Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] transportation policy research of note - from January 2012 - The case of the missing gas mileage

Expand Messages
  • Oliver Perry
    I agree. Do you have any ideas as to how to break the cycle? Many people are beginning to think that the whole system has to collapse under its own weight
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 16, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree. Do you have any ideas as to how to break the cycle? Many people are beginning to think that the whole system has to collapse under its own weight before change can occur.. or a radical revolution occurs. The problem is that it seems as if those in the cycle find ways to keep revolutionary minded activists in a minority position.

      Thanks for your thoughts.

      O.H.Perry
      EEVC
      On Jul 15, 2012, at 12:11 AM, MarketMole wrote:

      > Sorry, I didn't complete my thought...
      >
      > "I've come to understand that the incestuous circle that revolves from
      > policy makers, to reelection campaigns, to voters and back again. Congress
      > votes the line that will keep them in the good graces of their
      > constituents. Voters continue to vote back in the incumbents who maintain
      > the status quo. A -> B -> A -> B..."
      >
      > was to introduce the thought that we must first break this cycle before we
      > can get true change made to our energy policy.
      >
      >
      >
      > On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 9:10 PM, MarketMole <marketmole@...> wrote:
      >
      >> "... there will be no change until we really run out of inexpensive
      >> gasoline or equivalent fuel. And we have not."
      >>
      >> Nor will we (any time soon).
      >>
      >> I've come to understand that the incestuous circle that revolves from
      >> policy makers, to reelection campaigns, to voters and back again. Congress
      >> votes the line that will keep them in the good graces of their
      >> constituents. Voters continue to vote back in the incumbents who maintain
      >> the status quo. A -> B -> A -> B...
      >>
      >> A gas tax is based on consumption. This does affect the lower income
      >> classes disproportionately, those who have to drive 20 or 100 miles round
      >> trip to work. The rich wouldn't be impacted as deeply, percentage wise, as
      >> the poor.
      >>
      >> A VAT tax is also being whispered within the halls of the progressives. A
      >> VAT tax would tax consumption also but with exemption for the poor.
      >> http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20100429/ARCHIVES/304299967
      >>
      >> Clearly, if/when future fuels finally do come over the horizon and
      >> supplant gasoline some other method for collecting road use taxes will be
      >> required. The existing gas tax is obviously inadequate, adding to it will
      >> mostly hurt the lower income half of the population though. Regardless, I
      >> agree that we must some how relink the connection between our gas
      >> consumption and environmental impact. I just don't know about an increased
      >> gas tax.
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Oliver Perry <perrydap@...> wrote:
      >>
      >>> I tend to agree that increasing the price of gasoline will accomplish
      >>> greater fuel efficiency in a shorter amount of time than any other method.
      >>> Too few voters are advocates of raising taxes on gasoline to make this a
      >>> viable option. The problem is that there are too many vote seeking
      >>> politicians who continue to make claims that their administration, if
      >>> elected, will keep fuel prices low. As everyone knows, they continue to
      >>> advocate increasing production to maintain present demands for energy. As a
      >>> result we have a large segment of the population that honestly believes we
      >>> deserve to have and can have cheap fuel and plenty of it. In their minds
      >>> there is no crisis. If most people felt that having cheap fuel is
      >>> unsustainable and undesirable things would change. But, they don't and they
      >>> won't. Changing the minds of the masses is not easy to do when the masses
      >>> are considered to be votes for somebody's profitable office.
      >>>
      >>> Because of what we have been told by many in influential positions,
      >>> masses of voters really believe that we can have plenty of cheap fuel...
      >>> there is plenty there for everyone if government would just let down the
      >>> barriers and stop putting up obstacles. As greater spokespersons than me
      >>> have said, there will be no change until we really run out of inexpensive
      >>> gasoline or equivalent fuel. And we have not. Are we ready for the natural
      >>> gas vehicles?
      >>>
      >>> O.H.Perry
      >>> EEVC
      >>> On Jul 14, 2012, at 4:02 PM, murdoch wrote:
      >>>
      >>>> bcc: various
      >>>>
      >>>> I was just going through my notes and saw this. It strikes me as
      >>>> worth considering. I have highlighted a couple of points.
      >>>>
      >>>> http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/cars-on-steroids-0104.html
      >>>>> The case of the missing gas mileage
      >>>>> Automakers have made great strides in fuel efficiency in recent
      >>> decades ˜ but the mileage numbers of individual vehicles have barely
      >>> increased. An MIT economist explains the conundrum.
      >>>>> Peter Dizikes, MIT News Office
      >>>>> January 4, 2012
      >>>>
      >>>> [...]
      >>>>
      >>>>> Sound perplexing? This situation is the result of a trend
      >>>>> newly quantified by MIT economist Christopher Knittel:
      >>>>> Because automobiles are bigger and more powerful than they
      >>>>> were three decades ago, major innovations in fuel efficiency
      >>>>> have only produced minor gains in gas mileage.
      >>>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> [...]
      >>>>
      >>>>> „When it comes to climate change, leaving the market alone
      >>>>> isn‚t going to lead to the efficient outcome,‰ Knittel says.
      >>>>> „The right starting point is a gas tax.‰
      >>>>
      >>>> [...]
      >>>>
      >>>>> That said, Knittel is skeptical that CAFE standards by
      >>>>> themselves will have the impact a new gas tax would. Such
      >>>>> mileage regulations, he says, „end up reducing the cost of
      >>>>> driving. If you force people to buy more fuel-efficient cars
      >>>>> through CAFE standards, you actually get what‚s called
      >>>>> Œrebound,‚ and they drive more than they would have.‰ A gas
      >>>>> tax, he believes, would create demand for more fuel-
      >>>>> efficient cars without as much rebound, the phenomenon
      >>>>> through which greater efficiency leads to potentially
      >>>>> greater consumption.
      >>>>>
      >>>>> Fuel efficiency, Knittel says, has come a long way in recent
      >>>>> decades. But when it comes to getting those advances to have
      >>>>> an impact out on the road, there is still a long way to go.
      >>>>
      >>>
      >>
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
    • MarketMole
      Trying to maintain a future fuels and vehicles theme... I know that to get progressive energy policy into the mix we need to first get rid of incumbents. All
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 16, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Trying to maintain a future fuels and vehicles theme... I know that to get
        progressive energy policy into the mix we need to first get rid of
        incumbents. All of them. I believe that Congress has come to expect they
        run the country and can simply play the popularity game to retain office.
        By replacing every incumbent the citizenry can blatantly inform congress
        that they are not in charge - the people are. So, Replace2012 is the mantra
        I have been proposing. Presidents are essentially ineffectual, it's
        Congress that set the law and lets corporations manipulate the country.
        Replace Congress and we'll be on the road to breaking the cycle.

