The bad thing about this new formula is that it allows for some really, really inefficient high performance or very heavy luxury vehicles that are driven little. It is essentially an escape hatch for the very rich when it comes to fuel economy.
What will happen is that the average car will just get slower and slower (or smaller and smaller) but the rich will all be driving super-cars, Bentleys or G-wagons getting 13MPG.
What will happen is that the average car will just get slower and slower (or smaller and smaller) but the rich will all be driving super-cars, Bentleys or G-wagons getting 13MPG.
2
Why do we continue to assume that only market-based incentives work?
We have been arguing about the merits of carbon tax v cap and trade since 2005 at least, and have gotten nowhere.
Meanwhile, mandates have been mandated in state-level Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) (and RES) and these have transformed electricity generation. Utilities procure what they are told to procure, what % of renewables.
States should put simple mandates in place for automakers. You can't
sell in my state unless your vehicles achieve X. California did this with EVs: "you can't sell here unless make an EV". Auto industry complied.
Result: CA has nearly all the EVs in the nation.
China has done it with car registration: after a certain number of registrations annually, you can only permit an EV.
Result: China leads world in EVs.
We have been arguing about the merits of carbon tax v cap and trade since 2005 at least, and have gotten nowhere.
Meanwhile, mandates have been mandated in state-level Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) (and RES) and these have transformed electricity generation. Utilities procure what they are told to procure, what % of renewables.
States should put simple mandates in place for automakers. You can't
sell in my state unless your vehicles achieve X. California did this with EVs: "you can't sell here unless make an EV". Auto industry complied.
Result: CA has nearly all the EVs in the nation.
China has done it with car registration: after a certain number of registrations annually, you can only permit an EV.
Result: China leads world in EVs.
1
I think its interesting that no one is addressing animal agriculture and the meat industry in the same sentence as climate change.
Raise your hand if you are under the impression that there is still time to stop or significantly slow global warming.
You're wrong. Worse, you've been lied to be the very people you're supposed to be trusting: Climate Scientists.
Climate models which predict even a reasonable slowing of the rate of warming now incorporate an X factor: A man-made method which does not yet exist for removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
Three things about that:
1. No remotely feasible technology has even yet to be proposed that would accomplish such a thing, let alone built;
2. It is unknown what effect, how soon, any such mitigation could possibly have;
3. The planet continues to release more and more CO2 into the atmosphere from stored sources that have nothing to do with man and which release those stores as they thaw.
We are well on our way to the worst of both worlds: A rapidly warming and changing planet which will disrupts whole societies including several major cities, and a severely increased cost per capita for access to energy, which will simultaneously impoverish millions upon billions over time.
Stories such as this which suggest we can cut carbon emissions, also implies that cutting carbon emissions will have any significant impact on the arc of global warming.
Those would be lies.
I challenge NYT to do a story about that.
You're wrong. Worse, you've been lied to be the very people you're supposed to be trusting: Climate Scientists.
Climate models which predict even a reasonable slowing of the rate of warming now incorporate an X factor: A man-made method which does not yet exist for removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
Three things about that:
1. No remotely feasible technology has even yet to be proposed that would accomplish such a thing, let alone built;
2. It is unknown what effect, how soon, any such mitigation could possibly have;
3. The planet continues to release more and more CO2 into the atmosphere from stored sources that have nothing to do with man and which release those stores as they thaw.
We are well on our way to the worst of both worlds: A rapidly warming and changing planet which will disrupts whole societies including several major cities, and a severely increased cost per capita for access to energy, which will simultaneously impoverish millions upon billions over time.
Stories such as this which suggest we can cut carbon emissions, also implies that cutting carbon emissions will have any significant impact on the arc of global warming.
Those would be lies.
I challenge NYT to do a story about that.
4
OK, so, assuming you're right and this isn't even remotely enough, should we not do it? and what should we do? I'm not being snide, I really don't know the answer.
1
There is a plan to reduce the Sun's emission at earth using a cloud of finely divided dust in a location between Earth and Sun.
We are left to focus on adaptation, and I'm glad you asked. We are in dire need of realism or we really will end up with the worst of both worlds.
Adaptation includes: Getting away from shorelines; fortifying important urban areas against rising sea levels; designing roads and roofs to reflect more energy back into space; preparing for the migration of insect and animal species which have the potential to ravage, for example, tree populations (migration is happening at roughly a mile per year); MUCH more research into other ways to adapt, including capturing rain where it falls and transporting it to where it is needed.
We have not, in any serious way, even begun to envision what the climate will be like in 30 to 50 years, well within the lifetime of many young people. How do we get there if we don't know where we're going and have not even begun to seriously study the question?
I began seriously studying climate science the day after I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006, all full of "we can do this!" optimism.
That was completely gone within three years, and I concluded that we were on a path to the worst case scenario and that it could not be avoided.
Who will be the first nation to commit to reducing its access to cheap, plentiful energy and the economic contraction that would engender? Who will be the first to reduce carbon output while the two most populous countries on the planet continue to INCREASE theirs?
Climate science needs to stop lying to us.
Adaptation includes: Getting away from shorelines; fortifying important urban areas against rising sea levels; designing roads and roofs to reflect more energy back into space; preparing for the migration of insect and animal species which have the potential to ravage, for example, tree populations (migration is happening at roughly a mile per year); MUCH more research into other ways to adapt, including capturing rain where it falls and transporting it to where it is needed.
We have not, in any serious way, even begun to envision what the climate will be like in 30 to 50 years, well within the lifetime of many young people. How do we get there if we don't know where we're going and have not even begun to seriously study the question?
I began seriously studying climate science the day after I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006, all full of "we can do this!" optimism.
That was completely gone within three years, and I concluded that we were on a path to the worst case scenario and that it could not be avoided.
Who will be the first nation to commit to reducing its access to cheap, plentiful energy and the economic contraction that would engender? Who will be the first to reduce carbon output while the two most populous countries on the planet continue to INCREASE theirs?
Climate science needs to stop lying to us.
