NationStates Jolt Archive

ok heres a way to help solve them and to help the environment.
1. tax low gas mileage vehichles. if they want to pollute the environment which we all share then they have to pay for it. no ones saying they cant drive these cars. if there penis is really that small then they can fork over the cash. tax production and purchase of these.
2. tax high octane gasses at production and at the pump. only rich people with cars shitty for the environment use these. the average person with a regular car is unaffected. if they want to fuck up everyone elses environment then they have to pay for it. if they really want a sports car then they have to reimburse us for the damage they do.
3. take all this extra cash and use it to subsidize high gas mileage cars and hybrid cars. make the hybrids cost just as much as a normal car for the average buyer.
As a result of all of this, gas prices will go down do to much lower consumption. (consult google on basic economics). so what do you think?
other benefits:
we stop polluting the environment
we stop depending on dictatorial governments like Saudi Arabia for our oil
we dont have to fuck with national parks
anything else you can think of?

ok heres a way to help solve them and to help the environment.
1. tax low gas mileage vehichles. if they want to pollute the environment which we all share then they have to pay for it. no ones saying they cant drive these cars. if there penis is really that small then they can fork over the cash. tax production and purchase of these.
2. tax high octane gasses at production and at the pump. only rich people with cars shitty for the environment use these. the average person with a regular car is unaffected. if they want to fuck up everyone elses environment then they have to pay for it. if they really want a sports car then they have to reimburse us for the damage they do.
3. take all this extra cash and use it to subsidize high gas mileage cars and hybrid cars. make the hybrids cost just as much as a normal car for the average buyer.
As a result of all of this, gas prices will go down do to much lower consumption. (consult google on basic economics). so what do you think?
other benefits:
we stop polluting the environment
we stop depending on dictatorial governments like Saudi Arabia for our oil
we dont have to fuck with national parks
anything else you can think of?

Yes it'll fix the problem - for a very short space of time. Months - once people get used to having greater mileage, they'll only use their cars more - it's happened already.

ok heres a way to help solve them and to help the environment.
1. tax low gas mileage vehichles. if they want to pollute the environment which we all share then they have to pay for it. no ones saying they cant drive these cars. if there penis is really that small then they can fork over the cash. tax production and purchase of these.
2. tax high octane gasses at production and at the pump. only rich people with cars shitty for the environment use these. the average person with a regular car is unaffected. if they want to fuck up everyone elses environment then they have to pay for it. if they really want a sports car then they have to reimburse us for the damage they do.
3. take all this extra cash and use it to subsidize high gas mileage cars and hybrid cars. make the hybrids cost just as much as a normal car for the average buyer.
As a result of all of this, gas prices will go down do to much lower consumption. (consult google on basic economics). so what do you think?
other benefits:
we stop polluting the environment
we stop depending on dictatorial governments like Saudi Arabia for our oil
we dont have to fuck with national parks
anything else you can think of?

I'd say it's a good idea, if anyone would support you. Those rich people are the same people that think they deserve tax cuts.

*NOTE* I find it funny that America is the first country to drain the Earth's resources, and the first one to complain when the resources are gone.

All I say is screw the enviroment.

All I say is screw the enviroment.

Why? Don't you even realize how important the environment is?

Why? Don't you even realize how important the environment is?
All the enviromental laws do not work and this planet is doomed withen a couple of years. Happy now?

GAH! Whine whine bitch and complain.

Oil isn't going to run out for a long ass time, and if you REALLY wanna complain, complain to the American government for not keeping our refineries up to par so that we could produce our own gas. The U.S. has a lot of its own reserve, but this way is cheaper. I drive an American gas guzzling behemoth and I'm damn proud of it. I learned to drive in them and I can't stand anything else. Alternative fuels will come along when they will... for now, just deal with it.

GAH! Whine whine bitch and complain.

Oil isn't going to run out for a long ass time, and if you REALLY wanna complain, complain to the American government for not keeping our refineries up to par so that we could produce our own gas. The U.S. has a lot of its own reserve, but this way is cheaper. I drive an American gas guzzling behemoth and I'm damn proud of it. I learned to drive in them and I can't stand anything else. Alternative fuels will come along when they will... for now, just deal with it.
You are damm right about what you said.

Those ideas won't lower demand enough to lower gas prices.

Americans just need to accept that gas prices need to be higher. The cost of petrol should account for the damage its use causes to the environment, not just the cost of pumping it out of the ground.

its not just the rich that drive the gas guzlers,and the automakers and gas companies are just as much to blame as the consumer. they have the technology already to make a car get over 100mpg on a car,but that would cut into the oil companies profits. as these new hybrid cars become more fuel efficient,you will see the price of gas continue to climb. the only way to get rid of the polution is to stop using fosil fuels,which isnt going to happen any time soon,because people are too selfish to do what they know is right for the environment. fosil fuels will have to be slowly phased out over a period of decades as new technologies become available. the hybrid car is a step in the right direction,but it will have the side-effect of raising gas prices until we can make a model that uses very little(a few ounces) or no gas at all.

also keep in mind that coal and oil are used for other things besides automobiles.
think household utilities...

as for your penis comment,i own an SUV and i have an 8inch penis. stop being jealous with penis envy...or SUV envy!

Those ideas won't lower demand enough to lower gas prices.

Americans just need to accept that gas prices need to be higher. The cost of petrol should account for the damage its use causes to the environment, not just the cost of pumping it out of the ground.
No it shouldn't.

All I say is screw the enviroment.

That thing that we depend on for our life, homes, food, medicines, research and other resources? That environment?

GAH! Whine whine bitch and complain.

Oil isn't going to run out for a long ass time, and if you REALLY wanna complain, complain to the American government for not keeping our refineries up to par so that we could produce our own gas. The U.S. has a lot of its own reserve, but this way is cheaper. I drive an American gas guzzling behemoth and I'm damn proud of it. I learned to drive in them and I can't stand anything else. Alternative fuels will come along when they will... for now, just deal with it.

Why drive an expensive, unnecessarily huge, polluting behemoth when you can drive something smaller for far less cost to yourself and to the environment?

as for your penis comment,i own an SUV and i have an 8inch penis. stop being jealous with penis envy...or SUV envy!

Woah, TMI!

Those ideas won't lower demand enough to lower gas prices.

