David Sandalow argues that we ought to put a regulatory cap on allowable horsepower. He notes that 30 years go, the average car could go 0 to 60 in 14.1 seconds, now it's 9.6 seconds. Average horsepower in 1980 was 100, today it's 220. And of course we don't actually get around faster because the limiting factor in real world speeds is traffic congestion and safety rather than engine size. Regulation, he plausibly argues, could get us out of a horsepower arms race in a way that would have little negative impact on anyone's life while allowing us to capture technological gains in engine efficiency in terms of reduced fuel consumption rather than in terms of faster cars that let you get to the traffic jam more quickly.
« Biofuel Logistics | Main | Working »
Horsepower Controls
02 Jul 2008 01:29 pm
Comments (103)
Okay, this falls into the liberal fascism bucket. This is why Democrats lose votes for being fussbudgets. Going 0-60 in under 7 seconds is fun.
Just price the externality into the car, so that those of us who want to take our cars to the autocross track every once in a while still have a chance.
Well, it's good that David Sandalow has decided that the proper 0-60 time is 14 and not 9.6. Glad we have him around to make those decisions.
Serioulsy, this sounds like a right-wing parody of a weenie liberal cause. Stand against cars that are fun to drive, there's a political winner. Having a car that doesn't accelerate when you hit the gas isn't "little negative impact" for everybody.
Why not set standards for mileage and let people decide on their own what tradeoffs they want to make?
Why horsepower? Why not just do as a couple of other countries do, and vary tax rates and registration fees based on engine displacement, or the number of cylinders?
Wouldn't be popular at all.
And of course we don't actually get around faster because the limiting factor in real world speeds is traffic congestion and safety rather than engine size.
For the most part, horsepower is about accelaration not speed. There is a very noticable difference between driving a 100 hp sedan and a 220 hp sedan.
Since I'm a bleeding heart enviromentalist, I don't mind sacrificing 120 hp for greater fuel efficiency, but you're fooling yourslef if you think consumers wouldn't notice (and be annoyed by) a mandated reduction in horsepower.
1) what the last guy said about acceleration
2) This is exactly the sort of hairshirt penance approach that won't get anywhere.
I live in the DC area, and I've often wondered about the owners of all the Porsches, BMWs, and other high-end sportscars I see on the Beltway. How does it make any sense to shell out all that cash for a high-performace engine you can't use in the way it was intended? I guess it boils down to status--they're showing off. Fine, I suppose, but what a waste! I take some satisfaction in knowing that they paid a hell of a lot more money than I to be stuck in exactly the same traffic jams.
I'd have to agree with southpaw. Folks like a powerful engine, for all sorts of reasons. They are necessary on trucks that actually haul material, for example. But proposing that sort of regulation is the exact type of nanny statism that turns folks off the most. Haven't read Sandalow's argument, but I can't see how he'd plausibly argue that forcing people to drive cars without good acceleration would ever be adopted by the American people. Does he even drive?
Remember, it's not always rush hour; the status quo isn't always traffic jams. Plenty of highway driving is done on open stretches or from 8 pm - 6 am when there is no real jams to speak of.
If what you're seeking to regulate is the fuel efficiency of a vehicle or a corporation's entire vehicle fuel efficiency average, why would you regulate an indirect proxy instead of regulating (and measuring) fuel efficiency itself?
Or is this an "add on" to fuel efficiency measures? Such as, you [must attain / will get some tax break for] a fuel efficiency for [this vehicle / this fleet of vehicle] of XX mpg (or gallons per mile, as some advocate), and you must have less than XXX total horsepower?
You could easily have a low fuel efficiency car with little horsepower (and perhaps enormous amounts of torque), or a vehicle with both high horsepower and high / passing fuel efficiency.
Interesting. I guess that helps explain why fuel economy hasn't improved that much in my driving lifetime. My first car got 30-some MPG, which was pretty good in 1984 and is still pretty good today.
I think drivers value horsepower for quick acceleration, for merging onto highways basically. There is some safety benefit in quick acceleration as well as in quick braking. But that's worth compromising on in favor of MPG.
My life would be better if people didn't accelerate and brake like crazy on the highway and gradually brought their cars up to speed and drove steadily and predictably instead. I feel virtuous for having an older (1999) Accord that is very underpowered compared to recent models that I can get 38mpgs out of by driving conservatively. But, I don't even bother trying to convince my friends to drive this way and I know for sure that my driving style annoys the crap out of a lot of motorists. I don't care, but I am aware of it.
Philosophically though I wonder if commuter cars should be fun. I enjoy driving a fast car with tight handling, but it isn't clear to me how that would make my commute a lot better (it is still a commute after all).
What El Cid said. The great increases in horsepower in the last 30 years speak to great gain in engine efficiencies. But because CAFE standards have remained stagnant, automakers had no incentive to plow those new efficiencies into fuel economy, choosing instead to market faster, more powerful, cars.
If you want to see those efficiencies go towards fuel economy, why not just dramatically raise CAFE standards? It wouldn't be hard for the automakers to do, although they would have to redirect horsepower into better gas mileage. Which is what the proposal to regulate horsepower is meant to do...
It seems like any sort of carbon pricing will already account for this. Besides, it's going to be increasingly irrelevant: more and more of our locomotion is going to be driven by electric motors, which have excellent pickup without the sorts of efficiency sacrifices discussed here.
This is a fantastic idea that would never actually happen since there are too many dudes compensating for small packages with big engines and acting like they have a constitutional right to do so. If you banned powerful engines you would probably see a huge rise in gun sales or something else similarly phallic.
Better if Honda or someone made a well-built affordable car that didn't have much horsepower and got 100 mpg. A few people need horsepower if they have to haul a trailer or something but most would be happy with good mileage.
If interested, I wrote a piece touching on automotive horsepower and mpg a couple of days ago:
http://lowtechtimes.com/2008/06/29/improving-mpg-hi-tech-vs-low-tech-methods/
One interesting point made by a commenter is that today's safety features (side impact door beams, etc.) add weight to vehicles, thus hurting mpg.
Nah. We just need a hefty carbon tax and these
other issues will take care of themselves. There's absolutely no problem with Joe Sixpack buying himself a honking great V12 pickup truck and having it parked in his driveway, washing it every weekend, and occasionally driving it a couple of miles.
There's no problem when a 15mpg minivan gets used
for a carpool with 5 passengers.
The problem arises only when high-power low-efficiency vehicles get driven a lot of
miles on trips which could equally well be done
with high-mpg vehicles.
My other suggestion was to fiddle with license fees, insurance, and excise tax to make it more attractive to have multiple vehicles: if you've got a pickup truck or SUV, we want to encourage you to buy an
80mpg (clean 4-stroke) scooter and use it as much as possible. Not hit you with so many taxes and
fees and paperwork that it's a deterrent.
While the idea makes sense on a purely intellectual level, the politics would be disasterous. I can't think of a better way to shift Michigan (among others) into the GOP column for the next 40 years. There are a whole lot of cats out there who'll let you take their horsepower about five minutes after they let you take their guns.