2
Good idea based on our current legislative gridlock. But cap and trade on power and transportation does not go far enough and is still too complicated
Simpler, more effective and far reaching would be a revenue neutral carbon/greenhouse gas tax levied at the well/minehead or at the port (adjusted upward to account for production losses) plus a carbon content tax on imported goods and a refundable tax credit for carbon sequestration.
They would constitute a simpler and more effective market based system that would capture the costs of carbon released into the environment. That would, allow the phase out of “green energy” subsidies which too often tend to inefficient and far too expensive
Revenue neutrality would largely defeat the objection to any new tax, largely eliminate the regressive nature of such a tax (lower income persons spend more of their income on food, transportation and heating/cooling than the wealth). Additionally, liberals would love the income redistribution possible due to such a tax. A revenue neutral carbon content tax would a) prevent export of carbon intensive industries and b) nudge other countries to restrict carbon release. The tax credit would encourage. Such sequestration could range from the simple (reforestation and cover crops and biochar to the more complex like mechanical capture underground storage of CO2 and brand new techniques. .
What’s not to like
Simpler, more effective and far reaching would be a revenue neutral carbon/greenhouse gas tax levied at the well/minehead or at the port (adjusted upward to account for production losses) plus a carbon content tax on imported goods and a refundable tax credit for carbon sequestration.
They would constitute a simpler and more effective market based system that would capture the costs of carbon released into the environment. That would, allow the phase out of “green energy” subsidies which too often tend to inefficient and far too expensive
Revenue neutrality would largely defeat the objection to any new tax, largely eliminate the regressive nature of such a tax (lower income persons spend more of their income on food, transportation and heating/cooling than the wealth). Additionally, liberals would love the income redistribution possible due to such a tax. A revenue neutral carbon content tax would a) prevent export of carbon intensive industries and b) nudge other countries to restrict carbon release. The tax credit would encourage. Such sequestration could range from the simple (reforestation and cover crops and biochar to the more complex like mechanical capture underground storage of CO2 and brand new techniques. .
What’s not to like
1
The proposed "revenue neutral" plans are revenue neutral for the federal government. Meanwhile, some individuals will pay more carbon taxes than they receive in tax abatement and have to pay higher costs for energy to boot.
Others will pay little in carbon taxes but get higher tax abatement and are better off. Still others, like the 1%, get big bucks for renewable "investments" and will make out like bandits.
Filtering carbon taxes through the government means that a significant proportion of the funds will be skimmed off for "worthy causes" and the middle class will face higher energy costs and higher tax bills. The government, in their doling out of the "revenue neutrality" will favor their friends over equity.
Others will pay little in carbon taxes but get higher tax abatement and are better off. Still others, like the 1%, get big bucks for renewable "investments" and will make out like bandits.
Filtering carbon taxes through the government means that a significant proportion of the funds will be skimmed off for "worthy causes" and the middle class will face higher energy costs and higher tax bills. The government, in their doling out of the "revenue neutrality" will favor their friends over equity.
As renewable energy becomes cheaper and more people subdue renewable energy for fossil fuels, the price of fossil fuels will also go down.
In the long run this will chase companies or of the dirty energy business, but in the short run, it will make the transition to clean energy take longer, as people are tempted by cheap fuel.
We don't have time to wait for the long run. We need to make dirty fuel more expensive now. The true costs of pollution are not included in the price of fuel. We need to start making producers and consumers pay for the damage they are doing both to the environment and to people's health.
Maybe everyone who has arms our other diseases that have been directly tired to fossil fuels should join a giant class action against the fossil fuel companies?
In the long run this will chase companies or of the dirty energy business, but in the short run, it will make the transition to clean energy take longer, as people are tempted by cheap fuel.
We don't have time to wait for the long run. We need to make dirty fuel more expensive now. The true costs of pollution are not included in the price of fuel. We need to start making producers and consumers pay for the damage they are doing both to the environment and to people's health.
Maybe everyone who has arms our other diseases that have been directly tired to fossil fuels should join a giant class action against the fossil fuel companies?
1
Perhaps we could impose a tax on mass transit so that consumers would pay more than half the operating costs of mass transit and make some contribution toward capital and capital repair. That would result in a fare increase of about 150%. It seems fairer for the users of mass transit to pay their fair share rather than further burdening auto drivers.
I'm all for higher fuel economy standards for vehicles. I think fuel taxes are in order too, the environment is a shared resource and taxes provide a way to charge for usage (pollution).
4
Many people in this country are not even aware of climate change or could not care less about it. Millions of people worldwide are already suffering from the effects of climate change. Unfortunately the burden to change depends on corporations that are aware and connected to obvious trends. It will be up to them since there are too many Mitch McConnels types in government. Once the bottom line starts being affected, change will come swiftly, I just hope we still will have a chance to save the planet at that point. I am glad the NYT has articles like this. There should be more. Climate has the power to change everything we have come to know over centuries of civilization. The potential results will be calamitous in scope of anything we have seen in all recorded history.
1
We all see the huge SUVs combing the roads and usually they have one or 2 people in them. Take a look at MPG for a couple of different options.
Chevrolet Suburban K1500 4WD
14 MPG
Ford Transit Connect Van
16 MPG
VW Golf Sportwagen 4 Cal
29 MPG
Subaru Outback 4Cyl AWD
28 MPG
There needs to be a sin tax on these massive SUVs.
Chevrolet Suburban K1500 4WD
14 MPG
Ford Transit Connect Van
16 MPG
VW Golf Sportwagen 4 Cal
29 MPG
Subaru Outback 4Cyl AWD
28 MPG
There needs to be a sin tax on these massive SUVs.
6
Yes, loss the small truck exempts that make putting a giant car on a truck bed profitable.
1
Using taxation as a means of changing behavior works to a point, but, in the long run, it is bad policy. The power to tax should mainly be used to raise the funds government needs to function. There is also the problem because many businesses are able to treat taxes as a cost of doing business and pass them forward to the consumer. This means that the burden of behavior modifying taxes falls directly on the consumer, but the consumer does not necessarily know this or react accordingly.
