Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

It's time to choke off the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 08 Apr 2018, 17:01:18

High fuel taxes have been working for decades in other countries. And the US is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to buying large vehicles

I think the US is a unique case in this context. Because of the vast highway system and land area and the long commutes because of suburban sprawl , higher gas/carbon tax rates would seriously affect the finances of many Americans. The preference for large gas guzzling
vehicles doesn't help.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8882
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 08 Apr 2018, 18:04:12

onlooker wrote:I think the US is a unique case in this context. Because of the vast highway system and land area and the long commutes because of suburban sprawl , higher gas/carbon tax rates would seriously affect the finances of many Americans.
The average American drives 13,474 miles per year with a fuel economy of 24 miles per gallon. Doubling the fuel tax of $0.53 would cost the average american an extra $25 per month. Compare that to the $503 monthly car payment. It could easily be afforded by buying a slightly smaller car. Not only would the purchase price be cheaper and result in a smaller monthly payment, the smaller vehicle would also have lower fuel costs. Americans already do this when fuel prices rise via higher crude oil price. You can expect the same kind of behavior if fuel prices rise via higher fuel taxes:

August 2012 is shaping up as another strong month for car sales, with the total number of new vehicles sold up nearly 19% compared to the same time last year. But some categories of vehicles are experiencing hotter sales than others, and it’s not much of a mystery why.

“Gas prices have increased by $0.30 per gallon since early July, and as a result, Kelley Blue Book has seen an increased interest in fuel-sipping small cars both in terms of KBB.com shopper activity and retail sales volume.” The subcompact category is seeing the biggest year-over-year increase in sales. Dealerships are on pace in August 2012 to sell 57,300 subcompact cars, a 42% increase from last August’s total. Compacts have also been hot, with 182,050 vehicles expected to be sold by month’s end, a 31% year-over-year rise.

Increased sales of fuel-efficient car models have also caused the overall average fuel economy of new vehicles sold to rise. TrueCar estimates that in July, the average was 23.1 mpg for all new light vehicle purchases. That represents an increase over June’s average (23.0 mpg), and it’s the first time in three months that the average mpg inched up at all.

The subtle fluctuations in new car fuel economy average pretty much mirror this year’s rise and fall of gas prices.

Yet Again, High Gas Prices Boost Sales of Small, Fuel-Efficient Cars
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4119
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sun 08 Apr 2018, 18:23:35

$0.53 per gallon is not a deterrent to big cars, because Americans have genuine needs for bigger vehicles. $5 per gallon would be a deterrent, and smack the just recovering economy down pretty well. EVERYTHING we buy, make, grow, or import is transported with the fuels you would tax.

We already had this conversation in this thread, remember? I pointed out that carbon taxes DID NOT WORK in Australia, that in fact the consumption of fuel and the purchasing of less efficient vehicles increased when they tried the carbon taxes.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 08 Apr 2018, 18:58:59

KaiserJeep wrote:$0.53 per gallon is not a deterrent to big cars, because Americans have genuine needs for bigger vehicles. $5 per gallon would be a deterrent, and smack the just recovering economy down pretty well. EVERYTHING we buy, make, grow, or import is transported with the fuels you would tax.
Read the article I quoted for onlooker. A mere $0.30 rise in the price of gasoline resulted in subcompact sales rising over 40%. Also, those fuel taxes you despise are needed to pay for the very roads, highways, etc that are needed to transport those goods. Moreover, currenly those taxes are coming up far short of that goal. This has resulted in the road/highway system pulling in funding from other sources, such as state sales taxes, federal income taxes, etc.

The price paid by US drivers for gas doesn’t even come close to covering the direct (much less indirect) costs of road use and maintenance. In other words, without even factoring in the effects of air pollution, auto accidents, associated healthcare costs, urban sprawl, etc, gas taxes in the US still don’t cover the costs of driving on US roads. What this means, when it really comes down to it, is that fuel costs should be higher in the US than they currently are. Or, to put it another way: Driving is, in the US, subsidized to a substantial degree.

Federal subsidies to the highway administration system are enormous. “Since 1947, the amount of money spent on highways, roads and streets has exceeded the amount raised through gasoline taxes and other so-called ‘user fees’ by $600 billion (2005 dollars), representing a massive transfer of general government funds to highways,” according to the report.