Southpaw is exactly right: This would be like trying to change the flag to cerise, white, and blue.
Stupid proposal.
Our goal is to regulate fuel consumption. It is easy to regulate fuel consumption.
The fact is that there is a European turbo diesel 5 series BMW that does 0-60 in about 8 seconds and gets something like 38 mpg.
Why should we ban that, and allow a 150 hp 22mpg minivan.
Here's an effective use of government incentives to change the fuel efficiencies of small business vehicles (change for the worse, but, effective!):
SUVs for Business Are Big Tax Savers This Year
Get set for whopping tax savings if you buy a heavy SUV for your business during 2008.
By Joan Pryde, Senior Tax Editor, the Kiplinger letters | May 14, 2008
Now may be a good time to buy a heavy SUV if you're a small business owner. That's because Congress recently sweetened an already hefty first-year tax break for folks who buy these vehicles and use them for business.
That new sweetener is "bonus" depreciation, which lets businesses write off 50% of the cost of an asset placed in service this year, on top of the $25,000 maximum on first-year write-offs.
The tax savings really pile up when you put bonus depreciation together with the existing SUV break.
Here's how it works: You purchase a heavy SUV costing, say, $50,000 during 2008, to be used exclusively for business and start using it right away. You'll first write off $25,000, which is the limit for first-year expensing of these vehicles. Next, you apply 50% bonus depreciation to the remaining $25,000 of cost, which allows you to write off another $12,500. Finally, you deduct 20% of the $12,500 balance as regular depreciation.
Your total tax savings: A whopping 80% of the purchase price -- or $40,000.
There are, however, a few caveats to keep in mind: First, you need to make sure that you buy an SUV that qualifies as "heavy." It has to be a passenger vehicle with an enclosed body, and the manufacturer's loaded gross vehicle weight rating for the SUV must be between 6,000 and 14,000 pounds.
Examples of heavy SUVs include the Chevy Suburban, Dodge Durango, Ford Expedition, GMC Yukon, Cadillac Escalade and Lincoln Navigator. Also, you must purchase the vehicle new -- used SUVs won't qualify for the 50% bonus. Finally, don't delay in the hopes that bonus depreciation will still be around next year: Congress only OK'd the extra write-off for 2008 and isn't likely to extend the largesse.
If a heavy pickup truck is really what your business needs, you'll save even more tax-wise because pickups are exempt from the $25,000 write-off ceiling that applies to SUVs. The first-year expensing limit on heavy pickups is $250,000 for 2008, so you'll generally be able to write off the entire cost. To be eligible, the pickup you purchase must have a loaded gross vehicle weight rating over 6,000 pounds and a separate cargo area at least six feet in length that is not directly accessible from the passenger area. The cargo hold can be capped.
If you buy an SUV or pickup weighing below 6,000 pounds, the first year write-off is capped at $10,960.
For used vehicles, the maximum is $2,960.
Would horsepower control help here?
Stupid proposal.
Our goal is to regulate fuel consumption. It is easy to regulate fuel consumption.
The fact is that there is a European turbo diesel 5 series BMW that does 0-60 in about 8 seconds and gets something like 38 mpg.
Why should we ban that, and allow a 150 hp 22mpg minivan.
Take off, Commies...
Taxing horsepower and/or engine displacement seems like the way to go, here.
People frequently complain that Americans have a distorted perspective regarding the odds that they will become rich. If this is true, then making powerful cars higher-priced is politically viable: after all, voters will simply believe that, soon enough, they will be wealthy enough to afford a heavily-taxed, powerful car.
My personal ambition when it comes to buying a powerful car would be better served with Richard Cownie's proposal: I plan do buy such a car when my commute is not car-dependent. If I had to pay a heavy carbon tax, it wouldn't matter, since my car wouldn't be meant for day-to-day use, anyway.
we already have a gas guzzler tax.
it would be a simple matter to quit pretending that SUVs are "trucks" and tax them accordingly.
David Sandalow argues that we ought to put a regulatory cap on allowable horsepower.
Yet another ridiculous liberal fantasy. If the goal is to reduce fossil fuel consumption and carbon emissions, use the carbon tax, and let the market decide how that affects horsepower.
Government should also be providing support and incentives for programs like Zipcar. How many people end up with a pickup truck or minivan as their only vehicle, just because they need the cargo
space, or the passenger capacity, once every couple of months ? If we can make it easier to get a big vehicle as a loaner when it's really needed, then
people will be happier to drive a fuel-efficient compact 90% of the time (or use transit, or cycle,
or drive a 100mpg scooter).
There's a lot that government policy can do to
influence people's choices in the desirable direction: so far it mostly pushes the other way.
Matt's lack of driving is showing. Congestion makes horsepower more useful not less as the time and space for merging becomes reduced.
And a big reason fuel mileage hasn't improved is cars are heavier now and much safer.
Wouldn't car makers get around this by building cars with tons of torque but low bhp?
For example:
Honda S2000 has 237bhp and 167lb-ft of torque.
A Jetta TDI has 140bhp and 237 lb-ft of torque.
Keep in mind that bhp=torque*rpm/5252 so at 5252 rmp tourque and bhp are equal.
1978, that's 30 years back. This year represents just about the ABSOLUTE WORST year for the automotive industry. 1976 is when catalytic convertors and other emissions systems were mandated. The cars built for just about 10 years following that mandate were absolute DISASTERS in terms of efficiency and acceleration. You had Ponatic Trans Ams which were slower than modern day Honda Civics yet having 5 TIMES the engine displacement and I'm quite certain a similar margin in fuel economy. It took the automotive industry years before they were able to make cars that performed, had reasonable fuel economy and good solid emissions.
I don't know who this Sandalow is, but are you sure he's not working for Exxon/Mobil with the purpose of making liberals look stupid? Who brought him in as an expert pundit on the issue? Seriously, if he's an expert on anything relating to automobiles then I'm the Queen of England.
Wow, this is a shockingly bad post from one of my favorite bloggers. Yikes. Matt, the analogy to an arms race is flawed because an escalation of military capability by one power essentially requires a response by its opponent or enemy. That's not analogous to cars. If my neighbor has a 500 horsepower Corvette, I can putter along in my Civic the same as before. There is a weight arms race of sorts because if the other guy's car weighs twice as much as mine, my safety is at risk. But there's no horsepower arms race.
Two, horsepower has gone up a bunch because vehicle weight as gone up a bunch. This is because people can afford larger cars, and also because of safety regulations, and safety regulatoins are Good Things. Maintain current safety regulations with a 100 horsepower limit and it would take until Tuesday to get to 60 miles per hour.
Three, there should be some space in liberal democracy for, you know, fun. And for choice.
Jonah Goldberg is an idiot, but a horsepower cap is precisely the kind of liberal lifestyle "fascism" that gives liberals a very bad name. Perhaps you're spending all your good ideas in Aspen and all that's left for your blog are limp biscuits like this one.
