No "creative" snipping intended; there are rules about how much of an article one can post, and I was following the rules - I included the link to the complete article. I picked the points I wanted to address. And I never said it was a "bad" thing-where did you get that??

So, the plan provides for a 3mpg increase - big whoop (I'd also be curious to see what exemptions are available in the plan ). It's not just me; 10 states think the plan isn't good enough.

Perhaps I got it from your general tone.

In a binary decision tree (i.e., adopt or not adopt the plan), "isn't good enough" is the same as "bad". Also, see "general tone" above.
As for 10 states thinking the plan isn't good enough, so what, aren't we a democracy? Simple math reveals that 40 states DO think its good enough.

btw, if you don't know what the exemptions are, then what, exactly, are you basing your assessment that it "isn't good enough"?

Pot, meet kettle

Forgive me if I am not as blindly trusting as you seem to be of our oil-friendly government. And, no, I don’t believe it automatically follows that because 40 states are not involved in the lawsuit, that they feel it is “good enough”. There could be a myriad of reasons why they are not. I don’t know them – do you? And if you do, please provide sources.

The point is that automakers are crying because they’re being asked to actually improve gas mileage. The current rules aren’t going to save a heckuva lot of fuel. They claim they can only do that by dangerously lightening vehicles’ weight. No mention of any alternatives, no mention of ceasing production of wasteful, gas-guzzling ginormous vehicles no one really needs.

I don't have to provide reasons, its evident upon its face, based upon the criteria that you raised. 10 states don't think the standards are good enough, as evidenced by their participation in the lawsuit. Participation = "think its not good enough". Since it is a binary condition ( another one?), i.e. "good enough / not good enough", the remainder must, by default, fall into the other category. They may think the rules could be improved, but ...

"Asked"? No, they're being ordered on pain of massive penalties. "Asked"

And who, pray tell, says that they can lighten vehicle weight without compromising safety? If they can, why aren't they doing it now? The performance payback alone would easily satisfy their ROI. Finally, its nice to know that you're firmly on the side of freedom, in allowing people to determine for themselves what their needs and wants are, and how to satisfy them.

Gee, ever hear about the "interstate commerce clause"?

Is there anything the government can do in the short term to lower gas prices at the pump?

I have some interesting ideas on this. For once, I am in favor of government being involved in the lowering of the cost of energy, but in a rather odd fashion.

First, the federal gas tax needs to be eliminated. I've had a hard time tracking down actual figures, but it seems that the federal gas tax provides the federal government with around 55 - 65 billion dollars per year. We're talking about 2.5% of the total budgetary receipts.

Seeing as we have emergency appropriations bills for non-essential non-emergencies that run $17B over-- more than 25% of the total collected gas tax-- I think it is safe to say that the amount collected via the gas tax is insignificant in the grand scheme of the federal budget, and it can easily be provided via reduction in unnecessary spending.

As far as the federal government goes, that is as far as the federal government should go. The next step is the responsibility of state and local governments, more so on the local governments in my opinion. We're talking short term here, so here are some ideas.

Local governments need to do everything possible to ensure that traffic lights are timed for maximum traffic flow with minimal stopping. Every moment you sit at a red light, sit stopped in a traffic jam on the highway, or sit waiting to make a left turn, is a complete waste of energy. There's no way around that. Sitting with your engine running uses gas but accomplishes nothing. Using gas increases demand, and increasing demand increases the price. Grab a stopwatch, and time how long you spend with your engine running but your car stopped. Now multiply that by what-- 100+ million drivers in the US? We're wasting a lot of gas because we cannot exploit existing technology.

Local governments need to impress upon their own workforces the importance of conserving energy. City workers-- and the police are likely the biggest culprit in this particular problem-- need to shut their vehicles off when not actually moving. When you go to work on Monday, count how many police vehicles you see parked with the engine running to do paperwork. Count how many city trucks are just idling while the employees work or, more likely, talk.

Local governments should discontinue school bus service for students that live within one mile of their school. Our kids need exercise, and we need to save gas. Teach the kids to look both ways and everything will be fine.