Americans just need to accept that gas prices need to be higher. The cost of petrol should account for the damage its use causes to the environment, not just the cost of pumping it out of the ground.

And then you have no more electricity, no more clean water... and we'd ALL be screwed then... go environmental impact fee, GO!

Why drive an expensive, unnecessarily huge, polluting behemoth when you can drive something smaller for far less cost to yourself and to the environment?

Cause I'm American and I have that choice! Go capitalism, GO! And I got this truck I have for free... no cost to me. And if you really wanna tackle a bigger problem than car pollution, go talk to the factories and such that buy pollution credits illegally and the like. And talk to the people that illegally dump in forests and lakes and stuff... don't berate me or anyone else for making a choice that is legal and perfectly within my right. I drive a truck cause I CAN...

America has the lowest gas prices in the world and uses the most of it. Why is the price even an issue?

how about instead of looking for someone else to pay our gasoline bill for us, we pay for it ourselves and decide if a gas guzzling car is worth the price or if we should trade over to something getting 50 mpg.

http://img202.echo.cx/img202/8390/gasarm5fz.jpg

OK, I'm going to say that increasing taxation - on high octane fuels, normal fuels, cars, whatever - will not solve problems. It's been demonstrated in other countries e.g. the UK. The inelastic demand for petrol (large increase in price=small decrease in quantity demanded) means that the taxation will have little effect on gas consumption. Taxation of petrol is also highly politically unpopular - no-one likes a hike in prices, especially on goods and serices that the majority uses. This small benefit to the govt., combined with the mass unpopularity it will bring, means the govt. will not want to implement the plans for fuel taxation to great effect - look at the UK fuel escalator. One little oil price hike and consumers were baying for TB's blood, especially those in industries where petrol is everything e.g. lorries, taxis etc.

Also the taxation on SUVs will change little. In the UK, higher cc cars have higher road tax. Does it reduce the no. of large cars to any great extent - no. People will always use larger cars if they feel they need a larger car. In the States it is the same, I imagine. People do not just buy an SUV with no logic. Besides, many newer SUVs have much better mileage and again, extra tax on larger vehicles will be extremely unpopular with people, especially in a country where liberty is apparently so important.

The only real forms of reducing pollution are through legislation on emissions, subsidised 'cleaner' methods and (I hate to say it, for fear of Londoners ripping me to pieces) road pricing with hypothecation to the public sector e.g. toll roads and congestion charging. The legislation would have to be on things similar to those used in the past - implementation of catalytic converters and the subsequent removal of lead based fuels. Although I'd like subsidies for clean fuels e.g. hydrogen, electric cells, etc. it wouldn't really work because of the size of the opportunity cost of a normal fuel car and an H-fuel/combi-fuel car in comparison to the size of a possible subsidy - the govt. could only really provide a minimal subsidy which wouldn't sway many to the cleaner side. Road pricing works - it has been shown to work in London. Although unpopular, it reduces private transoprt in an area by a greater amount that blanket taxation such as fuel/road tax. The hypothecation of the revenue generated to public transport/the environment is also directly linked to the amount of users of cars, thus making it much more effective at internalising negative externalities generated by private transport. The real problem with it is setting the price, but this is a problem for any form of pricing on externalities, so it's nothing new.

I hope that doesn't kill the thread. There seem to be many economists on NS with a much greater level of understanding than I, so perhaps they could comment. Hell, most people seem to have a better understanding than me, so anyone could comment really.

The US needs an environmentally-minded liberal dictatorship right about now anyway. People won't do anything unless you force them to.

The US needs an environmentally-minded liberal dictatorship right about now anyway.

Make us!! :D

The US needs an environmentally-minded liberal dictatorship right about now anyway. People won't do anything unless you force them to.
It won't last for a day if it happens.

*watches as his other post is ignored*

GAH! Whine whine bitch and complain.

Oil isn't going to run out for a long ass time, and if you REALLY wanna complain, complain to the American government for not keeping our refineries up to par so that we could produce our own gas. The U.S. has a lot of its own reserve, but this way is cheaper. I drive an American gas guzzling behemoth and I'm damn proud of it. I learned to drive in them and I can't stand anything else. Alternative fuels will come along when they will... for now, just deal with it.
so you think its alright that we buy oil from dictatorial governments who violate human rights and civil liberties on a daily basis because we cant stop using gas like its coming out of a beer bong?

Those ideas won't lower demand enough to lower gas prices.

Americans just need to accept that gas prices need to be higher. The cost of petrol should account for the damage its use causes to the environment, not just the cost of pumping it out of the ground.
im talking about MAJOR taxes and MAJOR subsidies.

its not just the rich that drive the gas guzlers,and the automakers and gas companies are just as much to blame as the consumer. they have the technology already to make a car get over 100mpg on a car,but that would cut into the oil companies profits. as these new hybrid cars become more fuel efficient,you will see the price of gas continue to climb. the only way to get rid of the polution is to stop using fosil fuels,which isnt going to happen any time soon,because people are too selfish to do what they know is right for the environment. fosil fuels will have to be slowly phased out over a period of decades as new technologies become available. the hybrid car is a step in the right direction,but it will have the side-effect of raising gas prices until we can make a model that uses very little(a few ounces) or no gas at all.

also keep in mind that coal and oil are used for other things besides automobiles.
think household utilities...

as for your penis comment,i own an SUV and i have an 8inch penis. stop being jealous with penis envy...or SUV envy!
alright let me walk you through this. assuming this plan works: hybrid cars are cheap. gas guzzlers are very expensive. that means that there is MUCH lower demand on gas. that means prices go down. if there are more hybrids this also means that you need MUCH less gas. high gas prices therefore dont affect the economy. im not saying we shouldnt produce even higher fuel efficient cars but this is this the best plan as i see it so far.

im talking about MAJOR taxes and MAJOR subsidies.
With a population of 290million, and a driving population of probably 3/4 that (can anyone get figures?), the size of taxation would have to be above and beyond anything ever seen in order to generate the necessary revenue for those massive subsidies due to the aforementioned price inelasticity of petrol.