"And a big reason fuel mileage hasn't improved is cars are heavier now and much safer."
Cars are definitely safer now. But I don't believe
they've got much heavier: I'm open to actual
evidence, but my guess would be that since the
early 1980s extra weight for safety features has
probably been balanced by lighter materials
(aluminum engine blocks, plastics, miniaturized
electronic/electrical stuff) and much more
sophisticated design, thanks to 3D CAD.
The reason for the increases in horsepower is not due to the introduction of larger engines. Its due to the improvements in engine technology which produces more power for the same engine displacement. The amount of horsepower per liter of displacement (mixed units) has almost doubled since 1980. My current vehicle, a 2004 Honda Civic EX puts out 75 horsepower/liter. This is due to the replacement of carborated pushrod engines with multiport fuel injected overhead cam quad engines. Engines back in 1980 were doing well to put out 40 horsepower/liter.
"The reason for the increases in horsepower is not due to the introduction of larger engines. Its due to the improvements in engine technology which produces more power for the same engine displacement"
Yes, but manufacturers and customers had a choice
about how to exploit that technology: we could have
chosen lighter cheaper more fuel-efficient engines
with only a modest increase in horsepower. Instead
we chose to keep the same engine size and get a huge
increase in horsepower.
The same thing has been happening recently with gasoline/electric hybrid technology: you can use it
to get similar performance at considerably better
mpg (like the Prius), or you can use it to get
better performance with only a slight mpg improvement (e.g. Accord Hybrid).
Technology defines the boundaries of what's
(economically) feasible, a curve in multi-dimensional space: but auto executives choose what points on the curve to build.
All that horsepower is going into moving the extra 3000 pounds your SUV weighs.
Let's do a little comparison.
1976 Honda Civic... 0-60 in 14.3 seconds
Engine = 1.2L 4 banger, with 50 hp
Length = 146.9in
Weight = 1500 lb
Fuel Economy = 40 mpg on the highway
2008 Honda Civic EX... 0-60 in 9.4 seconds
Engine = 1.8L 4 banger, at 140 hp
Length = 176.7 in
Weight = 2600 lb
Fuel Economy = 36 mpg on the highway
The hybrid Civic does 40 mpg and has a 0-60 of around 10 seconds.
Seriously, Sandalow doesn't know what he's talking about.
It's the weight. Csaba Csere (who knows a little bit about cars) wrote an excellent column on this back in October 2006.
Um Matt, do you understand the difference between acceleration and top speed?
Her'e a graph of weight and horsepower over the last couple decade
http://subscribers.wardsauto.com/images/2007/09/lt-veh-characteristics-chart.gif
Her'e a graph of weight and horsepower over the last couple decade
http://subscribers.wardsauto.com/images/2007/09/lt-veh-characteristics-chart.gif
It's definately the weight and size. That comparison of the 1976 Honda Civic to the 2008 Civic I put up shows this obviously. 50% increase in engine displacement, 150% increase in horsepower, 75% increase in weight, and a 20% increase in size...
yet the same fuel economy
But the thing is, that's what people wanted. Customers wanted a car that was safe and was comfortable.
I'll bet that '76 Civic didn't have A/C, it certainly didn't have ABS, or disc brakes in the rear, or rear independent suspension, etc. etc. etc. the list goes on. Hell most cars in 1976 didn't even have radios standard, much less a CD player.
If we saddled every single horse with an anvil on each side of him - say, under the stirrups - it would decrease that horse's power significantly.
This would be a flat out ridiculous thing to regulate - if folks want to buy 350 horsepower cars that get 9 miles per gallon when gas is $92 per gallon, that's their right. Not the wisest decision, but then again, I'd be ticked off if the gov't overstepped their bounds to regulate me into purchasing a Yugo because it's only 12 horsepower. I'm going way over the top here, but arguments like Sandalow's are precisely the type of arguments that give regulation (often a good thing) a bad name amongst Republicans (along with quite a few independents and Dems) - I can make my own decisions as to what I want to purchase, thank you very much, and the Federal government can keep out of it.
"1976 Honda Civic... 0-60 in 14.3 seconds
2008 Honda Civic EX... 0-60 in 9.4 seconds"
Yeah, but you're being confused by marketing: over
time the same model name gets attached to larger
and larger vehicles, because the marketing people
always want to say that the "New Civic" has more
space, more power, XYZ new features compared to the
"Old Civic". And then eventually that leaves a
gap at the bottom of the range: right now the
Honda Fit is the cheapest smallest vehicle in
Honda's range, and it's 1.5L, 2432lbs, 34mpg.
On top of that, the EPA changed its way of
estimating mpg, so figures for 2007 and later aren't
comparable to earlier.
I think the trend towards greater weight is real,
but your figures overstate it, and the increase
in horsepower is much larger than the increase
in weight (hence the faster 0-60mph time, which
is dominated by power/weight ratio).
I thought the issue was energy consumption and vehicle emmissions, not horsepower? Why not address the problem directly instead of with this kind of bank shot?
If policymakers want to push people into using less fuel they should do so in the least obtrusive method possible which is to tax total fuel consumption on a sliding scale. My 78-year old mom has been buying Fords all her life because she "likes the seats". Her 155 horsepower 2002 Ford Taurus gets about 19 MPG and rates a 2 out of 10 on the EPA's Air Pollution score. She also drives about 4,000 miles per year and creates less of an environmental impact then a person driving a 110 horsepower (78 HP from the gas engine) 2007 Toyota Prius who drives 10,000 miles per year. Why should my Mom have to get a new car when George Greenwanker can drive all over kingdom come in his Toyota Prius and pretend to be helping the environment? If David Sandalow thinks it's a political winner to kick grandmothers out of their cars I don't think he's all that savvy.
The JOEX3 PlAN: Stop taxing fuel consumption one gallon at a time. Start taxing fuel consumption on a sliding progressive scale like water consumption fees and let people drive whatever the hell they want. 1) Meter the odometer. 2)Divide by your MPG. 3) Figure your tax on your 1040MPG. 4) Send a check to Uncle Sam.
Note: Most of Europe already charges progressive rates to register a vehicle based on the displacement of the engine which has a much closer correlation to fuel economy then horsepower. A few state legislatures (WA, VT) have introduced similar measures here in the US but I don't think they passed.
Or maybe not:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html
Goodwin leads me over to a red 2005 H3 Hummer that's up on jacks, its mechanicals removed. He aims to use the turbine to turn the Hummer into a tricked-out electric hybrid. Like most hybrids, it'll have two engines, including an electric motor. But in this case, the second will be the turbine, Goodwin's secret ingredient. Whenever the truck's juice runs low, the turbine will roar into action for a few seconds, powering a generator with such gusto that it'll recharge a set of "supercapacitor" batteries in seconds. This means the H3's electric motor will be able to perform awesome feats of acceleration and power over and over again, like a Prius on steroids. What's more, the turbine will burn biodiesel, a renewable fuel with much lower emissions than normal diesel; a hydrogen-injection system will then cut those low emissions in half. And when it's time to fill the tank, he'll be able to just pull up to the back of a diner and dump in its excess french-fry grease--as he does with his many other Hummers. Oh, yeah, he adds, the horsepower will double--from 300 to 600.
