That would be a good first step.
Electrical generation is an insignificant use of the US oil demand. Cutting this market in half would not be noticed at the gas pump.
Posted on 09/26/2005 7:39:01 AM PDT by SmithL
No offense, but I suggest you know little about farming. You must understand farming inputs and the big variable over which you have no control is THE WEATHER. There are years where Midwest average corn production might be 140 Bushels/acre and others, like this year, when it is less than 50 Bu/acre in some areas. We do not have excess year after year, there is a certain amount of carryover corn that acts as a buffer to prevent shortages, but in many years the carryover gets used up.
It has always been government policy to keep food cheap, hence the prime reason for subsidies in a vary volatile industry. Abscent controls and subsidies, think about food prices doubling and shortages occurring. Not a pleasant prospect.
Farming is extremely unpredictable and highly stressful to producers. I sometimes wonder why I do it, even on a parttime basis. It makes little money and I hate the stress of depending on weather. I could go on, but you get the idea.
That is why you should only burn 10% ethanol unless your vehicle is tuned to used the 20%.
The F-150's were redesigned for the 2004 model year.
But the existing tax per gallon, charges the hummer driver for three times your rate. It also taxes the driver who is wasteful in the number of trips they make. It also saves money to those that car pool. Why is the existing system of tax per gallon not meeting your desire?
What is illogical about it is that it is not fact. We would not cut our consumption of oil in have by cars getting two times better mileage. Why? Because automobiles run off of gas or diesel for the most part. Out of a 42 gallon barrel of oil, only 23 gallons of gasoline is refined. Diesel/fuel oil is also a product. But many other chemicals come out of that barrel.
Secondly, automobiles are not consuming all the gas or diesel. Trains, trucking, power plants all run off of diesel. Airplanes basically run off of kerosene, a derivative of crude oil.
You want to make a dent in oil comsumption, do something significant. Convert all our electrical demands to being supplied by Nuclear power. Wind energy where it is viable. And solar if it is practical.
That would be a good first step.
I'm sure all the true costs are included in what we pay for gasoline... /sarcasm
Manufacturers releasing their model year cars so early into the previous year always messes me up, so I don't remember all the exact years. Still, it was a relative death trap prior to that.
You're probably right about my knowledge of farming. OTOH, is it not also true that farm subsidies have the effect of driving down prices and making it more difficult to make a profit on what you do produce?
Together with David Pimentel of Cornell University, Tad Patzek has published exactly what you say you are interested in seeing.
As a result they are both in the cross-hairs of the agri-business subsidized crowd who are accusing them of being in the pocket of big oil. Go figure.
Remember the line from "The Graduate"? Plastic. Well, nuclear is the word for all successive generations 50 years out. While it's merely being whispered right now, any knowlegeable energy professional knows that nuclear powered electricity is the end game.
Ultimately, it will entail people living closer together and taking (electrically powered) public transit. However, this should come about as a result of market factors, not gov't fiat. As gasoline continues to increase in price over the next few generations, long distance auto commutes will become a thing of the past.
I understand. I think what really gets people upset over proposals to interfere in their freedom to purchase and use what they want (be it car, houses, whatever) is that, in fact, our freedom to consume is one of, it not the only, largely unfettered freedoms that remains to us.
Why should people be driving big trucks and SUVs that get 10 mpg when they could be driving full sized cars (like a camry or accord) that gets 30 mpg?
Why?
Physics, that's why. I want to walk away from a car accident. In an accident, my 7000+ pound Dodge Diesel pickup will flatten a Camery and it's occupants...and guess what, that's too darned bad. You made your choice, so did I. 22 mpg ain't half bad for a 7000+ pound vehicle.
"The answer is to apply a federal tax based on the EPA MPG calculations. "
Suggest you change your screen name, as your posts have nothing to do with liberty.
Would now be a bad time to wax romantic about my old 1972 Nova? Big block Chevy, 4 barrel Holly, Headman headers, 14:1 compression ratio with about a 3.5 degree advance on the spark. THAT car was tuned for ethanol.
"(and his claims as to energy innefficiency have been thoroughly repudiated by virtually every other researcher to look into the matter)"
Uh huh.
And who paid those researchers that refuted his claims?
Electrical generation is an insignificant use of the US oil demand. Cutting this market in half would not be noticed at the gas pump.
The government's method of raising fuel standards is a big part of why people are driving big SUVs instead of cars. Many people want a large vehicle, CAFE makes it easier and cheaper for manufacturers to sell you a 19mpg SUV than a 24mpg large car, the results are exactly as you would expect them to be.
Furthermore, CAFE standards are based on a fuel economy test that is flawed to the point of near irrelevance. The test is conducted on a stationary treadmill which does not factor in air resistance and thus gives SUVs with all the aerodynamic grace of a brick wall artificially high scores.
One month of $3 gas has done more to get consumers thinking about mileage efficient vehicles than the past 20 years of CAFE.
A great number of them are bought because SUV's aren't subject to the "luxury car" depreciation rules. (The feds say any car costing more than $15,200 in 2005 is a "luxury auto", and depreciation is subject to annual limits - but this rule doesn't apply to vehicles built on a truck chassis w/ gross vehicle weight of 6,000+ pounds.) In other words, the depreciation rules for business auto use favor and encourage the purchase of SUV's.
I disagree. I believe the founding of the US was more a cause of people trying to limit government and protecting the individual from a tyrannical government.
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.