        MM


        On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Oliver Perry <perrydap@...> wrote:

        > I agree. Do you have any ideas as to how to break the cycle? Many people
        > are beginning to think that the whole system has to collapse under its own
        > weight before change can occur.. or a radical revolution occurs. The
        > problem is that it seems as if those in the cycle find ways to keep
        > revolutionary minded activists in a minority position.
        >
        > Thanks for your thoughts.
        >
        > O.H.Perry
        > EEVC
        > On Jul 15, 2012, at 12:11 AM, MarketMole wrote:
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Oliver Perry
        To replace 2012 is very difficult in our highly polarized country. My guess whoever is in or out will, the result will average out to be the same... almost
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 17, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          To replace 2012 is very difficult in our highly polarized country. My guess whoever is in or out will, the result will average out to be the same... almost 50/50. The average person does not know who to believe on any issue and frequently questions the media's take. I also think our system has an inertia of its own. To stop the direction we are moving toward and reverse it is tough. A repeat of 9/11 or an attack from outer space from the Martians might get our attention and unite us. But other than that it appears as if we are destined to behave like a glacier.

          O.H.Perry
          EEVC
          On Jul 16, 2012, at 8:53 PM, MarketMole wrote:

          > Trying to maintain a future fuels and vehicles theme... I know that to get
          > progressive energy policy into the mix we need to first get rid of
          > incumbents. All of them. I believe that Congress has come to expect they
          > run the country and can simply play the popularity game to retain office.
          > By replacing every incumbent the citizenry can blatantly inform congress
          > that they are not in charge - the people are. So, Replace2012 is the mantra
          > I have been proposing. Presidents are essentially ineffectual, it's
          > Congress that set the law and lets corporations manipulate the country.
          > Replace Congress and we'll be on the road to breaking the cycle.
          >
          > MM
          >
          >
          > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Oliver Perry <perrydap@...> wrote:
          >
          >> I agree. Do you have any ideas as to how to break the cycle? Many people
          >> are beginning to think that the whole system has to collapse under its own
          >> weight before change can occur.. or a radical revolution occurs. The
          >> problem is that it seems as if those in the cycle find ways to keep
          >> revolutionary minded activists in a minority position.
          >>
          >> Thanks for your thoughts.
          >>
          >> O.H.Perry
          >> EEVC
          >> On Jul 15, 2012, at 12:11 AM, MarketMole wrote:
          >>
          >>
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
        • MarketMole
          Oliver, You have to believe, like Peter Pan. Vote for ANYBODY but the guy/girl who s already sitting in Congress. That s the only message we need to send. I
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 17, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Oliver,

            You have to believe, like Peter Pan. Vote for ANYBODY but the guy/girl
            who's already sitting in Congress. That's the only message we need to send.
            I don't care who, just not the incumbent.



            On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Oliver Perry <perrydap@...> wrote:

            > **
            >
            >
            > To replace 2012 is very difficult in our highly polarized country. My
            > guess whoever is in or out will, the result will average out to be the
            > same... almost 50/50. The average person does not know who to believe on
            > any issue and frequently questions the media's take. I also think our
            > system has an inertia of its own. To stop the direction we are moving
            > toward and reverse it is tough. A repeat of 9/11 or an attack from outer
            > space from the Martians might get our attention and unite us. But other
            > than that it appears as if we are destined to behave like a glacier.
            >
            > O.H.Perry
            > EEVC
            >
            > On Jul 16, 2012, at 8:53 PM, MarketMole wrote:
            >
            > > Trying to maintain a future fuels and vehicles theme... I know that to
            > get
            > > progressive energy policy into the mix we need to first get rid of
            > > incumbents. All of them. I believe that Congress has come to expect they
            > > run the country and can simply play the popularity game to retain office.
            > > By replacing every incumbent the citizenry can blatantly inform congress
            > > that they are not in charge - the people are. So, Replace2012 is the
            > mantra
            > > I have been proposing. Presidents are essentially ineffectual, it's
            > > Congress that set the law and lets corporations manipulate the country.
            > > Replace Congress and we'll be on the road to breaking the cycle.
            > >
            > > MM
            > >
            > >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.