"Conservatively," Goodwin muses, scratching his chin, "it'll get 60 miles to the gallon. With 2,000 foot-pounds of torque. You'll be able to smoke the tires. And it's going to be superefficient."
He laughs. "Think about it: a 5,000-pound vehicle that gets 60 miles to the gallon and does zero to 60 in five seconds!"
As a certified car nut, I gotta speak up here... the recent gains in average horsepower ratings are more closely related to the size and bulk of the cars we drive today, not with the performance.
Modern luxuries like AC, automatic transmissions, four-wheel drive, and air bags add mass to our cars, and mass requires larger engines for propulsion, bigger brakes for stopping, and larger wheels and tires for additional traction. Anyone who plays around with high performance cars will tell you - if you want to go fast, you are far better off shedding weight than increasing horsepower.
Or maybe not:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html
Goodwin leads me over to a red 2005 H3 Hummer that's up on jacks, its mechanicals removed. He aims to use the turbine to turn the Hummer into a tricked-out electric hybrid. Like most hybrids, it'll have two engines, including an electric motor. But in this case, the second will be the turbine, Goodwin's secret ingredient. Whenever the truck's juice runs low, the turbine will roar into action for a few seconds, powering a generator with such gusto that it'll recharge a set of "supercapacitor" batteries in seconds. This means the H3's electric motor will be able to perform awesome feats of acceleration and power over and over again, like a Prius on steroids. What's more, the turbine will burn biodiesel, a renewable fuel with much lower emissions than normal diesel; a hydrogen-injection system will then cut those low emissions in half. And when it's time to fill the tank, he'll be able to just pull up to the back of a diner and dump in its excess french-fry grease--as he does with his many other Hummers. Oh, yeah, he adds, the horsepower will double--from 300 to 600.
"Conservatively," Goodwin muses, scratching his chin, "it'll get 60 miles to the gallon. With 2,000 foot-pounds of torque. You'll be able to smoke the tires. And it's going to be superefficient."
He laughs. "Think about it: a 5,000-pound vehicle that gets 60 miles to the gallon and does zero to 60 in five seconds!"
As a certified car nut, I gotta speak up here... the recent gains in average horsepower ratings are much more closely related to the size and the bulk of the cars we drive today, not with their performance.
Modern luxuries like AC, automatic transmissions, four-wheel drive, and air bags add mass, and increased mass requires larger, more powerful engines for propulsion, bigger brakes for stopping, and larger wheels and tires for additional traction. Anyone who plays around with high performance cars will tell you - if you want to go fast, you are far better off shedding weight than increasing horsepower.
Marketing didn't made the Civic larger.
Customer demand made the Civic larger.
To understand this phenomena you must understand the free market. Trust me, you can be a liberal and understand the free market. It's not some big scarey Republican invention.
Gasoline is over $4.50 a gallon locally. There is already incentive to buy a less powerful auto. Folks who buy big powerful cars in this environment do so because they're willing to pay at the pump. A regulatory cap on allowable horsepower seeks to put everyone in the same boat, all for the good of the collective, presumably. This kind of regulation is a loser for anyone who espouses it.
For the record, Matt, it's proposals like these that make us libertarians roll our eyes when you claim that liberalism is "pro market".
"Oh, we're pro-market, except for the 98% of situations where the market needs to be managed by an elite group of liberal bureaucrats"
The difference is, I think, that you have a set of policies you'd like enacted, and the market is free so long as it does not get in the way of your desired policies.
Libertarians, on the other hand, hold market freedom as one of those core policies, and the only thing that can trump that is where there is conflict with another core policy.
Re Richard Cownie
But the fact is that if we were still using 1980 engine technology, my 2004 Honda Civic EX would have to have a 3 liter engine, probably 6 cylinders, which would be doing well to get 25 mpg on the highway (I get 42). In fact, the 2004 car with the 1980 engine would have a poorer performance then with the 2004 engine because the 1980 engine would weigh considerably more, being much larger.
"Marketing didn't made the Civic larger.
Customer demand made the Civic larger."
Customer demand made Honda build larger heavier
cars, with a lot more horsepower. Marketing made
them attach the same name "Civic" to those very
different cars (while inventing a new name, and
designing a new car, for the bottom end of their
range).
I'm not at all scared of the free market: indeed
on this thread I'm precisely arguing for a
market-based approach (tax carbon-based fuels and
let the market sort out the response) rather than
a regulatory approach.
And if it's all purely about customer demand,
how come Honda/Toyota/Nissan have strong offerings
in the compact and subcompact segments, while
Ford and GM have unattractive unreliable products
there, having concentrated their development
effort on the (short-term) profitable SUV and
pickup segments ? They're subject to exactly the
same customer demand signals as Honda and Toyota,
but they made different decisions. The signals
from customer demand are ambiguous, and marketing
decisions inside the companies are non-trivial
and have substantial consequences.
A few years ago I saw a study indicating that if average horsepower in North America had remained at 1990 levels, we would be using 30 per cent less gasoline.
I second (or perhaps "fiftieth") what everyone else says: regulating horsepower is a stupid idea.
If people decide they want to pay for horsepower, let them pay for horsepower. If there is some externality, tax the externality. And do not tax proxies like horsepower, tax emissions.
Outright bans are bad bad bad.
"Gasoline is over $4.50 a gallon locally. There is already incentive to buy a less powerful auto."
Yes, but the latest data on global climate change
are very alarming. An economist would probably
say that we need to tax carbon-based fuels at a
rate which covers the external costs associated
with putting CO2 into the atmosphere. I don't
know precisely what that tax should be, but I'm
pretty sure that it's more than the current 18c/g
gas tax.
At $4-50 a gallon, behavior is changing, but it
almost certainly isn't changing fast enough or far
enough to deal with the CO2 problem.
I don't see any particular good that's accomplished by having cars today (on average) twice as powerful as they were in 1980. It isn't as though we were particularly virtuous with regard to energy conservation in 1980. Is there any limit to the greed and decadence of the American public? Can anyone tell me what was so wrong with cars in 1980 that Americans think they need cars twice as powerful?
Furthermore, I'm not sure why the goals of energy conservation and reducing our carbon footprints need to subordinated to the whims of people who like to drive fast cars. The desire to have a super-fast or super-large car, in my view, is not much more deserving of respect and deference than any other extreme of lust, avarice, or luxury, and should be given no more respect by our laws. Too many people in this country appear to feel like if we want something we should be able to have it. Healthy and well-ordered people grow out of that attitude in childhood, and learn to value modesty and restraint over conspicuous consumption. But apparently not all of us.