Local governments also need to discontinue allowing parents to pick their children up from school if bus service is available in their area. I have a relative who spends no less than 45 minutes per day waiting to pickup kids from school when a bus runs right past their house. They sit in "pickup line" with what appears to be hundreds of other parents, seemingly all in massive-engined vehicles. Energy wasted, demand increased, price increased. A bus with 72 kids (no standees. ) leaving immediately after school is much more efficient than 72 cars driving to the school and idling for 45 minutes. And that is just one bus at one school. Add it up nation wide.

Local governments should consider implementing income taxes for out-of-town workers. If you live in City A and you work in City B, then you drive more to work than if you were to live and work in City B. Your decision to live a greater distance from work than is necessary directly impacts the price of oil via its impact on the demand for oil. You spend more time stopped at lights. You spend more time on the road. Heck, you put more wear and tear on the road-- often an oil-based product itself-- that requires us to use oil-burning vehicles (often idling) to repair the road and haul off the old stuff. Simply put, if you live further from your work than is necessary, you contribute more to the increasing price of oil than if you live close to your work.

Local governments should stop approving drive-thru restaurants. They epitomize non-essential use of energy. Add up all the continued pointless idling that occurs in drive-thrus each day. That unnecessarily increases demand, which raises the price.

So, there are just a few ideas that government can do to lower the price of oil immediately. Easy steps to take, really. But, I'm not holding my breath.

Mike

Which government? The Clinton folks did LESS than the Bush people. At least Bush folks started to change the ridiculous rule that allows SUVs to be classified as “trucks” which have much lower CAFÉ mileage requirements.

And how about our Congress over the past 20 years. They have done squat to get us free of oil dependency. Business has done the most regardless, with the large exception of the auto industry. In addition the “states” are part of the problem in the price of gas debate. We have about 13 “boutique” formulas for gas that the oil companies must make separately to satisfy all states. You would think the government (in DC) would put an end to this stupidity but there is no sign they ever will.

Add to this the fact that the “STATES” like CA prevent the building of refineries, oil exploration or drilling, etc. and I would say they are part of the problem – not the solution.

And while we look for people to blame lets remember that state and local governments have a lot to do with gas consumption since that build roads, install signals (un-timed in most cases) etc. So tell me what is your “gas mileage” as you sit in traffic watching road repair year after year?

Mike,

When did you become a big government "compassionate conservative"? I didn't see "lowering energy costs" in the Constitution, but I've already admitted that my reading skills aren't what they used to be.

In my experience, raising taxes on various activities (at the local level) is not the answer. Most cities simply could not supply all of their workers from in their own city. And most localities (at least here in Ohio) already double-tax out of city workers. I pay both city-worked-in and city-lived-in tax.

Your other ideas are good, but the enforcement mechanism is bad. Why not an advertising campaign telling these parents how much they are contributing to higher gas prices and green house warming? My kids' school has the same Q of cars waiting to pick up kids, but they have no bus service. Don't forget that these added cars going to and from home to pick up the kiddies adds to the volume of cars on the road and thus increases wait times at lights, etc.

I like the idea of buses within 1 mile being discontinued. Of course, many districts have done this simply because of budget constraints.

I really think that higher energy costs are a good thing in the long term. Increased costs drives innovation into new ideas. Soon we'll be seeing those "Back to the Future" cars that run on old banana peels and tin cans! (OK, maybe not soon...)

Low costs bring complacency and inertia. Why change if costs stay low? Only when the costs become larger do opportunities arise for alternatives, which can only be a good thing--at least in the long term.

Stop drive thrus? That's simply un-American!!

Must not be (), since all of my ideas with the exception of one were local-government ideas, and the only "big government" idea was lowering taxes. Last I checked, the "big government" that everyone references is the federal government, not your city government.

My ideas are all for the city level or state level. To me, it is obvious that if the cities and local governments don't act to do something about energy prices, there is only one government entity left to get their hands dirty: the federal government. If someone is going to make a determination as to how I can use energy, I would much rather it be someone on whose door I can knock, as opposed to someone I need to board an airplane to visit.


Excellent then. Since you have experience lowering energy prices, what has worked? (that was the question asked, was it not?)


When people who lived in the city realized that they had to pay a large tax to go work in the suburbs (there are millions of Americans who reverse-commute), they would either consider moving closer to work, thereby lowering the required level of city services by lowering the population of the city, or by getting a new job within the city-- maybe even with the city, filling one of those jobs that you say the city couldn't fill.


