sense for the drivers who are so dependent on petroleum-consuming transportation that they are price-insensitive to gasoline. .

We already have CAFE standards, and they've been a disaster. Why? Because people do buy more fuel efficient cars. And then drive them more.

There's no immediate cure-all. But do you think people would really be as likely to commute from Sacramento in to SF if they had to pay 50% more for gas? (Which is why few people commute from Lyon to Paris.)

The problem with indirect fixes is that it doesn't get at the root of the problem. CAFE creates incentives to buy more fuel efficient cars (Ford sucks it on Escorts, with low prices, etc., so they can make more profitable SUVs). But it does not create an incentive to drive less.

Ty, can you tell us the parable of the parking meter breakers in berkeley again?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The fact that some conservatives are now talking about taxing gas, however, would seem to be a fairly strong indicator that this Iraq thing isn't working out, and so people are looking for ways to disengage.

No it is an indication that conservatives recognize that the war on terrorism is not going to be a speedy one and that we need to do more than kill the terrorists and attempt to build a democracy in Iraq to help to stabilize the mid-east. We have to be able to put as much pressure as possible on the Saudis and other oppressive regimes. As long as we are so dependent on them for oil, it makes it much harder. They have too much leverage over us.

No one with any sense ever thought the war on terrorism was going to be quick. We have to attack terrorism from all sides. This means stabilize the mid-east.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
With everybody hopping on the "let's get off the oil bandwagon," I'm wondering whether anybody has considered the geopolitical ramifications of the entire Arab world having essential no goods or services to sell to the market place.

I don't think that will happen. The reason our gas prices are so high right now is that there is too much worldwide demand, primarily increased demand from places like India and China that are becoming stronger economically.

Decreasing our dependence on mid-east oil won't stop the demand for mid-east oil from other countries.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
I don't think that will happen. The reason our gas prices are so high right now is that there is too much worldwide demand, primarily increased demand from places like India and China that are becoming stronger economically.

Decreasing our dependence on mid-east oil won't stop the demand for mid-east oil from other countries.

No, but we are by far the biggest consumer and if our consumption decreases substantially there will be ramifications. Perhaps these ramifications would have a net benefit on the ME, but I fear that we would simply have the ME in it's current state but with less revenues, and I worry of the anger, frustration, etc. this would breed.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
$200 billion to try to democratize Iraq to help ensure our supplies of oil in the future.

When you say that are you saying that Bush lied? Or are you saying Halliburton? Just curious.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, but we are by far the biggest consumer and if our consumption decreases substantially there will be ramifications. Perhaps these ramifications would have a net benefit on the ME, but I fear that we would simply have the ME in it's current state but with less revenues, and I worry of the anger, frustration, etc. this would breed.

If the oil revenues were trickling down to the masses, it might be a factor. I think it would mean the Saudi royal family (and other regimes) would have less money.

If it happened quickly, I do think it might be a big problem. But slower more gradual change seems like less of a problem, particularly if we can put more pressure on the oppressive regimes to change for the better.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
We already have CAFE standards, and they've been a disaster. Why? Because people do buy more fuel efficient cars. And then drive them more.

Maybe you've already posted on this, and I missed it, but does this mean you support the exemption of so-called light trucks from CAFE? Because people who drive Hummers are only hurting themselves, and to make them more fuel efficient would provide the incentive to drive them longer distances?

Granted, I read the Chron so I'm at a disadvantage, but the CV out here is that CAFE has been a disaster because fuel economies have increased, but the percentage of drivers choosing those cars is offset by the growth (both in sales and in size) of CAFE-exempted cars.

If Ty's actually on your side on this, and isn't simply pulling my chain, I'll concede. I remember the Alamo.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
No it is an indication that conservatives recognize that the war on terrorism is not going to be a speedy one and that we need to do more than kill the terrorists and attempt to build a democracy in Iraq to help to stabilize the mid-east. We have to be able to put as much pressure as possible on the Saudis and other oppressive regimes. As long as we are so dependent on them for oil, it makes it much harder. They have too much leverage over us.

No one with any sense ever thought the war on terrorism was going to be quick. We have to attack terrorism from all sides. This means stabilize the mid-east.

I don't know about you guys, but I think this is exactly what the Cheney Energy Policy Planning sessions were about.

Come (say) October, if the Administration considers it warranted, they'll release all records, which will contain the explosive discoveries that Bush (who not only attended but ran the meetings) stated in no uncertain terms that "After we kill off this cesspool of terrorists hiding in Iraq and make it a beacon of light for democracy and human rights in the region, we have got to get started on alternative energies and thereby put real pressure on the Saudis and other oppressive regimes."

An October Surpise, indeed!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Maybe you've already posted on this, and I missed it, but does this mean you support the exemption of so-called light trucks from CAFE? Because people who drive Hummers are only hurting themselves, and to make them more fuel efficient would provide the incentive to drive them longer distances?

Granted, I read the Chron so I'm at a disadvantage, but the CV out here is that CAFE has been a disaster because fuel economies have increased, but the percentage of drivers choosing those cars is offset by the growth (both in sales and in size) of CAFE-exempted cars.

If Ty's actually on your side on this, and isn't simply pulling my chain, I'll concede. I remember the Alamo.

I am for moderate changes to various policies - upping the gas tax some, upping the CAFE for cars some, reclassify SUVs as cars, upping the CAFE standards for light trucks some, removal of the tax incentives for small businesses to buy trucks, increase the tax incentives to buy fuel efficient vehicles, etc.

If you drastically increase the price of gas, there would be all kinds of indirect consequences of that on the economy and many would not be good.