From: mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: BUSH Administration Hushes Auto Efficiency Studies
Followup-To: talk.environment
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:15:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.114235.3663@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes...
>[Followups directed to talk.environment.]

>In article <31AUG199223103328@zeus.tamu.edu>, mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>>
>>	This has to be one of the worst researched, worst thought out,
>>	and worst argued things I've seen this year.

>I guess you don't read much, then.

	I didn't say that it was the worst, nor did I say that
	choosing it as "worst" would be easy  ;->
	
	Actaully, I suppose it would be a matter of taste, wouldn't
	it?


>>	The "best in class" idea is, at the least, juvenile, and is
>>	nothing more than some idiot playing wishful thinking with
>>	statistics. Of course, it's not presented as a stand-alone
>>	proposal. It is used in a half assed attempt to justify the
>>	the 40mpg CAFE standards (CAFE being a childish idea
>>	to begin with).

>Well, gosh, can't argue with those facts.  It's juvenile, idiotic, half-assed,
>childish...  But seriously, Mitch, do you have *substantial* problems with
>these things?

	I tend not to like the attitude that The Government Will Decide	
	For You. The reason why non-fuel efficient cars sell is not
	because FoMoCo, GM and Chrysler (to name a few) want to
	build uneconomical cars, but because the masses of car
	buyers *want* to buy gas guzzlers for some reason. Automakers
	are only supplying the demand. CAFE standards are yet another
	attempt at having the government think for people. I'm tired
	of having the government, idiotic corporations, ad agencies,
	and the like telling me what to think. 

	Also, the CAFE system requires a government beauracracy that has
	to determine the milage of every make and model of car, count
	fleets, determine CAFE, determine any penalty, and collect
 	the loot. Automakers will have to divert effort to collect
	the pertinent information and send it to the government.
	Increasing gasoline taxes would require little or no extra
	effort than is currently used to collect the excise taxes.
		
	CAFE is only a partial solution. It deals with decreasing
	the amount of gasoline burned in the national automotive
	fleet. Raising gasoline taxes will also encourage a higher
	milage fleet. It will also encourage people to buy electric
	cars, rather than "normal" autos. It will encourage people
	to use bicycles, ride buses and trains, or just walk. Each
	person can decide how to use less gasoline according to
	his or her needs, wants, and resources; CAFE is, by contrast,
	yet another one-size-fits-all scheme. 	

	So, if CAFE is more expensive, more totalitarian, and 
	less flexible than a gasoline tax, why even consider it?


>>	CAFE has never really been very effective, and at times has
>>	been counterproductive. Several times in the early 1980's,
>>	the Deteroit automakers were faced with building a fleet that
>>	exceeded CAFE standards. What did they do? They built tens of
>>	thousands of extra economy cars to get the fleet average gas
>>	milage under the CAFE limit. Of course, these extra cars didn't
>>	sell, but it was cheaper to lose the money in the excess production
>>	than to pay the gas guzzler tax. This excess production is,
>>	of course, wasteful both economically and environmentally.

>I have a hard time believing it was cheaper for automakers to build economy
>cars they couldn't sell (!) than to pay the guzzler tax.  Can you back up this
>claim?

	The law is another example of "as soon as they cross the
	line, stick it to them, but good" laws that are well-
	intentioned, but never seem to work well in practice.
	Several have been counterproductive, such as the Federal
	Government making kidnapping a capital offense. 

	If you make the guzzler penalty big enough, at some point it
	becomes more profitable for the company to build as many as x
	number of cars it can't sell to avoid the tax, rather than 
	just pay the tax. 

	As for the source, I'll have to dig back into issues of 
	automotive and automotive trade magazines (like _Car and Driver_
	and _Ward's Auto Reports_, respectively) from the early 1980's.
	I know the information is there.


>>	Further, CAFE policy does little to confront the real problem
>>	with cars --that they are used at all.

>`CAFE is childish--the best policy is to stop using cars.'  Now who's being
>naive?

	Well, that's not exactly what I intended to say, though, given
	good alternatives, it's not that bad of an idea. The internal
	combustion engine will be around, and be useful in certain
	applications, for a long time to come.

	I'll use an analogy here. Let's say that you are in a prison.
	You know that the food is poisonous, and eating three meals
	a day will kill you within a week. Now, lets say that they
	offer you a new menu that is still poisonous, but it will 
	take three weeks for you top die at three meals a day.
	Exactly how much are you gaining with those two extra weeks?
	Maybe it's better to catch and eat the rats in your cell.

	
>>	The best way to reduce CO2, NOx, and other auto emissions
>>	is to use tax policy to increase the price of gasoline.
>>	As gasoline prices increase, so will the demand for high
>>	fuel economy. As gas prices increase, people will drive
>>	their cars less. Also, as prices increase, people will be
>>	more willing to use alternate means of transportation,
>>	like bicycles, trains, walking, etc. 

>But what's wrong with CAFE?  And why not use *both* CAFE *and* gas taxes to
>encourage efficiency and discourage driving?

	Why not use both? To begin with, the gas tax will do what
	CAFE will, and much more, at less cost. CAFE would be
	redundant, yet I find no compelling reason that this
	redundancy would be in any way beneficial. Why spend the
	extra money?

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