That is precisely the point: alternative fuels; ethanol, CNG, biodiesel, electric, i.e. hybrid, etc, etc. Against a larger backdrop, environmentalists are/have been saying we need to depend less on foreign oil. Would you say it would be HARD to do that, when all you are advocating is products made from : FOREIGN OIL !!?? Or have you grown accustomed to argumentation in an endless loop scenario?
you: A Suburban on general principle should be subject to some type of excess usage tax as should a Bugatti.
me: Unless there is something unusual about a Suburban's hp, which is fairly high but not high relative to the mass of the vehicle, you'd be wandering. once upon a time there was a forum with about 80K posts on that topic. You're about a year late.
One of the main points of that topic on SUV's was - why should you selectively involve yourself in others' legal choices. I'm sure you who think a Suburban should be taxed, might not like when someone decides part of your lifestyle is excessive, your commute is too long, and your hobbies are unnecessary and polluting.
By the way do you think RV's, snowmobiles, 300+ hp power boats, and 100+ mile trips to the ski-slopes would be excess-usage? More taxes?
Is on tonight on TBS. If you don't have a reason to like high hp vehicles, you might find one in, that girls like Angelina Jolie get turned on by them. Yummy!
I always want to put 1 of those "Go Baby Go" buttons in my car.
While not specifically on-topic, vehicles and I'm going to pick on the Escalade that pollute more and use up resources quite liberally and are not work vehicles should be subject to some tax. I would exempt commerically registered vehicles which are involved in some type of business.
Yes, RVs on petrol should be subject to taxes as well. Snowmobiles, no...they can't be driven on public roads without snow. Power boats, no, I can't remember the last time I plowed into a power boat driving to work.
To close, if someone things part of my lifestyle is excessive and wants to tax it...and people who have the same type of lifestyle are taxed the same way..I'm all for it.
I have no clue what you are talking about. I don't have a 500 hp car and driver at 100+. Nor am I advocating anything but taxes on gas guzzlers and large suvs that drive up the price of gas.
"I have no clue what you are talking about. I don't have a 500 hp car and driver at 100+. Nor am I advocating anything but taxes on gas guzzlers and large suvs that drive up the price of gas. "
That is more than obvious. Neither do I have a 500 hp car and driver at 100 plus, however that is not the point. It is also obvious that so called gas guzzlers and large suv's pay more taxes per mile. So if you are advocating a tax over (an existing gas guzzler tax) a tax, etc, then I disagree. The 12% of suv owners can be a pretty strong effective lobby if the powers that be see fit to try to oppress them.
Nor am I advocating anything but taxes on gas guzzlers and large suvs that drive up the price of gas.
Picking on any group of people is bad politics. It will backfire. I gave the example the other day. The state of CA has put so many restrictions on diesel that the price has gone sky high. Now the CA truckers cannot compete with those from other states. They fill up in AZ at 50 cents less per gallon drive in unload and pick up their return load. They don't spend a penny on diesel in CA or pay a road tax. The second part of that is the CA truckers cannot afford to upgrade their trucks to meet the stricter CA emissions.
You and I can come up with a reason to tax anybody and everybody for something they do that is excessive. I don't think you would like that kind of society.
you: I'm going to pick on the Escalade that pollute more and use up resources quite liberally ...
me: I guarantee you a power boat uses up resources a lot more liberally than an Escalade. And 1 day on a 2-stroke snowmobile puts more pollution in the air than you can imagine. And snowmoobiles use public land - like National parks and "public air".
you: Power boats, no, I can't remember the last time I plowed into a power boat driving to work.
me: I thought you wanted to tax items based on usage. Why do they have to be on the road? That's like telling a person dieting to stay away from entrees, but it doesn't matter if you eat all the desserts you want. And what does your chance of an accident have to do with usage taxes?
you: To close, if someone things part of my lifestyle is excessive and wants to tax it...and people who have the same type of lifestyle are taxed the same way..I'm all for it.
me: See there's a problem with thinking like that; if you want to whack yourself in the head with a 2" x 4" , why do you expect the rest of us to want to join you? Feel free to do as you wish. But remember you're not respecting others if you insist on trying to control what others do.
>Nor am I advocating anything but taxes on gas guzzlers and large suvs that drive up the price of gas.
IF SUV represent 12% of the registered cars in the US, and if we consider they are clocking the same mileage as standard cars, and that they use 2X as much fuel as the "average car", then SUV may represent 25% of the US gas Consumption. (I welcome studies)
Why would the other guys representing the remaining 75% get away without paying your gas Guzzler tax?
30K miles per year on a Prius still drinks more than 3K on an Escalade. I can't see a better to strike "excessive" fuel consumption by raising the gas tax. I am pretty sure this way many people would get reasonable and not only the "rich" ones.
>if you use a gallon, you pay tax ont he gallon that everyone else pays.
That is my point, because there is no better way to measure the actual fuel consumption. Like any motorist, I like cheap fuel price, but I know this leads to fuel waste.
You make a good point! If a Prius goes 30,000 miles per year and gets 45 mpg for 667 gal per year andso somes suv 10,000 miles per year @ 15 mpg for 667 gal per year, who uses more fuel?
So really the differences in mpg and miles driven per year is the defacto "voluntary" tax !!!
