Well you see you aren't thinking like an economist when you say "costs" because you are including value judgments in your cost analysis.
If you were a cold-hearted economist, you'd calculate all the costs and not get involved in the philosophical arguments. He/she's trying to solve a problem using economic means.
For instance:
let's say "crime"
To an economist, it might be more cost effective to give every kid a free community college degree rather than keep him/her in jail. So we would spend our taxes that way.
The economist would not debate whether the kid "deserves" a free education, as that is a value judgment.
You see this all the time in arguments about conservation, fuel economy, dependence on oil, etc.
PS: the economist would also tell you that conservation is ultimately fruitless. The numbers are too large. We could never cut back enough on oil to become energy-independent. Not even close. Not even remotely close. We'd have to plunge into drastic depression.
So the "costs" of conservation might be too high, ironically.
Sorry fezo, my weight example was NOT aimed in your direction - honest!
"I am not totally against government intervention per se...."
Well, neither am I (I don't think). I mean, I see the need for speed limits of SOME sort as a means to protect 'society' even though speed limits infringe (in some measure) on the freedoms of the individual.
"I've yet to see people in great numbers actively trying to reduce consumption of fossil fuels whether it be in commuting or recreational use."
A couple of months ago, I'd have agreed with you. But lately I HAVE noticed that the general speed of normal commuter traffic HAS decreased, at least locally. And even out on the open road (put 600 miles on the car Tuesday evening and Wednesday) between Austin and Midland, I noticed that a much higher % of the traffic driving at (or even under) the speed limit.....including yours truly.
"Well you see you aren't thinking like an economist when you say "costs" because you are including value judgments in your cost analysis.
If you were a cold-hearted economist, you'd calculate all the costs and not get involved in the philosophical arguments."
Value judgments HAVE to be part of the analysis....after all, the argument FOR Conservation isn't done purely on an economic basis either. As you yourself point out: "the economist would also tell you that conservation is ultimately fruitless" If this is in fact the case, then the argument FOR Conservation ends up being based on value judgments.
Besides, I'm not the cold-hearted economist type. Anyone who knows me knows I'm more of a warm'n'fuzzy kinda guy... :shades:
Oh I don't think the economist is making a value judgement by calling conservation "fruitless"---he is just saying it costs more to do it than to not do it
PS: I'm not sure this is what he would say---the argument is hypothetical here....
Sure a society can make decisions based strictly on "value judgments" as long as they don't confuse it with economics or claim it to be based on real cost analysis.
One would hope, however, that mankind will have progressed from the days of reading entrails and looking to the sky for signs.....
Excuse me!!! I don't think the paint on a passive road sign is capable of coercion. Your "argument" is ridiculous. I'm not preventing you from driving,etc., you are just going a little slower for the good of the country. You argue to completely prevent me from an activity!!! I don't think that's quite the same. Sailor is right. BTW we have no smoking in restaurants in my city.
Some is trucked in I'm sure, but most supposedly is Chevron piped in from Salt Lake City. The single pipeline is pointed to as one reason our gas prices are almost as high as Washington's (at least we get to pump our own here, unlike Oregon).
Anybody got any good ideas for incentives for using less gas? Rewards? Perks? Anything really workable?
Here's a proposal: Spend lots of research money on developing 3D, real life like video games (surround sound, projection on all walls, ceiling and the floor, the whole nine yards). Put hundreds of them in a building, call it the "Holodeck Complex". People pay to get into a room for a few hours. At the push of a button, they can be driving a rally across the Sahara, race at NASCAR, off-road in the ravines, haul a boat on the Fwy, go boating at the Bahamas or Alaskan waters (you get the idea).
Add features and new developments - for $20/hr, you can have your favorite water skate behind your boat, too. With advanced networking, people will be able to race each other, driving a (simulated, but life like) Ferrari or Corvette, at a fractional cost of the real thing.
Instead of comparing autos and boats on Edmunds, we will compare the respective simulation enviroments (You should feel the plush leather by MegaSoft in the new Corvy! The sports suspension is awesome with the 12.8GHz CPU. Why can't Duick have a 12 speed transmission like Apple? American simulators are so ... , etc).
On the other hand, impose heavy taxes on any recreational sports activity that actually burns gasoline. This will save a lot of gas - the only energy required will be coming from the more fuel efficient power stations, using wind, water, and may be some nuclear and fossil fuels.
How is that for an incentive to use less gas? Regards, - MS.
P.S. (Edit) I have a feeling the insurance Cos will be very happy to finance the whole project.
"Excuse me!!! I don't think the paint on a passive road sign is capable of coercion."
It's not. It's the fine and the points on the license which are the coercion.
"Your "argument" is ridiculous."
So much for reasonable discourse...
"I'm not preventing you from driving,etc., you are just going a little slower for the good of the country."
That's because it's generally recognized that often folks HAVE to get from point 'A' to point 'B'. Ergo, for the 'good of society', we shouldn't be PREVENTING folks from driving.
"You argue to completely prevent me from an activity!!!"
Yes, I am. If it's 'for the good of the country', why not? Do you HAVE to go fishing?
"BTW we have no smoking in restaurants in my city."
IT'S ALREADY WAY OVER 4 BUCKS--at least here in Akron, OH. No, not on the price sign but in reality. How much have gas prices gone up? 150%++!!!! "How's that?" you say. Very very very simple and the oil companies and the government (EPA in particular) make it happen. Let's take easy numbers that are close enough: Gas was $2 and now is $3--that's a nominal 50% increase. At the same time, what is being sold is NOT the same stuff. Whether "summer blend" or just plain crap, I watch my mileage plummet from (combined city/highway) 24 mpg to much less. ((I have hit OVER 28 with "winter" gas in the recent mild weather to last year's low of 13-17 mpg and a car that would not even idle---EPA promises even worse performance of threatened new blends.) So in this example it takes 1 gallon @ $2 to go 24 miles; then with the crap being foisted upon us at $3(++) gallon no less, it takes 1 and 1/2 gallons to go 24 miles (24 miles @16 mpg = 1.5 gallons) at $3 for a cost of $4.50 or a 150% increase in the cost to go the same distance. Sure consumption is surging because performance is plummeting!!! It is really truly aggravating to hear both government and oil say that it is the consumer's fault that we are using too much. Given my example above, I can cut my driving by 1/3 and still be using as much gas as I had been using. Last year I cut miles driven 20% and saw an increase in total gasoline consumption---that's what started my review of what really was going on with the cost/consumption issues. But hey, have the EPA mandate even worse performing "gasoline" and let the marketers cry about the inability to have adequate supply so they can charge out the tailpipe for it and then blame the public. And then lets not forget the commodity traders who spiked the price because of an erroneous TV report of a fire at a refinery. There is yet another aspect to this issue---even if the mandated blends are "less polluting" has anyone bothered to check whether it is "less polluting" per gallon OR per MILE, especially if it takes MORE of this stuff to go the same distance? Follow up math: From 28 mpg on good winter gas to 21 mpg now takes 1.33 gallons at 21 to go 28 miles--$3.05 lowest area price X 1.33 = 4.05. This is name brand crap I'm using: Marathon and BP. Oil companies have to like the poor performance---sells more "gas." Same with government---collect more per gallon taxes. Read the threads on E85 performance and you'll see similar results. Check your own mileage. Keep records. Get righteously angry.
