I also have a full size Eddie Bauer Ford 4X4 Bronco.
I'm doing my share to piss off the wacko enviro-nazis here in Oregon... {;~)
Posted on 12/07/2001 9:42:21 AM PST by cogitator
Seems to me the solution would be to build more refineries and pipelines.
That reminds me... I'm shopping for a new 4x4 truck with gobs of towing power. ;)
My solution to this... lets annex Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Egypt and Sudan. We need 5 more stars on the star-spangled banner anyways. ;)
I also have a full size Eddie Bauer Ford 4X4 Bronco.
I'm doing my share to piss off the wacko enviro-nazis here in Oregon... {;~)
Back in the late 1970's my wife was driving a VW bug to work and found a couple of guys who wanted to ride as a carpool; this worked pretty good for awhile and she was still geting about 25MPG; later, I started to work at the same place and we picked up two more carpoolers and we had to buy a stationwagon (Ford). Now the Ford gets 12MPG, and it is too crowded with 6 people so we buy a Dodge coversion van, put in two extra seats, a roof vent and a side window; it gets 9MPG; all of these mileage figures are in commuting at an average speed of maybe 25-32 MPH.
So, 6 people who each drive a VW is nearly twice the fuel use to 6 people in the van at 8MPG, so one could say that this is wise. However, when I needed to use the van for any other purpose, it still never got more than 11MPG, and it was my van that wore out.
We would have all ridden a bus if one was available.
Not that much. Our income tax is around $15K. Cut that in half and it's $7.5K. So I actually guessed a little low on the replacement amount -- we'd need around $23K. Tax cuts can only go so far for middle America.
Philosophically, an idea or concept that "works" is one that can be feasibly implemented and one which addresses the problem in a significant way. What are the alternatives?
1. Increase consumer demand for much higher mileage vehicles. It might work; how would it be done?
2. Implement new technology that increases gas mileage without decreasing vehicle power or increasing vehicle purchase cost. Any prospects on the 5-10 year horizon?
3. Likewise, a good alternative-fuel vehicle. Any prospects on the 5-10 year horizon?
4. Finally, a drastic shift in work/commute patterns. Dramatically increased telecommuting might make it. Is it a 1 million barrel a day shift?
I.e., I can come up with a lot of ideas, as demonstrated by the above. How many of them seem workable, by the criteria I provided? Do you have others?
Or is it that your goal it the total elimination of SUV's or any other so-called "fuel-inefficient" vehicles. Suppose half (or even 90%) of everyday commuters switched to motorcycles which get 75 mpg, would you stop bothering the people driving SUV's or pickup trucks? How about if they switch to bicycles? Frankly, I don't think you would ever stop harassing them to stop enjoying themselves and spending their own money in any way they desire to do so.
To answer the rhetorical questions in a serious manner, I would attempt to advocate feasible programs, private or public sector. Here's the reality: up until the SUV buying trend began, U.S. oil imports were nearly stable despite increased number of vehicles on the road and essentially a constant rate of decrease in domestic production. Fleet mileage was actually increasing; it peaked about 1991. From 1985-1992, total oil usage (domestic production + imports) went from about ~13.8 million barrels a day to ~14.3 million barrels a day. From 1992-2000, it went from ~14.3 million barrels a day to ~17.0 million barrels a day. Increase from 85-92=0.5 million barrels a day. 93-2000=2.7 million barrels a day. So the SUV buying trend is simultaneous with a reversal of both of the other trends; increased oil imports and decreasing fleet mileage. The SUV buying trend is also simultaneous with the strong economic growth in that period, so it is "explainable" on the basis of the fact that gasoline prices have stayed low, and buying power has increased. The amount of family income devoted to gasoline for the cars has not increased much, even if the cars are lower mpg than before.
So "eliminating" SUVs is neither feasible or desirable. I don't see any other feasible private sector ways in which fuel consumption patterns would be significantly changed. So the solution that I see as most feasible is pushing automakers to find ways to increase the mpg of their most popular vehicles. This certainly does not mean elimination of SUVs or a mass demographic shift to get people to ride on mopeds (and of course, two-cycle engines are notorious for their pollution).
If there's a way to push automakers to increase the mpg of their most popular vehicles other than upping CAFE standards, I'd be interested to hear about it.
When government mandated that children had to be belted into heavy-duty child seats behind the driver, they killed the two-door car. Moms cannot be faulted for wanting roomy 4-door SUVs instead of struggling to load/unload a heavy child seat into the rear of a tiny car.
When government mandated that cars meet better fuel economy figures, they, in effect, mandated lighter, front-wheel drive cars. (Light, for better fuel economy, and front-wheel drive to put some weight above the drive wheels.)
When government caused cars to become lighter, they, in effect, made towing by light cars hazardous; therefore, if one pulls a boat or trailer, they need an SUV or pickup unless they have a heavy car.
If auto manufacturers increased fuel economy by as little as three miles per gallon, consumers would save as much as $25 billion a year in fuel costs, the EPA said.
Good. Let the market, not the government, force the hand of the manufacturers.
---max
One reason is what began this thread: our reliance on Persian Gulf oil imports makes us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, and we also must tread a fine political path to avoid conflict with states (such as Saudi Arabia) that control that flow of oil.
The government provides significant subsidies to energy industries, like oil and gas production. In addition, exploration costs, for example, are sometimes covered by government (aka USGS) research. Does "supply and demand" cover that? So my taxes are partly paying for your gasoline.
If you lived near me, your vehicle emissions would contribute to problems like ground-level ozone. The more fuel you burn, the more your emissions contriibute to the problem.
Those are three potential reasons that our interests are mutual.
True. And we fought a war in 1990 to maintain low gas prices by maintaining the flow of Persian Gulf oil. How much did that cost every taxpayer?
True. One of our two cars is a minivan. I rarely use it to commute.
When government mandated that cars meet better fuel economy figures, they, in effect, mandated lighter, front-wheel drive cars. (Light, for better fuel economy, and front-wheel drive to put some weight above the drive wheels.)
True. But front-wheel drive cars are/were also considered better handling. Pushed by imports, U.S. automakers were bringing them out.
When government caused cars to become lighter, they, in effect, made towing by light cars hazardous; therefore, if one pulls a boat or trailer, they need an SUV or pickup unless they have a heavy car.
True. By your estimation, based on people you know, how many SUV owners regularly tow a significant load?
The government helps keep oil prices low by fighting wars to maintain the flow of oil from Persian Gulf countries, via direct production subsidies, and via indirect subsidies such as exploration by the United States Geological Survey.
Is the market really working, or are we taxpayers all footing the bill for low gasoline prices?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.