While it may be a more difficult way to address the problem in the first instance, specific, focused legislation and implementing regulations gets to the point faster, more directly, and more efficiently. This article is an interesting effort to try to move in that direction.
While it may be a more difficult way to address the problem in the first instance, specific, focused legislation and implementing regulations gets to the point faster, more directly, and more efficiently. This article is an interesting effort to try to move in that direction.
Either taxes or cap and trade regulations at the Federal level have to make it through Congress. Neither one has much of a chance with the present Congress. The argument that taxes should only be used to keep the government running does not preclude raising taxes on CO2 emissions, what else will the funds be used if not for government expenditures. Just consider infrastructure maintenance, research and development, etc. that are being starved for funds in present budgets.
As long as Americans keep on driving around in their monster trucks with massive V8 engines to do the school run or shop for groceries, there is no hope in sight. While I understand the fascination with a big, heavy, powerful vehicle that is also very cheap to buy, it must be recognized that this is a uniquely American phenomenon that needs a radical culture change.
I know I will be flamed down for this, but really the best way to do achieve this is through a fuel tax. This will automatically drive consumers towards more efficient vehicles for everyday use, while heavier gas guzzling trucks will automatically be used less because of the high cost of refilling the tank. A fuel tax has an impact that is proportional to the number of miles driven, hence people will still be able to keep the 7-liter V8 truck for towing the boat and the camping equipment for a family summer vacation, but they will eventually shift to more efficient cars for everyday use.
Fuel costs should also be tax-deductible for business users that can demonstrate the need for heavy duty vehicles in their job, but there should also be tax incentives for businesses that move to more efficient vehicles.
I know I will be flamed down for this, but really the best way to do achieve this is through a fuel tax. This will automatically drive consumers towards more efficient vehicles for everyday use, while heavier gas guzzling trucks will automatically be used less because of the high cost of refilling the tank. A fuel tax has an impact that is proportional to the number of miles driven, hence people will still be able to keep the 7-liter V8 truck for towing the boat and the camping equipment for a family summer vacation, but they will eventually shift to more efficient cars for everyday use.
Fuel costs should also be tax-deductible for business users that can demonstrate the need for heavy duty vehicles in their job, but there should also be tax incentives for businesses that move to more efficient vehicles.
18
Fuel taxes are already deductible for businesses.
The author’s suggestions about fighting against climate change based on financial incentives can have merit if decades of the future precious time can be waited at the earth habitants’ disposal. No, taxes, regulations and persuasions are neither effective enough nor fast enough to deal with the climate change calamity. Were this conclusion not true, why then these policies for the past three decades fail to stop the global average temperature from climbing? The answer to the question has to do with the nature of the problem, i.e., capital opposes the reversal of the climate change because its profits come from the C.O.G. (Coal-Oil-Gas) operations and not from renewable energy sources. Thus, Because of the differences of profitability between these two types of operations, the global C.O.G operations account for 90% of the energy production and the renewable operations for only 10% of which 8.4% comes from the hydroelectric power and solar and wind account for the rest 1.6%.
Time to save the earth becomes shorter as it has to face more stumbling blocks of the system; any soft or financial incentive approach is a waste of time. There is no hope to wait for the existing system to make self-changes all by itself for the common good. Public investments in energy production must be called forth by forced nationalizations of all C.O.G. enterprise.
Time to save the earth becomes shorter as it has to face more stumbling blocks of the system; any soft or financial incentive approach is a waste of time. There is no hope to wait for the existing system to make self-changes all by itself for the common good. Public investments in energy production must be called forth by forced nationalizations of all C.O.G. enterprise.
2
A carbon tax is the most economically efficient way to reduce carbon emissions, as would be a similar tax for any other pollutant. As an extreme example, imagine a power plant that can reduce its emissions by 95% for $1 million dollars. but to reduce it another 1% (to 96%, i.e.) would cost $1 billion dollars. It wouldn't make any sense to impose the 96% level. With a carbon tax, the owner of the power plant can calculate the optimal level of reduction that would give the lowest cost, being a mix of the cost of additional equipment and the tax. In this case, with its extreme numbers it would most likely be somewhere between 95% and 96%, and probably closer to 95%. This way you get the most bang for the buck. As for those with low income, they could get a credit on their income taxes, but based on their income, not their carbon footprint. So they still have incentive to reduce the carbon input without being unduly burdened.
2
Your statement begs the question of whether it is desirable to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. You are making the assumption that reducing carbon dioxide production in the US will have a measurable effect on the climate. Per the UN and EPA plans, the US plan reduces the temperature in the year 2100 by 0.1 degree Celsius and the totality of the Paris promises, if complied with, reduces the temperature in 2100 by 0.3 degrees.
The US plan burdens Americans by half a trillion dollars per year by 2030. Better we spend resources adapting than by increasing energy costs in such a wasteful way.
The US plan burdens Americans by half a trillion dollars per year by 2030. Better we spend resources adapting than by increasing energy costs in such a wasteful way.
An interesting article that wanders and wanders. The most direct and successful approach has already been proven in several EU countries. Automobiles with engines larger than 2.0L are heavily taxed at purchase and on an annual basis. Those Americans remembering the 'gas guzzler tax' of the late 1970s will see how this motivated the public towards efficiency yielding cleaner air. Already the gasoline/electric hybrids are showing 40 - 50 mpg, and for larger vehicles (light trucks) a diesel/electric hybrid is available - several large trucks delivering Coca-Cola are using this system.
4
Big Carbon and Big Business have the political influence to block both any form of carbon pricing, be it cap and trade or fee and dividend, as well as any reform to CAFE. It's nice that smart economists are thinking about the most efficient way of implementing this stuff, but it childish to think that any of it is going to happen as long as the Koch brothers, the Chamber of Commerce and an untold number of pro-business lobby effectively own congress.
In fact, history has shown that poorly written and implemented cap and trade schemes without any teeth (and teeth would never be passed politically) actually make emissions and pollution worse.
So, sorry economists. It really is the dismal science.
In fact, history has shown that poorly written and implemented cap and trade schemes without any teeth (and teeth would never be passed politically) actually make emissions and pollution worse.