So if you don't want to pay the tax (or shall I say you wish to pay less taxes) you have legal options. Here are a few
1. get/use a car that has better mpg
2. drive less miles
3. combination of #'s 1 & 2
4 so if one has to buy, register and maintain two cars to reap the benefits of say going 30,000 miles in a Prius and weekends towing 10,000 miles per year he again many more defacto taxes (pays more taxation)!! ?? .
"Picking on any group of people is bad politics. It will backfire"
I don't understand we do that now in many different ways. The only example I will cite is the gas guzzler tax. What I'm proposing (not even that, just discussing) isn't very far off from that.
We need to protect the oil and gas reserves. That's what this whole discussion is about. Growing HP in vehicles. One way is higher red-line, other way is bigger engines. Either way as the past posts have said, most high hp cars are just a waste.
"IF SUV represent 12% of the registered cars in the US"
You can do this research yourself, find out how much the US energy consumption has gone up directly related to large SUVs and bigger trucks like the Escalade. Along with the massive engines and thirstier vehicles there is a pollution association.
"me: I thought you wanted to tax items based on usage. Why do they have to be on the road?"
Hey if you want to tax power boats lobby for it. If you want to tax lawn mowers go for it. The federal government does recognize the consumption issue as they are planning to put into place new regulations, so I can't be that far off.
No you said you drove your diesel at 100mph and got 68 mpg (which was called doubtful). You also said you have a Z06 in garage, which you never said how you drive.
Yeah I would guess 16/17 in a Crown Vic at those speeds! He was going too fast for me to stop and ask him. Texas is rolling hills so not too much of down hills! As in not like in the Rocky Mountains!?
But actually that was about what we got after a 8/10 hour shift in a Police Cruiser Crown Vic, which actually did include up to 115 mph, while coded.
I'm not sure to whom I replied on that one. I agree with taxing proportionate to consumption. We agree because of the ease of collecting the tax. I may have misunderstood or replied to wrong person. I apologize if I did. I'm too tired to go back through to find out.
You've used more than your governmentally determined internet time allotment with your last post.
All future posts for the month will be taxed at $6521.58 per additional post.
From the 'Excess consumption of internet bandwidth tax regulation 31-1224.14'
Furthermore, a consumption tax on voting has now been implemented. Voting more than once every 25 years is now considered excessive, having been determined through a rigorous scientific study. Anyone voting more than once every 25 years will have a monthly recurring fee of $678,983.12 levied against them in perpetuity.
(just some hypothetical taxes based off consumption... I take it that you wouldn't mind paying, of course)
---
You know, I lived for some time in South Korea... and they have a consumption tax for electricity. If you happen to use more than what their government thinks is 'too much' electricity, you are charged far more per kilowatt of electricity than anyone using less than that magic number.
Yet by who's measure is that magical 'excess' figure determined? If I have to pay that tax, should I not have a say in the matter?
.."Picking on any group of people is bad politics. It will backfire"... At some point, it usually does.
But on the other hand it has been the American way: i.e., oppress the minority/s to benefit the majority. there are some minority groups that are off limits, such as: race color, creed, gender, etc.
So for example membership in the Armed Services is a minority. BUT in theory one volunteers to take the oath!? There are 2M men and women under arms of 297 M USA population. Do the math and presto that is 2M//297M= .006734 %/ 100%.
kdshapiro: I'll let my original statement stand, which is with a few exceptions higher horsepower vehicles tend to consume more resources and emit more pollution.
You can let it stand, but as far as your statement attempts to link higher horsepower to greater pollution, it is incorrect. As I've said before, ALL vehicles are subject to the same standards under the Clean Air Act. A vehicle that makes 500 horsepower cannot, by law, emit any more pollution than a vehicle that produces 100 horsepower.
Incidentally, in many cases the engineering used to produce higher horsepower also causes the vehicle to run cleaner.
Today's cars refute your contention. For all of the complaints about "excessive" and increasing horsepower in everything from family sedans to Corvettes, the simple fact is that those vehicles are CLEANER than their less powerful counterparts of 10 years ago.
And despite increasing horsepower, America's air keeps getting cleaner, and will continue to do so, as older, more polluting vehicles are cycled out of the nation's fleet.
"A vehicle that makes 500 horsepower cannot, by law, emit any more pollution than a vehicle that produces 100 horsepower. "
This is absolutely, positively correct!! For anyone that doubts it, it will be assigned to find out the TRUTH!! in lieu of your taxation! ")
Incidently if Toyota continues its 100,000 per year Prius manufacture, how many years will it take to cycle out the current fleet?
(assuming Prius' are MANDATORY) 232.2M PVF, 7.5-8.5 years avg age of the fleet. 7.5% yearly salvage rate 100,000 per year with 17,415,000 per year salvaged.
That is an absolute fact. My 300 HP 5.3L V8 GMC PU truck is less polluting than a 3 year old Corolla with a 4 cylinder 1.8L engine. And that comes from the Greenest of the green automakers, Toyota.
They may use more gas, they are NOT more polluting. You want some pollution check out the toxic ash coming out of Mt Augustine in Alaska. Millions of tons of stuff that is not healthy to breathe. Where is the EPA when you need them? Oh they are too busy keeping the 80 MPG Smart diesel from being sold in the USA. There is a car that does not put out very much CO2 for you global warming people. Maybe if it came from Japan we would let it be sold.
