I'm convinced that ethanol is less efficient than the fossil fuels it is supposed to replace, because there are so many processes in which fossil fuels are utilized during the production of corn.

I personally curse the technology every time I pay my natural gas heating bill.

I'm fighting the urge to start a big rant about farm subsidies. It's great if you're the grower of one of the 5 (?) crops used primarily to create over-processed foods, or to feed livestock.

What, you'd rather grow carrots, broccoli and peas? No money for you... Yet another reason why a whole box of little debbie's cost less than a single apple (at least one worth eating). It's ridiculously expensive to eat fresh (especially organic) foods in a city now.

I would be right there with you! I come from a long line of small farmers and we never got subsidies. About the closest we ever got was my grandmother getting some money after she retired to "landbank" part of her farm. And from what I recall it was a massive amount totaling some $4,000 a year:rolleyes: There are waaay too many subsidies dished out all over the place in this country. We need to pay more attention to imports and the damage they are causing to the US economy. We don't have a free market economy, we have a lobbyist market economy.

Aaron:)

I haven't read all the replies to this post but I'll chip in my 2 cents and hope I'm not repeating what someone already said. Frankly, when you consider all the variables surrounding the automobile lifestyle, driving is already "that expensive." I'm referring to the cultural as well as economic costs involved. For many people, driving is a recreational activity in addition to its practical applications, and that's time lost as far as I'm concerned, time you'll never recover. In conjunction with that, communities are designed around the auto, destroying the human scale. Throw in the pollution, the danger, insurance, taxes, fuel and maintenance costs, and repairs and the real cost of the automobile is too high a price to pay, in my opinion. Future generations will look back on this era of human existence as the "internal combustion" era, and will wonder "what were the ninnies thinking?"

I'm convinced that ethanol is less efficient than the fossil fuels it is supposed to replace, because there are so many processes in which fossil fuels are utilized during the production of corn.

Yeah, ethanol's great for drinking, and not so great for powering engines. But what I see as an important component of our future is biodiesel - which is very very different. Ethanol has 2 carbons in its backbone with a hydroxy group attached to one of the carbons. Depending on the type of biodiesel, it can have up to about 17 carbons in its backbone, and no hydroxy groups.

The greatest thing about biodiesel is that it doesn't need to be produced specifically for use in vehicles - it can be produced from leftover deep fryer grease that would otherwise be discarded, any compost with high fat content, roadkill, whatever. I think Back to the Future might have, fittingly, been prophetic; the professor's DeLorian ran on biodiesel at the end of the movie (and it even had a refining unit built into the car!)

I agree that farming subsidies (at least in North America) aren't anything approaching equitable. It's a result of big business having sway over our policymakers. One of my relatives is a farmer, who used to grow all sorts of crops, but thanks to the subsidies, he could only stay competitive with soybeans and corn. But I don't think that means that the concept of subsidies is flawed, just the way that concept's been applied thus far.

JeffS - you've commented on things that don't work, but do you see a solution that would?

Walling off the Canada/U.S. border would be bloody awesome too. That'd make driving more expensive even faster. You see, we actually have oil.
Actually, we do too. It's just that all the whiny eco-ninnies are so worried about harming, well, frozen wasteland, that we're having a hard time getting to it. The sensible solution would be to shoot the whiny eco-ninnies, but that's probably not going to happen in today's political climate. Too bad they don't wear dish dashas, I guess.

Then people like six jours will get to whine and complain that it's all the fault of us damn Canucks, because somehow, it always seems to be.
Sounds like somebody needs a tissue!

JeffS - you've commented on things that don't work, but do you see a solution that would?

I have opinions, like everyone, but I know enough to realize that I don't have the science and economy background to propose a truly viable option.

The small things:

- our CAFE standards are inadequate and something that we should be embarrassed of. We produced gasoline powered cars in the 80's/90's that got 40-50 mpg in real-world situations. In 15 years, we have gone backwards to the point that even the microscopic Fortwo cannot post such numbers. Our desire to protect the US carmakers (whatever that means anymore) has prevented us from doing the right thing. The public would accept smaller more fuel-efficient cars with much less protest than they would a more blatant attempt at reducing cars in general.

- gas taxes have stayed flat. Change it to a percentage as it should have been initially - the risk being that the govt sees high consumption/prices as a revenue source and loses their motivation to reduce either.

While not directly related to driving, the #1 item on my wish list is city planning. Stop zoning suburban neighborhoods, and stop building roads to support them. Use the transportation budget for something like light-rail with zoning restrictions (med/high density - mixed-use) along the corridors. Build the transportation, and make people WANT to move there. Concentrate on providing/improving service within a certain geographic area and resist the temptation to try to serve your existing outlying suburbs.

