Obama's energy plan

The general sentiment is that hybrids (led by the Toyota Prius) have been a big success. While I am excited that they are helping to bring about a bit of a paradigm shift for automakers and consumers alike, I am disappointed they haven't done better.

Some say the reason more folks don't buy hybrids is because they are too expensive. I have also heard people say that the reason they don't go hybrid is because the battery life isn't long enough. While this might be true for folks considering it, I believe others don't consider the hybrid at all for a very different reason- vanity.

Hybrids (and electric cars like the EV1) aren't attractive. Automakers have been designing them as standalone models intended to look futuristic. Consumers have had a choice- buy a car that they like or buy a car that is ecofriendly.

This is a big part of why I am saying if we want to reduce dependency quickly we should force automakers to offer every model as a hybrid. Consumers would then have a choice- they could buy the car they like in one of two flavors- the gas guzzler or the ecofriendly version.

This is so very obvious to me. America's love affair with automobiles is based on the superficial. Only Ed Begley types want to look like Ed Begley.

the founding slaveholders had oil lamps, wood fires, candles and moonlight

And, you look better in this kind of lighting.

A GF still uses lighted make up mirrors! THE HORROR! No wonder she wears so much make-up; everyone looks like dookie in those things. Ironically, they are no longer manufactured.

Shopper, I don't think you fully got my last clarification. My idea is to make the hybrid cheaper than the standard gas guzzling model (after factoring in govt incentives for the hybrid and the tax hit for the standard).

IMHO, you haven't made anything cheaper, you're just subsidizing the cost. Which removes any real incentive to make cheaper hybrids. Long term, your plan will have negative repercussions - mounting government debt and dependence on the part of the auto manufacturers.

If you want government to persuade people to drive less, make it more expensive to drive.

Disagree. The economies of scale haven't had a chance to kick in yet because there aren't a whole lot of hybrids being produced. And I'm not wanting any net new subsidies. Take half of the subsidies being paid for corn for ethanol and transfer over to tax incentives for hybrids.

My approach is fast and proactive and rewards consumers. Yours is slow and forces folks to make painful decisions.

You do not sound serious at all about finding a viable solution that will make people happy (besides the oil companies)...

PS- my objective isn't to get people to drive less.

Disagree. The economies of scale haven't had a chance to kick in yet because there aren't a whole lot of hybrids being produced. And I'm not wanting any net new subsidies. Take half of the subsidies being paid for corn for ethanol and transfer over to tax incentives for hybrids.

Good luck getting your mid-western democrat compatriots to agree with that.

My approach is fast and proactive and rewards consumers. Yours is slow and forces folks to make painful decisions.

How does taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another reward consumers? (plus, I can assure you raising the federal gas tax can kick in far faster than some complex buyer incentive that will be orchestrated by a bunch of D.C. special interests.)

Regardless, I believe subsidies always have the same effect, they suppress market forces that provide incentives to reduce the cost of production. Doesn't make any difference if it's ethonol, education, hybrids, the result is always the same.

You do not sound serious at all about finding a viable solution that will make people happy (besides the oil companies)...

IMHO, you are the one who is not serious. You want people to conserve, but you don't want to be the one to tell them they have to stop using so much oil. So you come up with gimicks that ultimately cause negative consequences down the road.

PS- my objective isn't to get people to drive less.

Drive less and purchase more fuel efficient vehicles? How on earth do you expect to accomplish conservation if these are not your goals? If gas is 2.00/gallon, which car do you think the average consumer is going to buy, especially if they are both priced the same? The hybrid that does zero to sixty in fourteen seconds, or the V8 that does it in six?

If government is going to try and herd people like cattle in this case, the gas tax is without a doubt the most effective 'fence' to use.

Shopper,

Let's back up for a sec.

