Quote:
Originally Posted by wind_magic
There is a not so well hidden strategy involved here-
It is true that by taxing the crap out of cigarettes it raised the price to the point that many people stopped smoking, it really has worked as a government policy. That doesn't make it right, but it does make it effective.
Raising prices WILL decrease gasoline usage.
But .. to what end ?
But lowering the amount of gasoline and diesel usage does ... what, exactly ? What is the goal ? Fine, you lower gasoline usage, and that lowers the planets temperature by 2 degrees .. and ... ??????
|
The transportation sector is the largest pollutant of our air. So that is a big part of your answer. Reducing fuel use through CAFE and other conservation vastly decreases the incidence of respiratory diseases and will also influence cancer and other maladies. In addition, don't forget that we are not the only living thing on the planet. Pollution from oil and gas degrade our air and water and land. Therefore, the less that you use, the better......
Actually, it is a win-win-win situation. There is really no down side. Our oil use fuels dictatorships throughout the world as well as degradation of our environment and quality of life (unless you like traffic jams and smog).
So, to be specific, cutting down on the use of these fuels through conservation and engineering (CAFE) results in:
1. Less cost to operate a vehicle
2. Less costs for health care
3. Higher quality of life
4. Less traffic (reasonable sized vehicles, etc.)
5. Less use of resources, from oil to steel and the resulting cleaner planet that comes from that.
No one is saying to go back to the caves or to scrap the aviation fleet. What is being said is that being "responsible stewards" of our resources and environment is a noble goal with benefits for everyone. IMHO, this outweighs the benefit of a 130 LB soccer mom driving around in a 5,000 Lb vehicle. And life, when it comes down to it, is a series of that type of choice.
Our National Security Policy has been largely built around access to Oil. This is 100% admitted by government. That in itself should give most folks a reason to conserve. It is my feeling that NOT ONE SOLDIER should have to die to protect cheap oil for me. Not one. I'd rather pay a higher price and combine my trips to the store.
As to the "real" stuff we do with our vehicles, two points.
Firstly, our driving habits are poor. People think nothing of driving to the mall just to get a Starbucks or some candy, etc.
Of course, that should be an option, but it should not be so cheap that it makes you think that perhaps you shouldn't go to the corner convenience store instead or combine your trips.
Secondly, 95% of the stuff we do in our vehicles can just as easily be done in a car that gets 30 MPG as one that gets 20.
Fact is, you are right. Pricing often determines use. That is rational economic behavior. However, we have never paid the "real price" of oil, that being the hidden prices of infrastructure, pollution, security and the many other factors that result from overuse of the resource. Instead we have passed those costs off to the future - debt, deficit or whatever you want to call it.
Again, I see absolutely little down side - in terms of long term policy and benefit - to higher CAFE standards. It would be like my local power plant asking me if I minded the fact that they just cut down pollution 95% (which they actually did when it comes to mercury). No down side....well, it might cost me another 1 or 2% in electric, but that is cheaper in the long run than poisoning my children.