I agree with that, but with the reduced incremental benefit also comes an incremental reduction in cost. So the fuel economy loss between the 200- and 300-hp cars will likely also be greater than that of the former pair. It works both ways, with plenty of room for variation in between. (As we saw, BMW can offer more power, yet not harm economy at all.)
I've attached the BMW comparison of yours.
Another example: The new BMW 3-series sedan. Compare the two engines available:
Notice that the HP ratings fall into that window I spoke of earlier (or close to it) of 220-250 HP. So that really isn't too much of a change in HP, and the MPG numbers may be equal due to gearing or car weight.
I personally have no problems with those numbers at all...nice performance and decent gas mileage.
Doesn't a larger displacement mean roughly a proportionally higher volume (mass) of pollutants if the motor is producing less than the required minimum of e.g. carbon dioxide?
me: That's a nice thought, and I agree with the sentiment. But since there is only so much oil and gas, it will eventually be used up, won't it? It's the same result whether we continue as is, save 5%/year or 20%/year.
And you really must consider that the entire U.S. if you could someone get everyone to conserve would not make much of a dent in this issue. reducing demand in the U.S. will reduce demand, which reduces price, which will increase demand in other areas of the world. China and India will continue to develop and living standards increase such that future energy demand is only going UP. There is no known way to stop it, unless thhere is an apocalypse.
If you think I'm wrong, define excessive and what we should drive, figure what that amounts to in gal/year, figure whatt percentage of the world's oil usage that is, and tell us how many more years of oil and gas we'll have. Does that really matter over the millenium to come?
"As I've said before, ALL vehicles are subject to the same standards under the Clean Air Act"
As I said before the EPA now considers CO2 to be pollution. In that vein the 500 hp vehicle will emit more pollution than a 4 cyl Corolla. So your statement is incorrect.
You can let it stand, but as far as your statement attempts to link higher horsepower to greater pollution, it is incorrect. As I've said before, ALL vehicles are subject to the same standards under the Clean Air Act. A vehicle that makes 500 horsepower cannot, by law, emit any more pollution than a vehicle that produces 100 horsepower.
I'm sorry, but I'll have to correct you on this point. The EPA has a myriad of classifications for vehicle emissions, trucks are given less stringent standards than are cars, and laws vary between what is permitted in California (and the Northeast) and the rest of the country, so there isn't one standard.
And in any case, not every car pollutes by the same amount. But as I'll show in a later link, using the horsepower metric to determine this is simplistic and off the mark.
As I said before the EPA now considers CO2 to be pollution
By your reckoning a 200 Lb man will pollute twice what a 100 Lb woman. A weight tax on people is in order then. How many tons of CO2 does the average man exhale, not to mention deadly methane being expelled.
You are correct in the assertion that CO2 is relative to the amount of fossil fuel used. The very reason that Europe has 50% diesel cars. Less fuel less pollution.
A 200 HP diesel car of equal weight will outperform a 300 HP gasoline car. And use a third less fuel in the process, thus polluting a third less.
Then according to your logic, this might be a good reason to turn all wet lands to dry lands. Wetlands (in contrast to drylands) produce HUGE amounts of C02. And I mean HUGE!!!
A 200 HP diesel car of equal weight will outperform a 300 HP gasoline car. And use a third less fuel in the process, thus polluting a third less.
A couple of bits about that:
-Diesel particulates are different from those of gasoline. Until recently, diesel was generally a dirtier fuel. In the past, for a given amount of displacement, a diesel motor would produce less horsepower, better fuel efficiency on an mpg (L/km) basis, higher torque and more emissions than a comparably sized gas engine.
This gap has been closing recently with cleaner diesel fuel, improved induction (turbocharging and diesels are almost inevitably paired together these days, to overcome the acceleration gap that would otherwise be evident), and better emissions. But these changes are quite recent.
-As we've seen above, the link between horsepower and fuel efficiency is far from linear. You can't assume that a 200hp engine is 50% more fuel efficient than a 300hp engine, as that is almost always not the case. You'd be better off with fuel economy data if you want to discuss fuel economy.
I think they tried that in New Orleans. If memory serves me the Sierra Club has a lawsuit against the US Army Corps of Engineers, to block any expansion of the levee system. It dates to about 1996 I believe. We don't want to threaten the wetlands or the dry lands. Or the in between lands.
Just makes you want to go buy a 1000 HP Hummer and rip up the pavement, then rip up the dirt under the pavement.
Just keep planting trees. I planted two more yesterday, that should negate the pollution my vehicles produce.
You are correct. As I see it, this disparity was set in motion by the regulators (Carter Administration?) who saw fit NOT to require low sulfur diesel fuel back when they mandated the switch to UNLEADED regular, which happened in the 1970's. Unleaded regular vehicles had easily 36 years of so called yearly "constant" improvement, not to mention the fact that fully 99% of the passenger vehicle fleet is unleaded regular. I mean how much priority and R & D monies can you put on less than 3% of the population? In effect 99% of the effort and of course R & D monies have gone to the unleaded regular logistical system. So look at where we are today if the foreign oil dependency is indeed a valid issue??? !!!!
The bad news is the slo mo and unleaded regular advocates have NO cogent plan (actually NO clue at all) as to how to get the nation off the dependence on the foreign elixer!!