Cause I'm American and I have that choice! Go capitalism, GO! And I got this truck I have for free... no cost to me. And if you really wanna tackle a bigger problem than car pollution, go talk to the factories and such that buy pollution credits illegally and the like. And talk to the people that illegally dump in forests and lakes and stuff... don't berate me or anyone else for making a choice that is legal and perfectly within my right. I drive a truck cause I CAN...
the thing about capitalism is everyone does whats in their best interests (good). which does work. unfortunately, no one does whats good for anyone else and has no reason to do anything against whats hurting everyone else. so no one cares about the environment or the fact that they fund dictatorships. this is why the government should step in. if you want to ruin the environment for the rest of us, you have to reimburse us.

America has the lowest gas prices in the world and uses the most of it. Why is the price even an issue?
MASSIVE quantities. we buy so much oil that the rest of our economy is hugely affected by oil going up even a little bit in price (consult google). countries like the UK dont have this problem because they dont use as much gas.

so you think its alright that we buy oil from dictatorial governments who violate human rights and civil liberties on a daily basis because we cant stop using gas like its coming out of a beer bong?

Find a different source that is worth using, and then you will have an arguement... Won't use our own reserves cause we are lazy and cheap. OPEC has us by the balls and there is nothing that we WILL do about it.

the thing about capitalism is everyone does whats in their best interests (good).
Not if you consider the all th SR + LR negative externalities created by certain free market activities. All those people who think a totally free market is the way forward seem to appropriately 'forget' about the costs imposed on others - and not paid for by those using the good - by a good's production/use when it comes to that.

how about instead of looking for someone else to pay our gasoline bill for us, we pay for it ourselves and decide if a gas guzzling car is worth the price or if we should trade over to something getting 50 mpg.
whos looking for someone else to pay our gasoline bill?
you decide if a gas guzzling car is worth the price based on your interests. whether or not it indirectly hurts other people is of no concern to you.

the thing about capitalism is everyone does whats in their best interests (good). which does work. unfortunately, no one does whats good for anyone else and has no reason to do anything against whats hurting everyone else. so no one cares about the environment or the fact that they fund dictatorships. this is why the government should step in. if you want to ruin the environment for the rest of us, you have to reimburse us.

Again... find a better way that is viable NOW and make it a good choice, then you will have an arguement. For now, I take what I have cause there is no better choice. And I simply go for the truck because that is MY personal preference. Again, I point you in the direction of the factories and high polluting plants and the companies with less than agreeable disposal methods.

whos looking for someone else to pay our gasoline bill?
you decide if a gas guzzling car is worth the price based on your interests. whether or not it indirectly hurts other people is of no concern to you.
This is what the tax is trying to do - involve the cost to other people in your decision to buy that car, as you correctly point out. You still aren't dealing with inherent problems in the fuel tax /car tax system though.

The US needs an environmentally-minded liberal dictatorship right about now anyway. People won't do anything unless you force them to.

Please remove head from sphincter before posting.

Find a different source that is worth using, and then you will have an arguement... Won't use our own reserves cause we are lazy and cheap. OPEC has us by the balls and there is nothing that we WILL do about it.
I beleive it was Bobby Kennedy who said we only had to improve our fuel economy by 6 or 7 miles per gallon to completely rid ourselves of all dictatorial governments and drilling of national parks.

Not if you consider the all th SR + LR negative externalities created by certain free market activities. All those people who think a totally free market is the way forward seem to appropriately 'forget' about the costs imposed on others - and not paid for by those using the good - by a good's production/use when it comes to that.
well if you go on to read the rest of the post you see that im STRONGLY against a completely free market. i dont feel like debating whether or not capitalism is the right economy thats not the point of this thread if thats where your trying to go

I beleive it was Bobby Kennedy who said we only had to improve our fuel economy by 6 or 7 miles per gallon to completely rid ourselves of all dictatorial governments and drilling of national parks.

Cause God knows HE is an expert on such things. You cannot tell me that there is any way that this wasn't influenced by lobbyists.

well if you go on to read the rest of the post you see that im STRONGLY against a completely free market. i dont feel like debating whether or not capitalism is the right economy thats not the point of this thread if thats where your trying to go
Fair enough. That post was misjudged, and for that I apologise. What do you think of road pricing as opposed to taxes? Also, how do you think Government popularity with the masses factors into the whole problem?

What are you americans complaining about?

Go north of the border. THERE you will see high gas prices.

It would help if more of the US had decent public transportation. Most of the places I've lived have had such piss poor public transportation that it was nearly useless. Right now I live pretty far from any major cities and spend $200.00 per week on gas.

It would help if more of the US had decent public transportation. Most of the places I've lived have had such piss poor public transportation that it was nearly useless. Right now I live pretty far from any major cities and spend $200.00 per week on gas.

I think I speak for everyone here when I say.... DAAAAAAAYUUUUM.... that's excessive...

Even if the demand for gas is reduced by 50% overnight, there would be little reduction in the cost of gas. The entire economy of the middle east is smaller than Finland if you take away oil, and the major oil producing nations of the world would respond to a major decline in consumption by a major decline in production....

On another note, it is incredibly unlikely we will EVER run out of oil. As oil becomes more scarce, the cost will rise, which will create a lower opportunity cost for alternative fuels - fledgling technologies that are now too expensive will suddenly be competitive; and once competitive, capital investment comparable to the investment in the oil industry (gas stations, car manufacturing, etc) will drive alternative fuel prices below oil prices, which will kill the use of oil long before it is used up.

So in other words, if you LOVE the environment, drive an SUV! The quicker we use up the oil, the quicker we will have alternative fuels!

Even if the demand for gas is reduced by 50% overnight, there would be little reduction in the cost of gas. The entire economy of the middle east is smaller than Finland if you take away oil, and the major oil producing nations of the world would respond to a major decline in consumption by a major decline in production....

On another note, it is incredibly unlikely we will EVER run out of oil. As oil becomes more scarce, the cost will rise, which will create a lower opportunity cost for alternative fuels - fledgling technologies that are now too expensive will suddenly be competitive; and once competitive, capital investment comparable to the investment in the oil industry (gas stations, car manufacturing, etc) will drive alternative fuel prices below oil prices, which will kill the use of oil long before it is used up.

So in other words, if you LOVE the environment, drive an SUV! The quicker we use up the oil, the quicker we will have alternative fuels!
Plastics use oil in their production. This is all I will say for now.

I think I speak for everyone here when I say.... DAAAAAAAYUUUUM.... that's excessive...