What will you do when gas price rises above $4 a gallon?
"Fiddle while Rome burns."
Because workable solutions require everyone be on the same page and if they can't then we end up working against each other. The politicians and oil companies are making far too much money and the politicians are making money in the form of taxes so it's not really in their best interests to sell us fuel efficient cars especially diesels. If we consume less gas they will just raise other taxes which is more difficult. If less gas/diesel is used, you can darn well expect $5 per gallon prices to counter the drop in demand. So as long as the oil companies are in charge, you can expect very slow non-progress towards more fuel efficient cars and trucks.
Yes I have always looked at buying an Xbox or a Playstation and their software, well at least the Xbox, as a patriotic purchase. I want them to have the funds to create the next generation consoles, so we can all sit home. The only gasoline we'll cause to be used, is getting the Dominos delivery.
I hear Forza Motorsports2 is quite good. You can play online for $50/year. The console, game, and wheel are less than it would cost you in tax on that new car. In some races pit-stops are actually required based on your driving, maybe someone can see at what speeds different cars get the best mpg.
Let's say I'm driving a Civic at 75 mph and passing a lot of drivers in trucks, SUVs and full sized sedans doing 60 mph. Are they justified in saying that I should be driving slower because it would save fuel even though at 75 mph I'm burning less fuel than any of them? The point is that none of us burn the least amount of fuel possible. Some people choose to drive a little faster while some choose vehicles that aren't the most efficient or recreational activities that are fuel intensive. These are choices that we are allowed to make. Why is the choice to drive faster any better or worse than these other choices that have the same or a worse effect on fuel consumption?
When someone driving an economy car advocates slower speeds I can at least take him a little bit seriously. When someone takes this position that is driving a low mpg vehicle and has chosen recreational activities that also burn gas its harder to give them much credibility. It's kind of like they're saying, "hey, you guys need to burn less gas so it's more plentiful and affordable for me to burn". Bordering on hypocrisy.
Prevent me from what? You want to use governmental coercion to prevent unnecessary, wasteful behavior in the name of conservation (driving fast).
If YOU want to use governmental coercion to prevent unnecessary, wasteful behavior in the name of conservation (driving fast), then why wouldn't it be 'fair' to use governmental coercion to prevent OTHER unnecessary, wasteful behavior in the name of conservation (using a motorboat to go fishing). Has my approach 'prevented' you from fishing? Not at all; you could use a canoe (and perhaps get some exercise....no offense meant).
"You only slowed 5-10mph that's all!!!!!!!!!!!!! "
Well, if you're passing legislation to coerce the general population into conserving gas, why only 5-10 mph? Hey, if it's for the good of society, why not a national 45 or 50 mph speed limit?
"You are the party less reasonable in this discussion. Ask around?"
I wasn't aware that anyone was taking a poll.
You want reasonable? How's this: virtually EVERYONE in here can take steps (or perhaps has already started to take steps) to conserve fuel. My everyday commuter car gets around 30 mpg; lately I've started driving slower and my mileage has gone up to around 32 (almost 10% better). And guess what: NOBODY HAD TO MONKEY WITH SPEED LIMITS TO MAKE ME CHANGE. As fuel gets more and more expensive, my wife and I may start using my car more (an old beater Celica) rather than her car (nice big and roomy Odyssey). In fact, we may use my dad's Prius for our family summer vacation this year instead of the minivan.
But I'm not going to sit in here and squawk about how the OTHER GUY is the wasteful one and that the ONLY WAY for HIM to do the 'RIGHT THING' is through governmental coercion and then squawk when someone starts questioning MY lifestyle.
blufz1, I don't want to stop you from using your boat. If you want to fish, and you can afford to do so, DO IT. If you want to use a cigarette boat to take yourself 30 miles out to fish for marlin, more power to you.
All I'm asking is for you to stop pointing the finger at ME if I want to be 'wasteful' and drive at 70 or 75 instead of a nice 'respectful' 55 or 60.
If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. I've been called worse.
"Oh, I got the all over fidigeties on that one"(Robert DeNiro). You are making way too many assumptions,here. I drive a Honda Accord not a truck. I have a very small boat and probably burn 15 gallons per year for my recreational pursuit. I'm not pointing a finger at anyone personally and many of my posts are in jest. 'Course when someone swings on me,I sometimes swing back. Just so you know.
Maybe it would be better to focus on war games first. Think of all the gas we could save if we had a few generals playing virtual Risk.
I used to paddle rivers a lot. Now boaters go to play spots and hang out in one spot for hours. Cities like Reno build whitewater parks. That saves a lot of $4 gas since you don't have to run a car shuttle. A holodeck experience would be the next step (remember O'Brien dislocating his shoulder kayaking on TNG?).
It took fax machines 100 years to hit critical mass. The idea of Social Security was batted around for decades before passing (sort of like universal health care in the US is doing now). Hard drives just celebrated their 50th birthday. I think your idea is workable, but that decade may well stretch out a few generations.
By that time, maybe we will have fuel cell engines and everyone will be amazed we used to drive around hauling this highly flammable substance in the same vehicle with us. :P
I hear you; if we want to save gasoline as a society, it has to be a comprehensive effort. We would start by prioritizing what is best and most needed for society. If I was to make a list of which uses of gasoline I would start by eliminating, it would go something like this:
Running a close 1-3: 1) recreational usage of planes (flying in circles, non-training flights) 2) recreational usage of powerboats and watercraft 3) recreational usage of snow-mobiles, ATV's, and off-road motorbikes
Then if we hadn't conserved enough gasoline: 4) limit the number of miles RV's can be driven. 5) reduce the corporate tax rate for employers that get so many employees to volunteer for <5 day work-weeks; i.e. (4)-10 hr days. 6) also encourage employers to stagger work-hours to reduce congestion; reduce the peak traffic-flows.