We can't force people to sell their cars, but we can stop rewarding their bad behavior. Examples being the inevitable road-widening required for all these thousand-home developments on the edge of the city limits -- the fact that the "good schools" (often meaning the new schools) are located in these areas. -- that the new shopping locations are built on the newly-widened roads, or off the latest highway loop, while mid-towns turn into strip-center ghost towns.

Sarcasm noted but I think we can all agree that it already happens for better or worse. I confess that the arrogance of the phrase "for their own good" really grates against me.

</sarcasm off><sincerity on>
I guess my point is that government projects like roads don't just benefit society (in whatever way they do), they also shape it. The government builds roads for several purposes: economic stimulation through the facilitation of transportation/travel, economic stimulation through the expenditure on the roads themselves, and political agendas like rewarding donors and buying votes. But the roads don't just make some aspects of life better, they also make some aspects worse. As a society we shouldn't just assume that we need more roads and highways and subdivisions, we should debate what kind of society we want, and what infrastructure produces the best quality of life for everyone and work for that. The OP called for the taxes and expenditures he thinks would most benefit society, and in so doing he wasn't being any more of a socialist or nanny state proponent than the auto executive or construction firm president who may be lobbying for lower fuel taxes and higher highway department budgets. More likely his proposals are less self-interested and no doubt some of them would be of more general benefit to all members of society than some of theirs.

The public would accept smaller more fuel-efficient cars with much less protest than they would a more blatant attempt at reducing cars in general.
+1

I, for one, would like to see this car-centric living impossibly expensive and as inconvenient as possible.
....
What do you think?
Here's something to ponder:
If we presume we wish to live on the least amount of resources possible, and spending money basically equals using resources, then why do central urban areas have higher costs of living than suburban or rural living?
~

Here's something to ponder:
If we presume we wish to live on the least amount of resources possible, and spending money basically equals using resources, then why do central urban areas have higher costs of living than suburban or rural living?
~

Why does any one thing cost more than any other? Spending money might equal using resources, in an abstract sense, but price in most non-command economies is a result of supply and demand. In urban areas, good housing in attractive areas with amenities has a generally better demand than have properties without those qualities. The square foot of residential property in the good area commands the higher price, regardless of the actual "resources" it represents. The better properties get better rents. And if you think that holds only for urban areas, you haven't priced beachfront lately.

Here's something to ponder:
If we presume we wish to live on the least amount of resources possible, and spending money basically equals using resources, then why do central urban areas have higher costs of living than suburban or rural living?
~

Your presumption is simply incorrect - money does not equal resources. As mentioned, land value is primarily what determines cost of living.

</sarcasm off><sincerity on>
I guess my point is that government projects like roads don't just benefit society (in whatever way they do), they also shape it. The government builds roads for several purposes: economic stimulation through the facilitation of transportation/travel, economic stimulation through the expenditure on the roads themselves, and political agendas like rewarding donors and buying votes. But the roads don't just make some aspects of life better, they also make some aspects worse. As a society we shouldn't just assume that we need more roads and highways and subdivisions, we should debate what kind of society we want, and what infrastructure produces the best quality of life for everyone and work for that. The OP called for the taxes and expenditures he thinks would most benefit society, and in so doing he wasn't being any more of a socialist or nanny state proponent than the auto executive or construction firm president who may be lobbying for lower fuel taxes and higher highway department budgets. More likely his proposals are less self-interested and no doubt some of them would be of more general benefit to all members of society than some of theirs.
Very well said. Raising gas taxes is not an imposition on motorists. It's an acknowledgment that people should have to pay for the benefits they receive, and they should also compensate others for the damage they do. Everybody here knows that autos do a great deal of damage--fatalities, injuries, pollution, sprawl, asthma, heart disease, etc., etc. These damages are paid for, but they're not paid by auto users. We all pay in the form of high taxes and high health costs. This is obviously not fair.

Also unfair is that car users don't pay the full price for the advantages they receive. As a carfree person, I pay (in higher retail prices) for the "free" parking space they use, even though my own vehicle only needs one eleventh of a parking space. I pay with lower wages because my employer has to provide convenient "free" parking to thousands of workers. I pay higher taxes for the roads, since only a small fraction of road upkeep is paid by the ridiculously low gas taxes. I pay high bus fares because my fellow citzens have decided that tax dollars should be spent on increased capacity for cars rather than buses.

I think Back to the Future might have, fittingly, been prophetic; the professor's DeLorian ran on biodiesel at the end of the movie

Actually, Doc Brown's time machine was powered by nuclear fusion. Story goes, he traveled far enough into the future to find it and get it installed. A nuclear reaction was the only technology he could use to generate the 1.21 gigawatts to time travel.