So, sorry economists. It really is the dismal science.
2
Yes we need a political (r)evolution to fix this and the hundred or so other problems caused by global corporations with far too much power.
1
And yet, the fossil fuel industry gets $8 billion per year in tax breaks and the renewable energy industries gets $14 billion, despite the fact that the renewable energy industry raises energy costs to consumers by $14 billion in addition and yet provides less than 5% of electricity.
Clearly, current energy policy is intended to enrich the 1%.
Clearly, current energy policy is intended to enrich the 1%.
It is notable that many of the vehicles driven a large number of miles are sold in large quantities. It appears that these vehicles also consumer greater amounts of fuel. I encourage the authors to present number of registrations and estimated fuel consumption, and then calculate the quantity of fuel used each vehicle model.
2
We are the only nation on earth that requires corn based ethanol as a means of lowering pollution. Brazil uses ethanol based on sugar cane which is an at least break even in terms of pollution fuel.
Fortunately the ethanol lobby lost the fight to increase from 10% to 20% the ethanol content in fuels. All metro areas in the USA have this requirement. Ethanol is so volatile, it must be shipped via tank car (truck) or tank wagon (train). Fortunately there have been no accidents with either.
So when I see some of the grandiose schemes involving cap and trade, the question is this - which lobby group is supporting this?
We now use 40% of our corn crop for ethanol production.
When will this madness stop - never if the ethanol lobbyists get their way.
Fortunately the ethanol lobby lost the fight to increase from 10% to 20% the ethanol content in fuels. All metro areas in the USA have this requirement. Ethanol is so volatile, it must be shipped via tank car (truck) or tank wagon (train). Fortunately there have been no accidents with either.
So when I see some of the grandiose schemes involving cap and trade, the question is this - which lobby group is supporting this?
We now use 40% of our corn crop for ethanol production.
When will this madness stop - never if the ethanol lobbyists get their way.
14
Vote for Cruz. He has recommended eliminating all energy subsidies: for fossil fuels as well as renewables including ethanol.
Good points, except ethanol is LESS volatile than gasoline. It has higher burn temperature, higher flash point, and higher explosive limits than gasoline. Thats why E85 flex fuel vehicles operate at a higher cylinder pressure, because ethanol is harder to burn than gas.
You are proposing a complicated system. And complicated systems get gamed, or just plain don't work. The current CAFE stuff is insanely confusing already.
3
Add to it the fuel average, banking and trading program that's recently been rolled into the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), EMTS implementation program. Ask yourself, why would EPA sign a MOU with Commodity Futures Trading Commission to share RFS data but to date EPA doesn't coordinate its Congressionally mandated program with the USDA or DOE.
1
I love simplistic solutions to greatly complex problems. The best we humans can do now is start to prepare for our children and grandchildren to live in an environment that is quite different from the environment of today.
Some species will slip into extinction wile others will migrate to places where they cannot live now. Diseases that were limited to specific areas will move more quickly. Coastlines will be changed, islands will sink, famines will cause vast migrations, resources will be stretched to the limit, wars will start and millions of humans will die.
Get used to it, this is the future of the human species until we are also extinct. They planet will go on without us, it isn't about saving the planet. It is about saving our legacy, if it isn't already too late.
Some species will slip into extinction wile others will migrate to places where they cannot live now. Diseases that were limited to specific areas will move more quickly. Coastlines will be changed, islands will sink, famines will cause vast migrations, resources will be stretched to the limit, wars will start and millions of humans will die.
Get used to it, this is the future of the human species until we are also extinct. They planet will go on without us, it isn't about saving the planet. It is about saving our legacy, if it isn't already too late.
10
Author says change CAFE to reflect usage; does not state: thereby causing the prices of cars to change to reflect the initial expected usage, different from the prices used in forming those initial expectations. Economic theory says behaviors change when prices do. And the economics professor author, who runs the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, neglects to either note the subsequent price changes in the article or to include their impact in his analysis! Bias? Incompetence? A study worth ignoring as puffery in either case.
1
CAFE is defintely not the way! For all the reasons you cited, it is better to tax gasoline directly. But we better act fast - here's why and the logic behind taxes vs. CAFE:
http://theshadowbanker.org/2015/04/21/solution-tom-steyer/
http://theshadowbanker.org/2015/04/21/solution-tom-steyer/
not sure why fuel standards should be viewed as underutilized tool. Indeed, EPA's ability to regulate GHG emissions originated from a case involving the motor vehicle emission standards............
Simple, overly complex and shot full of holes. The gas guzzling SUV is classed as a light truck (a work vehicle) which has a lax standard. Hopeless.
2
EPA could on behalf of other nations set up a moratorium on the export of all used vehicle from the US. Owners would be left holding the bag for their buying decisions. Used cars could move around the country (and pollute within our borders) but this would not subject nations without means to regulate a vehicle made by an industry they don't have any influence over. By the time vehicles are sold overseas, they are usually with non functioning safety and after treatment technologies. No country should be subjected to such inferior used products.
What is this mythological 7-year car lifetime the author is talking about? Around here, a LaCrosse with only 78,000 miles will have a high resale value, and will be resold to someone else who will put considerably more miles on it, then to someone else who will do the same. Generally speaking, cars will be resold and driven more until they mechanically fail enough that people don't think they're worth fixing or they're destroyed in a crash. And "luxury" cars seem to stay on the road much longer than mid-sized cars, ending up in the hands of people who are happy to drive them as they get worse and worse mileage and emissions from lack of maintenance.
And using the author's own proposed data, the vehicles that would be penalized the most are pickups and SUVs, and the ones the least are luxury sports cars. I.e., we'd be penalizing working vehicles for lower-income rural people, and rewarding rich people's toys.
OTOH, this would be a great time to raise the gas tax, and we could really use the money to fill potholes.
And using the author's own proposed data, the vehicles that would be penalized the most are pickups and SUVs, and the ones the least are luxury sports cars. I.e., we'd be penalizing working vehicles for lower-income rural people, and rewarding rich people's toys.
