Page 13 of 19 FirstFirst ... 389101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 365
  1. #241  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Anyone ready to give up their car commute one day a week? Lower demand and lower the price IF this is simply market forces.
    Can you convince my boss to give me the day off?
  2. #242  
    I think one should divide the response to the challenge to high fuel prices into mild, moderate and extreme responses. I think leaving the car at home for one day a week is already into a moderate response. At this stage a mild response is more appropriate.

    Mild response -decide to buy a smaller car next time you buy. Unless you buy a new car sooner than you would otherwise it will cost you nothing extra, and will raise the fleet fuel economy of the whole country over a number of years.

    Moderate response - car pooling, cycling one day per week.

    Extreme response - cycling all the time, moving closer to work, buying a hybrid car.

    Agree/disagree?

    Surur
  3.    #243  
    It is funny how you always here that the SUV is the enemy. Punish SUV drivers.....when I heard on Satellite radio (will look for cite later) that BMW, Mercedes, etc... cars (not SUV models) get only 22-26 mpg....lower than several new SUVs!

    If you were going to penalize for driving low mpg vehicles, then it should be rated on mpg, and not type of car.
  4. #244  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    When was the system put in place? A long time ago I bet, before a real reliance on cars developed. Now that it is accepted as part of life, no one makes a peep. Over hear, it would be different.
    For CO2-emissions: it is done currently. There are still political negotiations going on about what the rates will be etc., but it is clear that it will happen eventually. The driving force behind it is the Kyoto Protocol. Switzerland is still not quite on track to meet the targets, so additional means are currently installed to make it happen.

    A similar system has been installed for emissions of harmful organic solvents about four years ago. The users of those solvents have to pay some extra money for the harmful solvents, which makes them use other technologies more readily. The money is redistributed on a per capita basis via a deduction in health insurance (which everybody has anyway). It works.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. #245  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    It is funny how you always here that the SUV is the enemy. Punish SUV drivers.....when I heard on Satellite radio (will look for cite later) that BMW, Mercedes, etc... cars (not SUV models) get only 22-26 mpg....lower than several new SUVs!

    If you were going to penalize for driving low mpg vehicles, then it should be rated on mpg, and not type of car.
    We shouldn't penalize people for low MPG vehicles. People are trying to reduce the number of gallons burned, right? So if I live 2 miles from work and drive a 20 mpg car, why should I be penalized compared to someone living 10 miles away, driving a 40 mpg car?
  6. #246  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    For CO2-emissions: it is done currently.
    I was refering to the tax scheme (high taxes relative to US) in general. Not the specifics of certain pollutants. Haven't gasoline taxes always been high relative to the U.S. or is that a relatively new phenomenon?
  7. #247  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    It is funny how you always here that the SUV is the enemy. Punish SUV drivers.....when I heard on Satellite radio (will look for cite later) that BMW, Mercedes, etc... cars (not SUV models) get only 22-26 mpg....lower than several new SUVs!

    If you were going to penalize for driving low mpg vehicles, then it should be rated on mpg, and not type of car.
    Thats why the road tax scale in UK is based initially on engine size and since 2001 (post Kyoto) on Co2 emission level.
    http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/inf...on-dioxide.asp

    Surur
  8. #248  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Thats why the road tax scale in UK is based initially on engine size and since 2001 (post Kyoto) on Co2 emission level.
    http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/inf...on-dioxide.asp

    Surur
    And it should be noted that absent some futuristic carbon storage device, Co2 emissions are essentially equivalent to gasoline consumption.
    The road tax scale in the UK is a once yearly fee, like the TV tax? Or is it a per gallon tax?
  9. #249  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I was refering to the tax scheme (high taxes relative to US) in general. Not the specifics of certain pollutants. Haven't gasoline taxes always been high relative to the U.S. or is that a relatively new phenomenon?
    It is old, because the tax is basically a sin tax in UK, like alcohol and cigarettes.

    Surur
  10. #250  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    It is old, because the tax is basically a sin tax in UK, like alcohol and cigarettes.