Seems reasonable to me.


I don't see how the enforcement mechanism could be bad. You just tell the parents that they are not permitted to pick up their children without proof of certain circumstances, such as a doctor's appointment. It doesn't cost a penny, and requires nothing to enforce. No picking your kids up for sports. No picking your kid up for music lessons. Your kid should ride the bus, and do what other kids have done for years and years-- their homework, on the ride home. Maybe they'll gain a bit of knowledge, and maybe even the chance at a better future in the process.


Where I grew up, you had to pay for bus service if you live within a mile of school. I am opposed to that as well. If you live within a mile of school-- walk. Plain and simple. Surely we haven't coddled our children to the point that they are incapable of walking. Surely we are able to impress upon our children the importance of looking both ways before crossing the street. Surely our children know about "stranger danger," and the dangers implied. Surely there are enough parents in the neighborhood to take turns walking students to school.


I do to, but here is the way I'm looking at it. I'm 27. I've got about 50 years left on this planet. What is the likelihood that we will have a major energy crisis that causes major economic recession or depression? I think it is very likely. In my opinion, it will take a decade or two to recover-- start a major conservation push, develop a new form of energy, setup a distribution channel for that energy, and then convert the public to use that energy. If it is going to take a decade or two to recover, I would much prefer to do it sooner rather than later, while I am still young and able to easily adjust my lifestyle and improve my financial situation. But, wait 40 years until I'm 67, on a relatively fixed income, and have less potential to earn money, and it would be a massive setback. So, the long and short is that I would rather make life hard for the baby boomers and myself right now instead of making it very tough for me later. Managing our energy is a challenge, and I would prefer not to run away from a challenge.


Than count me foreign. I hate them, as well as the open-freezer grocery stores. What scum bag energy wasters.

Good points, AM.

Mike

Big government can be local government. I always felt you didn't see the government as a means of solving problems.

Anywho...

The local government effort would not work unless they all did it at the same time...in other words, never.

In today's economy, cities compete against each other for workers and less so for residents. Why? Workers pay taxes and they don't require as many services. At least that is how it is in Ohio where you pay both cities. If one locality taxed out-of-towners, you'd be sure that the city next door would tout its lower taxes to attract businesses and workers.

I haven't heard much about "reverse commuting". I'm sure there could be millions that do this, but they are probably dwarfed by the traditional commuter. In my experience, people live in the burbs and work in the city. Those that live in the city are generally less well off and rely on the tax base of those commuting workers. Taxing commuters would make it more attractive to move...but to where? Not many suburbs are big enough to have all the skills necessary to fill all of the jobs. In my department alone, 11 engineers live in 9 different cities and 3 different counties. Which one should we pick to move to? (actually I work in a 'burb)

As far as kids go, most parents would throw a fit if you said they couldn't pick them up. Which is enough incentive for a school to scrap a plan like that. What incentive does the school have to stop energy costs if the parents are paying them?

Only higher energy prices will prompt change. And change is needed. Changing local driving habits will not change China's increasingly voracious demand for oil.

AMLord, I had a big point-by-point rebuttal to your posts, but then it hit me. It seems you have rebutted everything, and by doing that have revealed some inconsistencies in your position. If you could provide clarification, I would sure be grateful.

In your first reply to this topic, the only option you offered was a windfall tax, which you said was unwise. You also suggested increasing refining capacity, certainly not something that would help in the short-term. But in your next post, you agree that the federal government could lower prices via reducing the fuel tax.

In your next post, you assert that high prices will fuel innovation, and point out that the government did not subsidize the automobile over the horse drawn carriage. But you footnote the post after that by mentioning a federal government bounty on viable hydrogen, quite unlike their stance on the automobile/horse drawn carriage from the post before.

Then I came into the topic and gave some unique ideas that haven't been introduced anywhere else that I can find. You rebutted most of them, and then said that higher energy costs are a good thing in the long term. I then explain that my points do create higher energy prices-- particularly for those who have abused energy and thereby driven up the price already.

In your next post, you rebut my points again, including some points it seemed that you agreed with in your previous post.