OTOH, this would be a great time to raise the gas tax, and we could really use the money to fill potholes.
5
What about people who can barely afford a car or the gas to put in it? Liberals are always talking about advocating for this demographic, except when it comes to the environment. Cars are not a luxury, they are a necessity for working people to get to their jobs and parents to shuttle their children around, and gasoline is not a commodity to be rationed by those who think they know more than everyone else. I am in construction and need large pickups and heavy vehicles; don't even think about taxing or penalizing us for the vehicles we need to ply our trades. All of these responses sound like elitist drivel.
Give the lower income drivers a tax rebate. Simple.
Of course we could all take some responsibility and demand that speed limits be reduced to, say, 60 mph and enforced. I don't know of any vehicles that get better mileage at 70 or 75 than they do at 60mph.
5
I do not think the climate change is man made, I think the earth is fed up with humans and will cause all the volcano's to explode and eliminate the human population. The earth is alive and it will do what it needs to do to survive, there are to many people using to much of the earths resources.
1
The Earth is a spheroid upon which a thin green film clings to it, comprising no more than a tiny tiny fraction of its mass and contributes to a surface deviation no greater than the smoothness allowed on a billiard cue ball. We can alter our environment and foul this film, but the planet as a ball of rock and iron can take no more notice of us than we notice the bacteria growing invisibly on our skin.
Let's set aside mysticism and say, quite simply, that this thin film of green is all we have and if we're not "Destroying the planet" -- a useless phrase if anything -- then take the far more sobering stance that our own environmental requirements are fragile and we're doing quite well on our own to render our home unlivable to ourselves.
The Earth will continue to spin without any care about us. Whether anyone will be around to hitch a ride is entirely incumbent on us.
Let's set aside mysticism and say, quite simply, that this thin film of green is all we have and if we're not "Destroying the planet" -- a useless phrase if anything -- then take the far more sobering stance that our own environmental requirements are fragile and we're doing quite well on our own to render our home unlivable to ourselves.
The Earth will continue to spin without any care about us. Whether anyone will be around to hitch a ride is entirely incumbent on us.
5
Rather than niggling over car models' mpg and CAFE, just record the mileage when a vehicle is in for the annual smog test. Report miles driven to the state DMV and require drivers to pay a surcharge fee for miles driven above a baseline determined to drive down emissions to a target level. The odometer reading must also be reported whenever a vehicle is sold.
This would have the effect of forcing people who live in less populated areas to pay an extra tax over people who live where things are closer together. It would further decrease the number of people living in the country and increase the number of people living in big cities. Is this a good idea? One should think about it.
3
Environmentally? Yes. By almost every measure the denser you pile people in, the lesser overall impact on the environment it is per capita.
Whether it's good sociologically is up for debate, but generally there are benefits to living closer to one another. There's a tipping point where services can't be scaled up without serious degradation, but most cities aren't NYC dense either.
Whether it's good sociologically is up for debate, but generally there are benefits to living closer to one another. There's a tipping point where services can't be scaled up without serious degradation, but most cities aren't NYC dense either.
3
If you live where there is a smog test.
It is surprising that Greenstone, an economist, would take it as fact that car types are the causal factor behind lifetime miles, rather than the type of person attracted to particular cars. A Buick may likely be purchased by older people, many of whom are retired & do not drive as much as a commuter. The other sedan may be purchased more often by commuters. If this is the case, then certain cars will just become more affordable with no impact on CO2 emissions.
What I read at the end of Greenstone's article sounds correct. The EPA should reform CAFE such that manufactures needed to purchase carbon permits based on a vehicle's lifetime CO2 emissions by an average driver, then more efficient cars would cost less & less efficient would cost more.
The problems are obvious from this approach. 1) If this quasi-legislation is possible & Republicans take notice (with the Clean Power Plan few have taken notice) then Republicans will further accuse Democrats of using undemocratic instruments to advance their agenda; 2) It will give Democrats less reason to find common ground with Republicans and attempt at convincing the other side of implementing a cap-and-dividend program; 3) This program will hurt particular groups more than others (i.e. rural people in rural communities) and will be regressive.
To overcome the last issue (no. 3), the permits could be traded within class of vehicles. E.g. pickup trucks would be have their own permits that would allow for more C02 than sedans.
What I read at the end of Greenstone's article sounds correct. The EPA should reform CAFE such that manufactures needed to purchase carbon permits based on a vehicle's lifetime CO2 emissions by an average driver, then more efficient cars would cost less & less efficient would cost more.
The problems are obvious from this approach. 1) If this quasi-legislation is possible & Republicans take notice (with the Clean Power Plan few have taken notice) then Republicans will further accuse Democrats of using undemocratic instruments to advance their agenda; 2) It will give Democrats less reason to find common ground with Republicans and attempt at convincing the other side of implementing a cap-and-dividend program; 3) This program will hurt particular groups more than others (i.e. rural people in rural communities) and will be regressive.
To overcome the last issue (no. 3), the permits could be traded within class of vehicles. E.g. pickup trucks would be have their own permits that would allow for more C02 than sedans.
1
Wait. A Buick Lacrosse and a Chevy Malibu get similar fuel economy? A base model 2015 Malibu gets 29 mpg combined. A base model 2015 Lacrosse gets 21 mpg combined. I would not call that similar. That's why the Lacrosse is driven less. Because people who have to drive a lot of miles dont buy a Lacrosse, they buy something that gets better mileage. If you base CAFE standards on total fuel used over the lifetime of the car, Buick wont need to buy as many credits for each Lacrosse it sells, and will be able to charge less for a Lacrosse. That will induce more high-mileage drivers to buy a Lacrosse, worsening overall average fuel economy.
1
Simple - raise the gasoline tax.
Forget building high-speed intercity trains and use that money for commuter trains with energy capture technology.
Make public transportation cheaper and more energy efficient.
Forget building high-speed intercity trains and use that money for commuter trains with energy capture technology.
Make public transportation cheaper and more energy efficient.