Assuming he drives a gas guzzler, say 20 MPG, and gas is around $2.50 where he lives, that means he is driving 1600 miles per week. Assuming an average speed of 45MPH, that is around 36 hours per week in the car...

If you are a truck driver, that's reasonable (probably even great, as Semis, I'm sure, don't get 20MPG) but otherwise you MIGHT think about getting a job closer to home...

Obviously, the correct solution here is to ban gasoline. While you're at it, ban Vaseline and wassailing, and anything else which sounds vaguely like 'gasoline'.

Plastics use oil in their production. This is all I will say for now.

There are alternatives to petroleum based plastics as well - it's just the same issue as alternatives to gas. Why produce something exotic and expensive when tried, true and cheap is the standard?

I think I speak for everyone here when I say.... DAAAAAAAYUUUUM.... that's excessive...

I'm hte only one with a car here. One roommate works 35 miles away. The other works 20 miles away. My mother's doctor is 75 miles away and her dialysis clinic is 30 miles away. The nearest decent grocery store is 15 miles away. In spite of that I'm actually living central to all these places. My mother sees the doctor frequently because she has cancer, kidney failure, heart problems plus other shit.

There are alternatives to petroleum based plastics as well - it's just the same issue as alternatives to gas. Why produce something exotic and expensive when tried, true and cheap is the standard?
What alternatives to gas? LPG, sure, but that is obtained from fractional distillation of oil. OK, so you can also get it from natural gas fields (I think) but that isn't a great switch - we'd just be prolonging the time before we run out of stuff to make plastic from by 30yrs or so.You can't get it from anything that doesn't have at least part-hydrocarbon makeup.

EDIT: Also, Oil has a vast supply of longer chain hydrocarbons by definition, and also has a greater supply of different isomers and, most importantly, alkenes. Alkenes are the most useful thing for plastic production, as alkanes are fairly stable and unreactive (aside from combustion). Alkenes have that wonderfully reactive double bond/s, hence you can do vast quantities of reactions with them and make plastics more easily. Things like polyethylene would be still available from natural gas (via ethylene), but not as much.

Obviously, the correct solution here is to ban gasoline. While you're at it, ban Vaseline and wassailing, and anything else which sounds vaguely like 'gasoline'.
But....but you can't ban wassailing! It's the highlight of my meaningless existence.

Here we come a-wassailing among the leaves so green...

*jigs*

I'm hte only one with a car here. One roommate works 35 miles away. The other works 20 miles away. My mother's doctor is 75 miles away and her dialysis clinic is 30 miles away. The nearest decent grocery store is 15 miles away. In spite of that I'm actually living central to all these places. My mother sees the doctor frequently because she has cancer, kidney failure, heart problems plus other shit.

Wow... that IS a lot of shit. Ummm... I'd say give thought to moving, but that would be retarded as you most likely have... alls I can say is good luck with all that you have to put up with... and tell your roommates to get their OWN damn cars. :p

Assuming he drives a gas guzzler, say 20 MPG, and gas is around $2.50 where he lives, that means he is driving 1600 miles per week. Assuming an average speed of 45MPH, that is around 36 hours per week in the car...

If you are a truck driver, that's reasonable (probably even great, as Semis, I'm sure, don't get 20MPG) but otherwise you MIGHT think about getting a job closer to home...
maybe he drives a TAXI or something :D :cool: :) ;) :confused: :( :eek: :mp5: :sniper:

Assuming he drives a gas guzzler, say 20 MPG, and gas is around $2.50 where he lives, that means he is driving 1600 miles per week. Assuming an average speed of 45MPH, that is around 36 hours per week in the car...

If you are a truck driver, that's reasonable (probably even great, as Semis, I'm sure, don't get 20MPG) but otherwise you MIGHT think about getting a job closer to home...

Actually (BTW, I'm a she, look at the name) My car (wich is 15 years old) gets 22 mpg. I do a lot of highway driving, so 70 mph is more like it. And the amount of driving I do FEELS like a full time job. On my longer days I can spend up to 10 hours in the car.
And I don't even work. :D

What alternatives to gas? LPG, sure, but that is obtained from fractional distillation of oil. OK, so you can also get it from natural gas fields (I think) but that isn't a great switch - we'd just be prolonging the time before we run out of stuff to make plastic from by 30yrs or so.You can't get it from anything that doesn't have at least part-hydrocarbon makeup.

EDIT: Also, Oil has a vast supply of longer chain hydrocarbons by definition, and also has a greater supply of different isomers and, most importantly, alkenes. Alkenes are the most useful thing for plastic production, as alkanes are fairly stable and unreactive (aside from combustion). Alkenes have that wonderfully reactive double bond/s, hence you can do vast quantities of reactions with them and make plastics more easily. Things like polyethylene would be still available from natural gas (via ethylene), but not as much.

Do you honestly think the combined scientific might of the whole world couldn't come up with something better than plastic if it had to?

Do you honestly think the combined scientific might of the whole world couldn't come up with something better than plastic if it had to?
You have no idea how useful plastics and carbon-based products are. Back in 1900, the inorganic chemistry industry and dye industry were massive, and organic chemistry barely existed on an industrial scale. Suddenly, someone discovers polymers and *bam*, organic chemistry becomes the single biggest area of chemicals. ICI is testament to this. They split into three separate areas when each was roughly equal - dyes, inorganic and organic. The inorganic sector almost collapsed on them. ICI makes most of its money through organics.

God, I HATE organic chemistry... singlehandedly destroyed my desire to get a degree in Biology.

God, I HATE organic chemistry... singlehandedly destroyed my desire to get a degree in Biology.
Really? It singlehandedly brought me back to enjoying chemistry, whilst simultaneously making me think of applying for biochemistry. It saved me from a life of economics.