As for the car itself, it was still using gasoline by the end of the series.

I find it funny (and telling) that BF is largely supported by advertising from (drum roll) car makers ;)

I find it funny (and telling) that BF is largely supported by advertising from (drum roll) car makers ;)

Not when you consider that BF members largely drive their cars to go ride their bikes.

I personally am opposed to any taxation-as-solution to any problem because all governments are corrupt and misuse tax income for purposes other than they are intended, mostly to line their pockets.

Not when you consider that BF members largely drive their cars to go ride their bikes.

LOL good point. i spend my time in Commuting & Carfree & tend to forget about the (massive numebrs) of other cyclists who drive to ride.

The liberals have been trying to do this for years with firearms and tobacco. All they've managed to prove so far is that it doesn't work.

Note:The quote is about pricing things high to discourage their use.

I can't disagree more. I for one have purchased firearms and ammunition fairly regularly over the last few decades and can't remember when the last big gun tax was imposed by the liberals.

As for tobacco, it seems that high prices for cigs have coincided with a significant decreases in tobacco use, particularly among younger people.

Are you seriously stating that high costs don't discourage use? This would seem to fly in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

I, for one, would like to see this car-centric living impossibly expensive and as inconvenient as possible.

I like to see these policies implemented, it's not going to happen in North America, but we carfree people can only dream.

$20 per gallon for gasoline and diesel sounds like a good number.
However, there should be subsidies for the following:
- transportation for products (shippers)
- occupation requiring the use of automobile (contractors, landscapers, etc)
- large item deliveries

A 200% tax on every new automobile sold.

Excessive parking fees, or better yet, no parking spaces at all. I don't fancy seeing people's property parking on public road. Just think of how less land is required with there were no parking spaces.

What do you think?

I know of no better way to collapse the world's economy in one swift blow than to follow the
quoted plan above. It is pure folly..........

As for tobacco, it seems that high prices for cigs have coincided with a significant decreases in tobacco use, particularly among younger people.


Only coincidentally, especially in young people.

Age restrictions, enforcement of those laws, and smoking bans just about everywhere are what have curbed use.

Note:The quote is about pricing things high to discourage their use.

I can't disagree more. I for one have purchased firearms and ammunition fairly regularly over the last few decades and can't remember when the last big gun tax was imposed by the liberals.

As for tobacco, it seems that high prices for cigs have coincided with a significant decreases in tobacco use, particularly among younger people.

Are you seriously stating that high costs don't discourage use? This would seem to fly in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

You're forgetting the power of AM talk radio logic and analysis, which has successfully eliminated the need for evidence when it comes to making quick judgments. All you need to remember is that everything is the liberals' fault, and all taxes are bad--especially imaginary taxes.

I know of no better way to collapse the world's economy in one swift blow than to follow the
quoted plan above. It is pure folly..........

Yeah, but the economy depends on the environment. What kind of economy does New Orleans have now? The farmers around here can't grow food without rainfall - it doesn't matter how much demand there is for their produce or what they get paid for it if it doesn't exist.

And, if by economy you also mean well being & security, How many wars now have been fought to dominate countries for their oil supplies? What do you care about the economy when you're dead? If you're fat and diabetic because you never walk or bike, your 'economic' problem is that all your money's gone to paying for medical costs.

Sacrificing health, security, and the environment for a few years more of artificially cheap energy isn't worth it.

Yeah, but the economy depends on the environment. What kind of economy does New Orleans have now? The farmers around here can't grow food without rainfall - it doesn't matter how much demand there is for their produce or what they get paid for it if it doesn't exist.

And, if by economy you also mean well being & security, How many wars now have been fought to dominate countries for their oil supplies? What do you care about the economy when you're dead? If you're fat and diabetic because you never walk or bike, your 'economic' problem is that all your money's gone to paying for medical costs.

Sacrificing health, security, and the environment for a few years more of artificially cheap energy isn't worth it.

Good job putting things into perspective. SGIRIT!!*

:)

*So good I read it twice

Sacrificing health, security, and the environment for a few years more of artificially cheap energy isn't worth it.

It's worth it to the company who continues to make money selling widgets, or boxes for widgets, or bags for boxes for widgets, or receipts for widgets, boxes and bags.

You're above all that though right? since you don't purchase any of this stuff?

-----

How many wars now have been fought to dominate countries for their oil supplies?

Far fewer than have been fought over religion. What's your point?

Note:The quote is about pricing things high to discourage their use.