10
The problem with CAFE and with other "easy" schemes avoiding the difficult step of taxing carbon production is that they end up distorting the market, failing to accomplish the intended goal and frequently causing unintended consequences. Among the many problems with CAFE is that it presumes fuel efficiency is a characteristic of the vehicle and not of how it is driven (or maintained) by the user who has no incentive to reduced fuel consumption. His proposed regulation based on average use faces the same problem – there is nothing to prevent high-mileage drivers from preferring a less expensive car gifted with "low consumption" status. And do any of us believe the government would likely keep such labeling up to date?
There is really very little alternative to increasing the actual cost of carbon generation – e.g. a fuel tax. Presumably we are the world's cheerleaders and old hands at capitalism yet we continue to ignore its most basic lessons, always in search of a free lunch.
There is really very little alternative to increasing the actual cost of carbon generation – e.g. a fuel tax. Presumably we are the world's cheerleaders and old hands at capitalism yet we continue to ignore its most basic lessons, always in search of a free lunch.
1
It's unfortunate that Prof. Greenstone specifically advocates a path to reducing carbon emissions 'not requiring new laws'. That essentially dismisses the democratic process of elected representatives making sensible decisions in service to the electorate.
Bypassing the legislative route through the US Congress also has risks. The democratic process ensures open discussion and at least an indirect buy-in by the electorate, which is healthier for our democracy. By contrast, imposition of a regulation seems arbitrary, and can readily appear to reflect an opinion of the connected few prevailing against the will of the people.
We have a serious problem in climate change and urgently need to reduce carbon emissions. Greenstone's advocacy of using regulation to bypass the proper legislative route to progress on this front actually undermines people who are trying to accomplish something in Congress.
Even if you impose caps on car models based on presumed lifetime carbon emissions, as Greenstone suggests, it's arguable that this would have limited effect, because once people buy those cars a low cost of driving them would create an incentive to overuse. As many other commenters have noted, the way to most effectively and fairly reduce carbon emissions is through a revenue-neutral carbon tax (with revenues returned to households as a dividend). Unlike distorting regulation this preserves consumers' choice and allows consumers and companies to win by adopting efficiency.
Bypassing the legislative route through the US Congress also has risks. The democratic process ensures open discussion and at least an indirect buy-in by the electorate, which is healthier for our democracy. By contrast, imposition of a regulation seems arbitrary, and can readily appear to reflect an opinion of the connected few prevailing against the will of the people.
We have a serious problem in climate change and urgently need to reduce carbon emissions. Greenstone's advocacy of using regulation to bypass the proper legislative route to progress on this front actually undermines people who are trying to accomplish something in Congress.
Even if you impose caps on car models based on presumed lifetime carbon emissions, as Greenstone suggests, it's arguable that this would have limited effect, because once people buy those cars a low cost of driving them would create an incentive to overuse. As many other commenters have noted, the way to most effectively and fairly reduce carbon emissions is through a revenue-neutral carbon tax (with revenues returned to households as a dividend). Unlike distorting regulation this preserves consumers' choice and allows consumers and companies to win by adopting efficiency.
Tesla has the solution at 90MPGe. Just move all the gas guzzlers to the superior electric power, gas-guzzlingest first! Convert over the road trucks to hybrid natural gas. Let the little guy worry about cheap transport and let the rich folks pay for cutting edge R&D. Business can save enough in fuel to pay for the development and save some money too. Citizens who burn a few hundred gallons of fuel annually are not going to save much by cutting that in half.
The vicious attack on the VW diesel was the wrong approach, the US made a terrible mistake legislating the diesel passenger car out of existence 25 years ago, think where technology would be today. Dodge currently has a diesel pick up rated at 29mpg highway! We would have had more smoke and NOx in the short run, but tech would have eliminated that faster. Urea additives put diesels in the ball park with gas engines. I think that VW could have avoided the emissions scandal if it had been able to develop its engines at its own speed without the iron hand of regulation pushing it to develop standards that it was on the way to achieving anyway in a short period of time. VWs problem was a development setback and their cars were likely no dirtier than a railroad diesel. But where is the electrical grid with the plans to double its capacity to handle electric vehicles? Electrical power transmission is expensive and wasteful, local nuke and natural gas generation is the way to go.
The vicious attack on the VW diesel was the wrong approach, the US made a terrible mistake legislating the diesel passenger car out of existence 25 years ago, think where technology would be today. Dodge currently has a diesel pick up rated at 29mpg highway! We would have had more smoke and NOx in the short run, but tech would have eliminated that faster. Urea additives put diesels in the ball park with gas engines. I think that VW could have avoided the emissions scandal if it had been able to develop its engines at its own speed without the iron hand of regulation pushing it to develop standards that it was on the way to achieving anyway in a short period of time. VWs problem was a development setback and their cars were likely no dirtier than a railroad diesel. But where is the electrical grid with the plans to double its capacity to handle electric vehicles? Electrical power transmission is expensive and wasteful, local nuke and natural gas generation is the way to go.
1
Solar and wind is a great pairing with electric cars.
1
I disagree with your characterization of the VW situation as a "vicious attack" on them. They knowingly and purposefully violated the laws of the US. Regulation was not the issue; competitors such as Mercedes and Chevrolet successfully met the standard. But VW was unwilling to include the cost of the urea system.
2
There is no doubt that emissions must drop specifically in the United States. Not only in order to eventually meet the standards set in Paris, but to preserve the overall health of the planet and its climate. That being said, there are many flaws in Greenstone's proposition. He wrongly assumes that the type of car determines the average total distance that it is driven. Realistically, the driver is the determinant in this relationship because he or she will determine what car they desire based upon what they want in a car. By Greenstone's logic, an individual who plans to drive greater distances could simply purchase the Buick LaCrosse in order to save money. However, their use of the car would remain the same. It is grossly illogical to provide incentive for the purchase of a car that has historically been shown to be driven relatively short distance especially when compared to a car with similar gas mileage. If anything, an increased tax on carbon emissions would be effective and not further corrupt the free nature of the current automobile market.
6
The problem for American car manufacturers is in head office. The car companies produce economical cars in Europe so the technical knowledge is there but they continue to manufacture old technology vehicles for the american market.