The price mechanism for road use is not based on a user fee because gas taxes, which are often referred to as user fees, are not necessarily directed to the actual roads the driver uses. In some cases, states subsidize federal highways, in other cases, the federal government has redirected gas tax revenues to pork-barrel infrastructure projects, and with the exception of tolled roads, drivers pay rates based on mileage, not the actual roads they use. Cortwright argues that if gas prices and other vehicle use fees reflected the true cost of use, single-occupant vehicle use would decrease, as drivers would opt for cheaper forms of travel.

“These facts put the widely agreed proposition that increasing the gas tax is politically impossible in a new light: What it really signals is car users don’t value the road system highly enough to pay for the cost of operating and maintaining it. Road users will make use of roads, especially new ones, but only if their cost of construction is subsidized by others.”

Considering that, amongst the younger generations in particular, car use is already becoming somewhat cost prohibitive at current gas prices, one can’t help but wonder how many fewer people would be driving if gas taxes were increased enough to cover associated costs.
Gas Taxes Don’t Cover US Road Costs — Not Even Close

Trucks also do several orders of magnitude more damage to our highways than do cars:

Image
Vehicle Weight vs Road Damage Levels

Heavy vehicles are a major cause of pavement damage. By all accounts heavy truck traffic results in pavement damage many times that of traffic by passenger vehicles. A recent Congressional Budget Office report identified pavement damage caused by trucks as a
significant issue facing departments of transportation. Current fuel taxes also generate insufficient revenues to pay for the costs that users impose on the system. Estimates of pavement damage by trucks, the largest per-mile external cost of truck use,
range from about 5 to 55 cents per mile depending on the weight of the truck, the number of axles over which its weight is distributed, and where it operates—making those vehicles another significant source of external costs, even taking into account that truck travel represents less than 10 percent of miles traveled.
Trucks and infrastructure maintenance costs

The current system gives vast subsidies to inefficient and expensive road/highway travel at the expensive of more efficient and cheaper rail shipping. Higher fuel taxes combined with other taxes on trucking would go along way to correct this inefficient situation and result in lower costs for us americans.

Image

As we always point out, getting the prices right — whether for parking or road use — is critically important to creating an efficient transportation system. When particular transportation system users don’t pay their full costs, demand is too high, and supply is too low. In this case, large federal subsidies for trucking encourages too much freight to be moved by truck, worsening congestion, pollution and road wear, while the fees and taxes paid by trucking companies aren’t enough to cover these costs. The classic solution for these currently unpriced external costs is to impose an offsetting tax on trucks that makes truck freight bear the full cost associate with road use, crashes and environmental damage. The CBO report considers a number of policies that could “internalize” these external costs associated with trucking — including higher diesel taxes, a tax on truck VMT, and even a higher tax on truck tires.

In addition, the higher tax would reduce freight moving by road — mostly by shifting cargo to rail — and lead to benefits of lower pollution, less congestion and less wear and tear on roads. We’d also save energy: net diesel fuel consumption for freight transportation would fall by 670 million gallons per year — a savings of about $2 billion annually at current prices.

Such a tax would make truck freight more expensive, but other costs — now borne by the rest of us — would go down by a comparable amount. And there would be important savings in costs for freight either moved by other modes (especially rail, which is about two-thirds cheaper), or sourced from closer locations.

There’s a clear lesson here: It may seem like we have a shortage of infrastructure, or lack the funding to pay for the transportation system, but the fact that truck freight is so heavily subsidized means that there’s a lot more demand (and congestion) on the the roads that there would be if trucks actually paid their way. On top of that, there’d be a lot more money to cover the cost of the system we already have.
Trucking Industry Imposes Up to $128 Billion in Costs on Society Each Year
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4119
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sun 08 Apr 2018, 21:00:19

I think this is a touch of reality. I also believe EV’s will make a significant inroad and am very supportive of that. The problem is timing. Take a look at this view. When I think about it, pretty hard to come up with an argument it could be faster.

Image
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5837
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sun 08 Apr 2018, 22:41:31

KaiserJeep wrote:OS, time for a reality check. How willing are YOU to relinquish:

Your ICE vehicle.
Your heated/cooled home with running water and odorless waste disposal.
The power grid.
The information network.
Video entertainment.
Imported and pre-packaged foods.
Wine, beer, and distilled spirits.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Stopping the burning of FF's would take most of those things from you. Giving them up volutarily, along with everybody else, would stop AGW in its tracks. So when will you give them up?