I can't disagree more. I for one have purchased firearms and ammunition fairly regularly over the last few decades and can't remember when the last big gun tax was imposed by the liberals.

As for tobacco, it seems that high prices for cigs have coincided with a significant decreases in tobacco use, particularly among younger people.

Are you seriously stating that high costs don't discourage use? This would seem to fly in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Remember when anyone could mail order a surplus rifle, pistol or shotgun, in working condition, from the Department of the Army? For less than $50?
If you're my Dads age you can.

Remember the 60's when liberals decried all guns as evil? And they're still dumb enough to think they are.
Remember the 70's when to the liberals every gun was a "Saturday Night Special," and to be banned? They never have been able to define what a "Saturday Night Special" is.
Remember the 90's and the "Brady Bill" when all "Assault Weapons" were to be banned. That bill didn't do jack-diddly-squat except make criminals out of law abiding owners. Who were once again legal after that piece of BS legislation expired. The liberals never could accurately define what an "Assault Rifle" is. All these things and several others have driven the price of firearms and ammunition up. You've been paying inflated prices and didn't even know it.

If you think high prices discourage use you're fooling no one but yourself. Smokers aren't quitting because cigarettes are over $50 a carton. If someone wants to smoke, they'll find a way to get it. All higher prices do is support black marketing.

The same is true for driving. Here we are in the U.S. Some of the cheapest, highest grades and most readily available fossil fuels in the world, yet people still whine about the price. And as fuel prices go up, prices on all other goods and services soar. When the price of fuel hits a point where the average person can't afford it, then the average person will be starving because they also won't be able to afford to buy groceries. "Let them eat cake."

I went through a grocery store one time while I was in Japan. Gas was equivalent to ~$4/gallon. A smallish/medium size watermelon was equivalent to ~$16. Milk was a little less than $3/liter, about equivalent to $14/gallon.

None of this "just jack up the price and everybody will quit doing it" BS has ever worked and it never will.

Remember the 90's and the "Brady Bill" when all "Assault Weapons" were to be banned. That bill didn't do jack-diddly-squat except make criminals out of law abiding owners. Who were once again legal after that piece of BS legislation expired. The liberals never could accurately define what an "Assault Rifle" is. All these things and several others have driven the price of firearms and ammunition up. You've been paying inflated prices and didn't even know it.


lol The Brady bill was named for Reagan's press secretary, obviously a conservative, who was wounded when Reagan was shot by Hinkley with a legal firearm.

Ya done now? Can we go back to talking about bikes or whatever the hell we were talking about?

lol The Brady bill was named for Reagan's press secretary, obviously a conservative, who was wounded when Reagan was shot by Hinkley with a legal firearm.

Ya done now? Can we go back to talking about bikes or whatever the hell we were talking about?

James Brady didn't push the bill. His flaming liberal wife Sarah used him after he was severally brain damaged while heroically taking a bullet to save the President. Then in 2000 the hypocrite made a straw purchase of a .30-06 rifle for her son. This illustrates how liberals want measures to apply to everyone but themselves.

The same will be true for the costs of motor vehicle driving. Artificially inflated prices don't discourage anything. They only result in inflated prices on everything else and a burgeoning black market. However, costs that rise naturally in response to market demands don't have this effect to the same extent.

Guess he wasn't done yet. ;)

I, for one, would like to see this car-centric living impossibly expensive and as inconvenient as possible.

I like to see these policies implemented, it's not going to happen in North America, but we carfree people can only dream.

$20 per gallon for gasoline and diesel sounds like a good number.
However, there should be subsidies for the following:
- transportation for products (shippers)
- occupation requiring the use of automobile (contractors, landscapers, etc)
- large item deliveries

A 200% tax on every new automobile sold.

Excessive parking fees, or better yet, no parking spaces at all. I don't fancy seeing people's property parking on public road. Just think of how less land is required with there were no parking spaces.

What do you think?

Woah that's going way too far. There are a couple problems with this in the United States and Canada (which is where I'm guessing you live): The population density and culture haven't built mass cross country transit systems. Your only way to go from one city to another is flight, or bus. So people drive, because we have an excellent highway system (at least in the US).
A better idea might be to impose parking lot size restrictions (this would decrease in-city trips by auto, and encourage smaller stores) or fines. And build a new railroad system for fast light passenger trains (the Government would have to build it, no one else will until we don't have enough oil to forge the needed parts). Buses simply aren't competitive and can't be: They're uncomfortable, inefficient, and for the safety conscious probably less safe than driving ones self (that is, unless everyone took buses, but we've all seen how this logic fails in a free market society). Trains are significantly safer, can be more efficient if we design them to be, and if you sacrifice efficiency can be comfortable (see: airplane ticket classing).