    Surur
    That's what I was referring to. I don't think you could get that passed today. What do you think? I'm recalling those giant truck strikes of a few years ago that jammed up all those fueling stations in the country.
  11. #251  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    That horse is being beat in a different thread. As posted in that thread, others experts and scientist have come to different logical conclusions. If interested search for it yourself.
    And as I mentioned in that thread, this is simply not true. 99% of scientists involved in this research agree. The smoke screen of different conclusions is being bought by the oil companies.
  12. #252  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Can you convince my boss to give me the day off?
    Sigh. How high does gas have to get before people will get out of their commuter car jsut one day a week? $4/gallon?
  13. #253  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I do. One day a week I work in a clinic that is only 12 miles from my house. Ride a bike as long as it is not pouring rain, or have a meeting in the middle of the day at another location.
    Excellent! See, contrary to popular belief, cardio is part of the solution.
  14. #254  
    It doesn't seem to me to by logical to respond to high fuel prices by making fuel more expensive. No one would swallow that. Much better to achieve social engineering my moving cost to a different area, such as the costs of the vehicle, therefore my suggestion to e.g. add a extra sales tax or road tax to larger cars, which subsidizing smaller cars. That would be much easier to swallow, its implementation would be gradual (amongst new car buyers only, not the whole driving population) and uses both a carrot AND a stick, vs higher fuel taxes, which would be all stick.

    Having said all of that, the population in UK is pretty docile. Look how easily the amazingly punitive Congestion Charge ($3360/year if you work 5 days per week in central London and drive every day) got passed and increased (4 years ago now). Its obvious all the rebellious genes got exported to USA and Australia

    Surur
  15. #255  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Sigh. How high does gas have to get before people will get out of their commuter car jsut one day a week? $4/gallon?
    For me? Well, I get approximately 20 mpg, live 2 miles from work, and thus use 1/5 of a gallon per day. Ballpark? About $40 a gallon. That would be $8 a day. If it stayed like that for a while, I'd have to consider making some changes to my lifestyle, but until it hits that level, I'll put the top down, my glasses on and drive to work 6.5 days a week. :-)
  16. #256  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur

    Having said all of that, the population in UK is pretty docile. Look how easily the amazingly punitive Congestion Charge ($3360/year if you work 5 days per week in central London and drive every day) got passed and increased (4 years ago now). Its obvious all the rebellious genes got exported to USA and Australia

    Surur
    That congestion charge is one of the rare examples of mass acceptance. Lefties like the reduced dependence on cars and fossil fuels, while righties appreciate the rationality of implementation (on the most part) and reduced congestion.
  17. #257  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    We shouldn't penalize people for low MPG vehicles. People are trying to reduce the number of gallons burned, right? So if I live 2 miles from work and drive a 20 mpg car, why should I be penalized compared to someone living 10 miles away, driving a 40 mpg car?
    I could not agree with this more. My Honda Pilot gets 10.5 MPG in day to day driving (did not know this until after i bought it), which includes driving pretty much across the street to work and back.

    I paid extra for my house to live in the City, I could have contributed even more to urban sprawl and bought a much bigger dirt cheap house way outside the city and then sat in traffic in my hundai, and polluted the environment even more, not to mention the rest of the problems with urban sprawl.
  18. #258  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    And as I mentioned in that thread, this is simply not true. 99% of scientists involved in this research agree. The smoke screen of different conclusions is being bought by the oil companies.
    Well, 99% versus 1%. I suppose we dont have to prove that global warming does not exist, we simply need to say that "the scientists dont yet agree", which would be technically true. Or we could say that "it needs more study", and get back to digging for oil in our national paks, lol.
  19. #259  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze
    But certainly you are not saying that we should just stand by and accept whatever price and whatever profit margin comes our way.
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I certainly am. Find me evidence of wrongdoing, and I'll listen.
    It is not difficult to find the wrongdoing. As I posted at the top of this thread, It is in the interest of Exxon, to keep production low, and thereby keep prices at the pump and subsequently their own profits artificially high.
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    The alternative to "standing by" is not government action. It is consumer action.
    I don't know you well, but can I assume this is not just the usual rubber stamp, ideological conservative, anti government, knee jerk reaction?
  20. #260  
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott R
    hoovs, are you a libertarian? So are you against all taxes directed at specific products (e.g., gas taxes, sin taxes) as well as similarly-directed tax incentives and subsidies (whether directed at individuals or companies)? What of stiffer jail sentences for possession of one type of drug vs another? Couldn't all of these be construed as a form of "social engineering"?
    I do have libertarian leanings. As such, I am opposed to sin taxes, luxury taxes, tobacco taxes, etc. Specifically, I'm opposed to penalties for behaviors that don't adversly effect the population. While they don't provoke the same anger, I'm also in principle opposed to subsidies and tax credits. That's not to say that I disagree with all tax credits though. When it comes to taxes, we're in a situation that's less than ideal. And I see tax credits as a necessary evil within that framework. In a more ideal scenario we'd have more control over the taxes we paid and consequently there would be less of a need for tax credits. As far as drugs go: with the possible exception of marijuana, I see drugs as a public safety issue. This is an area in which I depart from many contemporary libertarians. I just don't see any amount of cocaine or heroine use as responsible.

Posting Permissions