7
Nope. The European car market includes close to zero large pickups and SUVs. And fuel is 4x the price it is in the US.
People have the choice here--just about every automaker has fuel-efficient small cars available, including electrics and plug in hybrids, but consumers are currently buying larger vehicles. You can certainly argue it's a shortsighted decision on the buyers' parts, but it is reality.
People have the choice here--just about every automaker has fuel-efficient small cars available, including electrics and plug in hybrids, but consumers are currently buying larger vehicles. You can certainly argue it's a shortsighted decision on the buyers' parts, but it is reality.
This would have a disproportionate impact on rural life. While you can commute to your office in a high-mileage vehicle, you can't haul a manure spreader or a two-horse trailer with anything but a rather powerful pickup truck.
My nephew had to pick up a rather large tractor in North Carolina and haul it back to Connecticut. I'd like to see anyone try that with a Prius!
My nephew had to pick up a rather large tractor in North Carolina and haul it back to Connecticut. I'd like to see anyone try that with a Prius!
1
Why not just have it shipped? Probably cheaper than driving a low-mileage truck towing a trailer.
1
Don't we already have trading in our CAFÉ standards? If you weight the CAFÉ standards based on the MPG driven in 2014, wouldn't you essentially charge relatively more for a car that happens to be driven more, relative to a car that happens to be driven less. Because this isn't causal at all, it seems that you would just push buyers to buy cars that happen to be driven less, and it wouldn't be effective at all.
Unless you track how many miles a car is driven each year, and adjust the value of the car in the trading scheme annually, it seems that you would make a Buick LaCrosse relatively cheaper, because it happened to be driven less, and counts less against the total MPG cap, even if the MPG rating were actually the same. Thus, this relatively cheaper car will get more sold models, while the previously more driven car will sell fewer models. They won't drive less because they bought this different car (in fact, they might drive EVEN MORE, because it feels relatively cheaper), and you would have a rebound effect of 100% or even more!?
I feel like I'm missing something here, but I don't think I am.
Unless you track how many miles a car is driven each year, and adjust the value of the car in the trading scheme annually, it seems that you would make a Buick LaCrosse relatively cheaper, because it happened to be driven less, and counts less against the total MPG cap, even if the MPG rating were actually the same. Thus, this relatively cheaper car will get more sold models, while the previously more driven car will sell fewer models. They won't drive less because they bought this different car (in fact, they might drive EVEN MORE, because it feels relatively cheaper), and you would have a rebound effect of 100% or even more!?
I feel like I'm missing something here, but I don't think I am.
1
You're correct. Economists always forget that when you change the rules, people change their behavior. They are unfamiliar with the real world.
The car doesn't drive the amount you drive. The driver drives the amount you drive. Greenstone has the causal arrow pointed the wrong way here. If you drive the cost of a car that was previously driven more down, then more users will flock to that vehicle. They will drive whatever they would have driven previously. See the first two sentences for the proof.
This is pretty easy to game. Just because a Malibu is, on average, driven more than a LaCrosse doesn't mean that all LaCrosses are driven less than all Malibus. If you drive a lot, you buy one of these granny cars like the LaCrosse and you've beat the system.
Let's just put a price on carbon and let the market figure out the rest.
Let's just put a price on carbon and let the market figure out the rest.
19
I fear that regulating by average miles driven by model will allow the same or worse game playing and distortions than CAFE begat with its weaker requirements on "light trucks."
First there's the problem of new and modified models where there are no data on average miles driven. Depending on how that is handled there may be incentive for car makers to create many more models or to suppress new model creation just to play the system.
There would be need for more regulator scrutiny to check game playing--Could GM re-brand Malibu as a LaCrosse? What minimum changes in engine and styling would suffice to meet regulator muster? And wouldn't auto makers marketing adjust to take advantage of regulatory definitions of a "model" (just like CAFE begat the creation and marketing of SUVs and other "light trucks" to be family cars) such that the regulators are always behind in understanding how many miles models are driven?
First there's the problem of new and modified models where there are no data on average miles driven. Depending on how that is handled there may be incentive for car makers to create many more models or to suppress new model creation just to play the system.
There would be need for more regulator scrutiny to check game playing--Could GM re-brand Malibu as a LaCrosse? What minimum changes in engine and styling would suffice to meet regulator muster? And wouldn't auto makers marketing adjust to take advantage of regulatory definitions of a "model" (just like CAFE begat the creation and marketing of SUVs and other "light trucks" to be family cars) such that the regulators are always behind in understanding how many miles models are driven?
1
At a constant speed much of the energy needed by an automobile is lost as heat through the air drag. This energy loss is proportional to the square of the speed. Reduce the legal speed limit back to 55mph. The savings in energy required (gasoline) would be very significant.
4
People just drive faster than 55, and the presumed savings don't accrue. They have tried this.
1
You are disregarding the value of time for the driver.
Improve public transportation all over the country. Have more affordable housing in areas where there are a lot of jobs so that we don't have to use cars to travel to work. Rather than constantly moaning over mileage standards which should be updated and enforced despite objections by the auto industry, start looking at population patterns to see how they can be used to improve things. Make it easier for more of us to use a bus or a train to get to and from our jobs. Rather than relying upon property taxes to fund schools (and thereby shortchange many districts that aren't wealthy) find a better way to give all schools good funding and teachers so that parents don't feel compelled to concentrate in districts that are affordable but miles from their jobs. Yes, it would mean truly looking at how we do things in this country but if we don't we will continue to contribute more than our share of pollution.
21
Insist that NYC implement tertiary sewage treatment and stop dumping sewage plant effluent, both treated and raw, into the waterways. Insist that users of mass transit pay fares that cover more than 50% of the operating costs of mass transit.
To have less fuel consumption, raise the gas tax. Let's just keep it simple. Let a person decide to drive less, or have a more efficient car, or have an alternate fuel car. As you say, in Europe, gas taxes make the market choose much more efficient cars, but also encourage bicycling and public transport. Use the tax money for infrastructure, which we desperately need!
