Global warming and financial positioning

[sgeeeee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR Some models are better than others...

I don't know if it's global, but this model definantely casuses warming.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs ..... anyone who buys an SUV will have to pay a $2500 penalty..... My neighbor has 7 kids. They HAVE to have an SUV (Suburban to be exact). .....

I don't view it as a 'penalty'. Assuming that we, as a society, want to encourage conservation, it seems reasonable. It is basically an (very imperfect) attempt at a 'progressive' tax on fuel consumption. The more you use, the more you pay.

And I imagine the tax is based on mpg ratings. So that should provide more incentive for families that need a 7 passenger vehicle to buy an efficient one and in turn, more incentive for manufacturers to fill that need.

Overall, not a *bad* idea, IMO. I think it would be better to have a truly progressive tax on fuel itself (kind of hard to implement though - issue a 'tax debit' card for X gallons per year to every driver?). That would encourage people to drive less. But that one-time charge of $2500 probably has the psychological effect of people saying, 'hey - I paid for the privilege, so I'll drive as much as I want now'. Not really changing behaviors in the way we probably want.

I am saying this from an oil conservation point - it is not a comment on global warming.

Quote:

I don't mind doing my part to do the best I can to be responsible for preserving our planet, but I don't want financial penalties FORCED on people.

So, make a suggestion.


-ERD50

[sgeeeee]

If we want to have a progressive fuel tax, then establish a progressive fuel tax. Don't tax the car. Tax the fuel use. Some people with SUVs may use them only when they need to -- when they are filled with passengers. Others may drive them around when a Smart Car would do the trick. If you tax the car, both pay the same penalty.

There is a certain amount of misguided, self-riteous furry directed at SUVs by some people. Some people have them because they dramatically improve and simplify their transportation requirements. They may even save gas in some situations. If an SUV is being used primarily only when 5 or 6 kids are being towed somewhere, then it may actually be preserving gas. If every parent had a 2 seater and took their kids to soccer practice individually, it would take more gas. I know a lot of people who do archaeology field work in the Southwest. These trips often last weeks. They require camping in remote areas, carrying a lot of gear, and driving over rough terrain. SUVs are the vehicle of choice and really provide a way to bring the lab into the field and get a lot more work done. Overall, the SUV is cost effective in this case and would be for any reasonable tax on gas.

[samclem]

A "progressive" fuel tax will be a nightmare to implement (progresssive in what way--tax increases as you use more fuel, or increases with income? Maybe based on net worth? Do you get a credit for "distance from place of employment? PLEASE, not another place to introduce complexity via the IRS!!) I'd like to reduce the amount of government meddleing in the market, but if we decide as a nation that a tax on fuel is smart, then a flat "cents per gallon" would be the best way. Just as we do for highway taxes.

[wabmester]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgeeeee There is a certain amount of misguided, self-riteous furry directed at SUVs by some people.

Yeah, you tell it like it is Brother SUV Owner! (But first get a spell-checker. Self-riteous furry?)

And I figure my SUV will still be useful as a storage unit even after we run out of fossil fuels. I'll always need a place to store all the stuff I'm consuming.

[mykidslovedogs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 So, make a suggestion. -ERD50

I just don't think our freedoms should be compromised just because SOME people "THINK" that Humans "MIGHT" be responsible for global warming. When if it can be absolutely proven, then, and only then, should anyone be FORCED to do anything. In the meantime, the market will adjust when people feel there is a great need to conserve fuel and reduce emissions. If driving an SUV becomes prohibitive, people will look for better options. As people demand better products, they will be produced, and people will buy them. Why should we penalize people in the meantime for having large families or for having a need for an SUV? Look, my husband drives to the mountains, where the roads are icy and dangerous for 9 months out of the year, weekly because of work. We want him to be safe, therefore, he drives a 4WD Subaru Outback. Why should we be penalized for that?... We have to be penalized for wanting my husband to stay alive? That's crazy! It is a PENALTY.

My suggestion is, let the market dictate the need for more efficient products. Even as we speak, it is becoming obvious that a large number of people are beginning to demand more efficient cars. Why do we have to un-naturally create demand by imposing penalties on people who don't want them yet, when eventually, the large majority will WANT more energy-efficient choices? When the time comes, and when the great majority of the population demands it, profit-seeking producers will invent better and more efficient products in a cost-effective manner, and then people will buy them. After all, fossil fuel is a finite resource, so there WILL come a time when we all WILL need alternative sources of energy. As supply dimishes, price will become prohibitive, and people will begin to demand better and more efficient products at that time. My hypothesis is that the world will not come to an end before that time...I'll even go as far as to bet that Polar Bears will not be extinct by then, either....