So just to be sure and to allow me to present a more convincing argument, am I correct in my impression that you:
- Are not in favor of a windfall tax
- Recognize that a federal tax reduction would reduce energy costs short-term, but may or may not agree with it
- Are not in favor of government intervention in the development of new technologies, unless it relates to hydrogen
- Are not in favor of placing a higher tax on those who abuse energy
- Are not in favor of any measure on a local level that may inconvenience people

In other words, I'm just wondering:

Is there anything the government can do in the short term to lower gas prices at the pump?-- and should they?

Just curious is all.

Mike

I am not.


Yes. I offered it as something the feds could do. I did not clarify my position on if they should do it. I don't think they should. That particular tax is one (of the few) aimed at a legitimate Constitutional duty: interstate commerce. They could do it, but they should not. $60 billion is not anything to sneeze at.



I mentioned the H prize, but I did not say I agreed with it (did I?). I'm on the fence about it. Energy is certainly a pressing national priority and an incentive such as the one offered by the H prize does fuel innovation in the least intrusive method possible for government. Personally, I do not feel that hydrogen is a viable fuel alternative. There are many issues with it which detracts from its usefulness. It is a possibility, but I'd assess it as a remote possibility.


I am not. It seems to break the equal protection clause if nothing else.



Call me an obstructionist... I was simply pointing out the real world problems with implementing some of your suggestions: a big one being that people will complain.



Yes, they could. No, they should not. Energy prices, regardless of knee jerk reaction are not all that high if you compare it with other countries and are certainly not at an all-time inflation-adjusted high.

There is plenty that individual Americans could do to reduce their individual energy costs. Like you suggested, they could move closer to work. As you suggested, they could let their kids walk to school or let them take the bus home instead of insisting on picking them up. Conservation of energy by actual government agencies should become common practice, if nothing else because they reduce the overall cost of providing government services.

I fully expect some brainiac to concoct an invention in his garage (or his employer's garage) that is going to revolutionize the energy and transportation industries (ok, maybe two separate brainiacs). Hopefully not every scientist in the world is working on a cure for ED...

What is this; rag on Daffy day??? Sheesh.

Since the Clinton years are far behind us, I’ll leave it to you to figure out “which government” I was speaking of. A lot of things were different 6+ years ago.

And I don’t get your point about Congress et al in DC. It’s obvious the oil companies and Big 3 automakers are powerful players in DC. Pandering to THEM is what has brought us to this point. Even now, the big oil boys are throwing their weight around…and no doubt Congress will cave, as they always have. So, is it Congress' fault, Big Oil, or the Big 3????

The consumers are the only ones who can truly effect change to the standard fuel vehicle. And as long as the Big 3 continues to churn out ginormous SUVs and consumers with enough money who don’t care how much it costs to fuel them up continue to line up to buy them, nothing will change.
(emphasis mine)
Mind boggling.

Funny thing, the Yukon is the biggest and heaviest SUV I could find; a whopping 6,039 pounds curb weight (nearly 600 more than Escalade, 500 more than Navigator), 130” wheelbase (14” longer than the Escalade, 12” longer than Navigator). The only thing bigger and heavier was the Excursion, and I couldn’t find any data newer than 2005 (6658 lbs, 137” wheelbase). (per MSN Autos)

And you just have to bag on California. How many refineries does YOUR state have? Hmmm, let me see…oh yeah, ZERO. We have 21. I’d say we’re doing our share. The only states that have more are Texas and Louisiana (and we all know how well Louisiana is doing lately). So, let’s have Massachusetts get in on the action and build some of their own and quit blaming California for the whole country’s problems.

Oil companies make about 8% profit on oil. Their “profits” are high because the cost of the raw material (which they mark up as any industry does) is very high and the scale of their business is huge. The price of oil (raw material) is up because
1. the supply is limited by OPEC
2. demand is way up.

If we want to “limit” the “profit” % made by corporations lets do it!!! Lots of luck since thousands of companies make far more profit (%) than the baaaaaad “oil companies”. What is obvious even in listing to people like O’Reilly is few people understand capitalism or have ever had an economics course.







HUH? The government sets the numbers in the CAFÉ standards. Yes consumers are free to buy SUV gas guzzlers but they would not be so thirsty if the idiots in Congress had the nerve to stand up to the car companies, and, for example, declare the SUV a “car” and NOT a truck. What did it take Bush to push this through. How can the stupid hypocrites in Congress now blame the “oil companies” for their inaction. It makes me sick to listen to these liars.