I don't see any particular good that's accomplished by having cars today (on average) twice as powerful as they were in 1980. It isn't as though we were particularly virtuous with regard to energy conservation in 1980. Is there any limit to the greed and decadence of the American public? Can anyone tell me what was so wrong with cars in 1980 that Americans think they need cars twice as powerful?
Furthermore, I'm not sure why the goals of energy conservation and reducing our carbon footprints need to subordinated to the whims of people who like to drive fast cars. The desire to have a super-fast or super-large car, in my view, is not much more deserving of respect and deference than any other extreme of lust, avarice, or luxury, and should be given no more respect by our laws. Too many people in this country appear to feel like if we want something we should be able to have it. Healthy and well-ordered people grow out of that attitude in childhood, and learn to value modesty and restraint over conspicuous consumption. But apparently not all of us.
Here's an even better comparison that shows how much a reduction in weight can improve fuel economy.
2008 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab
4.7L V8
310 Hp
330 Lb-Ft Torque
5255 lb
12 mpg City / 16 mpg Highway
5.7L V8 (Hemi with MDS)
345 Hp
375 Lb-Ft Torque
5255 lb
13 mpg City / 17 mpg Highway
2008 Dodge Charger R/T
5.7L V8 (Hemi with MDS)
335 Hp
375 Lb-Ft Torque
4031 lb
17 mpg City / 24 mpg Highway
Agreeing with about a million other commenters: regulating horsepower is the kind of stupid, weenie idea that gives liberals a bad name (and for good reason). Where the hell did this guy come from and how do we tell him to shut the f*ck up and let the adults do business around here?
An economist would probably say that we need to tax carbon-based fuels at a rate which covers the external costs associated with putting CO2 into the atmosphere. I don't know precisely what that tax should be, but I'm pretty sure that it's more than the current 18c/g gas tax.
The problem is that most of those costs would be incurred decades in the future, when the world is likely to be much richer than it is now and therefore better able to pay the costs. There's no consensus among economists as to how much we should "discount" the costs of carbon emissions to compensate for this effect, and thus no consensus on how much the carbon tax should be.
At $4-50 a gallon, behavior is changing, but it
almost certainly isn't changing fast enough or far
enough to deal with the CO2 problem.
And the basis for this claim is.....? Of course, it depends on what you mean by "deal with" the problem. Which brings us back to the discounting issue described above.
The problem is that most of those costs would be incurred decades in the future, when the world is likely to be much richer than it is now and therefore better able to pay the costs.
By that rationale, all young adults should rack up $50,000 in credit card charges. After all, they're likely to be richer in the future and therefore better able to pay the costs.
Better trolls, please.
Remember this rule of thumb: liberals = authoritarians.
Matthew's post is a very good example of why the rule of thumb is usually true.
"And the basis for this claim is.....? Of course, it depends on what you mean by "deal with" the problem. Which brings us back to the discounting issue described above."
The scientific consensus is solid, that global
climate change is happening, and that we need to
*reduce* CO2 emissions significantly from their
current level. There's also a fairly solid
international agreement about suitable targets,
from the Kyoto meeting. And we're already at the point where Congress is discussing legislation to
set the targets.
The trouble with the "discounting" idea is that
it's a completely circular argument: we're facing
a problem - climate change - which has the
potential to cause drought, famine, hurricanes,
and many other devastating consequences with
sever human and economic costs. And yet the
argument for applying a discount rate to future
costs assumes that the next few decades will have
the same kind of growth in GDP and productivity
that we've had for the last few decades. But
that's making the assumption that nothing bad
will happen, when the whole point of worrying
about global climate change is that bad things
are already happening, and very bad things *will*
happen, unless we fix it now. Try to imagine what
happens to the USA if temperature and rainfall
changes stop us growing wheat in the Midwest:
not good.
Doubtless your ancestors would have said
the same thing about investments in public
health just before the Black Death decimated the
population of Europe.
"dob",
By that rationale, all young adults should rack up $50,000 in credit card charges. After all, they're likely to be richer in the future and therefore better able to pay the costs.
In general, the accumulation of interest on $50,000 of credit card debt incurred as a young adult would likely outstrip the increase in ability to repay that debt associated with aging from young adulthood. However, there are certainly situations in which taking on current debt in the expectation of greater future wealth makes sense, e.g, college loans.
Better trolls, please.
Less idiotic liberals, please.
Richard Cownie,
The scientific consensus is solid, that global
climate change is happening, and that we need to
*reduce* CO2 emissions significantly from their
current level.
There's no scientific consensus on what we "need" to do, and scientists are not in a position to determine the appropriate policy response to climate change anyway. It's a political question, not a scientific one. Science, like economics, can inform the analysis, but it can't answer the question.
The trouble with the "discounting" idea is that
it's a completely circular argument: we're facing
a problem - climate change - which has the
potential to cause drought, famine, hurricanes,
and many other devastating consequences with
sever human and economic costs. And yet the
argument for applying a discount rate to future
costs assumes that the next few decades will have
the same kind of growth in GDP and productivity
that we've had for the last few decades. But
that's making the assumption that nothing bad
will happen, when the whole point of worrying
about global climate change is that bad things
are already happening, and very bad things *will*
happen, unless we fix it now.
This is all very confused. First, your claim that "applying a discount rate to future costs assumes that the next few decades will have the same kind of growth in GDP and productivity that we've had for the last few decades" is simply false. The discount rate obviously does not need to be based on the growth rate of "the last few decades." The discount rate that economists generally seem to favor is based on the assumption that the rate of growth over the next century is likely to be similar to the growth rate over the past century. Second, your claim that discounting assumes that "nothing bad
will happen" is also false. The assumption is that most of the costs of climate change will be incurred decades from now (even if some costs are already occurring). This assumption isn't terribly controversial. Even most advocates of drastic emissions reduction agree that most of the costs of global warming will come decades in the future, not in the next few years.
By the way, you really ought to stop inserting hard line breaks in your text. It screws up the formatting.
Al with the cringe-inducing BS comment of the day: "Remember this rule of thumb: liberals = authoritarians."
Thanks for the comment, genius.
Who is supports the worthless Drug War rather than let people make their own choices as to what to ingest? Republicans. Marijuana is healthier than booze and is a plant - who supports the ban on this? Republicans. Who wants to TELL people which sexual orientation is correct? Republicans. Who wants to enforce abstinence until marriage? (Christian) Republicans. Who supports spying on our phone calls, emails, and messages? Republicans. Who considered informed to dissent to be a form of treason when we went to war with Iraq? Republicans. Who wants to lock up criminals forever rather than reform non-violent or drug offenders? Republicans. Why are the vast majority of artists, musicians, and free-thinkers liberals? Because liberals don't ask them to conform to some ridiculous conservative notion as to what's "right," unlike chumps like Al.
Which party tries to win elections by shoving their conservative "Values" down our throats? The Republican party. Well, your values aren't my values, Al, and I'm damned proud of that. But thanks for making me chuckle with the most ignorant comment I've read this month. At least the pressure is off since no one here will take you seriously anymore. I'd gather no one does anyway...