7) Reduce the speed-limit in some cases for very unaerodynamic vehicles. Bus, truck, boxy SUV's and cars. This would all be based on cD's. This would encourage buyers to buy aerodynamic vehicles to allow the higher speeds. 8) Ban unaerodynamic vehicles from left-lanes of multi-lane highways, to allow more aero-efficient vehicles to flow better.
I can't see most of these being implemented any time prior to actual fuel shortages, nor do I really think they should be.
5 and 6 are pretty good ideas because everyone could benefit as long as the auditing requirements aren't so high that they are a disincentive for the company.
At some point, the high price of fuel will start cutting into the recreational use anyway. Given the number of boats I saw being towed around last weekend, I don't think that we are there yet.
I think all of us need to do what we can to conserve oil. Like most people, I just do the best I can with what I have. I think most people would give up 5 mph to help our country. I understand that you wouldn't be one of those people,though. As to your disingenuous question, I drive what I like because I can. I just understand that speed is flexible.
Air up tires. R & R air filter Remove roof luggage/ski container Start and stop slowly Anticipate stoppages, slowing down sooner. Staying at 60 mph or less.
I'm sure you can come up with more suggestions so what are they?
I think your idea is workable, but that decade may well stretch out a few generations.
I've been thinking about the problems, and here are 3 more ideas that we can start implementing right now, as a nation. Maybe none of these are originals, but, lets hear your opinions. The theme is the same in all cases - drift towards a system where more and more people become less dependent on a personal car to commute. Some of us want high speed, some want water sports. I am suggesting that we do not coerce any one, just build up a system where people voluntarily give up on some amount of driving and can still live on.
Summary [1] Repopulate areas surrounding the downtowns [2] Have employees live close to workplace [3] Build new population centers with public transportation
Details:
[1] Repopulate areas surrounding the downtowns Most of our downtowns are a collection of high rise office buildings surrounded by new freeways, criss crossed by narrow one way lanes. The surrounding areas are run down, plagued with drugs, violence and low income neighborhoods, and the middle income people working in those buildings have migrated to the suburbs.
Lets reverse the trend. Make those little lanes coming out of downtown into wide boulevards lined with trees and parks and large sidewalks. Build multi storied complexes (e.g., 32 storied earthquake and tornado proof buildings with 4 apt/floor) with adequate mechanical and sound insulation between floors.
Research what is it that the suburbanites like about their homes and provide it right there. Make the apartments 4-5000sq ft, with 4-5bedrooms, 3 baths, kitchen, dining, and complete with a game room and media room. Let them have central A/C, and parking in the basement for 3 cars.
Make living in the area more convenient than the outskirts. Lease out the 1st floor of every 4th building as child care centers. Line the street with strip malls and restaurants, so the streets are never empty during business hours. At the street crossings, build community centers with swimming pools, tennis courts, and meeting halls. Establish schools and libraries in the neighborhoods. Have some Munich style BeerGartens (thats my personal preference) for socialization. Enforce the law such that safety is better than that in a gated suburban community.
Demolish the decades old dilapidated buildings in downtown and make things of public interest like a museum of natural history or a center for performing arts. Have a canal run through with well manicured lawns on the sides for romantic couples to stroll. Build a few waterfront restaurants.
Once we have all that, people will start migrating back closer to workspace, and possibly within 15-20minutes of walking distance from workplace. That will be so much preferable to commuting in rush hour traffic and idling on the choked freeway. People will still buy those Sequoias and Expeditions to keep in their garage, but use them only for recreation. As more and more people walk, we save more and more gas.
[2] Have employees live close to workplace Locate factories and other industries where thousands of people converge every day. Give tax incentives to the companies to help build housing complexes across the streets, on all sides. Build them luxurious enough for the middle class car buying people to afford, similar to the last point.
Affordability is only one side of the coin. Make living in those buildings more "prestigious" and "socially desirable" by having the senior officials/executives live there, too. Now a great % of the workforce will stay there, and find it better to walk to work than driving 60-80 miles every day in rush hour traffic. Thats saving gas for the nation.
[3] Build new population centers with public transportation I'll put forward this idea with an example. Here are a few names - Bedford, Euless, Hurst, Collieville, Grapevine, Lewisville, Copell, Las Colinas, Irving (I might have missed a few). All are Texas cities huge swaths of open land within 5-10 minutes driving distance from DFW International Airport. Lets build a circular railroad track through all of them, put 2 or 3 stations in each city. Around the stations, we build population centers - highrise apartment buildings and office complexes. People living there could walk a few blocks to work or take the train to get to work a few stations down the line.
If you live in the area, you know that Conroe to Galveston, a distance of about 100 miles along the I-45 corridor is pretty much Greater Houston. With little public transportation. Lets build 2 railroad tracks, 4 miles apart, on 2 sides of I-45 for public to get to downtown and back, with population centers around the stations on the way.
The more people use the trains, the more gas is saved. I am sure you can come up with a plan for your city, too.
Here is a 4th idea to shoot down:
Reduction of trucking From Laredo to Dallas, the I-35 corridor is choked with trucks every day with trucks to and from Mexico. I am sure I-5 in California has the same issue. How about putting the cargo on a railway wagon and have a few electric engines pull the trains all the way through TX, towards whereever the common point of journey is. From that point, they can be hauled by road again. I think that is going to save tons of diesel fuel.
I believe ALL of the above can be achieved, and each of them will save gas, by a large quantity. I believe it will take a very strong political will from ALL of us to implement these. OK, I don't want to be the champion on Edmunds to write up the longest posts, so I will close now before yet another idea pops up. Best wishes, - MS.
you: Or, We could just slow down by 5 mph on the highway. Which do you think might be more,well,... practical?
me: I drive a car at whatever speed it seems to be working best at - meaning I'm maintaining speed with a light touch on the accelerator. I agree with you that in certain cases - but you are wrong to think that all vehicles get better mpg the slower they go. Each car has a speed at which it will work most efficiently. A boxish Land Rover or Scion xB might get much better mpg at 55 than 65mph. But a 6-speed Saturn Aura (and other vehicles like that) may actually get its best mpg in the 65-70. Or it will be pretty equal to 55mph. If I get 31mpg at 65mph and I can get 31.5 mpg at 55mph, there's no way I'm going to drive 55. If I was that concerned about mpg I would have gotten a Corolla in the first place.