THE GOOD NEWS:
1. The good news is diesel is moving on a FAR FASTER pace 2. Low sulfur diesel fuel has actually less sulfur than even unleaded regular. 3. In addition biodiesel can have NO sulfur. 4. Also diesel fuel refined from coal and natural gas are cleaner structurally than unleaded regular. 5. Also gagrice posted the Sierra Club's (one of the "premier" environmental organizations) estimation of 25,000 years of DOMESTIC coal reserves. 6. in addtion diesel can be processed from almost TOTAL domestic sources. This is HUGER THAN HUGE, which of course almost guarantees it will be overlooked by the clueless.
as an example biodiesel can be processed for as little as .46-.75 cents vs (current market whsle price of unleaded regular of) 1.75
..."I think they tried that in New Orleans. If memory serves me the Sierra Club has a lawsuit against the US Army Corps of Engineers, to block any expansion of the levee system. It dates to about 1996 I believe. We don't want to threaten the wetlands or the dry lands. Or the in between lands."...
If the effects or consequences were not SOOOOOOOOO completely and utterly TRAGIC, expensive, and downright catastrophic, it would be funny to note how the environmental organizations have distance themselves from their own argumentation that at best caused proper actions to be stalled literally for YEARS by court fights. So the good folks of LA can thank the environmental lobby for fighting the "GOOD" fight.
I should have been a lawyer. On the one hand, sue 'em to stop the buiilding and enhancement of the levy system. Then as a result of the court delays and real world inaction, sue em on the other side for damages caused by NOT building and enhancing the levy system. We got it covered!!!
Doesn't a larger displacement mean roughly a proportionally higher volume (mass) of pollutants if the motor is producing less than the required minimum of e.g. carbon dioxide?
Short answer: not really. I'll provide EPA data that will show that this is not quite the case.
It is kind of like this thread. No middle ground on HP and more realistic highway speed limits. Some of us want as much HP as our wallet will stand. Others would limit HP with repressive taxation. If we could just all get along driving a golf cart at 20 MPH things would be peaceful.
It will not be settled until we run out of oil. None of us will be here to see the end of oil. For those that think hydrogen will save the planet. Dream on!!!
me: I'm not being insulting in the following, but I always here the same simplistic answers from people on this issue. I'd like to hear a logical (based on data) in-depth explanation of my questions.
1) Why would you expect this hope of reducing resources, to be anymore effective than "Just Say No to Drugs", or telling overweight people to diet and exercise. Hasn't experience taught you anything about human nature?
2) Tell me how much you think we can save by doing certain things, and what difference that makes. Doesn't conservation simply change the date slightly, but not the result?
Otherwise putting "conservation is good" every 10 posts, is about as practical as standing on the Vegas Strip and telling people "don't overindulge".
If people want a certain lifestyle, and the negatives do not appear very large, then people are not going to necessarily do what might be considered good for them.
Plus if you're like me, I believe we'll find a new energy source; and if not I'd be happy living a 19th century lifestyle. I could adapt and be happy if I didn't have a car. I'd get a fast horse.
All told, the list includes almost 2,300 cars sold in the US for the 2006 model year. (Bear in mind that this list defines a "model" based upon categories such as engine displacement, differing sales markets such as California cars, transmission type and 2WD/4WD, so some individual nameplates appears as several different models. It doesn't use horsepower, however.)
If you sort the gasoline-powered vehicles (no hybrids, diesels, etc.) by their air pollution scores, a few things become evident:
-The very best performers were, almost without exception, intended for the California market. Virtually every car with a score of 9 or better was built for sale in California.
-There can be signficant differences within a given model, largely due to the more stringent California emissions requirements. Some examples:
>>> A 2.4 liter Toyota Camry with an automatic built for California receives a "9.5", while its non-California equivalent gets a "6". In fact, the 6-cylinder version for California gets a better score than the 4-cylinder built for outside California (7 vs. 6).
>>> A 2.4 liter Nissan Altima receives a "9.5", while its non-California equivalent gets a "6". Outside of California, there is no difference between a 4- and 6-cylinder Altima's air pollution score.
>>> A 2.2 liter Saturn Ion built for California earns a 9.5, while a 2.0 liter version of the same car built for outside of California gets only a "3".
-The very best performers tended to be those with engines in the 2.0-3.8 liter range. No 8-cylinder engines or gas engines below 2.0 liters are classed as 9's or 9.5's.
-If the ranking is expanded to consider cars that meet EPA's minimum Air Pollution Score of "6", which is needed to earn EPA's "Smartway" green recommendation, a wide range of cars meet this hurdle. The V-8 in the Mercedes S500, the 12-cylinder W12 motor in the VW Phaeton, and the 5.9 liter 12-cylinder Aston Martin DB9 are examples of large engined cars that meet that test. (It should be noted that the Smartway score also includes a measure of fuel economy which keeps such cars from earning EPA's blessing, but their pollution levels are low enough to qualify -- CO2 production is related to fuel economy, but is not classed as "air pollution.")
-The smallest engines are not necessarily clean engines. For example, the GM 3.8 liter featured in some California-market cars such as the Grand Prix and Lacrosse ranks at 9.5, while the Suzuki Aerio 2.3 liter gets a "3", and the 1.6 liter Mini's and 1.5 liter Scion Xa and Xb all got "2"'s. While a California-market 2.4 liter Camry gets a 9.5, a 1.8 liter Corolla for California gets a 7. A 2.8 liter 6-cylinder Saab 9-3 gets a "7", while its 2.0 liter, 4-cylinder sibling gets a "3".