The tax on automobiles is ridiculous. And the gas price is nuts! About $6 a gallon will get people to decrease their vehicle use. You can see the dynamic happening in Europe right now.

Speaking of gas prices: "VENEZUELA CARACAS $0.14" from http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/price.html . Wow.

James Brady didn't push the bill. His flaming liberal wife Sarah used him after he was severally brain damaged while heroically taking a bullet to save the President. Then in 2000 the hypocrite made a straw purchase of a .30-06 rifle for her son. This illustrates how liberals want measures to apply to everyone but themselves.

The same will be true for the costs of motor vehicle driving. Artificially inflated prices don't discourage anything. They only result in inflated prices on everything else and a burgeoning black market. However, costs that rise naturally in response to market demands don't have this effect to the same extent.

Hi, I'm pretty liberal, I oppose the Brady Bill. Want to rephrase so you don't sound like a neo-conservative fox news watching Hannity obsessed nut (Note: That comment was intentionally rude, for effect; sort of a try my boots on thing)?

The reason artificial prices cause black markets is in their nature: The price isn't due to scarcity, so the way to drop the price is to work illegally. If the price is due to scarcity you can't work around it.
So, no, naturally rising prices don't have this effect to any extent. If you see this effect their is regulation.

Of course, entirely market regulated prices will sometimes skyrocket. Usually due to a monopoly or incredible collusion. Some argue that this is what's happening to oil prices. I don't really care, gas is still cheaper than the maintenance and ownership cost on a low-end auto. And it's a lot cheaper, calorie per calorie, than food; especially food I'd eat ;).

Hi, I'm pretty liberal, I oppose the Brady Bill. Want to rephrase so you don't sound like a neo-conservative fox news watching Hannity obsessed nut (Note: That comment was intentionally rude, for effect; sort of a try my boots on thing)?
The rudeness didn't work on me, but hope the boots fit.

The reason artificial prices cause black markets is in their nature: The price isn't due to scarcity, so the way to drop the price is to work illegally. If the price is due to scarcity you can't work around it.
So, no, naturally rising prices don't have this effect to any extent. If you see this effect their is regulation.

Of course, entirely market regulated prices will sometimes skyrocket. Usually due to a monopoly or incredible collusion. Some argue that this is what's happening to oil prices. I don't really care, gas is still cheaper than the maintenance and ownership cost on a low-end auto. And it's a lot cheaper, calorie per calorie, than food; especially food I'd eat ;).
As you yourself have proven, artificially raising the cost of a particular thing or activity doesn't work to curtail it. Other than that it looks to me like we're both saying the same thing in different ways. The only way to effectively inflate the price of an activity without having gross negative effects on everything else is through the free market system and market demands.

I especially like the point you brought up about the need for light rail for general transportation purposes, and agree that the government on both state and federal levels would have to do it. But I don't think that's going to happen.

Imposing an excise tax is not the same thing as artificially raising the price.

The rudeness didn't work on me, but hope the boots fit.


As you yourself have proven, artificially raising the cost of a particular thing or activity doesn't work to curtail it. Other than that it looks to me like we're both saying the same thing in different ways. The only way to effectively inflate the price of an activity without having gross negative effects on everything else is through the free market system and market demands.

I especially like the point you brought up about the need for light rail for general transportation purposes, and agree that the government on both state and federal levels would have to do it. But I don't think that's going to happen.

I wasn't trying to disagree I was expanding on your point.

I, for one, would like to see this car-centric living impossibly expensive and as inconvenient as possible.

I like to see these policies implemented, it's not going to happen in North America, but we carfree people can only dream.

$20 per gallon for gasoline and diesel sounds like a good number.
However, there should be subsidies for the following:
- transportation for products (shippers)
- occupation requiring the use of automobile (contractors, landscapers, etc)
- large item deliveries

A 200% tax on every new automobile sold.

Excessive parking fees, or better yet, no parking spaces at all. I don't fancy seeing people's property parking on public road. Just think of how less land is required with there were no parking spaces.

What do you think?

Are you proposing that the infrastructure will be in place beforehand for those of us who enjoy getting out of the city now and then? High Speed rail between L.A. and Vegas? Frequent bus service to ski resorts? How exactly are the owners of the Sundance Motel (http://www.98.net/sundance/) in Pinedale Wyoming going to continue making a living? Will high rail or bus service Walden, Colorado, in which I can rent an ATV to reach my favorite camping spot? How do my friend's parents who own a farm in Grant Nebraska (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=grant,+nebraska&ie=UTF8&ll=40.84143,-101.7251&spn=0.138177,0.184021&z=12) afford to drive to Ogalalla for supplies?