Um, edsbowlingshoe, the Democrats support the drug war, too.
Here's an even better comparison that shows how much a reduction in weight can improve fuel economy.
Your comparison is flawed: The Ram and the Charger have wildly different aerodynamics, which will have a huge impact on fuel economy. The difference in fuel economy at highway speeds is probably mostly due to aerodynamics, not weight.
"Support" doesn't mean that there aren't huge Drug War distinctions between the 2 main political parties, and ol' "Abstinence until marriage," habeous corpus revoking, #1 in executions teetotaler George Bush isn't someone anyone in his right mind would look to for Drug War reform.
From an Obama speech last fall:
"I think it's time we also took a hard look at the wisdom of locking up some first-time, non-violent drug users for decades. Someone once said that '...long minimum sentences for first-time users may not be the best way to occupy jail space and/or heal people from their disease.' That someone was George W. Bush - six years ago. I don't say this very often, but I agree with the president. The difference is, he hasn't done anything about it. When I'm president, I will. We will review these sentences to see where we can be smarter on crime and reduce the blind and counterproductive warehousing of non-violent offenders. And we will give first-time, non-violent drug offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior. So let's reform this system. Let's do what's smart. Let's do what's just".
Not risking one's political capital on badmouthing the Drug War is not the same as supporting it. Where candidates like Obama and Ron Paul are unique is their proclivity for tackling some touchy subjects like the Drug War that most candidates shy away from. But please - comparing hard-line Republicans with your average Dem is a bit absurd when it comes to drug policy....
An Al post = (fill in the blank re. instant reduction in collective thread intelligence; increase in babies crying unexpectedly across the land)
A horsepower formulation wouldn't work for electrics and hybrids, which have ungodly amounts of torque compared to very low hp figures.
Crank up the CAFE standards and eliminate the smal-truck distinction. There, you're done.
bowlingshoe,
Sorry, but you're backpeddling furiously. You wrote: "Who supports the worthless Drug War rather than let people make their own choices as to what to ingest? Republicans." The obvious implication of your assertion is that Democrats don't support the "Drug War" at all, or at least not in any major way, and that Democrats favor "[letting] people make their own choices as to what to ingest?" Both of those claims are false.
The rest of your silly post is similarly misleading. The differences between the two parties on drugs, sexuality, Iraq, etc. are much less clear than you're pretending they are.
"The assumption is that most of the costs of climate change will be incurred decades from now (even if some costs are already occurring). This assumption isn't terribly controversial."
Yes. But what's also true is that it's a problem
that will take a long time to fix (because CO2
persists in the atmosphere) *and* that the costs
of fixing it are much much lower if you do it
slowly - e.g. by replacing cars and power plants
with better alternatives at the end of their
lifetime, rather than trashing them early.
But as a Republican, I guess you'd prefer to save
a dollar for a condom and pay for anti-retroviral drugs the rest of your life because you'll be richer in the future (if you can still work).
An Al post = (fill in the blank re. instant reduction in collective thread intelligence; increase in babies crying unexpectedly across the land)
A horsepower formulation wouldn't work for electrics and hybrids, which have ungodly amounts of torque compared to very low hp figures.
Crank up the CAFE standards and eliminate the smal-truck distinction. There, you're done.
Seems to me this sort of thing would be unnecessary if you change the fuel system, as Bob Cringely and the SwiftFuel people believe.
Whoops, triggered the magic double-post feature. Sorry. Also: "small," sheesh.
But what's also true is that it's a problem
that will take a long time to fix (because CO2
persists in the atmosphere) *and* that the costs
of fixing it are much much lower if you do it
slowly - e.g. by replacing cars and power plants
with better alternatives at the end of their
lifetime, rather than trashing them early.
The issue is whether the cost of taking some action now to prevent some future amount of warming (e.g., reducing carbon emissions) is less than the (properly discounted) cost the warming will impose at that future time. The answer to that question depends crucially on the discount rate. According to William Nordhaus's economic model, which is based on orthodox economic assumptions about likely future economic growth, the difference justifies only a modest current carbon tax. According to Nordhaus's analysis, adopting the drastic near-term emissions reduction policies advocated by Nicholas Stern and Al Gore will incur a net cost in the trillions of dollars.
Too many people in this country appear to feel like if we want something we should be able to have it.
Unless you are defending socialism I think you're unclear on the concept of freedom. My sister has about $10,000 worth of fine china tea cups. I find it to be a ridiculous hobby but yet she is FREE to pursue it as it harms nobody. People who are into muscle cars and giant trucks should be similarly FREE to pursue their hobby as long as they bear the costs associated with it. Limiting horsepower doesn't A) reduce the demand for oil or B) limit carbon emissions. Limiting horsepower bans a certain kind of vehicle while allow other types of vehicles to be uses in the most reckless manner possible, like a teenager who puts 10,000 miles a year on their Prius goofing around town with friends. Why is a muscle car to work offensive but not driving an economy car aimlessly? Neither is the ideal situation from an efficiency perspective but somehow only the big cars are only addressed in policy. It's almost as though liberal policy makers are blind to their own flaws!
Despite the information provided by people who have supplied numbers, e.g. "the other steve", (remember, nothing is more devastating to an opinion then a number), some of the commentors still don't get it. The element with the greatest effect on fuel efficiency is engine displacement, not horsepower or torque. If one is going to tax something on the automobile, tax engine displacement, like they do in Germany. As has been pointed out, given two engines of the same horsepower but a substantial difference in engine displacement, the vehicle with the smaller engine displacement will get better gas mileage. Period, end of story.
Abysmally stupid proposal.
If we must use taxes to get people to pick and choose the autos we want them to pick and choose, then why not base the tax on MPG? Isn't that the whole point after all?
And what about the guy who has a 200 hp car in the garage but only drives 5,000 miles a year? Should he pay more taxes than the guy who has a 100 hp car and drives 20,000 miles a year?
Blindingly stupid idea. Tax the damn fuel, for crying out loud.
Yeah, not to pile on but this is essentially a parody of every bad liberal stereotype. Unnecessarily restrictive? Check. Bound to be wildly unpopular? Check. Needlessly intrusive? Check. Almost certainly ineffective? Check.
Increasing CAFE and ending the legal fiction that suburban soccer mom SUVs are "trucks" will have precisely the same effect, without sounding like the government wants to break down your garage door and steal your Corvette or M3.
Now Jonah has some new material for the paperback edition.
In a rational America, no car would be on the road with more than four cylinders, more than 160 hp, and more than 2800 lbs curb weight.
But we don't need a law. Just wait about 5 more years, and it'll start happening.
Somewhere in the recesses of the Matt Y. comments (and elsewhere) I made a similar proposal, but took a slightly different tack: regulate (and tax) the combination of weight and acceleration using engine control monitors.