And I think the thing you're missing in why I put my list like that is: If I see that as a society (and that's global), we have the fuel to guzzle down in recreational boats and planes, then I'm not interested in cutting back on the little I use in my car. If everyone's pigging out at the buffet, why am I going to eat 1/2 plate full, when I have the money to eat? Are you saying the CEO's with their 50' boats are better then the rest of us working schmucks? We need to save fuel so some Hollywood star can jet back and forth between their houses around the world? Or the people with the 20,000 sq.ft. houses? Hold the people who really use a lot energy to task first.
I do want to repeat that I don't like any legislation along these tracks. But I do know many people who do want legislation to save fuel. I'm just trying to say, don't pick on the average motorist first, who may not be the most efficient, but at least most trips have a purpose, besides recreation and extravagence.
Funny you should ask! I've just been considering a change because gas prices are eating me up. I live in the south, so probably not as much as in other places, but I've been taking a close look at this Prius. So, yes... I am taking a look at changing.
When you look at the Prius don't buy it strictly for its gas savings. Take the Yaris for example, while it gets less gas mileage it is also several thousands less. Ignoring the time value of money and presuming insurance and maintence costs are the same it would take you driving almost 145K miles to save money in the Prius over the Yaris at $4/gallon.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
If I see that as a society (and that's global), we have the fuel to guzzle down in recreational boats and planes, then I'm not interested in cutting back on the little I use in my car.
That's a good argument for incentive/disincentive....cap the use for each person and if you go over that, you pay a higher rate....the cap could be based on gallonage (tough to regulate) type of use, type of fuel, you name it.
So say in marinas you could have commercial fishboat and rescue gas and recreational gas, dyed differently and at different pumps....in gas stations, same thing...you can't fill up a rec vehicle at a commuter pump. Maybe you could bar code the vehicle or boat?
Clunky? Oh, yes, but nothing could be worse than massive recession caused by outrageous fuel prices as the years go on.
They have taken to doing that in Iran of all places! The first gallon every day is 35 cents. Then it climbs rapidly. Their problem isn't oil; it's refining.
Be interesting with that how long the current power structure can go on.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
So say in marinas you could have commercial fishboat and rescue gas and recreational gas, dyed differently and at different pumps
Oh my you are bringing back some memories. During the last gas crises in the late 70's I was in the Coast Guard stationed on a small boat station. We often got what we called Triple A calls where someone runs out of gas. What they would do then was get a small amount of gas (sometimes just enough to get where they want to go) then call us to get a tow back. :mad:
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
What I wonder is how much gas we are wasting by letting our cars idle while running our errands? How many people hop out of the car to get something at a convenience store, a friends house, etc. or stay in drive thru lines when there are 5,6+ cars in line. I remember the gas crunches of the '70's, and the ONLY drive thru was at a bank, and they wouldn't serve you unless you shut your engine off. Now everybody seems to have a drive thru.
I can agree that by slowing down a little you will save gas, but I think there are other things too, like maintaining the same pedal pressure while going uphill. So you slow down a little, wait until the downhill to accelerate back to speed. I think there are TONS of little tricks we can do to save gas. I know I get about 17.5/18.5 around town in my '99 Park Ave, and that drags overall economy down, but in a week where there is little in town driving to be done, I can eke 25 MPG out of it!!!! I usually average 21.5-23.5 on a normal week.
I know, in times of extreme heat or cold when you are waiting for somebody, and I leave the engine running, I can lose .5 MPG on the indicator in about 20 min, and it takes forever to make it up.
On one hand, you've got "fuel conservation"... On the other hand, you've got "government coercion", with IT'S own set of pros and cons... You (apparently) believe that the good points of "fuel conservation" outweigh the possible bad points of "government coercion". I disagree.
No, that's not my POV at all, since there's no logical basis that I can see for the POV that it's an "either/or" between those 2. Conservation can be voluntary or not and govt coercion can be applied to speed limits or almost any other means of improving efficiency. So that's a false dichotomy.
me, on improving efficiency: the the question is how to achieve it.
you: That's PART of the question. The other part of the question is the COST to achieve it (ie. what is given up).
Well, no...the cost is part of the question of "how". Simply put, you look at each alternative, consider the benfit/cost of all and decide which to enact. The result is a plan for "how".
What about the COST to society (in terms of lost freedoms) to achieve these lofty societal goals?
Sure. What about them. One must consider the cost/benefit of each alternative, including doing nothing. Are you saying that you want to decide, in advance, that the analysis will yield a favorable balance for all non-coercion alternatives? Based on what?
How much government 'coercion' should we have in order to get in better shape 'for our own good'?
That's an excellent question. But it's extremely difficult to coerce people to lose weight (and they all want to do it!). It's much simpler to affect the use of oil. This is pretty self-evident.
At SOME point, you must recognize that the government coercion necessary to achieve your lofty societal goals isn't worth the lost freedoms.
You are simply assuming that coercion is never appropriate. We're going in circles here, this thread started at this point.
You seem to see the freedom of using oil inefficiently now as a loss of freedom, but the loss of freedom in the future from inaction as nonexistent. Why is that?
It's been MY experience that where you fall on this question is determined by whether or not the laws in question affect YOU or 'the other guy'.
That's an unfortunate POV for anyone to take. But in any case, the use/misuse of oil affects everyone, so that's largely moot in this case. The question is what to do about it. Doing nothing seems like an unreasonable approach.
I see "freedom" tossed around as a convenient and visceral sound bite response to so many issues, esp here on TH....for years. The fact is that freedom without responsibility is pretty worthless and amounts to anarchy. And when responsibility doesn't come volutarily, society has to reach for other means. Sad, but true.
"freedom" is often tossed around by folks who never spent 6 months in a hippie commune :P If you did, you'd come to dread the word. I think an old comedian who most of you might not remember, Lenny Bruce, had a very funny routine on this subject---how people started off in caves without rules and how slowly they came to need them desperately. As I recall, it started off in the Garden of Eden and then someone decided to eat and...ahem...use the restroom in the same place...which required the cave people to appoint "cops" to make sure this didn't happen...it deteriorates from there....
IDLING CARS: In many municipalities, this is already illegal to live a running car unattended. In some towns, it's illegal even if you are IN the car and you're waiting for someone (mountain towns in Colorado that face dire winter pollution issues).
that people would've gotten the message by now that there are people who will steal their car when they let it idle and go in the store for a cup of coffee and a donut. They're not locking the door, either! Doesn't matter if you're gonna be right back out to your car, it only takes a sec to hop in and put the gearshift in drive, eh?
