From: mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.environment,alt.junk,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: BUSH Administration Hushes Auto Efficiency Studies
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:23:00 GMT
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <azmn7kk.adamsr@netcom.com>, adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes...
>Thus spake pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson): 

>>Where to begin?  Well, first lets look at one positive aspect of a
>>gasoline tax - namely the more you consume (or polute) the more you pay.
>>This seems to me to be an exceptionally fair.  In fact, I can't think of
>>a more fair way to dissuade gasoline consumption (and this, after all,
>>is the purpose of the CAFE standards).  

>	It seems fair until the consequences are examined:

>	1. Taxes will NOT materially reduce gas usage, that was demonstrated
>when the oil crises of the late seventies threatened to push gas prices
>through the roof. People STILL drove nearly as much. Thus the quantity of
>pollution will remain roughly the same, while restrictions placed on auto
>manufacturers as to the mph requirements on their vehicles WILL reduce
>pollution.

	Increasing the price of gasoline *will* reduce the amount of
	gasoline used. During the original '73-'74 oil shock, the
	number of miles driven by Americans decreased. This can be seen
	in highway fatality data. Even though some 4000 fewer people
	died in this period (a drop often attributed to the concurrent
	imposition of the 55mph speed limit), the number of fatalities
	per mile did not decrease significantly from either the previous
	year, or when compared to the trend from 1959 onwards.

	The incresing price of oil created a demand for smaller, more
	fuel efficient cars. This shift in demand can be shown in
	several ways. VW saw a huge market in the US open up for small
	cars, one big enough to require a US plant to build Rabbits.
	Comapre the ad slogans for Pontiac in 1992 ("We build excitement!")
	to 1979 ("More Pontiac to the Gallon"). In the late 1970's, the
	EPA's release of new-car milage data invariably was shown on
	the evening news. 

	The succession of Todd family cars shows the push for higher milage
	through the 70's. From 1971-1977, the family car weighed 4750lb and
	had a 455cu in engine. Between 1977 and 1981, the family car was a
	4200lb machine with a 400cu in motor. After 1981, the family
	car weighed 3700lbs and sported a 231cu inch V6.
	
 	Now, even if Rick were right about there being no change in the
	number of miles driven in the 70's (and he isn't), there is also
	the fact that cars became more and more economical over the
	decade, resulting in less pollution produced for each mile
	driven. The result of this is a net reduction in pollutive
	emissions.	

	Increasing oil prices also encouraged other gasoline saving
	measures, such as car pooling. A great deal of energy and
	money was spent on alternative fuels and electric vehicles
	as well. 

	It is a well known, indeed elementary, principle of economics 
	that demand varies inversely with the price level. 


>	2. Taxes will do nothing to help the environment. Even if they are
>"earmarked" for environmental issues, it will just mean that congress will
>feel free to use the money that would otherwise have been used there for
>another purpose.

	So, what's your point? Neither Paul Swanson nor I have said
	anything about this.
	

>	3. It is impossible to substantially raise gas taxes w/o also
>increasing inflation. The money spent on those taxes must come from
>somewhere!

	Exactly. However, the increase will only happen once, when the
	tax is first imposed. After that, inflation will stabilize.
	It really won't dent the economy. Europe's economies currently
	have no problem with $4.00 a gallon gasoline.


>>Now, is the tax regressive?  Well I believe that the wealthier one is
>>the more gasoline one tends to consume so a gas tax will only be
>>marginally regressive.  Still, it will be regressive.  The more
>>important question is does this matter?  It depends on how you view
>>private auto travel.  If you view it as a luxury then the fact that a
>>gas tax is regressive is irrelevant.  If, however, you view private auto
>>travel as a necessity then - well then we're screwed.  The reason I say
>>this is two fold.  First, autos are probably the single largest source
>>of polution in this country (remember, those refineries are poluting to
>>make gasoline for your car).  Second, private auto travel is obviously
>>not a necessity.  Anyone arguing that it is a necessity hasn't seriously
>>looked at the alternatives.  Such a claim seems extreemly self serving
>>to me and suggests a viewpoint that reducing energy consumption (and
>>polution) is a nice goal just so long as I don't have my lifesytle
>>adversely affected. 

>	Several points:

>	1. While the rich may consume more gas than the poor, it is not a
>substantially higher amount - certainly not enough to justify terming the
>tax other than regressive. Bear in mind that a gasoline tas will ALSO
>increase the cost of public transit since the transit vehicles will cost
>more to operate, a cost passed on almost exclusively to the poor.

	Of course, the government could easily exempt public transit
	vehicles from paying the tax. 'Twould be a simple thing to do.

>In addition, while the rich can travel via air on trips, the poor often have
>little choice economically than to drive.

	They can also take a bus, or they can take a train. Trains are,
	in fact, becoming more and more popular methods of
	transportation-- just look at the number of high speed rail 
	projects in the US right now. Higher gasoline taxes will
	encourage more development in this area.

>	2. Private auto travel will become a luxury when the alternatives
>become both accessible financially and widely available. Right now, in some
>areas, mass transit IS accessible - in most areas it is either unavailable
>or represents unreasonable danger to the passenger (i.e., many subway
>systems). Under current conditions, therefore, private auto travel IS a
>necessity.  You argue that it is not.

	You overstate your case here. Even if the price of Gasoline
	is raised to $2.00 a gallon, driving an auto will not become
	a luxury limited to the highest classes. It will encourage
	people to buy more fuel efficient cars, and to curtail
	unecessary driving to save money. Very few, if any, really,
	will be priced out of driving. The coverage of mass transit
	systems will increase, and other adjustments will take place
	that will make for less of a need to drive. For instance,
	retail shopping will shift from a few megastores and big malls
	to a finer net of smaller, more neighborhood oriented stores
	within walking or riding distance from homes. 

	Also, why do subways represent "unreasonable" danger to
	riders?


                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\    
                       	
Newsgroups: alt.activism