I'm going to have to agree with the tribes of longton. I'm an Econ major and Poly science major, and I agree with what he said. Gas is an ineslastic good, so do what you will with the price, people will have to continue to buy it. If you get to the pump one morning before going to work/school, and gas shot up a dollar (I know its improbable) you'd still have to buy the gas, you may buy less and drive less, but you still need to buy it. In the longrun, people may begin to buy more fuel efficient cars etc, since any good in the longrun becomes elastic. However, this situation is entirely different like taxing something elastic like oranges. If oranges shot up in price, i'd just buy apples instead, which would solve our problem. So taxing everything with a negative externality isn't going to solve anything, and just create a lot of deadweight loss in the free market because of all these beuracratic costs. The solution isn't to restrict the domestic market, its to fix our foreign policy. I think we are artificially manipulating the price of our gas (ie. why its so damn cheap) through our trade agreements etc with oligopolies like OPEC. Gas prices should, if the market was allowed to work on its own, be a lot higher....but high gas prices are politically frowned upon, so our government does everything it can at the expense of the nation and the environment to keep them low....to get re-elected. You can't really blame anyone here....collective action problem. Who's going to be the first one to try to stop this when the initial cost of trying to fix this problem far outweighs any benefits achieved in the shortrun. Thats what keeps this problem from being solved....because people say the same thing everytime they are confronted with a solution.....they simple response? "Because I can." Peoples mentality is half the problem as well.

<snip>
*is glad someone commented on his first post here*

Sorry about cutting your explanation but it would take up too much space. Out of interest, how would you go about it? Would you change the agreements with OPEC?

II'd find other means of dependency. OPEC is an oligopoly, true, but under Nash Equilibrium, all their attempts to restrict prices will fail because of the incentive for any one of those countries to produce on more unit or one more barrel of oil.

Note: OPEC, will, for example, tell all its members to produce half their amount of oil but sell it at the same price, to make more profit. However, once all these countries begin to do this, the incentive for a country to produce just one more barrel of oil will be enough so that eventually, all the countries being producing their original amount. But anyway...

What I would do is shift dependency elsewhere, maybe help countries that aren’t a part of OPEC, but have reserves get access to those reserves to create competition for OPEC. Anything that would change this market from an oligopoly to a competitive market. However, this may not be possible since petroleum is a fossil fuel and only available in certain areas of the world.

However, I could simply change foreign policy to a point where we don't screw over other countries through our trade agreements, however, as a politician that would be counter-productive to that person’s job. So I’d create a fair trade policy where I wouldn't receive so much petroleum at dirt cheap prices. These other countries such as Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Nigeria would be better off because the US no longer politically and economically influenced their oil reserves, and me...I’d get fired and everyone would elect someone else because the prices for gas would be to high.

You see how this is a collective action problem?-People want less gas consumption to save the environment, but as soon the government didn't do its job of screwing over other countries in trade transactions to keep the cost of fuel down, the people would not re-elect them. No incentives for this problem to be fixed.

Example: When Iraq was first invaded, the oil contracts where subsidized to American firms such as Halliburton, which got them at a no bid price. See, usually, when a private company wants a job to work with oil, it bids for the contract. However, Halliburton received these contracts without having to bid for them. This means they got them at incredible cheap prices. And since the US is so damn large in landsize, and people NEED to drive everywhere, and products and consumer goods need to be shipped between states, Halliburton making lotsa money was a good thing for our economy and oil reserves.

Because if a shortage of gas results, you have to realize, that not only will you be paying more for gas, but more for milk, Pepsi, meat and everything else that is shipped. Because shipping costs gas, a price hike in gas means a price hike in everything that needs to be shipped......massive inflation. No one can get reelected if milk prices soar.

This situation is very hard to fix…

OK, I'm going to say that increasing taxation - on high octane fuels, normal fuels, cars, whatever - will not solve problems. It's been demonstrated in other countries e.g. the UK. The inelastic demand for petrol (large increase in price=small decrease in quantity demanded) means that the taxation will have little effect on gas consumption. Taxation of petrol is also highly politically unpopular - no-one likes a hike in prices, especially on goods and serices that the majority uses. This small benefit to the govt., combined with the mass unpopularity it will bring, means the govt. will not want to implement the plans for fuel taxation to great effect - look at the UK fuel escalator. One little oil price hike and consumers were baying for TB's blood, especially those in industries where petrol is everything e.g. lorries, taxis etc.

Also the taxation on SUVs will change little. In the UK, higher cc cars have higher road tax. Does it reduce the no. of large cars to any great extent - no. People will always use larger cars if they feel they need a larger car. In the States it is the same, I imagine. People do not just buy an SUV with no logic. Besides, many newer SUVs have much better mileage and again, extra tax on larger vehicles will be extremely unpopular with people, especially in a country where liberty is apparently so important.

The only real forms of reducing pollution are through legislation on emissions, subsidised 'cleaner' methods and (I hate to say it, for fear of Londoners ripping me to pieces) road pricing with hypothecation to the public sector e.g. toll roads and congestion charging. The legislation would have to be on things similar to those used in the past - implementation of catalytic converters and the subsequent removal of lead based fuels. Although I'd like subsidies for clean fuels e.g. hydrogen, electric cells, etc. it wouldn't really work because of the size of the opportunity cost of a normal fuel car and an H-fuel/combi-fuel car in comparison to the size of a possible subsidy - the govt. could only really provide a minimal subsidy which wouldn't sway many to the cleaner side. Road pricing works - it has been shown to work in London. Although unpopular, it reduces private transoprt in an area by a greater amount that blanket taxation such as fuel/road tax. The hypothecation of the revenue generated to public transport/the environment is also directly linked to the amount of users of cars, thus making it much more effective at internalising negative externalities generated by private transport. The real problem with it is setting the price, but this is a problem for any form of pricing on externalities, so it's nothing new.

I hope that doesn't kill the thread. There seem to be many economists on NS with a much greater level of understanding than I, so perhaps they could comment. Hell, most people seem to have a better understanding than me, so anyone could comment really.
1. not talking about normal cars or normal fuel. thats a completely seperate issue
2. we clearly demand shitloads more oil than you.
3. again im not talking about normal fuel. why buy a gas guzzler or a sports car if its just SO much cheaper to get a hybrid. and when you make the hybrids cheaper than even the normal cars from subsidies then why even get normal cars. again, im talking the average american not someone who needs a van or a flatbed truck or whatever for their job.
4. again not taxing normal fuel, just gas guzzlers and high octane fuels, then using that money to subsidize hybrids.
5. well clearly it turned out pretty well for TB
6. well use higher taxes on gass guzzlers than you. you have to understand that we americans are stupid. we dont buy these gas guzzlers cause we need them for business, we buy them because either our dicks are small or we think it will be good to take kids to soccer practice.
7. in america, people do just by an SUV with no logic, dont know about the UK
8. yes, they now have hybrid SUV's and regular, high mileage SUV's. these SUV's get better mileage than some cars. the hybrids will get a subsidy and the normal ones with high mileage won't be taxed.
9. you have the right to own whatever car you want. you shouldn't be able to infringe on the rights of others to pollute the environment. in order to do so, you must reimburse us. everyone gets their rights respected, how much more liberty can you have?
10. hybrid is a cleaner method
11. legislation on toll roads is alot harder to sell then taxing gas guzzlers and high octane gases
12. hydrogen power is a very long way off. the government only endorses it and publicizes it because they want people to think their doing something for the environment. alot more can be done NOW with my plan rather than waiting 50 years for fuel cells to be even a remote option. even if we get the technology going well, theres no infastrucsture (sp?). meaning no hydrogen gas stations.

