 |
Decent energy bill poised for passageA new energy bill is poised for passage. Miraculously, it appears to be pretty good.A new energy bill is on its way, and — mirabile dictu! — it ain’t bad. Some greens have grumbled about its shortcomings, but as David Roberts points out, for the first time in a long time there’s more to celebrate than to criticize. Headlines:
One of the more notable aspects of the CAFE changes is how thoroughly the opposition to tighter automotive fuel efficiency standards got steamrollered. The Big Three automakers fought this bitterly. John Dingell fought this bitterly. And they all got pretty close to squat for their efforts. You couldn’t really ask for a clearer demonstration of the increased legislative might of the green lobby. An aside: one of the arguments against CAFE made by automakers is that the rules rob consumers of choice. Arguably this is actually the point of CAFE regulation. Consumers are “robbed” of the choice to drive incredibly inefficient vehicles. But it’s not even clear that this is true. As we’ve noted here before, some research suggests that Americans really would like to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles, if only Detroit would build them. It’s a bit of a mystery why a market inefficiency like this would persist, but I suspect that the greener vehicles will find happy buyers. Comments
The comments section is now closed. |
|
About Us | Press | FAQ | Site map | Contact us | Jobs| Privacy policy | Terms & conditions | Customer service | Logos & badges © 2004-2010, TerraPass Inc. All rights reserved. TerraPass is a trademark of TerraPass Inc.
|
It is hard to understand why Dingell would oppose new CAFE standards. I mean besides the money pouring in from the automotive companies. But Dingell should be paying more attention to his constituents back in Michigan, where they are suffering difficult economic times. This new legislation could open up a new "green" job market in a state where unemployment is continually rising. Dingell should stop fighting and accept that even with his power as chairman on the congressional energy committee he still owes something to the people who elected him.
Reply
Tell me something. Do you want to see MANDATORY "carbon offsets" in the form of taxes on either fuel or automobile in the future?
Be honest.
Also, what is wrong with allowing the free market and the price of fuel to drive the fuel economy standards? I mean, after the price of gas hit $3.00/gallon I suddenly saw fewer SUV's on the road.
Does the gubbermint have to do EVERYTHING? Especially when they do so many things POORLY?
Reply
Tell me something. Do you want to see MANDATORY "carbon offsets" in the form of taxes on either fuel or automobile in the future? Be honest.
OK, I'll be honest: yes.
Also, what is wrong with allowing the free market and the price of fuel to drive the fuel economy standards? I mean, after the price of gas hit $3.00/gallon I suddenly saw fewer SUV's on the road.
What's wrong is that it doesn't work. Fuel economy has been stagnant for decades, despite dramatic swings in fuel prices. Demand for gas is demonstrably insensitive to price changes. This is hardly a secret.
And even if this weren't the case, the free market still wouldn't be much help here. Fuel use carries negative externalities that the free market will never take into account on its own.
Does the gubbermint have to do EVERYTHING? Especially when they do so many things POORLY?
This is a bit of a strawman. Taxing something isn't a government program. You can't screw up a tax. You just levy the tax and then let the market work out the rest.
Unfortunately, we can't actually pass taxes in the U.S., so instead we're stuck with CAFE...
Reply
The problem with this current market is that consumers don't make the right decisions to fuel the market. Americans are, in general of course, more concerned with driving a cool car than with saving the environment. There are to many people who either don't believe in global warming or just don't care about it. If 75% to 85% of the country understood what was going on, then the market would be slammed into reality as people simply stop buying inefficient cars. But that doesn't happen because there are to many people who don't really care enough about fuel efficiency to make a difference. Its the not the car industry that needs to change, its the people. People need to be educated, then the changes will come. We need to be battling ignoramus's that keep insisting global warming either isn't happening or isn't man made.
Reply
Konquererz -- I certainly agree that we need a better level of understanding and education in the U.S. regarding climate change. But it's also worth pointing out that economics and environmental goals are aligned here. Using less gasoline is good for the environmental and good for the pocketbook. So we don't actually have to wait until everyone gets smart about the issue (which could be a verrrry long time). We mostly just need to set the appropriate price signals.
Reply
Stoneman said:
[W]hat's wrong with allowing the free market and the price of fuel to drive the fuel economy standards?
There are only three major domestic automakers (Daimler-Benz is domestic enough for my purposes), and they've proven remarkably hard-headed when confronted with change (consider how they adapted during the oil embargos of the 1970's, or when imports started to pose a threat to domestic automakers.) As stated in the article, there's plenty of demand for efficient vehicles, but the best we've seen is a vague promise that the Chevy Volt may someday go to production. Until then, all we have are pie-in-the-sky proposals like hydrogen cells and corn ethanol.
Does the gubbermint have to do EVERYTHING? Especially when they do so many things POORLY?
All they're doing is creating an economic incentive for automakers to research and develop more efficient engines. You can't legislate new technology into existence, but you can align political, environmental, and economic goals to achieve mutually beneficial results. We do it all the time by providing tax breaks to homeowners, subsidizing farmers, or fining industrial polluters.
-- A.
Reply
Honestly? Yes. Both.
Fuel tax and feebates.
Fuel tax raise accompanied by income tax cut...
Such that, for average income, for average miles per year,
the loss and gains balance and encourages both fuel effiency
and employment. (income tax is a tax on emploment)
Feebates.
Guzzlers pay a tax added to sticker price preportional to their MPG above fleet average.
Fuel effient car buyers receive a rebate funded by the guzzlers.
Zero sum.
As is, guzzlers are not paying extra for their extra pollution cost.
It's not a net transfer of tax from Detroit/Michigan/GM/Chevy to Japan/Toyota/Honda.
It's US government collected and dispersed. And yes, it sends a signal to Detroit/Michigan/GM/Chevy,
who have the brains to out innovate anyone... if motivated.
Is that an "appropriate price signal" Anon?
Reply
Please please pleeeease implement a carbon tax.
Reply
A tax of $50 (inflation indexed, of course) per tonne of fossil carbon would be a good start.
Reply
Hello All - Biofuels are a positive thing! The new algae biofuel has amazing potential.
Reply