In the meantime, we can choose to drive our smaller cars when we don't need to transport lots of people or tow campers, and we can ride share, etc... in order to conserve on our OWN terms, without someone forcing it down our throats or penalizing us unneccessarily.

If you believe so strongly that HUMANS are definately the cause, why don't you start your own non-profit charity to collect money that can be used as rebates for people who buy Prisms? Why do non-believers have to be penalized? Why do certain people feel the need to IMPOSE their unproven beliefs on other people?

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgeeeee If we want to have a progressive fuel tax, then establish a progressive fuel tax. Don't tax the car. Tax the fuel use. Some people with SUVs may use them only when they need to -- when they are filled with passengers. Others may drive them around when a Smart Car would do the trick. If you tax the car, both pay the same penalty.

Absolutely agree with you on this... tax the fuel... even go so far to tax carbon use (which would help on you global warming issue, but would help on ME wanting cleaner air)...

ALSO, tax tail pipe pollution... every year, go to the inspection place, calculate the pollution a car puts out, multiply by mileage etc. and get a tax... need to make sure that people can't fiddle with their odometer this way... but why not do it??

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs When if it can be absolutely proven, then, and only then, should anyone be FORCED to do anything.

Do you have a test in mind for when it will have been "absolutely proven"?

Sounds like a tall order, and one guaranteed to forestall proactive response. Which come to think of it may be the goal.

Ha

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs I just don't think our freedoms should be compromised just because SOME people "THINK" that Humans "MIGHT" be responsible for global warming.

Compromising freedoms? No one is compromising freedoms. A gas or carbon tax is more economically fair than our current system.

[mykidslovedogs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaHa Do you have a test in mind for when it will have been "absolutely proven"? Sounds like a tall order, and one guaranteed to forestall proactive response. Which come to think of it may be the goal. Ha

Being pro-active is fine, as long as you don't take away people's freedoms to do it. Especially if you are being proactive about something that may not even exist. OK...how about this one... I want all of you to go to HEAVEN. I am being PROACTIVE ABOUT IT.. therefore, I am going to force you to go to church, and if you don't, then you have to pay me $2500.00, so I can give it to other people in order to encourage them to want to go to church....

[mykidslovedogs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus Compromising freedoms? No one is compromising freedoms. A gas or carbon tax is more economically fair than our current system.

So making it nearly impossible for someone to afford an SUV is not compromising their freedoms, even if they might need it?

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaHa Do you have a test in mind for when it will have been "absolutely proven"?

When the Flying Spaghetti Monster tells us to stop spewing carbon into the air. Only then will the Pastafarians like MKLD listen. In the meantime, she can regale us with tales of how wonderful it is that she can choose to burn a refinery's worth of gasoline every year because she can choose to do so liek a good Merkin.

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs So making it nearly impossible for someone to afford an SUV is not compromising their freedoms, even if they might need it?

Does Ferrari compromise my freedoms by not pricing their cars so I can afford them? Why can't I have a bowling alley in my house? Where's the ACLU on this?

Your definition of "freedom" is odd.

[wabmester]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaHa Sounds like a tall order, and one guaranteed to forestall proactive response. Which come to think of it may be the goal.

I'm starting to love this issue because it touches a lot of interesting (to me) philosophical questions.

We're talking about a globally shared resource and potentially global burden of proactive response. So, the response only works if everybody on the planet buys in. Otherwise, those who don't buy into the proactive response get a bigger piece of the shared resource and a lower economic cost burden. We know how that'll play out.

But this really draws attention to questions about the nature of man. We know biological organisms are an integral part of climatic evolution, but man is different. We understand our potential impact. Some people feel guilty about that.

When man figured out physics and chemistry, we were given enough rope to hang ourselves. I think it's guaranteed that we will hang ourselves at some point, and somebody will always be asking "is now the time?"

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs <bla,bla,bla> global warming. <bla,bla,bla> If you believe so strongly that HUMANS are definately the cause, ..... <bla,bla,bla> ... Why do certain people feel the need to IMPOSE their unproven beliefs on other people?

Ummmm, did you read the line right above the one you quoted from me? I set it out as it's own paragraph for emphasis. Here it is again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I am saying this from an oil conservation point - it is not a comment on global warming.