Sounds like something most of us would not do but evidently from news reports I've heard and read the practice still goes on.
Agree with Sailor.+ The easiest,most simple method to implement saving, is to just slow down 5 mph. Further, no car gets better mpg in top gear as the speed increases. If you don't understand that you don't understand anything.
I dunno, browsed the web for a while, couldnt find anything on it. However, I wasnt comparing Europe and US - with any statistics. Just an observation on the series of trucks I've seen on that Fwy. May be it makes more sense to truck as opposed to train if the source/destination is different for all those trailers.
Umm, and no, I dont much much about the New Urbanism or what AICP is. If somebody is already implementing those proposals, good for us. I just hope they don't take a few decades to do this.
uh...just about every save the world, stop/reduce using oil goal will be acheived as the price climbs. So many of you seem determined to force your will on the masses with grand schemes. Gas prices are climbing - however cars are a sizable investment for most. As the domestic fleet is replaced over the next 5 to 10 years you will see a natural change in the type of car that people buy. Relax and let the market take its course.
Lets face it, if you are a die hard beliver that oil and the automobile are the root cause of Global Warming you should do a little cheer every time the price at the pump inches up. :shades:
BTW, just heard that the expert predicted another devastaing year of hurricanes (kind of like last year!) when was they last time they predicted a mild hurricane season?
Here are a few more ways to get people to drive smaller and fuel efficient cars and avoid using boats... again, I think they are all doable, we need to have the will to do it.
[1] Teach the children (at school and at home) the following: A. People who drive gas guzzling vans and SUV's with only 1 or 2 people on board are incarnations of evil - they want to consume all the resources of earth and leave little for you, the posterity. B. People who take out speed boats on lakes and oceans really belong to a secret club - they are nature haters and their sole purpose of life is to destroy the ozone layer. You cannot do anything in a boat other than to stare at the water all around and the sky, right? If they want fish, they could just go to a supermarket. C. Rally driving and car racing are for wimps - what they do can also be done from the comforts of an air conditioned room pressing a few buttons. You want to show off your manliness - get off those gas engined 2000HP machines - get onto the saddle of a single horse and show off your skills at the rodeo.
The more kids get it and complain to their parents, people will be buying smaller cars. Thats IMO, no offense to anyone.
[2] At the parking lots of office buildings and grocery stores, make wider spaces for SUV/Vans at rows furthest from the entrance. Have shaded parking for compact cars close to the entrance (I know if they actually do this, I will not even consider an SUV for my next purchase). At multi level parking lots at the malls, make the SUV/minivan driver park on the roof in the sun and climb a few flights of stairs to the gate.
[3] Issue "Efficient Vehicle" stickers to fuel efficient cars after testing and let them drive in the HOV lanes at 10mph faster than the other lanes. Make more HOV lanes, and let the larger cars/vans/suv's idle on the remaining lanes (In Dallas, we refer to the Fwys as "rush hour parking lot").
So you see, we can have lots of incentives, but the main question is, "Do we really want to reduce our gas consumption"? Best wishes, - MS.
Comments
If you were a cold-hearted economist, you'd calculate all the costs and not get involved in the philosophical arguments. He/she's trying to solve a problem using economic means.
For instance:
let's say "crime"
To an economist, it might be more cost effective to give every kid a free community college degree rather than keep him/her in jail. So we would spend our taxes that way.
The economist would not debate whether the kid "deserves" a free education, as that is a value judgment.
You see this all the time in arguments about conservation, fuel economy, dependence on oil, etc.
PS: the economist would also tell you that conservation is ultimately fruitless. The numbers are too large. We could never cut back enough on oil to become energy-independent. Not even close. Not even remotely close. We'd have to plunge into drastic depression.
So the "costs" of conservation might be too high, ironically.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
"I am not totally against government intervention per se...."
Well, neither am I (I don't think). I mean, I see the need for speed limits of SOME sort as a means to protect 'society' even though speed limits infringe (in some measure) on the freedoms of the individual.
"I've yet to see people in great numbers actively trying to reduce consumption of fossil fuels whether it be in commuting or recreational use."
A couple of months ago, I'd have agreed with you. But lately I HAVE noticed that the general speed of normal commuter traffic HAS decreased, at least locally. And even out on the open road (put 600 miles on the car Tuesday evening and Wednesday) between Austin and Midland, I noticed that a much higher % of the traffic driving at (or even under) the speed limit.....including yours truly.
If you were a cold-hearted economist, you'd calculate all the costs and not get involved in the philosophical arguments."
Value judgments HAVE to be part of the analysis....after all, the argument FOR Conservation isn't done purely on an economic basis either. As you yourself point out: "the economist would also tell you that conservation is ultimately fruitless" If this is in fact the case, then the argument FOR Conservation ends up being based on value judgments.
Besides, I'm not the cold-hearted economist type. Anyone who knows me knows I'm more of a warm'n'fuzzy kinda guy... :shades:
PS: I'm not sure this is what he would say---the argument is hypothetical here....
Sure a society can make decisions based strictly on "value judgments" as long as they don't confuse it with economics or claim it to be based on real cost analysis.
One would hope, however, that mankind will have progressed from the days of reading entrails and looking to the sky for signs.....
Shifty
Just Visiting
Some is trucked in I'm sure, but most supposedly is Chevron piped in from Salt Lake City. The single pipeline is pointed to as one reason our gas prices are almost as high as Washington's (at least we get to pump our own here, unlike Oregon).
If you are curious about what your neighbors are paying, the Report Your Local Gas Prices Here discussion gives a good snapshop.
Here's a proposal: Spend lots of research money on developing 3D, real life like video games (surround sound, projection on all walls, ceiling and the floor, the whole nine yards). Put hundreds of them in a building, call it the "Holodeck Complex". People pay to get into a room for a few hours. At the push of a button, they can be driving a rally across the Sahara, race at NASCAR, off-road in the ravines, haul a boat on the Fwy, go boating at the Bahamas or Alaskan waters (you get the idea).
Add features and new developments - for $20/hr, you can have your favorite
Instead of comparing autos and boats on Edmunds, we will compare the respective simulation enviroments (You should feel the plush leather by MegaSoft in the new Corvy! The sports suspension is awesome with the 12.8GHz CPU. Why can't Duick have a 12 speed transmission like Apple? American simulators are so ... , etc).