Again... find a better way that is viable NOW and make it a good choice, then you will have an arguement. For now, I take what I have cause there is no better choice. And I simply go for the truck because that is MY personal preference. Again, I point you in the direction of the factories and high polluting plants and the companies with less than agreeable disposal methods.
i didn't say we shouldnt place regulations on high polluting plants. we have some legislation but it's all bullshit because dont enforce it. ex. a company pollutes all it wants and gets higher productivity meaning more prophet by $10000 a year but the fine is only $500. so they just dont care. its ridiculous. but i dont understand why my method wouldn't help too. obviously cars are a big part of the problem too.

Cause God knows HE is an expert on such things. You cannot tell me that there is any way that this wasn't influenced by lobbyists.
actually he's been an environmental activist all his life. and as i recall he sited an independent source when he said it in the interview. i dont remember because it was over a month ago. i have seen no reason to distrust him. in fact i see much more reason to distrust this post, as you have provided NO evidence to support your claim.

Fair enough. That post was misjudged, and for that I apologise. What do you think of road pricing as opposed to taxes? Also, how do you think Government popularity with the masses factors into the whole problem?
sounds impossible to pass in legislation. mine is a slightly more realistic goal.

What are you americans complaining about?

Go north of the border. THERE you will see high gas prices.
well if you paid attention, youd know there are alot more problems that come from american gas consumption then just high prices

I think I speak for everyone here when I say.... DAAAAAAAYUUUUM.... that's excessive...
agreed

Even if the demand for gas is reduced by 50% overnight, there would be little reduction in the cost of gas. The entire economy of the middle east is smaller than Finland if you take away oil, and the major oil producing nations of the world would respond to a major decline in consumption by a major decline in production....

On another note, it is incredibly unlikely we will EVER run out of oil. As oil becomes more scarce, the cost will rise, which will create a lower opportunity cost for alternative fuels - fledgling technologies that are now too expensive will suddenly be competitive; and once competitive, capital investment comparable to the investment in the oil industry (gas stations, car manufacturing, etc) will drive alternative fuel prices below oil prices, which will kill the use of oil long before it is used up.

So in other words, if you LOVE the environment, drive an SUV! The quicker we use up the oil, the quicker we will have alternative fuels!
the logic is flawed. no matter how fast you use up the oil the same amount of oil will be used up until it becomes cheaper to use alternative fuel sources. therefore you will still pollute the environment just as much. in fact, you will pollute the environment even more because everyone will still have the SUV's which means they will need to use gas or buy a new car. as expensive as the oil will be, it will still cost more to buy a new car.

I'm hte only one with a car here. One roommate works 35 miles away. The other works 20 miles away. My mother's doctor is 75 miles away and her dialysis clinic is 30 miles away. The nearest decent grocery store is 15 miles away. In spite of that I'm actually living central to all these places. My mother sees the doctor frequently because she has cancer, kidney failure, heart problems plus other shit.
under my plan you could by a hybrid for the same price as a car. that means you buy less gas, not only that but gas prices are cheaper. with the amount of time you spend driving, it will become economically unfeasible to buy a regular car.

I'm going to have to agree with the tribes of longton. I'm an Econ major and Poly science major, and I agree with what he said. Gas is an ineslastic good, so do what you will with the price, people will have to continue to buy it. If you get to the pump one morning before going to work/school, and gas shot up a dollar (I know its improbable) you'd still have to buy the gas, you may buy less and drive less, but you still need to buy it. In the longrun, people may begin to buy more fuel efficient cars etc, since any good in the longrun becomes elastic. However, this situation is entirely different like taxing something elastic like oranges. If oranges shot up in price, i'd just buy apples instead, which would solve our problem. So taxing everything with a negative externality isn't going to solve anything, and just create a lot of deadweight loss in the free market because of all these beuracratic costs. The solution isn't to restrict the domestic market, its to fix our foreign policy. I think we are artificially manipulating the price of our gas (ie. why its so damn cheap) through our trade agreements etc with oligopolies like OPEC. Gas prices should, if the market was allowed to work on its own, be a lot higher....but high gas prices are politically frowned upon, so our government does everything it can at the expense of the nation and the environment to keep them low....to get re-elected. You can't really blame anyone here....collective action problem. Who's going to be the first one to try to stop this when the initial cost of trying to fix this problem far outweighs any benefits achieved in the shortrun. Thats what keeps this problem from being solved....because people say the same thing everytime they are confronted with a solution.....they simple response? "Because I can." Peoples mentality is half the problem as well.
did you read my original post or just his?

II'd find other means of dependency. OPEC is an oligopoly, true, but under Nash Equilibrium, all their attempts to restrict prices will fail because of the incentive for any one of those countries to produce on more unit or one more barrel of oil.

Note: OPEC, will, for example, tell all its members to produce half their amount of oil but sell it at the same price, to make more profit. However, once all these countries begin to do this, the incentive for a country to produce just one more barrel of oil will be enough so that eventually, all the countries being producing their original amount. But anyway...

What I would do is shift dependency elsewhere, maybe help countries that aren’t a part of OPEC, but have reserves get access to those reserves to create competition for OPEC. Anything that would change this market from an oligopoly to a competitive market. However, this may not be possible since petroleum is a fossil fuel and only available in certain areas of the world.

However, I could simply change foreign policy to a point where we don't screw over other countries through our trade agreements, however, as a politician that would be counter-productive to that person’s job. So I’d create a fair trade policy where I wouldn't receive so much petroleum at dirt cheap prices. These other countries such as Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Nigeria would be better off because the US no longer politically and economically influenced their oil reserves, and me...I’d get fired and everyone would elect someone else because the prices for gas would be to high.

