ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I wonder why I/we are analyzing this as though it has some rational purpose that can be identified by looking at the result. This is, after all, (proposed) legislation. It would be like trying to identify the higher thoughts of a pig by looking at a sausage.
Exactly.
Most of the energy conservation legislation is written this way. My simple tests is:
A) Can you measure the results, to determine if the program is effective? Corollary - are the results reasonably predictable.
B) Does the program provide reasonable "bang for the buck"? Or would other programs provide more gas savings with less govt (taxpayer - you & me) money spent?
If you fail A, you can't answer B.
And this fails the test. It is pretty tough to know how much gas will be saved. 1mpg is a small diff, and some of these people may drive more miles, now that they have a shiny new vehicle with better mileage. And how much savings per $ can we expect?
Trying to modify behavior isn't that different from trying to improve a design or process in the laboratory. You analyze the problem, develop some potential solutions based on your knowledge of how these things work (supply/demand curve, behavioral science studies, etc). You test, or model the most promising ones, and analyze the results. You evaluate the cost effectiveness, and chose.
It isn't rocket science, but it is basic logical process. Looks like the govt just wants headlines so they can claim they are "doing something". If this passes, someone will brag, "we took X million old clunkers off the road....", but what was the benefit?
Also, any comparisons to pigs and/or sausage is an undeserving slam against pigs and/or sausage makers. Leave them out of this!
If I have time later, I'll start a new thread on CFLs - there is some new info out there....
-ERD50