I did say, "Assuming that we, as a society, want to encourage conservation...." and then went on with my suggestion for a progressive fuel tax. And that would actually *support* some of your arguments - use the gas guzzler when needed, but use a more efficient car when you can.

As long as we choose to remain members of society we will be 'forced' to do things. Obey the speed limit, not murder people, pay taxes, etc, etc etc. I'm not sure why you want to single out this specific tax as 'forcing' you to do anything?

We could let free markets totally deal with the issue, but I think this is one of those areas where government regulations *could* help smooth the future bumps in the roads for consumers. That would fulfill the constitutional requirement of 'providing for the common good'. If the govt raises taxes on fuel, slowly and surely, it will encourage people to consider more efficient vehicles, it will create demand for them. That demand will allow car makers to invest more in those cars which will lower costs over time. People take into consider their commute more when they move or change jobs, localities put more into public trans, etc, etc, etc. This could help us to slowly and more easily conserve energy. The free market way *could* end up hitting a fairly tall brick wall, and it could be very painful to adjust in short order. And, it will probably be more painful for the poor.

-ERD50

[mykidslovedogs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus Does Ferrari compromise my freedoms by not pricing their cars so I can afford them? Why can't I have a bowling alley in my house? Where's the ACLU on this? Your definition of "freedom" is odd.

You must have failed economics 101. There is not nearly as high a demand right now for Ferraris as there is for SUVs, therefore, Ferrari's are more expensive. People buy SUVs either because they want them or they need them, and the price to purchase one is in alignment with the demand that needs to be met.

When you imposing a penalty on someone, thereby purposefully making it difficult for them to afford a product they might need, then you are taking away someone's freedoms.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs Being pro-active is fine, as long as you don't take away people's freedoms to do it. Especially if you are being proactive about something that may not even exist. OK...how about this one... I want all of you to go to HEAVEN. I am being PROACTIVE ABOUT IT.. therefore, I am going to force you to go to church, and if you don't, then you have to pay me $2500.00, so I can give it to other people in order to encourage them to want to go to church....

I agree with you- I just don't agree with "my kids" that it might be a reasonable requirement to prove absolutely that global warming exists, is human caused, and is harmful to mankind before doing anything.

Anyway, I am just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Ha

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs You must have failed economics 101. There is not nearly as high a demand right now for Ferraris as there is for SUVs, therefore, Ferrari's are more expensive.

Why does lack of demand for Ferraris lead to high prices, and lack of demand for Skodas lead to low prices?

Ha

[mykidslovedogs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 The free market way *could* end up hitting a fairly tall brick wall, and it could be very painful to adjust in short order. And, it will probably be more painful for the poor. -ERD50

Well, I'm not quite sure how the free market will end up hitting a brick wall. The sooner we run out or begin to run out of fossil fuels, the sooner new, and probably more affordable products, will become available to replace them. I'm not saying we shouldn't all do our parts to conserve....turn our heat down, turn our air conditioners off when not using them...ride share, etc...I just don't think it needs to be forced on anyone.

A fuel tax MIGHT make sense, but definately, not a $2500 penalty for purchasing certain kinds of cards. We can also try education about conservation and the real effects of pollution (not scare tactics that the world is coming to an end based on unproven theories) to encourage conservation.

[HFWR]

In this corner, we have the "enviro-whacko-fascist-tree-hugging-liberal-socialists", who seem to think that humankind is a virus that should be wiped from the face of the Earth(tm). Reminds me of the good, ol' days(tm), when all of us hippies would sit around stoned, and pontificate about a simpler life; i.e. getting back to the land. Relatively few of us ever did, since living off the land requires a lot of HARD WORK, which would interfere with free love and getting stoned...

In the other corner, we have the "manifest destiny-Gawd-given-right-to-drive-an-SUV-capitalist-fascist (can I use that again?)-oil-swilling-baby-whale-killers(tm)"...
These are the folks who love to fish, hunt, and dump their used motor oil "out back". What the heck? It's MY PROPERTY!! The free market will take care of it, you know, because DuPont, Exxon, et al REALLY care about us!!

Btw, this is parody/sarcasm... :P

I generally try to tread lightly on Mom Earth, 'cause it's what Jesus would do, plus I learnt it in the Boy Scouts. Not to mention, using less energy and resources fits into my "cheap bastard" philosophy. Somehow, "conservatives" have forgotten that "conservative" and "conservation" are, ahem, similar concepts. As for the the other "end" of the spectrum, I say you better get busy. You've got cotton to pick, butter to churn, cows to milk, wood to chop, weeds to hoe, etc.

Now, back to my model...