42
I agree, the government is completely against this for some reason though. Instead exploring toll roads and mileage tracking.
1
There was an idea that car insurance for every vehicle would be covered by taxes paid on gasoline, "pay at the gas pump". Thus all the scoff-laws that can't be bothered to maintain liability insurance on their cars would be history; that jalopy doesn't move with out go juice. The same principle of burn more/pay more could apply to road infrastructure with perfect equity, if the citizens of a state want to drive on pot-holed highways and rickety bridges, that is their local decision, no federal involvement at all.
6
The integration of automotive and power generation, as we move more and more to plug-in vehicles, whether hybrid or pure electric, makes perfect sense. However, powering the vast majority of our vehicles with electricity requires increased generating capacity because the energy we now get from petroleum would have to be replaced. Electricity generation accounted for 38% of the total U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions in 2014 according to the US Energy Information Administration. Coal-fired power plants accounted for 3/4ths.
In order to truly reduce vehicle CO2 emissions the move to non-polluting renewables will have to be accelerated. This move includes the need for technologies that provide the ability to store energy produced by wind and solar, since neither can be counted on for steady production. The large Solana solar farm at Gila Bend, AZ uses molten salt to store heat captured from the sun. But and it's a big but, it only has 6 hours of heat storage.
if the shift to electric vehicles goes mainstream and we can't solve the problem, we trade one problem for another.
Although hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles are non polluting at the tailpipe, energy has to be used to produce the hydrogen they use.
Lastly, the Clean Power Plan, one of the foundation stones in Obama's pledge at the Paris Climate Change conference, may not withstand challenges now before the Supreme Court. Its demise will be diplomatically very problematic. for US leadership on climate change.
In order to truly reduce vehicle CO2 emissions the move to non-polluting renewables will have to be accelerated. This move includes the need for technologies that provide the ability to store energy produced by wind and solar, since neither can be counted on for steady production. The large Solana solar farm at Gila Bend, AZ uses molten salt to store heat captured from the sun. But and it's a big but, it only has 6 hours of heat storage.
if the shift to electric vehicles goes mainstream and we can't solve the problem, we trade one problem for another.
Although hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles are non polluting at the tailpipe, energy has to be used to produce the hydrogen they use.
Lastly, the Clean Power Plan, one of the foundation stones in Obama's pledge at the Paris Climate Change conference, may not withstand challenges now before the Supreme Court. Its demise will be diplomatically very problematic. for US leadership on climate change.
8
Six hours of energy production sounds like it would cover the peak demand period after sundown.
2
To me, this looks like another attempt by "green elite" to get some tax breaks for their cars. At this rate, the least polluting car will be some exotic Ferrari with abysmal fuel economy - because the "average Ferrari" is not driven that much.
14
Exactly. A gas guzzling Ferrari sitting in the garage doesn't guzzle much gas.
1
How many "green elite" (whatever that is) drive Ferraris? What a strange comment.
As many commenters have said a gas tax seems the most sensible option if one wants market forces to drive change. But as the article points out, changing the CAFE standards does not require congress. Maybe a change in the CAFE standards in the short run, followed by an increase in gas tax in the future would be the optimal solution.
As many commenters have said a gas tax seems the most sensible option if one wants market forces to drive change. But as the article points out, changing the CAFE standards does not require congress. Maybe a change in the CAFE standards in the short run, followed by an increase in gas tax in the future would be the optimal solution.
A little more simple math to ferret out some of the lapses in Prof. Greenstone's analysis: If you had a cap and trade system, the price of the high mileage Chevy would go up and the lower mileage, but higher priced, Buick would go down causing more high mileage drivers to opt for the more luxurious Buick creating a smaller net Carbon pollution reductions then would be anticipated under his argument. (this is the substitution effect)
But the unstated in his argument but is clear from reviewing the iSeeCars.com date is that the bulk of the high mileage consumer vehicles are trucks and to a lesser extent SUVs. So the major effect of his proposal would be to drive up the cost of these vehicles which have loopholes in the existing CAFE standards. The result would be a somewhat more equitable distribution of the costs of decreasing carbon pollution; but, to be clear, those costs would be borne primarily by truck and SUV drivers.
I'm just trying to point out how Prof. Greenstone's proposal would work and would not work. That said, I am in full agreement with his initial statement that the most efficient way way is to address carbon pollution is a carbon tax.
But the unstated in his argument but is clear from reviewing the iSeeCars.com date is that the bulk of the high mileage consumer vehicles are trucks and to a lesser extent SUVs. So the major effect of his proposal would be to drive up the cost of these vehicles which have loopholes in the existing CAFE standards. The result would be a somewhat more equitable distribution of the costs of decreasing carbon pollution; but, to be clear, those costs would be borne primarily by truck and SUV drivers.
I'm just trying to point out how Prof. Greenstone's proposal would work and would not work. That said, I am in full agreement with his initial statement that the most efficient way way is to address carbon pollution is a carbon tax.
5
Remo wrote: "to be clear, those costs would be borne primarily by truck and SUV drivers"
And that's exactly what's needed to move the needle. Theoretically, the EPA could implement this strategy without political support, but does anyone imagine the current Congress sitting idly by? To state the obvious, everything hinges on the election.
And that's exactly what's needed to move the needle. Theoretically, the EPA could implement this strategy without political support, but does anyone imagine the current Congress sitting idly by? To state the obvious, everything hinges on the election.
17
The CAFE standards have virtually no opposition in Congress or the presidential race, nor from automakers, precisely because they are tailored to take into account the vehicles Americans already enjoy (i.e. SUVs and crossovers). Those vehicles, which consume more gasoline, nevertheless have a lower threshold to meet under the guidelines that more fuel-efficient vehicles. On top of this precept that enshrines that buyers have adequate choice in vehicles, the standards have done more than any other federal policy to reduce oil consumption and emissions that contribute to health problems and warm the environment.
You can read more about the standards, and the importance of this year's Midterm Evaluation process, on the Policy CAFE section of our website: https://www.fuelfreedom.org/policy-cafe/