I don't drive in the city and I bike commute daily- but if you if uttered that first sentence at a bar in the rural American West - well fisticuffs might follow...

I certainly agree with reducing car depency, especially in cities and more so in the suburban U.S. But to play devil's advocate you would kill the small town west.

I don't think the actual vehicles are the problem.People are still going to need to commute.The problem(IMHO)is what's powering said vehicles.Our dependence on fossil fuels.Ethanol,bio-diesel,hydrogen,it's all a different spin on the same old story.The infernal-combustion engine.We're going to have to start thinking outside the box.
Check out this link.It's going to take this kind of thinking to wein us off oil.

http://www.theaircar.com/acf/air-cars/compressed-air-history.html

The only way to effectively inflate the price of an activity without having gross negative effects on everything else is through the free market system and market demands.

+1 !!

The way to go is to set a goal of a particular level of carbon emissions and use the free market to divide up who gets the right-to-emit-CO2 and how much.

Problems with this approach:

1. "but if you instantly and drastically raise the price of carbon emissions it will cause economic upheaval!" (solution, gradually phase in emissions-cutting measures)

2. "a cap and trade system may encourage people to raise their carbon emissions now so that they can be grandfathered in under a higher cap, and possibly sell their high-cap right-to-pollute" (solution, set a goal and use carbon - tax to lower carbon emissions rather than cap and trade. )

3. "but people will lose jobs / it will be an economic burden!" (partial solution, economic policies that impose costs on polluters will actually tend to create jobs in "green" industries and products/services that make existing industries more green. allowing free carbon emissions also creates a burden")

4. "but reducing carbon emissions via free-market, i.e. raising the cost to pollute, will raise overall taxes and slow the economy" (solution, make it "revenue-neutral", i.e. offset the raise in carbon tax with a drop in other taxes such as income taxes. This will mean that industries and people that already produce little in the way of carbon emissions will receive a very real reward in the form of lower taxes.)

5. "but reducing carbon emissions via free-market, i.e. raising the cost to pollute, will be a "regressive" tax, hitting poor people hardest since they can't stop heating their homes and traveling to work. (solution - make any new carbon-tax law "regressive-neutral", i.e. offset the tax with a drop in taxes on low-income people that will equal the extra amount they are paying for carbon emissions.)

+1 !!

The way to go is to set a goal of a particular level of carbon emissions and use the free market to divide up who gets the right-to-emit-CO2 and how much.

Problems with this approach:

1. "but if you instantly and drastically raise the price of carbon emissions it will cause economic upheaval!" (solution, gradually phase in emissions-cutting measures)

2. "a cap and trade system may encourage people to raise their carbon emissions now so that they can be grandfathered in under a higher cap, and possibly sell their high-cap right-to-pollute" (solution, set a goal and use carbon - tax to lower carbon emissions rather than cap and trade. )

3. "but people will lose jobs / it will be an economic burden!" (partial solution, economic policies that impose costs on polluters will actually tend to create jobs in "green" industries and products/services that make existing industries more green. allowing free carbon emissions also creates a burden")

4. "but reducing carbon emissions via free-market, i.e. raising the cost to pollute, will raise overall taxes and slow the economy" (solution, make it "revenue-neutral", i.e. offset the raise in carbon tax with a drop in other taxes such as income taxes. This will mean that industries and people that already produce little in the way of carbon emissions will receive a very real reward in the form of lower taxes.)

5. "but reducing carbon emissions via free-market, i.e. raising the cost to pollute, will be a "regressive" tax, hitting poor people hardest since they can't stop heating their homes and traveling to work. (solution - make any new carbon-tax law "regressive-neutral", i.e. offset the tax with a drop in taxes on low-income people that will equal the extra amount they are paying for carbon emissions.)

I think you're making a lot of sense and I tend to agree with you. But I've been wondering about one thing, and maybe somebody will have an answer. Will a revenue-neutral carbon tax actually work to reduce emissions? Or will people simply use the money they save because other taxes were lowered in order to buy more gas?

As I understand it, if the carbon tax cost people an average of, for example, $1000 a year, income taxes would be lowered $1000 to cover that. If people used that $1000 to pay carbon taxes, gasoline usage would not be affected.

s I understand it, if the carbon tax cost people an average of, for example, $1000 a year, income taxes would be lowered $1000 to cover that. If people used that $1000 to pay carbon taxes, gasoline usage would not be affected.


It will mean that people who can be influenced by price (which includes a lot, but probably not all, of the people you hear whining about the price of natural gas, gasoline, and electricity) will be more likely to do one or more of the following:
- install better insulation on their house
- pay for solar / wind electricity
- do less single-occupant-automobile travel.