-The regulations allowing trucks, full-sized vans and SUV's to have weaker emissions control result in significantly higher emissions. No van scored higher than a 3, and the vast majority of pickups, particularly those of the full-size variety, could manage better than a 3, with many earning 1's and 2's.
Conclusions:
--If you want to create less "air pollution" (which does not include CO2), you could accomplish a lot simply by requiring all vehicles to go to California standards, and by requiring trucks, vans and SUV's to follow the same California car standards.
--To reduce CO2 emissions, the key is to get better fuel economy. However, reducing fuel usage doesn't by itself guarantee reduced "air pollution" (emissions other than CO2), and some larger engines burn much more cleanly than do some smaller engines.
--Re: air pollution, there appears a inverted bell curve of sorts, with the cleanest engines being in mid-sized sedans (your typical 2-3 liter sedan), rather than in either econoboxes or luxury cars. However, a 2-3 liter engine does not, by itself, ensure a car will earn a high (positive) air pollution score. You can't assume that a smaller motor is inherently cleaner than a larger one, particularly if the larger alternative is a 6-cylinder.
I think you will find the difference is not the car. It is the gasoline required for CA. If you took a 9.5 PZEV rated car and filled it with AZ gas it would no longer get that rating. One other thing, in the process of getting lower emissions with gasoline engines you use more gas and send out more CO2.
I think you will find the difference is not the car. It is the gasoline required for CA. If you took a 9.5 PZEV rated car and filled it with AZ gas it would no longer get that rating.
Sorry, that can't be. The cars themselves are different, as is shown by the EPA classification. They may appear to be the same, but they have different emissions standards and the cars themselves are also different. While the fuel formulation certainly contributes, that doesn't change the fact that the motors, engine management, etc. are also different.
If people want a certain lifestyle, and the negatives do not appear very large, then people are not going to necessarily do what might be considered good for them.
But, sometimes people have to pay more for their indulgences. There are high taxes on tobacco and alcohol. Why not same for someone that has indulgence for Harrier jet HP in car or Viper HP or Bugatti 1000 HP?
Comments
me: Unless there is something unusual about a Suburban's hp, which is fairly high but not high relative to the mass of the vehicle, you'd be wandering. once upon a time there was a forum with about 80K posts on that topic. You're about a year late.
One of the main points of that topic on SUV's was - why should you selectively involve yourself in others' legal choices. I'm sure you who think a Suburban should be taxed, might not like when someone decides part of your lifestyle is excessive, your commute is too long, and your hobbies are unnecessary and polluting.
By the way do you think RV's, snowmobiles, 300+ hp power boats, and 100+ mile trips to the ski-slopes would be excess-usage? More taxes?
I always want to put 1 of those "Go Baby Go" buttons in my car.
Yes, RVs on petrol should be subject to taxes as well. Snowmobiles, no...they can't be driven on public roads without snow. Power boats, no, I can't remember the last time I plowed into a power boat driving to work.
To close, if someone things part of my lifestyle is excessive and wants to tax it...and people who have the same type of lifestyle are taxed the same way..I'm all for it.
I have never watched the original though; would it be worth it?
That is more than obvious. Neither do I have a 500 hp car and driver at 100 plus, however that is not the point. It is also obvious that so called gas guzzlers and large suv's pay more taxes per mile. So if you are advocating a tax over (an existing gas guzzler tax) a tax, etc, then I disagree. The 12% of suv owners can be a pretty strong effective lobby if the powers that be see fit to try to oppress them.
Picking on any group of people is bad politics. It will backfire. I gave the example the other day. The state of CA has put so many restrictions on diesel that the price has gone sky high. Now the CA truckers cannot compete with those from other states. They fill up in AZ at 50 cents less per gallon drive in unload and pick up their return load. They don't spend a penny on diesel in CA or pay a road tax. The second part of that is the CA truckers cannot afford to upgrade their trucks to meet the stricter CA emissions.
You and I can come up with a reason to tax anybody and everybody for something they do that is excessive. I don't think you would like that kind of society.
me: I guarantee you a power boat uses up resources a lot more liberally than an Escalade. And 1 day on a 2-stroke snowmobile puts more pollution in the air than you can imagine. And snowmoobiles use public land - like National parks and "public air".
you: Power boats, no, I can't remember the last time I plowed into a power boat driving to work.
me: I thought you wanted to tax items based on usage. Why do they have to be on the road? That's like telling a person dieting to stay away from entrees, but it doesn't matter if you eat all the desserts you want.
you: To close, if someone things part of my lifestyle is excessive and wants to tax it...and people who have the same type of lifestyle are taxed the same way..I'm all for it.
me: See there's a problem with thinking like that; if you want to whack yourself in the head with a 2" x 4" , why do you expect the rest of us to want to join you? Feel free to do as you wish. But remember you're not respecting others if you insist on trying to control what others do.
IF SUV represent 12% of the registered cars in the US, and if we consider they are clocking the same mileage as standard cars, and that they use 2X as much fuel as the "average car", then SUV may represent 25% of the US gas Consumption. (I welcome studies)
Why would the other guys representing the remaining 75% get away without paying your gas Guzzler tax?