On the other hand, impose heavy taxes on any recreational sports activity that actually burns gasoline. This will save a lot of gas - the only energy required will be coming from the more fuel efficient power stations, using wind, water, and may be some nuclear and fossil fuels.
How is that for an incentive to use less gas? Regards, - MS.
P.S. (Edit) I have a feeling the insurance Cos will be very happy to finance the whole project.
It's not. It's the fine and the points on the license which are the coercion.
"Your "argument" is ridiculous."
So much for reasonable discourse...
"I'm not preventing you from driving,etc., you are just going a little slower for the good of the country."
That's because it's generally recognized that often folks HAVE to get from point 'A' to point 'B'. Ergo, for the 'good of society', we shouldn't be PREVENTING folks from driving.
"You argue to completely prevent me from an activity!!!"
Yes, I am. If it's 'for the good of the country', why not? Do you HAVE to go fishing?
"BTW we have no smoking in restaurants in my city."
Super. Same here.
Follow up math: From 28 mpg on good winter gas to 21 mpg now takes 1.33 gallons at 21 to go 28 miles--$3.05 lowest area price X 1.33 = 4.05. This is name brand crap I'm using: Marathon and BP. Oil companies have to like the poor performance---sells more "gas." Same with government---collect more per gallon taxes. Read the threads on E85 performance and you'll see similar results. Check your own mileage. Keep records. Get righteously angry.
"Fiddle while Rome burns."
Because workable solutions require everyone be on the same page and if they can't then we end up working against each other. The politicians and oil companies are making far too much money and the politicians are making money in the form of taxes so it's not really in their best interests to sell us fuel efficient cars especially diesels. If we consume less gas they will just raise other taxes which is more difficult. If less gas/diesel is used, you can darn well expect $5 per gallon prices to counter the drop in demand.
So as long as the oil companies are in charge, you can expect very slow non-progress towards more fuel efficient cars and trucks.
I hear Forza Motorsports2 is quite good. You can play online for $50/year. The console, game, and wheel are less than it would cost you in tax on that new car. In some races pit-stops are actually required based on your driving, maybe someone can see at what speeds different cars get the best mpg.
So... do you like/second my proposal? Think it's workable? An idea today (or on 2nd life), could happen in the next decade.
When someone driving an economy car advocates slower speeds I can at least take him a little bit seriously. When someone takes this position that is driving a low mpg vehicle and has chosen recreational activities that also burn gas its harder to give them much credibility. It's kind of like they're saying, "hey, you guys need to burn less gas so it's more plentiful and affordable for me to burn". Bordering on hypocrisy.
"I didn't prevent you!!!"
Prevent me from what? You want to use governmental coercion to prevent unnecessary, wasteful behavior in the name of conservation (driving fast).
If YOU want to use governmental coercion to prevent unnecessary, wasteful behavior in the name of conservation (driving fast), then why wouldn't it be 'fair' to use governmental coercion to prevent OTHER unnecessary, wasteful behavior in the name of conservation (using a motorboat to go fishing). Has my approach 'prevented' you from fishing? Not at all; you could use a canoe (and perhaps get some exercise....no offense meant).
"You only slowed 5-10mph that's all!!!!!!!!!!!!! "
Well, if you're passing legislation to coerce the general population into conserving gas, why only 5-10 mph? Hey, if it's for the good of society, why not a national 45 or 50 mph speed limit?
"You are the party less reasonable in this discussion. Ask around?"
I wasn't aware that anyone was taking a poll.
You want reasonable? How's this: virtually EVERYONE in here can take steps (or perhaps has already started to take steps) to conserve fuel. My everyday commuter car gets around 30 mpg; lately I've started driving slower and my mileage has gone up to around 32 (almost 10% better). And guess what: NOBODY HAD TO MONKEY WITH SPEED LIMITS TO MAKE ME CHANGE. As fuel gets more and more expensive, my wife and I may start using my car more (an old beater Celica) rather than her car (nice big and roomy Odyssey). In fact, we may use my dad's Prius for our family summer vacation this year instead of the minivan.
But I'm not going to sit in here and squawk about how the OTHER GUY is the wasteful one and that the ONLY WAY for HIM to do the 'RIGHT THING' is through governmental coercion and then squawk when someone starts questioning MY lifestyle.
blufz1, I don't want to stop you from using your boat. If you want to fish, and you can afford to do so, DO IT. If you want to use a cigarette boat to take yourself 30 miles out to fish for marlin, more power to you.
All I'm asking is for you to stop pointing the finger at ME if I want to be 'wasteful' and drive at 70 or 75 instead of a nice 'respectful' 55 or 60.
If that makes me unreasonable, so be it. I've been called worse.
Yet the fuel will sell for the same cost. Net result, we fill up more often AND they use less gasoline(water it down).
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm
Click on 2007 and then ethanol/gasoline.
The list is appalling. On average, it's a 30-40% drop in miles per gallon.
Are you using E85 ethanol? From what I understand, your mileage would be noticeably less using E85 rather than conventional unleaded gas.
Maybe it would be better to focus on war games first. Think of all the gas we could save if we had a few generals playing virtual Risk.
I used to paddle rivers a lot. Now boaters go to play spots and hang out in one spot for hours. Cities like Reno build whitewater parks. That saves a lot of $4 gas since you don't have to run a car shuttle. A holodeck experience would be the next step (remember O'Brien dislocating his shoulder kayaking on TNG?).
It took fax machines 100 years to hit critical mass. The idea of Social Security was batted around for decades before passing (sort of like universal health care in the US is doing now). Hard drives just celebrated their 50th birthday. I think your idea is workable, but that decade may well stretch out a few generations.
By that time, maybe we will have fuel cell engines and everyone will be amazed we used to drive around hauling this highly flammable substance in the same vehicle with us. :P
Running a close 1-3:
1) recreational usage of planes (flying in circles, non-training flights)
2) recreational usage of powerboats and watercraft
3) recreational usage of snow-mobiles, ATV's, and off-road motorbikes
Then if we hadn't conserved enough gasoline:
4) limit the number of miles RV's can be driven.
5) reduce the corporate tax rate for employers that get so many employees to volunteer for <5 day work-weeks; i.e. (4)-10 hr days.
6) also encourage employers to stagger work-hours to reduce congestion; reduce the peak traffic-flows.