You see how this is a collective action problem?-People want less gas consumption to save the environment, but as soon the government didn't do its job of screwing over other countries in trade transactions to keep the cost of fuel down, the people would not re-elect them. No incentives for this problem to be fixed.

Example: When Iraq was first invaded, the oil contracts where subsidized to American firms such as Halliburton, which got them at a no bid price. See, usually, when a private company wants a job to work with oil, it bids for the contract. However, Halliburton received these contracts without having to bid for them. This means they got them at incredible cheap prices. And since the US is so damn large in landsize, and people NEED to drive everywhere, and products and consumer goods need to be shipped between states, Halliburton making lotsa money was a good thing for our economy and oil reserves.

Because if a shortage of gas results, you have to realize, that not only will you be paying more for gas, but more for milk, Pepsi, meat and everything else that is shipped. Because shipping costs gas, a price hike in gas means a price hike in everything that needs to be shipped......massive inflation. No one can get reelected if milk prices soar.

This situation is very hard to fix…
59 posts until Iraq was mentioned its a new record!
note: im against the war in iraq and i hate bush

under my plan you could by a hybrid for the same price as a car. that means you buy less gas, not only that but gas prices are cheaper. with the amount of time you spend driving, it will become economically unfeasible to buy a regular car.If I could afford a new car, I wouldn't be driving a fifteen year old Nissan. If I didn't spend so much on gas I might be able to get another car. Catch-22.

Why drive an expensive, unnecessarily huge, polluting behemoth when you can drive something smaller for far less cost to yourself and to the environment?
Because I like the fact that when some 16 year old braindead asshat is too busy talking on their cell phone, telling all their friends how they just got their driver's license, and they run into my big, gas guzzling behemoth...I don't have to worry because you won't have to use a can opener to get me, my neice or nephew out of my behemoth after the accident.

When I can get a behemoth that works on alternative fuel and has comparable power to the one I currently have, I'll switch.

Because I like the fact that when some 16 year old braindead asshat is too busy talking on their cell phone, telling all their friends how they just got their driver's license, and they run into my big, gas guzzling behemoth...I don't have to worry because you won't have to use a can opener to get me, my neice or nephew out of my behemoth after the accident.

When I can get a behemoth that works on alternative fuel and has comparable power to the one I currently have, I'll switch.
even if the legislature is passed costing your behemoth 3 times as much as a hybrid?

Because I like the fact that when some 16 year old braindead asshat is too busy talking on their cell phone, telling all their friends how they just got their driver's license, and they run into my big, gas guzzling behemoth...I don't have to worry because you won't have to use a can opener to get me, my neice or nephew out of my behemoth after the accident.

When I can get a behemoth that works on alternative fuel and has comparable power to the one I currently have, I'll switch.

... but the 16 yr old in the other car will end up a squished mess under your front bumper. Great, huh?

To Clubhouse:

Yea, my old post has everything to do with your first one. Thats why you can't tax gas, its not economically efficient. That, and its not politically motivating. People want to stay in power, so they need to keep the public happy. Plus the collective action problem, and inflation. *refers to post above*

To Clubhouse:

Yea, my old post has everything to do with your first one. Thats why you can't tax gas, its not economically efficient. That, and its not politically motivating. People want to stay in power, so they need to keep the public happy. Plus the collective action problem, and inflation. *refers to post above*
perhaps you should reread my post then.

OK, I'm going to say that increasing taxation - on high octane fuels, normal fuels, cars, whatever - will not solve problems. It's been demonstrated in other countries e.g. the UK. The inelastic demand for petrol (large increase in price=small decrease in quantity demanded) means that the taxation will have little effect on gas consumption.

As you said economy can be so contradictory. I learned exactly the opposite at school...

Oil will tend to be inelastic on short term. Because even if price sky rocket, you still have to drive to work everyday in the same big car. But on medium term you will see a big change.

First people will get smaller car. It's not a secret then average american car tend to be much bigger than the average europeen car/ japanese car. You can also look at the oil price fluctuation vs buying power vs car industry. In period of oil crise (last 20 years) you can see the industry adapt it self by making much smaller car (ford festiva, chevrolet sprint,...).

Second, people will adapt themself to lower theire consuption by taking public transport and reducing the length of there trip. Third, buisness will do the same. The train network in europe is much more developed than here. One of the reason is that here it is pretty hard for train transport to compete with truck in term of price.

Lets play guess which countries are working very hard and spending a lot of money to find fuel cells which will take over completely within 50 years! If you guessed the US and Germany you are 100% right! If you guessed, Sweden, England, Ireland, Italy, Switzerland, Greece, France, Norway, Japan, Australia, China or India, You were 100% wrong!

So if you are on this thread and are complaining about US gas consumptions and are not from the US of A or Germany then shut up! (For lack of a better phrase.)

the logic is flawed. no matter how fast you use up the oil the same amount of oil will be used up until it becomes cheaper to use alternative fuel sources. therefore you will still pollute the environment just as much. in fact, you will pollute the environment even more because everyone will still have the SUV's which means they will need to use gas or buy a new car. as expensive as the oil will be, it will still cost more to buy a new car.


And what will it cost to switch apt/commercial uilding to nat gas from oil? or how about bringing the cost/megawatt for nuclear down? Or maybe even allowing one of these new fangled clean burning coal plants to come on line?

Oil is used in a lot of things, gasoline is just one of them. And for that matter, we do not use Middle Eastern oil to make gasoline. We use light brent sweet crude for that. I dont think we even process the darker stuff domestically.

Lets play guess which countries are working very hard and spending a lot of money to find fuel cells which will take over completely within 50 years! If you guessed the US and Germany you are 100% right! If you guessed, Sweden, England, Ireland, Italy, Switzerland, Greece, France, Norway, Japan, Australia, China or India, You were 100% wrong!

So if you are on this thread and are complaining about US gas consumptions and are not from the US of A or Germany then shut up! (For lack of a better phrase.)
actually fuel cells wont take over completely in 50 years. in fact id be pretty suprised if they completely took over in 100 years

And what will it cost to switch apt/commercial uilding to nat gas from oil? or how about bringing the cost/megawatt for nuclear down? Or maybe even allowing one of these new fangled clean burning coal plants to come on line?