30K miles per year on a Prius still drinks more than 3K on an Escalade. I can't see a better to strike "excessive" fuel consumption by raising the gas tax. I am pretty sure this way many people would get reasonable and not only the "rich" ones.
Of course it is the right way to go.
>if you use a gallon, you pay tax ont he gallon that everyone else pays.
That is my point, because there is no better way to measure the actual fuel consumption. Like any motorist, I like cheap fuel price, but I know this leads to fuel waste.
So really the differences in mpg and miles driven per year is the defacto "voluntary" tax !!!
So if you don't want to pay the tax (or shall I say you wish to pay less taxes) you have legal options. Here are a few
1. get/use a car that has better mpg
2. drive less miles
3. combination of #'s 1 & 2
4 so if one has to buy, register and maintain two cars to reap the benefits of say going 30,000 miles in a Prius and weekends towing 10,000 miles per year he again many more defacto taxes (pays more taxation)!! ?? .
I don't understand we do that now in many different ways. The only example I will cite is the gas guzzler tax. What I'm proposing (not even that, just discussing) isn't very far off from that.
We need to protect the oil and gas reserves. That's what this whole discussion is about. Growing HP in vehicles. One way is higher red-line, other way is bigger engines. Either way as the past posts have said, most high hp cars are just a waste.
You can do this research yourself, find out how much the US energy consumption has gone up directly related to large SUVs and bigger trucks like the Escalade. Along with the massive engines and thirstier vehicles there is a pollution association.
Hmmm inasmuch as you said you have a Z06 and drove through Texas at 100+ I'm not sure you know what you previously have said.
Hey if you want to tax power boats lobby for it. If you want to tax lawn mowers go for it. The federal government does recognize the consumption issue as they are planning to put into place new regulations, so I can't be that far off.
I am guessing you probably are confusing what I said.
Why get 26 mpg when 48 mpg will do?
The Z06 gets 26 mpg!
Actually it was law enforcement who passed me at 100 plus mph.
I think it was a gas guzzling FORD Crown Vic?
But actually that was about what we got after a 8/10 hour shift in a Police Cruiser Crown Vic, which actually did include up to 115 mph, while coded.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
All future posts for the month will be taxed at $6521.58 per additional post.
From the 'Excess consumption of internet bandwidth tax regulation 31-1224.14'
Furthermore, a consumption tax on voting has now been implemented. Voting more than once every 25 years is now considered excessive, having been determined through a rigorous scientific study. Anyone voting more than once every 25 years will have a monthly recurring fee of $678,983.12 levied against them in perpetuity.
(just some hypothetical taxes based off consumption... I take it that you wouldn't mind paying, of course)
---
You know, I lived for some time in South Korea... and they have a consumption tax for electricity. If you happen to use more than what their government thinks is 'too much' electricity, you are charged far more per kilowatt of electricity than anyone using less than that magic number.
Yet by who's measure is that magical 'excess' figure determined? If I have to pay that tax, should I not have a say in the matter?
But on the other hand it has been the American way: i.e., oppress the minority/s to benefit the majority. there are some minority groups that are off limits, such as: race color, creed, gender, etc.
So for example membership in the Armed Services is a minority. BUT in theory one volunteers to take the oath!? There are 2M men and women under arms of 297 M USA population. Do the math and presto that is 2M//297M= .006734 %/ 100%.
You can let it stand, but as far as your statement attempts to link higher horsepower to greater pollution, it is incorrect. As I've said before, ALL vehicles are subject to the same standards under the Clean Air Act. A vehicle that makes 500 horsepower cannot, by law, emit any more pollution than a vehicle that produces 100 horsepower.
Incidentally, in many cases the engineering used to produce higher horsepower also causes the vehicle to run cleaner.
Today's cars refute your contention. For all of the complaints about "excessive" and increasing horsepower in everything from family sedans to Corvettes, the simple fact is that those vehicles are CLEANER than their less powerful counterparts of 10 years ago.
And despite increasing horsepower, America's air keeps getting cleaner, and will continue to do so, as older, more polluting vehicles are cycled out of the nation's fleet.
This is absolutely, positively correct!! For anyone that doubts it, it will be assigned to find out the TRUTH!! in lieu of your taxation! ")
Incidently if Toyota continues its 100,000 per year Prius manufacture, how many years will it take to cycle out the current fleet?
(assuming Prius' are MANDATORY) 232.2M PVF, 7.5-8.5 years avg age of the fleet. 7.5% yearly salvage rate 100,000 per year with 17,415,000 per year salvaged.
That is an absolute fact. My 300 HP 5.3L V8 GMC PU truck is less polluting than a 3 year old Corolla with a 4 cylinder 1.8L engine. And that comes from the Greenest of the green automakers, Toyota.
They may use more gas, they are NOT more polluting. You want some pollution check out the toxic ash coming out of Mt Augustine in Alaska. Millions of tons of stuff that is not healthy to breathe. Where is the EPA when you need them? Oh they are too busy keeping the 80 MPG Smart diesel from being sold in the USA. There is a car that does not put out very much CO2 for you global warming people. Maybe if it came from Japan we would let it be sold.