Right now, a lot of the people who buy a toyota prius or a wind power system are paying extra to help the environment. If we changed the tax structure to reward low-carbon-footprint actions, they would probably still be paying extra. But, believe me, more people would buy wind-derived electricity if the price-difference were cut in half.

.....We're going to have to start thinking outside the box.
Check out this link.It's going to take this kind of thinking to wein us off oil.

http://www.theaircar.com/acf/air-cars/compressed-air-history.html


Wow,that compressed air engine stuff is pretty cool.I did some sniffing around and found this.You gotta check this out,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4


VERY COOL!!!

My idea about getting people out of their cars is simply to REALLY INFORCE traffic laws and DUI laws and watch at least half the so called "drivers" lose their license and insurance!!! Then have a state law like in Iowa where your car is inpounded if you lose either!! Peak Oil and Global Warming would be a lot easier to solve...

Good article in the New Yorker that is essentially along these lines:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/25/080225fa_fact_specter

Starts with the bookend of the owners of the UK grocery store Tesco trying to do something for the environment by labeling all their products with a measurement of how much carbon was required to produce each product. The article then goes into how difficult it is to measure the carbon footprint of production and sometimes you get a sort of freakonomics outcome, like wine purchased in NY has a lower footprint if it came from France than California since shipping via ocean uses a lot less oil than trucking it across the US.

Then the article gets into what's been discussed here, does putting a high price on 'bad' behavior correct it. Clean Air Act put a high price on sulfur dioxide emissions so factories installed scrubbers on their smokestacks. Clean Water Act put penalties on excessive water usage so and today the US produces more using less water than it did 50yrs ago. The article then goes into how putting a price on carbon emissions will bring out ideas on correcting the problem like creating a large algae pool next to coal burning power plants.

It ends with the Tesco people who, after putting tremendous work into labeling their products, came around to admitting that it would be more effective if people just installed double-paned windows and a new boiler than worrying about food. Good article and ends with an interesting anecdote.

One thing I found particularly interesting was that Brazil and Indonesia produce 10% of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere simply because the are cutting down and burning all their trees. Kind of makes all this biking stuff seem insignificant when a few hundred bucks can save a forest.

[....] It ends with the Tesco people who, after putting tremendous work into labeling their products, came around to admitting that it would be more effective if people just installed double-paned windows and a new boiler than worrying about food. Good article and ends with an interesting anecdote.

One thing I found particularly interesting was that Brazil and Indonesia produce 10% of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere simply because the are cutting down and burning all their trees. Kind of makes all this biking stuff seem insignificant when a few hundred bucks can save a forest.

Good points and thanks for the link. :)

I guess the main point is about getting the most bang for the buck. Buildings use more carbon than food, so insulation is a good place to start. (Of course food production is a major source of air and water pollution, so organic and local is still a good idea, IMO.)

The idea behind carbon offsets is that you get more bang for the buck by investing in carbon reduction programs in the developing world (such as paying Brazilians to not cut down rain forests) rather than in the US, where just about everything costs more. But, OTOH, most of the carbon comes from the US and other rich countries, so that's where the largest potential reductions are.

I think about 25 % of carbon emissions are from the US, and almost half of those are from cars.* That means more than 10 % of GHGs comes from American cars, if my math is right. In that sense, "biking stuff" could make a difference. If 10 % of car miles in the US alone were converted to bike miles, there would be (roughly) a 1 % reduction in worldwide CO2 emissions. Not a lot, but a lot better than nothing!


*These figures are from memory, but I'm sure somebody will be kind enough to correct me if I got them wrong. :)

Good points and thanks for the link. :)
I think about 25 % of carbon emissions are from the US, and almost half of those are from cars.* That means more than 10 % of GHGs comes from American cars, if my math is right. In that sense, "biking stuff" could make a difference. If 10 % of car miles in the US alone were converted to bike miles, there would be (roughly) a 1 % reduction in worldwide CO2 emissions. Not a lot, but a lot better than nothing!

*These figures are from memory, but I'm sure somebody will be kind enough to correct me if I got them wrong. :)

I didn't believe you so I decided to look it up and found this:


* Motor vehicle emissions represent 31 percent of total carbon dioxide, 81 percent of carbon monoxide, and 49 percent of nitrogen oxides released in the U.S. (The Green Commuter, A Publication of the Clean Air Council).
* 60 percent of the pollution created by automobile emissions happens in the first few minutes of operation, before pollution control devices can work effectively. Since "cold starts" create high levels of emissions, shorter car trips are more polluting on a per-mile basis than longer trips (League of American Bicyclists).
* A short, four-mile round trip by bicycle keeps about 15 pounds of pollutants out of the air we breathe (WorldWatch Institute).