Oil is used in a lot of things, gasoline is just one of them. And for that matter, we do not use Middle Eastern oil to make gasoline. We use light brent sweet crude for that. I dont think we even process the darker stuff domestically.
the only major gas stations wich dont import Middle Eastern oil are Sinclair, Sunoco and Hess.

... but the 16 yr old in the other car will end up a squished mess under your front bumper. Great, huh?
The asshat should have been paying attention to the road...too f'n bad for them. To make myself and my family less safe is NOT an option.

I say your use of electricity while typing out your enviro-rant on a plastic computer containing all sorts of polutants is very hypocritical to say the least.

Unless you live in a cave and are writing your manifesto on the enviroment on paper made from guano, you are a hypocrite.

I say your use of electricity while typing out your enviro-rant on a plastic computer containing all sorts of polutants is very hypocritical to say the least.

Unless you live in a cave and are writing your manifesto on the enviroment on paper made from guano, you are a hypocrite.
can't beat guano.

The asshat should have been paying attention to the road...too f'n bad for them. To make myself and my family less safe is NOT an option.
I'm not sure if driving a SUV really makes you be safer or just gives a sense of false security. A lot of people who drive SUVs tend to let their guards down and get into more risky situations because they feel safer. They also don't think that a SUV is much heavier and higher than a regular car and therefore handles different.

And a point could also be made that you could have been paying more attention to the road and see the asshat driving stupidly before crossing the road, even if you had the green light.

And, of course, the asshat could very well be driving a SUV himself and all bets would be off then.

I think there's more to road safety than just being in the bigger car.

I think there's more to road safety than just being in the bigger car.

Yea, like carrying the bigger gun.

can't beat guano.
;)
They can even use it for a heat source.

Yea, like carrying the bigger gun.
Mount it on the top with a firing/targetting mechanism on the wheel and now we're talking.

;)
They can even use it for a heat source.
didn't you see Ace Ventura 2? it can be used for anything. food, pottery, you name it! they should be selling this shit (literally) on ebay!

I'm not sure if driving a SUV really makes you be safer or just gives a sense of false security. A lot of people who drive SUVs tend to let their guards down and get into more risky situations because they feel safer. They also don't think that a SUV is much heavier and higher than a regular car and therefore handles different.

And a point could also be made that you could have been paying more attention to the road and see the asshat driving stupidly before crossing the road, even if you had the green light.

And, of course, the asshat could very well be driving a SUV himself and all bets would be off then.

I think there's more to road safety than just being in the bigger car.
I've always driven as safely as possible (speed limit, watching the cars around me, never talking on my cell phone while driving, etc.) and tend to drive even more safely in my "behemoth"...mainly because I paid a good chunk of change for it and don't particularly want it damaged.

As for safer: my brother in law has the same SUV as I do (a different year, but identical in safety features) and was t-boned by a jerk (going about 40-45 mph) in a Ford F-350 quad cab (larger and heavier than our respective Toyota Sequoias) that was talking on his cell phone and ran a red light. My brother in law came away with a few bruises and scratches (and a new SUV) and the guy in the pickup ended up in the hospital. I'd call that pretty safe.

Like I said: once Toyota comes out with an alternative fuel version of my Sequoia, I'll buy it.

I'm not sure if driving a SUV really makes you be safer or just gives a sense of false security. A lot of people who drive SUVs tend to let their guards down and get into more risky situations because they feel safer. They also don't think that a SUV is much heavier and higher than a regular car and therefore handles different.

And a point could also be made that you could have been paying more attention to the road and see the asshat driving stupidly before crossing the road, even if you had the green light.

And, of course, the asshat could very well be driving a SUV himself and all bets would be off then.

I think there's more to road safety than just being in the bigger car.

Your rigth on this, SUV lack maniability on road because of theire weigth and size. An other misconception is when crash hapen. People watch the news an see a devastated car next to an intact SUV an think it is safer, wich is not. Car a made to absorb the colision. If your hood an motor are ruined, it's because they took the hit instead of you. If you get in a colision and your SUV is gonna be intact, that means all the shock is taked by the belt on your torso.

I say repeal federal, state, and local gas taxes the average 40.6 cents per gallon. Allow the market to decide the fate of the gas engine. There's a heavy demand for cheap, alternative energy.

The environmental factors do not require reactionary policies.

you cant force people to care about anything. most people are too lazy to think past their own self interests and forcing them to do it will only anger them because it hurts their heads and you will have pissed off, retards running anyone even slightly resembling a hippi over with their SUVs. You have to force companies to realize that environmental policies will be best for their bottom line and then you will see real change.

Cause I'm American and I have that choice! Go capitalism, GO! And I got this truck I have for free... no cost to me. And if you really wanna tackle a bigger problem than car pollution, go talk to the factories and such that buy pollution credits illegally and the like. And talk to the people that illegally dump in forests and lakes and stuff... don't berate me or anyone else for making a choice that is legal and perfectly within my right. I drive a truck cause I CAN...


Well, you have the right to use the environment, and we have the right to charge you for usage.

It's just as easy as this.

If you use it, you pay for it. There is no such thing as free lunch - least of all in capitalism.

you will have pissed off, retards running anyone even slightly resembling a hippi over with their SUVs.
You say that like it would be a bad thing.

:p

you cant force people to care about anything. most people are too lazy to think past their own self interests and forcing them to do it will only anger them because it hurts their heads and you will have pissed off, retards running anyone even slightly resembling a hippi over with their SUVs. You have to force companies to realize that environmental policies will be best for their bottom line and then you will see real change.
Companies are made out of the same uncaring, lazy people. Most companies are just ot there to make a quick profit. Its about how to make the most money for me right now that I have a high position in the company.
Or even worse how to make most money for my stock holders. On short term. So i dont think companies will do anything for the environment, because it will not pay off in the next 10 years. And if they do not help the environment they they can be very rich in 10 years.
It is still about convincing ppl. I think its a good idea to let poluters pay for poluting, That way ppl will think about it because it hurts there self interests. And ppl alway think about that.
And you generate money to pay for researce durable clean energy.

America should stopping building across the country. Build up instead. While you save space, you also save up the gas by putting everybody near each other so there's less point of using a car.

Petrol is amazingly cheap in America! I don't know why anyone would complain about petrol prices in Amreica because its so much cheaper...