7) Reduce the speed-limit in some cases for very unaerodynamic vehicles. Bus, truck, boxy SUV's and cars. This would all be based on cD's. This would encourage buyers to buy aerodynamic vehicles to allow the higher speeds.
8) Ban unaerodynamic vehicles from left-lanes of multi-lane highways, to allow more aero-efficient vehicles to flow better.
I also think CAFE could be slowly raised.
5 and 6 are pretty good ideas because everyone could benefit as long as the auditing requirements aren't so high that they are a disincentive for the company.
At some point, the high price of fuel will start cutting into the recreational use anyway. Given the number of boats I saw being towed around last weekend, I don't think that we are there yet.
Same thing in the Peoples Republic of Illinois. Only in larger metro areas (like we have a lot of those) have mandated emissions tests.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
R & R air filter
Remove roof luggage/ski container
Start and stop slowly
Anticipate stoppages, slowing down sooner.
Staying at 60 mph or less.
I'm sure you can come up with more suggestions so what are they?
I've been thinking about the problems, and here are 3 more ideas that we can start implementing right now, as a nation. Maybe none of these are originals, but, lets hear your opinions. The theme is the same in all cases - drift towards a system where more and more people become less dependent on a personal car to commute. Some of us want high speed, some want water sports. I am suggesting that we do not coerce any one, just build up a system where people voluntarily give up on some amount of driving and can still live on.
Summary
[1] Repopulate areas surrounding the downtowns
[2] Have employees live close to workplace
[3] Build new population centers with public transportation
Details:
[1] Repopulate areas surrounding the downtowns
Most of our downtowns are a collection of high rise office buildings surrounded by new freeways, criss crossed by narrow one way lanes. The surrounding areas are run down, plagued with drugs, violence and low income neighborhoods, and the middle income people working in those buildings have migrated to the suburbs.
Lets reverse the trend. Make those little lanes coming out of downtown into wide boulevards lined with trees and parks and large sidewalks. Build multi storied complexes (e.g., 32 storied earthquake and tornado proof buildings with 4 apt/floor) with adequate mechanical and sound insulation between floors.
Research what is it that the suburbanites like about their homes and provide it right there. Make the apartments
4-5000sq ft, with 4-5bedrooms, 3 baths, kitchen, dining, and complete with a game room and media room. Let them have central A/C, and parking in the basement for 3 cars.
Make living in the area more convenient than the outskirts. Lease out the 1st floor of every 4th building as child care centers. Line the street with strip malls and restaurants, so the streets are never empty during business hours. At the street crossings, build community centers with swimming pools, tennis courts, and meeting halls. Establish schools and libraries in the neighborhoods. Have some Munich style BeerGartens (thats my personal preference) for socialization. Enforce the law such that safety is better than that in a gated suburban community.
Demolish the decades old dilapidated buildings in downtown and make things of public interest like a museum of natural history or a center for performing arts. Have a canal run through with well manicured lawns on the sides for romantic couples to stroll. Build a few waterfront restaurants.
Once we have all that, people will start migrating back closer to workspace, and possibly within 15-20minutes of walking distance from workplace. That will be so much preferable to commuting in rush hour traffic and idling on the choked freeway. People will still buy those Sequoias and Expeditions to keep in their garage, but use them only for recreation. As more and more people walk, we save more and more gas.
[2] Have employees live close to workplace
Locate factories and other industries where thousands of people converge every day. Give tax incentives to the companies to help build housing complexes across the streets, on all sides. Build them luxurious enough for the middle class car buying people to afford, similar to the last point.
Affordability is only one side of the coin. Make living in those buildings more "prestigious" and "socially desirable" by having the senior officials/executives live there, too. Now a great % of the workforce will stay there, and find it better to walk to work than driving 60-80 miles every day in rush hour traffic. Thats saving gas for the nation.
[3] Build new population centers with public transportation
I'll put forward this idea with an example. Here are a few names - Bedford, Euless, Hurst, Collieville, Grapevine, Lewisville, Copell, Las Colinas, Irving (I might have missed a few). All are Texas cities huge swaths of open land within 5-10 minutes driving distance from DFW International Airport. Lets build a circular railroad track through all of them, put 2 or 3 stations in each city. Around the stations, we build population centers - highrise apartment buildings and office complexes. People living there could walk a few blocks to work or take the train to get to work a few stations down the line.
If you live in the area, you know that Conroe to Galveston, a distance of about 100 miles along the I-45 corridor is pretty much Greater Houston. With little public transportation. Lets build 2 railroad tracks, 4 miles apart,
on 2 sides of I-45 for public to get to downtown and back, with population centers around the stations on the way.
The more people use the trains, the more gas is saved. I am sure you can come up with a plan for your city, too.
Here is a 4th idea to shoot down:
Reduction of trucking
From Laredo to Dallas, the I-35 corridor is choked with trucks every day with trucks to and from Mexico. I am sure I-5 in California has the same issue. How about putting the cargo on a railway wagon and have a few electric engines pull the trains all the way through TX, towards whereever the common point of journey is. From that point, they can be hauled by road again. I think that is going to save tons of diesel fuel.
I believe ALL of the above can be achieved, and each of them will save gas, by a large quantity. I believe it will take a very strong political will from ALL of us to implement these. OK, I don't want to be the champion on Edmunds to write up the longest posts, so I will close now before yet another idea pops up. Best wishes, - MS.
me: I drive a car at whatever speed it seems to be working best at - meaning I'm maintaining speed with a light touch on the accelerator. I agree with you that in certain cases - but you are wrong to think that all vehicles get better mpg the slower they go. Each car has a speed at which it will work most efficiently. A boxish Land Rover or Scion xB might get much better mpg at 55 than 65mph. But a 6-speed Saturn Aura (and other vehicles like that) may actually get its best mpg in the 65-70. Or it will be pretty equal to 55mph. If I get 31mpg at 65mph and I can get 31.5 mpg at 55mph, there's no way I'm going to drive 55. If I was that concerned about mpg I would have gotten a Corolla in the first place.
And I think the thing you're missing in why I put my list like that is: If I see that as a society (and that's global), we have the fuel to guzzle down in recreational boats and planes, then I'm not interested in cutting back on the little I use in my car. If everyone's pigging out at the buffet, why am I going to eat 1/2 plate full, when I have the money to eat? Are you saying the CEO's with their 50' boats are better then the rest of us working schmucks? We need to save fuel so some Hollywood star can jet back and forth between their houses around the world? Or the people with the 20,000 sq.ft. houses? Hold the people who really use a lot energy to task first.