Well, I've given a lot of stuff up, or do with a lot less. For example, I only drive 4000 miles a year, and drive an efficient sedan, instead of an inefficient SUV. Next time I need a car, I'm hoping EV's are no longer in early adopter mode, and I can get one.

My house is cool in winter and warm in summer. I use clothes, a fan, etc. to compensate.

I don't fly. I gave up booze for my health, but if that helps, then great.

It doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition to help. I daresay that re CO2 production, I live like a MUCH poorer person than I am. I started doing that about 6 years ago when I realized how serious a problem AGW is, as a matter of principle.

So I'm not living in a tent and I'm not lying down and dying, but I am trying to do something meaningful. If hundreds of millions to billions of other folks would do the same, it would have enough impact to buy us more time.

Denying the science isn't helping, by the way.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4889
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 08 Apr 2018, 23:21:20

Nicely put, OS
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17107
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 09 Apr 2018, 11:21:36

Doc - You're certainly welcome to ASSUME what you wish for the future adoption of EV's. But your chart is simply that: an ASSUMPTION. No different then someone drawing a similar chart predicting EV's amounting to only 5% of the rolling fleet compared to you 33%. Neither of you can prove the validity of your projections. While one can point to more aggressive EV adoption in some EU countries there's also the surge in ICE's in other countries around the word. As long as the current ratio of new vehicles remain around 80 ICE's for every 1.5 Ev not much will change.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10922
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 09 Apr 2018, 12:47:47

ROCKMAN wrote:As long as the current ratio of new vehicles remain around 80 ICE's for every 1.5 Ev not much will change.

Absolutely. It will really come down to economics, and that is very hard to predict.

Pricing trends and capabilities look promising for plug in vehicles, but the magnitude of change needed, given the size of the problem (growing global ICE car fleet) is immense, and still rapidly growing.

It's ironic, IMO, that once the magnitude of the AGW problem becomes apparent to even the hard core denialists and THEN they want to hurry and fix things, it will be far too late. (At least if we started ASAP with a large carbon tax and pushed hard, it might be a horse race with improving technology to mitigate and store GHG's).
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4889
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 09 Apr 2018, 12:53:27

The best way to get Americans out of their ICE cars isn't to have cycles of endless government mandates and subsidies to induce people to replace their ICE cars with EV cars. It is to copy Europe and introduce high carbon taxes while simultaneously building out high speed rail and city commuter tram lines so people will voluntarily chose to take the train instead of a car.

Trains and trams are EVs too.

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20970
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby asg70 » Mon 09 Apr 2018, 13:23:02

It's all a non-starter at present due to the Trump administration. So keep spinning fantasies but it ain't going anywhere.
“If and when the oil price skewers for 6 months or more substantially above the MAP, then I will concede the Etp is inherently flawed"
--Onlooker, 1/1/2018
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1721
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 09 Apr 2018, 13:25:13

Plantagenet wrote:The best way to get Americans out of their ICE cars isn't to have cycles of endless government mandates and subsidies to induce people to replace their ICE cars with EV cars. It is to copy Europe and introduce high carbon taxes while simultaneously building out high speed rail and city commuter tram lines so people will voluntarily chose to take the train instead of a car.

Trains and trams are EVs too.

Cheers!

Good idea!, Plant. (I have been saying the same for 13 years since I came here to podotcom lol)

Start with the cross-county freight lines; interruptions are less time-critical, the runs are straight, less siding and switches, and the power pole installations are less costly, run along the rail line right of ways.

Diesel switcher/shunter trains still required in the yard and off the grid to secondary lines. Slowly extend the electrification out to commuter lines and their service/switching yards.

Great Idea Plant! :lol: :P 8)
If you are not a curmudgeon. . . you are not awake.
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26850
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 09 Apr 2018, 13:28:48

asg70 wrote:It's all a non-starter at present due to the Trump administration.

It was all a non-starter in the past due to the Obama administration.

Obama should have spent the bailout on EV rail infrastructure and jobs . . . instead of his bankster friends.
If you are not a curmudgeon. . . you are not awake.
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26850
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 09 Apr 2018, 13:53:52

"Trains and trams are EVs too."