I am putting forth the idea that the government force the hand of the automakers to offer a hybrid version of every production vehicle. Subsidies are not part of my plan- Your objections took us there. I'd rather engage in discussion with you about the pros/cons, feasibility and outcomes of my idea vs. yours rather then get stuck talking about a granular detail that may/may not even need to be a part of our ideas like subsidies. Cool?

Your idea is to raise taxes on gasoline so that Americans drive less and consume less and then the automakers will follow suit and start offering more fuel efficient options to accomodate a changing market.

My idea is to expedite the process of providing Americans with more fuel efficient options so that they can drive as much as they do now, pay less and consume less.

I believe my idea is more politically feasible. Either a democrat or a republican POTUS could sell it to the American people because it doesn't hurt them. Gas prices stay the same and the burden is on the automakers to change their behavior. The consumers end up with better options.

Have you considered how your idea would play out politically? Americans would not support senators, congressmen or a president who would vote for voluntary $5/gallon gasoline. So odds are no elected official would support it. And if it did somehow pass, tea party movements would vote out any incumbent who voted yes. Then they would probably try to repeal it. But let's say it passed and it's not repealed. What would your idea look like?

Americans would suffer with $5 a gallon gas. They would stop buying stuff. The economy would tank. Businesses of all shapes and sizes would be impacted by a drop in their sales and by an increased cost of goods.

The automakers would have been waiting around to see how the country responded to the new gas tax because they are a reactive industry. They would respond by phasing out the cars that people like in favor of fuel efficient models they now need.

Consumption would go down and people would drive less- just like you planned. But man, did it suck for everybody!

Here's the way I believe my idea would play out-

Automakers would begin investing in the infrastructure to build hybrid versions of every model in their fleet. Some of them and/or their parts suppliers won't cut the mustard and we'd likely see consolidation, mergers and acquisitions. But I'd imagine the new jobs and lost jobs would be a wash (less people making brackets for fuel tanks, more people making brackets for batteries).

As a worst case scenario, a hybrid version of a model of car would have a slightly higher sticker price but it would be offset by savings at the pump. And uncle sam could offer a tax credit to hybrid buyers which would result in a net savings. Meanwhile, gas guzzlers could carry a modest sin tax which would help cover the cost of those tax credits and which would serve to further motivate consumers to choose the hybrid version of their preferred model.

Americans drive the cars they want to and they aren't forced to cut back on how often/how far they drive but yet- consumption goes down...

I like my idea better.

I don't think the government needs to make automakers do anything but increase their fuel efficiency AND get rid of any tax credits or advantages for buying a large vehicle.

The market for hybrids comes from gas prices and since those have more than doubled in the last 10 years and prices shot up after Katrina, the demand for hybrids/more efficient vehicles has also increased.

Not having to spend $$ on gas and a possible tax credit will drive the demand much better than the government making car manufacturers (who are having enough problems IMO) produce a hybrid and regular version of every car.

And I do want people to drive less and in more efficient vehicles. Both for our health and to use less %^*$*^# oil.

I'm trying to think outside of the box. I do not believe Americans, automakers or oil companies are going to make the first move here. So how do you force a hand and whose?

I believe the govt needs to immediately and drastically raise fuel efficiency standards. But many Americans don't want to drive a Honda civic if they currently drive a Sequoia.

So,,,,
what technology exists today to make it happen? Answer- hybrids.

This might naturally happen on its own. There is an Escalade and a Yukon hybrid. But hybrid needs to be more mainstream before it makes a big difference in overall consumption.

I am hearing folks poopoo my brainstorm but haven't heard anything better yet.

What courageous (but feasible) steps can we take now to make a difference?

I would go with simplicity over complexity. Gradual increases in gasoline taxes would work perfectly, provide funding for other things (like our ballooning debt) and would, over time, decrease consumption.

it's got to be a top down move. given our eat all the food on your plate mentality, i don't see grass roots solutions. carrot and stick from the feds to tweak the marketplace.

Shopper, I don't believe anything but a sudden price increase correlates with a decrease in consumption.