I do want to repeat that I don't like any legislation along these tracks. But I do know many people who do want legislation to save fuel. I'm just trying to say, don't pick on the average motorist first, who may not be the most efficient, but at least most trips have a purpose, besides recreation and extravagence.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That's a good argument for incentive/disincentive....cap the use for each person and if you go over that, you pay a higher rate....the cap could be based on gallonage (tough to regulate) type of use, type of fuel, you name it.
So say in marinas you could have commercial fishboat and rescue gas and recreational gas, dyed differently and at different pumps....in gas stations, same thing...you can't fill up a rec vehicle at a commuter pump. Maybe you could bar code the vehicle or boat?
Clunky? Oh, yes, but nothing could be worse than massive recession caused by outrageous fuel prices as the years go on.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
Be interesting with that how long the current power structure can go on.
Oh my you are bringing back some memories. During the last gas crises in the late 70's I was in the Coast Guard stationed on a small boat station. We often got what we called Triple A calls where someone runs out of gas. What they would do then was get a small amount of gas (sometimes just enough to get where they want to go) then call us to get a tow back. :mad:
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I can agree that by slowing down a little you will save gas, but I think there are other things too, like maintaining the same pedal pressure while going uphill. So you slow down a little, wait until the downhill to accelerate back to speed. I think there are TONS of little tricks we can do to save gas. I know I get about 17.5/18.5 around town in my '99 Park Ave, and that drags overall economy down, but in a week where there is little in town driving to be done, I can eke 25 MPG out of it!!!! I usually average 21.5-23.5 on a normal week.
I know, in times of extreme heat or cold when you are waiting for somebody, and I leave the engine running, I can lose .5 MPG on the indicator in about 20 min, and it takes forever to make it up.
On the other hand, you've got "government coercion", with IT'S own set of pros and cons...
You (apparently) believe that the good points of "fuel conservation" outweigh the possible bad points of "government coercion". I disagree.
No, that's not my POV at all, since there's no logical basis that I can see for the POV that it's an "either/or" between those 2. Conservation can be voluntary or not and govt coercion can be applied to speed limits or almost any other means of improving efficiency. So that's a false dichotomy.
me, on improving efficiency: the the question is how to achieve it.
you: That's PART of the question. The other part of the question is the COST to achieve it (ie. what is given up).
Well, no...the cost is part of the question of "how". Simply put, you look at each alternative, consider the benfit/cost of all and decide which to enact. The result is a plan for "how".
What about the COST to society (in terms of lost freedoms) to achieve these lofty societal goals?
Sure. What about them. One must consider the cost/benefit of each alternative, including doing nothing. Are you saying that you want to decide, in advance, that the analysis will yield a favorable balance for all non-coercion alternatives? Based on what?
How much government 'coercion' should we have in order to get in better shape 'for our own good'?
That's an excellent question. But it's extremely difficult to coerce people to lose weight (and they all want to do it!). It's much simpler to affect the use of oil. This is pretty self-evident.
At SOME point, you must recognize that the government coercion necessary to achieve your lofty societal goals isn't worth the lost freedoms.
You are simply assuming that coercion is never appropriate. We're going in circles here, this thread started at this point.
You seem to see the freedom of using oil inefficiently now as a loss of freedom, but the loss of freedom in the future from inaction as nonexistent. Why is that?
It's been MY experience that where you fall on this question is determined by whether or not the laws in question affect YOU or 'the other guy'.
That's an unfortunate POV for anyone to take. But in any case, the use/misuse of oil affects everyone, so that's largely moot in this case. The question is what to do about it. Doing nothing seems like an unreasonable approach.
I see "freedom" tossed around as a convenient and visceral sound bite response to so many issues, esp here on TH....for years. The fact is that freedom without responsibility is pretty worthless and amounts to anarchy. And when responsibility doesn't come volutarily, society has to reach for other means. Sad, but true.
IDLING CARS: In many municipalities, this is already illegal to live a running car unattended. In some towns, it's illegal even if you are IN the car and you're waiting for someone (mountain towns in Colorado that face dire winter pollution issues).
Sounds like something most of us would not do but evidently from news reports I've heard and read the practice still goes on.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Here's a bar bet for you - who trucks goods more, US or Europe? Or you can phrase it this way - who ships more goods by train, US or Europe?
I'd have to go digging for the link but the US ships like 40% of goods via train vs less than 10% for Europe - they concentrate on passenger traffic).
Umm, and no, I dont much much about the New Urbanism or what AICP is. If somebody is already implementing those proposals, good for us. I just hope they don't take a few decades to do this.
Regards, - MS.
What works for some won't work for all.
Lets face it, if you are a die hard beliver that oil and the automobile are the root cause of Global Warming you should do a little cheer every time the price at the pump inches up. :shades:
BTW, just heard that the expert predicted another devastaing year of hurricanes (kind of like last year!) when was they last time they predicted a mild hurricane season?
[1] Teach the children (at school and at home) the following:
A. People who drive gas guzzling vans and SUV's with only 1 or 2 people on board are incarnations of evil - they want to consume all the resources of earth and leave little for you, the posterity.
B. People who take out speed boats on lakes and oceans really belong to a secret club - they are nature haters and their sole purpose of life is to destroy the ozone layer. You cannot do anything in a boat other than to stare at the water all around and the sky, right? If they want fish, they could just go to a supermarket.
C. Rally driving and car racing are for wimps - what they do can also be done from the comforts of an air conditioned room pressing a few buttons. You want to show off your manliness - get off those gas engined 2000HP machines - get onto the saddle of a single horse and show off your skills at the rodeo.
The more kids get it and complain to their parents, people will be buying smaller cars. Thats IMO, no offense to anyone.
[2] At the parking lots of office buildings and grocery stores, make wider spaces for SUV/Vans at rows furthest from the entrance. Have shaded parking for compact cars close to the entrance (I know if they actually do this, I will not even consider an SUV for my next purchase). At multi level parking lots at the malls, make the SUV/minivan driver park on the roof in the sun and climb a few flights of stairs to the gate.
[3] Issue "Efficient Vehicle" stickers to fuel efficient cars after testing and let them drive in the HOV lanes at 10mph faster than the other lanes. Make more HOV lanes, and let the larger cars/vans/suv's idle on the remaining lanes (In Dallas, we refer to the Fwys as "rush hour parking lot").
So you see, we can have lots of incentives, but the main question is, "Do we really want to reduce our gas consumption"? Best wishes, - MS.