If you need power and weight -- to haul stuff or people efficiently -- you forego acceleration with a chip that restricts you to Prius-like acceleration, no matter how many horsies under the hood. (It's not as complicated as it sounds. The average traction-control system already does the same thing, just with different parameters.) Who needs to drag race a pickup truck full of building supplies or a van filled with the church choir?
If you wanted the occasional thrill of neck-snapping acceleration, but bought yourself a moderately sized car, knock yourself out. I'd start Camry sized and gradually work it down to under 3,000 lbs.
But, if you want a Cadillac Escalade that gets you and your 60-lbs. ballerina to sixty in under six seconds, big penalty.
Really brilliant if you spend some time thinking it through. It penalizes the worst combination: big, powerful vehicles purchase by people who need neither the size nor the power for some socially redeeming purpose.
Then, I realized that it was just better to jack state gas taxes up to a dollar or two (to price in the externalities as Nick said) and let the market sort it all out.
I don't know why, but the libertarian in me always starts getting totally pissed off at discussions on this topic that involve taking away my choices rather than demanding from the automobile manufactureres we get what we want--which IS possible, folks. It's called "engineering", and it used to be a marketable skill.
There is absolutely no reason why we can't develop engines that have great driveability, or vehicles that can comfortably and safely transport a family or pull a camping trailer without getting 10mpg. Let's say we try to develop better and cheaper fuel sources, and re-engineer our vehicles to meet consumer preferences first.
And might I speak for the millions of Americans who don't fall into the category of urban commuters for a moment? We are sick to death of all of you. We don't live in the most congested fucking areas of the world, then piss and moan about traffic jams and how you don't need a powerful car to drive 12mph in rush hour traffic. We have families, take road trip camping vacations with our kids (instead of jetting off to Cancun), drive long distances across our states to attend state Football Championships for our sons, haul firewood 150 miles in from the National Forest, volunteer to transport other people's kids to choir competitions because the schools won't fund it---we actually NEED good size vehicles out her is Real People Land. Why should I-- a middle income family person who drives what is considered t be a "gas guzzler" because of the demands of our geography, monthly budget (gas is cheaper than a new car payment) family size, activities--why should I have to suffer for those of you out there for whom over indulged VANITY is your gas-hog's rationale?
So, fuck you.
"According to William Nordhaus's economic model, which is based on orthodox economic assumptions about likely future economic growth, the difference justifies only a modest current carbon tax."
First of all, Nordhaus doesn't have a crystal ball.
Tinkering with the world climate has a significant
chance of causing irreversible catastrophic effects:
you can discount all you like and you'll look
foolish if increased ocean acidity decimates marine
ecosystems; or if higher temperatures and lower
rainfall turn the midwest into a dustbowl; or if
the ocean current patterns change and the UK finds
itself in an ice age; or the Antarctic ice shelf
melts and all low-lying coastal areas get flooded.
But of course up to now your position has been
that we don't need to do *anything*. Even
Nordhaus' analysis doesn't support that level of
Republican nonsense.
First of all, Nordhaus doesn't have a crystal ball.
Did you think anyone has suggested he does?
Tinkering with the world climate has a significant chance of causing irreversible catastrophic effects: you can discount all you like and you'll look foolish if increased ocean acidity decimates marine ecosystems; or if higher temperatures and lower rainfall turn the midwest into a dustbowl; or if the ocean current patterns change and the UK finds itself in an ice age; or the Antarctic ice shelf melts and all low-lying coastal areas get flooded.
So you're now reduced to worst-case-scenario fear-mongering. Yes, it's possible that if we don't take drastic action now, the result will be a global catastrophe that would have been averted if we had taken drastic action. Then again, it's possible that we'll all be killed by an asteroid impact or nuclear war or a new superbug or something else. Responsible policymaking is about rationally evaluating the costs and benefits and probabilities of different potential future scenarios and policy responses as best we can with the information we have available. Not indiscriminately throwing money at a problem or indiscriminately imposing economic hardship on people on the grounds that it might prevent a catastrophe that would otherwise occur.
So I go over to Nordhaus' website and read a couple of his papers, and guess what ? He suggests that the correct approach is a $30/ton carbon tax *right now*, ramping up to $85/ton. This is not at all what Mixner wants; though it's not the most aggressive proposal around.
"Responsible policymaking is about rationally evaluating the costs and benefits and probabilities of different potential future scenarios and policy responses"
Oh give us a f*cking break. You and your idiot Republican friends got us into a war that has cost $600B so far, and will probably end up over $2T, to find nukes that never even existed. It's just
laughable to lecture us about "responsible policymaking".
And by the way, I'm strongly in favor of reducing
the likelihood of nuclear annihilation by taking
our bombs off the hair-trigger, and reducing the
arsenal to under 500; and also in favor of spending enouh money to identify and track asteroids likely to come near Earth. It would be
a lot easier to make those investments if we didn't have Bush's massive debt and deficit, and
a great big money pit in Iraq.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
So I go over to Nordhaus' website and read a couple of his papers, and guess what ? He suggests that the correct approach is a $30/ton carbon tax *right now*, ramping up to $85/ton. This is not at all what Mixner wants
I wish you'd stop attributing to me statements I have never made.
A carbon tax of $30/ton would add about 30 cents to a gallon of gasoline. And the "ramp up" to $85 would occur over a period of 40 years or more. That doesn't sound like the kind of drastic action you seek. The Stern Review, for example, proposes a level of CO2 emissions reduction that would require a current carbon tax on the order of $300/ton.
The rest of your post is just off-topic nonsense. Your opinions on the merits of the Iraq War are irrelevant to the issue of climate change policy.
"A carbon tax of $30/ton would add about 30 cents to a gallon of gasoline"
And do you favor that ?
Personally, I think it's worth paying a good deal more to reduce the probability of those long-tail but catastrophic possible events. Nordhaus also admits the climate change predictions are "murky".
"Average horsepower in 1980 was 100, today it's 220."
There is no way this is true for passenger cars - I'd like to see the evidence.
I drive a 2007 BMW 328i; it's 230 horsepower. There's no way that car's engine is just slightly above average horsepower.
Oh yeah, and on a recent 900-mile road trip, it averaged 32 mpg with the cruise control set between 75-80 mph.
German engineering FTW.
And do you favor that ?
I might. I'd have to study the proposal and criticisms/alternatives more before I came to a decision. 30 cents is at least reasonable and probably politically feasible. $3 is not.
"30 cents is at least reasonable and probably politically feasible. $3 is not."
It seems way too little to me: the tax has to be
enough to change travelling behavior and/or vehicle purchase decisions. I don't see 30c making such a difference - my guess would be $1-50 or so.
And if the democracies of Europe can manage hefty gas taxes without a revolution, I don't see why it isn't feasible here (with appropriate measures to mitigate the regressive effects).
The point of the tax is to put a price on carbon to target a particular level of reduction in overall carbon emissions, not to dictate changes in specific carbon-producing behavior. The $30/ton proposal was for 2005 anyway. It might be more now. Under Nordhaus's proposal, the tax would be subject to annual changes to produce the optimum response under his DICE model.