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/why/benefits_environment.cfm

Didn't know about the whole "cold start" phenomena. If anything, I bet biking does even more than most people are aware of.

I don't think the free market is going to solve this problem.

People are attracted to cars for reasons that have nothing to do with cost effectiveness. Most car use is vastly cost ineffective. At about ten times the cost of cycling people drive a car to work; where they don't need to transport anything but themselves a short distance. They maintain extra cars to make sure that each adult in the family can drive themselves to work/school. Just having the car is expensive: It must be insured at all times (insurance companies penalize any failure to insure a motor vehicle), rubber parts in the car fatigue faster when not used regularly and are obnoxious to replace (expensive if you, like most people, don't do it yourself), and it depreciates whether it's driven or not.

It makes no financial sense to use cars for probably half the things most of us use them for. But we do it anyway. Some people do it to their financial detriment already: Driving cars too luxurious for their income, or simply driving cars when they can't afford to have as many as they have (be that one, two, or four cars).

Why?

I'm not going to claim to have the answer here. My main point was that financial incentives will have limited effects. They work on businesses because businesses spend thousands of man hours reconsidering their finances where most individuals spend less time on their finances than their tv guide.

But I'll suggest some ideas:
1. Cars are normal. Everyone uses them. Celebrities identify themselves by the statement of their car. The rich say their rich by the branding of their car. They're an extension of identity that most people use.

2. Cars are easy. You may have to do a lot of work to keep your car, but you'd have to do it anyway. And the car takes you from point A to point B without any exertion! They also cut down on planning. Going out for the evening? Don't worry about the weather, your car is a heated/cooled environment. You'll only have to deal with nature for a few minutes between your car and the building.

3. Cars are fast. It may only be 50% quicker to drive somewhere than bike, but that's enough. And cross country it's more like 4 times faster. Ever go cross country on a bike? Do you think your mother would? America is tearing its heavy rail down and building no new light rail.

4. Cars birthed suburbia which was a goal in itself. A white picket fence on a crap 2 story house that you'll spend 40 years turning into a mechanically sound house. A "big" yard and an hour commute. That's the american dream. We're masochists. Cars are required for the hour commute.

The idea behind carbon offsets is that you get more bang for the buck by investing in carbon reduction programs in the developing world (such as paying Brazilians to not cut down rain forests) rather than in the US, where just about everything costs more.

Ha! You would get more bang for the buck by paying me not to cut down the rain forest. That's because I'll charge half of what your paying the other guy not to do it! :D

Ha! You would get more bang for the buck by paying me not to cut down the rain forest. That's because I'll charge half of what your paying the other guy not to do it! :D

Hell, I got some guy in Brazil paying me not to mow my lawn... and it's been covered with snow for the last three months!

Currently, businesses and other buildings in probably most cities in the USA are required to provide a certain number of free parking spaces to their patrons, depending on the size of the building. It couldn't be such a bad thing to relax those requirements a little. You could put up a restaurant in the parking lot of a big box retailer and still have enough parking spaces left over, and at the same time you would be providing more jobs and more tax income for the city.

Why not require dedicated bike parking too? DC just passed a law to this effect. Some other places have it too.

Why not require dedicated bike parking too? DC just passed a law to this effect. Some other places have it too.

That is a start, but until they reduce the amount of car parking, the issue of a carcentricity still remains. I get very irritated at the powers that be, approving yet another massive shopping mall that is only accessible by car and built on a scale for the car. I read an urban design article a while back and IIRC the factors for design scaling were: Pedestrian 1, bicycle +3, car +15 or more. What it basically states is that for a facility to be accessible to cars it has to be 15 times as large as it would be for pedestrians. Think about the long walk from the far reaches of the parking lot to the store front, then if you want to go to the store on the opposite end of the strip mall it can be over a mile!

Aaron:)

I'm convinced that ethanol is less efficient than the fossil fuels it is supposed to replace, because there are so many processes in which fossil fuels are utilized during the production of corn.

It is not that ethanol is energy intensive to process. The real isse is that ethanol has a lower energy density than standard gasoline. For a given gallon of gasoline you will go so many miles. With a gallon of ethanol, you will go a shorter distance.

There's another issue with ethanol. Because it requires agricultural land to grow the crops to make fuel, it means there is less worldwide crop land available to grow food for people. There are more than 6.6 billion people on the earth and far too many will die of hunger-related causes. We also have a finite amount of agricultural land available. By growing crops to make fuel, are we taking food from the hungry?