I agree with that, but with the reduced incremental benefit also comes an incremental reduction in cost. So the fuel economy loss between the 200- and 300-hp cars will likely also be greater than that of the former pair. It works both ways, with plenty of room for variation in between. (As we saw, BMW can offer more power, yet not harm economy at all.)
I've attached the BMW comparison of yours.
Another example: The new BMW 3-series sedan. Compare the two engines available:
Car: 325i / 330i
Displacement (liters): 3.0 / 3.0
Horsepower: 215 / 255
EPA City: 20 / 20
EPA Highway: 30 / 30
Notice that the HP ratings fall into that window I spoke of earlier (or close to it) of 220-250 HP.
So that really isn't too much of a change in HP, and the MPG numbers may be equal due to gearing or car weight.
I personally have no problems with those numbers at all...nice performance and decent gas mileage.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
me: That's a nice thought, and I agree with the sentiment. But since there is only so much oil and gas, it will eventually be used up, won't it? It's the same result whether we continue as is, save 5%/year or 20%/year.
And you really must consider that the entire U.S. if you could someone get everyone to conserve would not make much of a dent in this issue. reducing demand in the U.S. will reduce demand, which reduces price, which will increase demand in other areas of the world. China and India will continue to develop and living standards increase such that future energy demand is only going UP. There is no known way to stop it, unless thhere is an apocalypse.
If you think I'm wrong, define excessive and what we should drive, figure what that amounts to in gal/year, figure whatt percentage of the world's oil usage that is, and tell us how many more years of oil and gas we'll have. Does that really matter over the millenium to come?
As I said before the EPA now considers CO2 to be pollution. In that vein the 500 hp vehicle will emit more pollution than a 4 cyl Corolla. So your statement is incorrect.
Yes we do and stopping wasting gas and oil.
I'm sorry, but I'll have to correct you on this point. The EPA has a myriad of classifications for vehicle emissions, trucks are given less stringent standards than are cars, and laws vary between what is permitted in California (and the Northeast) and the rest of the country, so there isn't one standard.
And in any case, not every car pollutes by the same amount. But as I'll show in a later link, using the horsepower metric to determine this is simplistic and off the mark.
By your reckoning a 200 Lb man will pollute twice what a 100 Lb woman. A weight tax on people is in order then. How many tons of CO2 does the average man exhale, not to mention deadly methane being expelled.
You are correct in the assertion that CO2 is relative to the amount of fossil fuel used. The very reason that Europe has 50% diesel cars. Less fuel less pollution.
A 200 HP diesel car of equal weight will outperform a 300 HP gasoline car. And use a third less fuel in the process, thus polluting a third less.
A couple of bits about that:
-Diesel particulates are different from those of gasoline. Until recently, diesel was generally a dirtier fuel. In the past, for a given amount of displacement, a diesel motor would produce less horsepower, better fuel efficiency on an mpg (L/km) basis, higher torque and more emissions than a comparably sized gas engine.
This gap has been closing recently with cleaner diesel fuel, improved induction (turbocharging and diesels are almost inevitably paired together these days, to overcome the acceleration gap that would otherwise be evident), and better emissions. But these changes are quite recent.
-As we've seen above, the link between horsepower and fuel efficiency is far from linear. You can't assume that a 200hp engine is 50% more fuel efficient than a 300hp engine, as that is almost always not the case. You'd be better off with fuel economy data if you want to discuss fuel economy.
Just makes you want to go buy a 1000 HP Hummer and rip up the pavement, then rip up the dirt under the pavement.
Just keep planting trees. I planted two more yesterday, that should negate the pollution my vehicles produce.
The bad news is the slo mo and unleaded regular advocates have NO cogent plan (actually NO clue at all) as to how to get the nation off the dependence on the foreign elixer!!
THE GOOD NEWS:
1. The good news is diesel is moving on a FAR FASTER pace
2. Low sulfur diesel fuel has actually less sulfur than even unleaded regular.
3. In addition biodiesel can have NO sulfur.
4. Also diesel fuel refined from coal and natural gas are cleaner structurally than unleaded regular.
5. Also gagrice posted the Sierra Club's (one of the "premier" environmental organizations) estimation of 25,000 years of DOMESTIC coal reserves.
6. in addtion diesel can be processed from almost TOTAL domestic sources. This is HUGER THAN HUGE, which of course almost guarantees it will be overlooked by the clueless.
as an example biodiesel can be processed for as little as .46-.75 cents vs (current market whsle price of unleaded regular of) 1.75
If the effects or consequences were not SOOOOOOOOO completely and utterly TRAGIC, expensive, and downright catastrophic, it would be funny to note how the environmental organizations have distance themselves from their own argumentation that at best caused proper actions to be stalled literally for YEARS by court fights. So the good folks of LA can thank the environmental lobby for fighting the "GOOD" fight.
I should have been a lawyer. On the one hand, sue 'em to stop the buiilding and enhancement of the levy system. Then as a result of the court delays and real world inaction, sue em on the other side for damages caused by NOT building and enhancing the levy system. We got it covered!!!
Short answer: not really. I'll provide EPA data that will show that this is not quite the case.
It will not be settled until we run out of oil. None of us will be here to see the end of oil. For those that think hydrogen will save the planet. Dream on!!!
Well I guess they provided for this sentiment, it is against the law to operate an electric golf cart on city streets.
