PS- my objective isn't to get people to drive less.
Obama's energy plan
- Thread starter Bob
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Good luck getting your mid-western democrat compatriots to agree with that.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
Last edited:
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 $$ on gas and a possible tax credit will drive the demand much better than the government making car manufacturers (who are having enough problems IMO) produce a hybrid and regular version of every car.
And I do want people to drive less and in more efficient vehicles. Both for our health and to use less %^*$*^# oil.
The market for hybrids comes from gas prices and since those have more than doubled in the last 10 years and prices shot up after Katrina, the demand for hybrids/more efficient vehicles has also increased.
Not having to spend $$ 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.
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.
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.
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.