It's like putting your hand in hot water suddenly vs. having your hand in cold water that you heat up over time.

Not to mention- we need a solution now- not in 10 years.

You want to drive a Sequoia and/or make other conscious choices that continue our dependence on oil go right ahead.

Just realize that by doing so you are directly responsible for the clusterpuck currently going on in the Gulf.

We did Cash for Clunkers and people pitched a fit, we put up wind turbines and people pitch a fit, we propose mass transit people pitch a fit, we try and phase out a certain lightbulb and people pitch a fit, we protest against offshore oil drilling because we think it is unsafe and will ruin our beaches and the politicians ignore us and people scream drill baby drill and buy SUVs, we have literally thousands of ways to save money and use less oil and people just choose not to do it..................................until oil prices go up and then all the 'hippie granola' ideas start to seem reasonable . ;-)

I posted a few of Obama's plans to reduce our oil consumption and promote alternative energy sources. If everyone got on board with those suggestions and focused on using less oil/oil products it would have a huge impact on both our oil usage and our pocketbooks.

If the Tea parties and outrage really are about our spiraling debt instead of a black man/democrat being president, why are they not backing plans that would REDUCE the amount the government spends on fuel, heat, electricity, and maintenance. Why are they not backing good nutrition and physical fitness and against smoking - changes that would greatly reduce the tab for Medicare and Medicaid - one of the biggest debt culprints.

Google and other major companies are putting their money where their mouth is and planning for the future. Google is investing hundreds of millions and their goal is to reduce the cost of solar power by 25-50% so that it is cheaper than coal. Ol' T. Boone has a solid plan for using more natural gas and less oil.

And any American can buy a hybrid or higher MPG car that fits their needs - if they actually wanted to.

Shopper, I don't believe anything but a sudden price increase correlates with a decrease in consumption.

It's like putting your hand in hot water suddenly vs. having your hand in cold water that you heat up over time.

Not to mention- we need a solution now- not in 10 years.

Neither solution can be implemented in such a way as to have any effect over the short term.

As far as my suggestion goes, it's well known and forms the basis of a lot of common policy, particularly green / pollution taxes (al la cap-and-trade).

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax]Pigovian tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

You want to drive a Sequoia and/or make other conscious choices that continue our dependence on oil go right ahead.

Just realize that by doing so you are directly responsible for the clusterpuck currently going on in the Gulf.

We did Cash for Clunkers and people pitched a fit, we put up wind turbines and people pitch a fit, we propose mass transit people pitch a fit, we try and phase out a certain lightbulb and people pitch a fit, we protest against offshore oil drilling because we think it is unsafe and will ruin our beaches and the politicians ignore us and people scream drill baby drill and buy SUVs, we have literally thousands of ways to save money and use less oil and people just choose not to do it..................................until oil prices go up and then all the 'hippie granola' ideas start to seem reasonable . ;-)

I posted a few of Obama's plans to reduce our oil consumption and promote alternative energy sources. If everyone got on board with those suggestions and focused on using less oil/oil products it would have a huge impact on both our oil usage and our pocketbooks.

If the Tea parties and outrage really are about our spiraling debt instead of a black man/democrat being president, why are they not backing plans that would REDUCE the amount the government spends on fuel, heat, electricity, and maintenance. Why are they not backing good nutrition and physical fitness and against smoking - changes that would greatly reduce the tab for Medicare and Medicaid - one of the biggest debt culprints.

Google and other major companies are putting their money where their mouth is and planning for the future. Google is investing hundreds of millions and their goal is to reduce the cost of solar power by 25-50% so that it is cheaper than coal. Ol' T. Boone has a solid plan for using more natural gas and less oil.

And any American can buy a hybrid or higher MPG car that fits their needs - if they actually wanted to.

Symptoms of government largess. Why not get rid of Medicare and Medicaid all together? That would solve the problem too.