I do not think they would be dissuaded from the citation you would receive
If we think 3 dollar per gal unleaded regular gas is highway robbery; what is 16 dollar per gal (weight) hydrogen?
Do you bring the trees with you when going on car trips? If not, then they're not cleaning up after YOUR car.
:P
I'm keeping my oxygen level up. You are on your own...
me: I'm not being insulting in the following, but I always here the same simplistic answers from people on this issue. I'd like to hear a logical (based on data) in-depth explanation of my questions.
1) Why would you expect this hope of reducing resources, to be anymore effective than "Just Say No to Drugs", or telling overweight people to diet and exercise. Hasn't experience taught you anything about human nature?
2) Tell me how much you think we can save by doing certain things, and what difference that makes. Doesn't conservation simply change the date slightly, but not the result?
Otherwise putting "conservation is good" every 10 posts, is about as practical as standing on the Vegas Strip and telling people "don't overindulge".
If people want a certain lifestyle, and the negatives do not appear very large, then people are not going to necessarily do what might be considered good for them.
Plus if you're like me, I believe we'll find a new energy source; and if not I'd be happy living a 19th century lifestyle. I could adapt and be happy if I didn't have a car. I'd get a fast horse.
All told, the list includes almost 2,300 cars sold in the US for the 2006 model year. (Bear in mind that this list defines a "model" based upon categories such as engine displacement, differing sales markets such as California cars, transmission type and 2WD/4WD, so some individual nameplates appears as several different models. It doesn't use horsepower, however.)
If you sort the gasoline-powered vehicles (no hybrids, diesels, etc.) by their air pollution scores, a few things become evident:
-The very best performers were, almost without exception, intended for the California market. Virtually every car with a score of 9 or better was built for sale in California.
-There can be signficant differences within a given model, largely due to the more stringent California emissions requirements. Some examples:
>>> A 2.4 liter Toyota Camry with an automatic built for California receives a "9.5", while its non-California equivalent gets a "6". In fact, the 6-cylinder version for California gets a better score than the 4-cylinder built for outside California (7 vs. 6).
>>> A 2.4 liter Nissan Altima receives a "9.5", while its non-California equivalent gets a "6". Outside of California, there is no difference between a 4- and 6-cylinder Altima's air pollution score.
>>> A 2.2 liter Saturn Ion built for California earns a 9.5, while a 2.0 liter version of the same car built for outside of California gets only a "3".
-The very best performers tended to be those with engines in the 2.0-3.8 liter range. No 8-cylinder engines or gas engines below 2.0 liters are classed as 9's or 9.5's.
-If the ranking is expanded to consider cars that meet EPA's minimum Air Pollution Score of "6", which is needed to earn EPA's "Smartway" green recommendation, a wide range of cars meet this hurdle. The V-8 in the Mercedes S500, the 12-cylinder W12 motor in the VW Phaeton, and the 5.9 liter 12-cylinder Aston Martin DB9 are examples of large engined cars that meet that test. (It should be noted that the Smartway score also includes a measure of fuel economy which keeps such cars from earning EPA's blessing, but their pollution levels are low enough to qualify -- CO2 production is related to fuel economy, but is not classed as "air pollution.")
-The smallest engines are not necessarily clean engines. For example, the GM 3.8 liter featured in some California-market cars such as the Grand Prix and Lacrosse ranks at 9.5, while the Suzuki Aerio 2.3 liter gets a "3", and the 1.6 liter Mini's and 1.5 liter Scion Xa and Xb all got "2"'s. While a California-market 2.4 liter Camry gets a 9.5, a 1.8 liter Corolla for California gets a 7. A 2.8 liter 6-cylinder Saab 9-3 gets a "7", while its 2.0 liter, 4-cylinder sibling gets a "3".
-The regulations allowing trucks, full-sized vans and SUV's to have weaker emissions control result in significantly higher emissions. No van scored higher than a 3, and the vast majority of pickups, particularly those of the full-size variety, could manage better than a 3, with many earning 1's and 2's.
Conclusions:
--If you want to create less "air pollution" (which does not include CO2), you could accomplish a lot simply by requiring all vehicles to go to California standards, and by requiring trucks, vans and SUV's to follow the same California car standards.
--To reduce CO2 emissions, the key is to get better fuel economy. However, reducing fuel usage doesn't by itself guarantee reduced "air pollution" (emissions other than CO2), and some larger engines burn much more cleanly than do some smaller engines.
--Re: air pollution, there appears a inverted bell curve of sorts, with the cleanest engines being in mid-sized sedans (your typical 2-3 liter sedan), rather than in either econoboxes or luxury cars. However, a 2-3 liter engine does not, by itself, ensure a car will earn a high (positive) air pollution score. You can't assume that a smaller motor is inherently cleaner than a larger one, particularly if the larger alternative is a 6-cylinder.
Sorry, that can't be. The cars themselves are different, as is shown by the EPA classification. They may appear to be the same, but they have different emissions standards and the cars themselves are also different. While the fuel formulation certainly contributes, that doesn't change the fact that the motors, engine management, etc. are also different.
But, sometimes people have to pay more for their indulgences. There are high taxes on tobacco and alcohol. Why not same for someone that has indulgence for Harrier jet HP in car or Viper HP or Bugatti 1000 HP?