And "politically feasible" is rather more restrictive than "anything short of a revolution."
"...we ought to put a regulatory cap on allowable horsepower."
Good lord no!
That would get us bupkis, nada, zero, zilch. Here's why:
When you drive around town, you don't push the accelerator to the floor do you? You push as much as you need which is probably not a whole lot. Driving your car around town, push this much. Merging onto the interstate, push a little more. And every now and then, when you really need to get away from someone or something, you ask for it all and put your foot flat on the floor.
You see where I'm going with this, right? Rarely if ever are you pushing your car's engine to the limit and using all its available horsepower.
So, if you tax horsepower and manufacturers build cars with less power, people will simply compensate by pushing their cars a little harder to get what they need and get the separation from other cars that they're used to.
Now I will grant you that you will definitely slow people down when they are trying to get over a hill with a fully loaded car (and a trailer) but how often does that really happen? How much gas does that really save? And how much political capital are going to spend to get it?
To put it another way, a smaller engine pushed twice as hard consumes roughly the same amount of gas as a larger engine that is just loping along.
Now, I've got a better idea - a tax on mass. We need newer, lighter weight materials for not just cars but also just about everything else, so why not encourage investment in material technology that's going to pay dividends in cars as well as many other aspects of our economy.
Plus, lighter cars pack less energy in a collision and, to me at least, they help take the fear out of driving a smaller car (because bigger cars will have less energy and will be less likely to kill you).
Thanks!
P.S. Man, being on the west coast sucks! Post #93 - ugh! Hey, Matt how 'bout some late night posts? Call it Yglesias After Dark. = )
Re: And do not tax proxies like horsepower, tax emissions.
Here's a reason why it's easier to tax horsepower rather than gasline: only a fraction of the population will be buying a new car in any given period of time, so only a fraction of the population will be affected by that tax. This is also the logic behind "sin" taxes: only a fraction of the people are hit by them, plus they are, in principle, avoidable and therefore somewhat voluntary. Taxing gasoline however affects just about everyone, at least everyone who drives which is a huge fraction of the adult population-- and the electorate. Such a tax would generate vast opposition, and oprobably get the tax-architects tossed out of office.
Remember folks: politics is the art of the possible. And for goodness sakes let's not start trying to figure out how to get the GOP back in power before we've even got them all the way out! why is it liberals have such a political death wish?
Joejoejoe,
Re: Unless you are defending socialism I think you're unclear on the concept of freedom.
I am defending socialism. And I am very clear on the subject of what you mean by "freedom".
Re: People who are into muscle cars and giant trucks should be similarly FREE to pursue their hobby as long as they bear the costs associated with it.
Why? It's a textbook case of conspicuous consumption, a drug to which America is addicted. One doesn't get rid of an addictive habit by feeding the addiction.
Re: Limiting horsepower bans a certain kind of vehicle while allow other types of vehicles to be uses in the most reckless manner possible, like a teenager who puts 10,000 miles a year on their Prius goofing around town with friends.
Because we can do something about the former but not the latter. It's not reasonably possible to tax or otherwise control how people use their cars, although I would be in favor of higher taxes on gasoline and cars generally, and general social norms that would impress on people that wasteful driving is wrong. It is feasible to restrict those types of cars, however, which are exceptionally wasteful and have no clear good purpose.
Re: It's almost as though liberal policy makers are blind to their own flaws!
I'm not a "liberal".
"Here's a reason why it's easier to tax horsepower rather than gasline: only a fraction of the population will be buying a new car in any given period of time, so only a fraction of the population will be affected by that tax"
Imposing extra taxes on vehicle purchases is a
terrible idea. As I said before, we should be
making it easier and cheaper for people to own
multiple vehicles and use the most appropriate
one for each trip. And we should also be encouraging
people to trade in their old SUVs and pickups and
buy more efficient vehicles. Any extra taxes
have the perverse effect of making people keep
their big old-technology smog monsters on the road
as long as possible.
On Nordhaus' proposal to adjust taxes every year
based on his crystal ball - sorry, his "DICE model" - I say fooey. There's a huge advantage to having the tax schedule laid out in advance,
so that people can plan their investments: if
you know there's going to be a big gas tax 2 years from now. that affects your car purchase decision right now.
But our penises would shrink!
You know, Alan, not everyone driving a vehicle more powerful than an Aspire has penis issues. Some people just enjoy automobiles.
"Why? It's a textbook case of conspicuous consumption, a drug to which America is addicted. One doesn't get rid of an addictive habit by feeding the addiction."
Q: How much gas does that muscle car in the driveway
burn ?
A: None at all. It only burns gas when it's on the
road, not in the driveway.
Or, to adapt a slogan from the right: cars don't
burn gas - driving burns gas.
So for heaven's sake don't tax the wrong thing just
because it offends your sensibilities: there's
nothing wrong with people owning big vehicles;
what causes trouble, and what needs to be made
more costly, is burning carbon-rich fuels.
What about the large waste of fuel that is NASCAR?
Who among us will stand up to this "sport"?
Firstly, increased weight, emissions reductions, and other regulatory standards have a lot to do with decreased engine efficiencies.
Secondly, this is a really stupid idea. There are countries that tax horsepower, such as Austria, and everybody there hates it. Most engines hardly ever operate at rated power, so what the fuck is the point anyway? Its optimizing other operating points that give you the huge benefits in fuel consumption.
I'll tell you, it's so people like Matthew (who hardly understand the problem or the associated technology) look like they are actually doing something. It's been said before, this is typical liberal busybody bullshit that everybody complains about. Just tax the fucking fuel and shut the fuck up. I doubt that the latter hope will prevail.
Thirdly, there are some great spark ignition technologies coming out that will allow us to downsize engines, whilst retaining power ratings, such as direct injection turbo-charging. Good stuff.
Lastly, Matthew, you are such a moron. Seriously. Just STFU about things you don't understand.
It's interesting that the Left is so fixated - almost exclusively fixated - upon personal transportation. When the entire transportation sector accounts for only 20% of CO2 emissions.
A reality-based community would focus upon the other 80% and would strive to avoid imposing upon and controlling their fellow citizens.
OTOH, a group which is obsessed by controlling the thoughts and actions of others would do exactly that which you are presently doing.
I drive a 2007 chevy 5.3liter zz-71 4x4 and i must say that most people would be better off SLOWING down and not mashing the pedal to the floor from every stop light. This will increase their mpg. For example in the past i would go 5 to 10 mph over the speed limit and get 15.7mpg. However slowing down to the speed limit i got 17.8mpgs. Now i am going 5 to 10 miles UNDER the speed limit and get 20.5mpg. whether or not the horsepower is there you can simply slow down and get better mpg. Trust me where ever it is you must get to will be there when you get there whether you do 50 or if you go 40.
Comments closed July 16, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
This would be roughly as popular as an outright ban on apple pie, or a war on puppies.
Posted by southpaw | July 2, 2008 1:40 PM