Good point, P.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17107
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby asg70 » Mon 09 Apr 2018, 14:06:29

pstarr wrote:
asg70 wrote:It's all a non-starter at present due to the Trump administration.

It was all a non-starter in the past due to the Obama administration.

Obama should have spent the bailout on EV rail infrastructure and jobs . . . instead of his bankster friends.


*****

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... %3Devent25
Last edited by Tanada on Tue 10 Apr 2018, 07:23:44, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: PROFANITY
“If and when the oil price skewers for 6 months or more substantially above the MAP, then I will concede the Etp is inherently flawed"
--Onlooker, 1/1/2018
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1721
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 09 Apr 2018, 14:39:49

dohboi wrote:"Trains and trams are EVs too."

Good point, P.

Isn't it? I thought so too lol For the last 13 years I saw little or no serious discussion in the media, or good ideas from either the Bush or Obama administrations. American always wants quick fixes . . . especially those wrought by the "private sector" Buy a Tesla . . . Save the World! ha ha ha

The private sector is not up to this, and never was. A truly national electric rail system such as most of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd world enjoy,would have required a national infrastructure program spearheaded by good government. Apparently good government is an impossibility in the Good Ole (Senile) United State of Amnesia.
If you are not a curmudgeon. . . you are not awake.
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26850
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 09 Apr 2018, 14:58:45

Pete, in spite of your opinion, the nation's railroads were all constructed by private enterprise in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. They became strategic assets when larger government freight loads such as an M1 Abrams tank exceeded the capacity of the highway system to transport. (Yes, semi truck transporters exist, but using them far exceeds capacity - and destroys - the paved roads.)

The existing railways should be electrified IMHO, and powered by renewable energy such as Solar PV, hydropower, and wind. Aside from providing a regulatory environment that encourages this, the government should play no role in such a conversion, or in the construction of new electrified railways on additional routes.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 09 Apr 2018, 15:06:47

KaiserJeep wrote:Pete, in spite of your opinion, the nation's railroads were all constructed by private enterprise in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. They became strategic assets when larger government freight loads such as an M1 Abrams tank exceeded the capacity of the highway system to transport. (Yes, semi truck transporters exist, but using them far exceeds capacity - and destroys - the paved roads.)

But this is today. Now the railroads and the rail lines already exist.

For private enterprise to want to enter the game, there must be either guarenteed profit, another government handout. Or the opportunity to run parallel lines at great cost in redundant right of way, switching and service yards and power lines.

KaiserJeep wrote:The existing railways should be electrified IMHO, and powered by renewable energy such as Solar PV, hydropower, and wind.

Absolutely. Of course. No brainer as this is actually the most appropriate and cost effective application of alt energy. It would require nothing more than the relatively inexpensive installation of a 3rd rail. And run on DC power, baby!
If you are not a curmudgeon. . . you are not awake.
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26850
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 09 Apr 2018, 15:57:39

asg70 wrote:
pstarr wrote:
asg70 wrote:It's all a non-starter at present due to the Trump administration.

It was all a non-starter in the past due to the Obama administration.

Obama should have spent the bailout on EV rail infrastructure and jobs . . . instead of his bankster friends.


****

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... %3Devent25

Your obsession with the Orange Monkey is unseemly, almost as questionable as Plant's unholy preoccupation with our first black President.
Last edited by Tanada on Tue 10 Apr 2018, 07:24:26, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: PROFANITY
If you are not a curmudgeon. . . you are not awake.
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26850
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 10 Apr 2018, 11:55:16

So some are afraid President Trump will undo all that President Obama did to advance the use of EV's over ICE's:

During President Obama's two terms US ICE vehicle sales increased from 11 million per year to 18 million per year. Rather dramatic and telling chart:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-sta ... icle-sales

Or 116 million ICE’s sold during President Obama’s time in office compared to 764,666 EV’s according to wiki. About 0.7% of all US vehicles sold were EV’s:

"As of December 2017, cumulative sales in the U.S. totaled 764,666 highway legal plug-in electric vehicles since the market launch of the Tesla Roadster in 2008. As of December 2016, the American stock represented 28.1% of the global light-duty plug-in stock, and the U.S. had the world's third largest stock of plug-in passenger cars after China and Europe."


Which indicates one of two possibilities IMO: either President Obama greatly favored ICE’s over EV’s or the POTUS, regardless of the party, has little impact on the type of vehicle sold.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10922
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests