By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
And then wonder about a water heater that actually produces hydrogen. Well, it couldn't, because it would BOOM everytime there was an attempt. Right?
The BOOMiness of hydrogen is overblown. It generally starts with a mention of the Hindenberg. The question is, did Hindenberg BOOM, or did the fabric it was made out of catch fire? I doubt I would like to be in a gasoline powered vehicle either if it were to catch fire.
Oil companies don't want you to know these facts. Or else we may start demanding for pumps measure mass of gasoline instead. That would be too logical.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And let's be honest- if you travel to Europe, Latin America, Asia- they live with $7+/gallon gasoline and still wind up getting around just fine. And in my driving around a big East Coast city, 95% of the vehicles I see have one driver going point to point without carrying big loads (me included). Nice to read articles about big pleasure boats being parked and the small personal aircraft industry being decimated by high fuel prices (uh, should we feel sorry for these people?!?)
At this point, oil supplies are pretty stable, although some things like refinery maintenance/accidents in Texas or strikes and espionage in Nigeria can cause big price swings. What about Iran getting aggressive and threatening to attack oil tankers in the Persian Gulf or mining the Straits of Hormuz (35 miles wide, could be done easily). Oil would surely spike to $120/barrel or more, $6/gallon gasoline would follow. Never happen? Never say never, it is possible.
Then tip your gas station attendant the difference between whatever you pay and $6.50 gas if that is what you truely believe. This way you will be unaffected by swings in gas price and you can be guilt-free when you buy gas.
Walk the walk, don't just talk the talk.
“U.S. oil companies and distributors have taken fuel temperature into account for decades. Wholesale facilities are equipped with devices that adjust the volume to bring the gallon tally in line with the 60-degree standard.
Retail pumps in this country don't have that capability. But the devices are widely used in Canada, where the temperature equation works in favor of consumers instead of fuel retailers — and where the oil industry pushed for the right to add the equipment.”
I think that most people who advocate for higher fuel prices would be very willing to "walk the walk". I don't think they are saying that fuel prices should be raised on everyone but themselves. I've heard people make similar comments to yours about tipping the gas station attendant. I can't figure out how that makes any sense. The whole purpose is to use market forces to encourage the development and adoption of alternatives. If I choose to tip my gas station attendant $3/gallon how has that impacted market conditions?
It really doesn't matter because the government will never force higher fuel prices on us. So whether or not I'd like them to is irrelevant. However, we may force higher fuel prices on ourselves and it will have the same desired effect.
I always find it interesting when some people oppose fuel taxes as being manipulative but are willing to support tax credits. They're both manipulative. It just comes down to which is more effective. Every tax credit is a hidden tax increase. The problem is that you don't know where it might pop-up.
I'd expect $7 a gallon to cause massive, crippling recession if it came all at once.
Welcome back to the 1930s. We all remember how we got out of that, don't we?
Some people will claim that this is some form of social engineering. The government trying to impose its agenda on everyone. I find that to be a stretch. If I pay $200 more a year in gas taxes and $200 less a year in payroll taxes what's the big deal. I'd rather be penalized for burning gas than penalized for working.
I do wonder what impact $7 gas would actually have. When gas was $1 gallon I wanted to see a $1 fuel tax. Everyone said that would be devastating for the economy and the poor. Well that would have only been $2/gallon gas and we now have $3/gallon gas. I'm sure it hasn't helped the economy but I wouldn't call it devastating.
My daughter's high school is built inside the hangar that housed the Hindenberg. Amazing place. Big enough to play three regulation football games in simultaneously and yet the Hindenberg stuck out at both ends! The school is built the length of the building but only a classroom and a hallway wide. The rest of the hangar has Navy engineers working in it.
Back to topic, yeah, it burned. It also was an amazingly low fatality rate when one considers the size and spectacular nature of it.
You just don't get it do you? And it seems like a very simple concept. When I talk about higher gas taxes it is within the context of being part of a domestic energy policy. How would a self imposed gas tax on myself accomplish anything? I can't understand why people think that this is a rational argument. BTW,It would only be hypocrisy if I believed everyone but me should be exposed to higher gas prices.
I see taxes as no different than a fine. They act as a deterrent. I'd rather fine someone for burning gas than for working. I'm by no means advocating more taxes, just a shift. I favor consumption taxes over income taxes. Clearly you don't.
Regardless, it doesn't matter all that much what you or I believe or want because we have zero control over the price of gas. You obviously would like to see gas prices go down. I'd like to see them continue to rise at a moderate pace. Unfortunately I don't think either of us will get what we want. I see gas prices becoming increasingly more volatile, which probably doesn't do anybody any good.
Phase 1 can be implemented in the near-term.
Phase 1: Increase CAFE standards to 25 mpg with no exceptions. Well, except for heavy-duty offroad equipment like bulldozers and such. Then increase it to 30 mpg after a few years.
Phase 2 will take some time and has 2 parts.
Phase 2: a) Convert to a mostly electric fleet.
b) Build more nuclear power plants to support the huge increase in electric demand due to a.
I think it is a much more sane approach than the "lets increase taxes until nobody can afford to drive" approach. Both approaches (yours and mine) will reduce demand. Mine lets people have a job too. But, the tradeoff is that it will take longer to implement.
On the bright side, investors in oil companies have every reason to celebrate already for another stellar performance.
107 miles thats nothing.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Cars are taxed according to engines size brackets: anything below 2 liters is normal and acceptable; lower displacements get even better tax rates.
Conversely higher displacements (over 2.0L) get punitive charges. That’s why is not very common to see 6 cylinder engines and above unless it’s a luxury/sport car.
But imagine this happening here!! Will a normal midsize sedan be able to do with a 2.0 L engine!!! Well there’s’ some Camry’s and Accords sold in foreign markets that come with a 2.0L in the basic trim .
If this would pass in the US we’ll be driving Corollas, Sentras and Civics with probably a 1.8L engine or less
The only SUV’s around would be the small ones (RAV, CRV, etc) and these would have the “export” engines; usually 4 cyl between 2.0L and 2.4L .
The bread and butter cars would be like Europe, econoboxes like the Yaris or Fit with 1.5L engines or less .
How this would come to play as Americans have become bigger in size and girt well being in car even an econobox beats pedaling or walking specially with the ever increasing distances between the suburbs and the city, not to mention our changing weather patterns (can’t imagine office types pedaling a bike in the hot summer just to go to work- this would make casual Fridays a necessity 5 days a week, LOL)
Europe’s gas prices converted to US gallons come up to between $5-6.50 per gallon; UK probably the cheapest and France & Italy probably the highest.
Coincidentally Diesel use is higher in the countries where gasoline prices are high; I think France is almost at 50/50 split between gasoline and diesel cars on its roads .
Hybrids are not the answer because they add complexity (2 engines and a battery pack) more parts, more weight and more costs, also most of our electricity comes from coal and gas, not hydroelectric (clean) power so we are trading tailpipe emission for big smoke stack that are even less regulated
I think there are workable solutions on other part of the globe that we could and should try it but we have to eat our pride first; who cares if some of these measures weren’t invented here!! As long as they work we should give them a try
"State Board of Equalization Chair Betty Yee says from April through December of last year, drivers used 112 million fewer gallons than in 2005. Yee says likely causes for the drop in fuel use: drivers limiting the distances they drive.
She says the use of more fuel-efficient vehicles, like hybrids, also explains the decline. During the nine-month period gas sales dropped, the average price for a gallon of gas was $2.95 cents. Yee says the last time annual gas sales declined was in 1992."
-----------------------------------------------------------
That's the first drop in 14 years!
As far as 2.0 litre engines, some us remember when 350 cubic inch (and bigger, I think that 427 cubic inches were there too) were the norm. I think the conversion turns out that they 5.7 litres. Well, now you can get very capable engines of 3.0 litres. Only a matter of time until 2.0 litre engines approach 200 hp. Interesting that gasoline engines in Europe very often require premium fuel, getting more HP from the same displacement.
:-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That statement makes for good sound-bite, but in reality, anyone who has a Ford Windstar should know that cup-holders are more important than fuel efficiency :-) After all, a bottle of Starbucks frapcino or Stonybrook Yobaby is far more expensive than equal volume of gasoline. Maybe if the government outlawed all gas filling stations, and mandated that, instead of bulk sales, gasoline have to come in fancy cartons and bottles with expiration date, everyone will be much more conscience about what they burn :-) A liquor license on gasoline (a sniffing agent to get high on) will help too :-)
Of course, the standard of living will go to hell, but hey, we will burn less gas, and that's the most important thing in the world, right? ;-)
Look how gas prices have declined in recent weeks despite oil futures rising to almost $70/bbl again (closing today at $69.xx/bbl).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'd rather be penalized for burning gas than penalized for working.
Neither should be penalized. If burning gas should be penalized, shouldn't burning home heating oil be equally penalized? and use of electricity, which is overwhelmingly genearted by burning cabonaceous fuel.
The problem with $1 additional gas tax is not when the gas price is $1, but when like now it's $3. Prices go through cycles; a $1 addtional gas tax would not be repealed when the gas price is $3 simply because the politicians would have already spent the expected revenue (remember, budget is on going-forward expected tax revenue basis, not based on how much they have collected), therefore the gas price would be $4 now with the addtional $1 tax . . . and that would be devastating . . . seeing that the economy is already experiencign a down turn at $3/gallon.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
There are a lot of cost-effective and flexible solutions that can help reduce fuel consumption without raisig new taxes. I'm giving my workers flex hours this year so that they can work 4 days a week at 10hrs per day instead of the normal 5-day week at 8hr each. So they save one round trip commute, in which even a 1.7L Civic would have difficulty delivering even 20mpg in reality despite its 37mpg EPA ratings. My people love it, and it works for me too as I can save a free lunch per head each week and less time is wasted on morning coffee as there are only four mornings instead of five.
visiting host
Gasoline is certainly a basic need for Americans. Most fertilizers are used to grow corn and soy to feed to animals for meat production. IMHO, many people would give up meat before giving up driving. Without driving, many wouldn't have a job to put meat or even veggie on the table. Without all those gas guzzling trucks, we certainly wouldn't have the efficient food distribution network to place food on our dinner tables.
IMHO, it's better to think of ways how the rest of world can live a life of plenty like Americans, instead of thinking of ways to make Americans live in poverty like the rest of the world.
How about imposing a heavy surcharge on vehicles over 300HP? If you are under 300HP then you are ok but after that charge a yearly tax of $2,000 for the first 301-399HP then double it so 400-499HP would be $4,000 and 500-599HP would be $8,000. Something like that per year would not prevent anyone from driving what they wanted and the money would not go to the oil companies. The rich won't care about a pittance like that and Joe Average will stick to under 300HP.
You would have to exclude Commercial and Industrial vehicles. A typical freight train has thousands of HP from diesels engines running electric motors. But for passenger cars this might work and the oil companies won't get more money. Then put all the funds from this into road and highway improvements.
Just a thought.
Oh, and you would have to at least double those fines if you seriously wanted it to have any effect.
I like taxation by displacement better, personally. I think either would be better than nothing.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The price of gas has cramped my road tripping zest a bit.
Won't happen, Americans are already driving RAV4's with 269HP. But this will keep all the new high HP stuff under control and considering it's a fair cutoff if you have a truck and need to pull a boat or a trailer. So why penalize someone for that?
Maybe double the amount but start it so the average soccer mom doesn't get screwed in her new RAV4 and believe me I had 3 kids and you do need space with kids. Try hauling all your stuff and going on a trip and wanting power to merge with traffic safely and a 300HP limit is very reasonable.
The tax by displacement idea only works if you have a lot of diesels available which the US does not and you'd have to make it 3.0L as even the new Accord will have a 2.4-2.5L diesel.
No it's called a reduction in your standard of living. It may eventually get to the point where it represents poverty. Regardless, our dependence on oil and lack of a viable energy policy will eventually result in this reduction in living standards for many. It may already be happening. The problem will get worse before it gets better. And we probably don't have the luxury of a painless way to solve this problem.
There are a lot of cost-effective and flexible solutions that can help reduce fuel consumption without raisig new taxes
A fuel tax is a very cost effective approach. The mechanism already exists for collecting it. Anyway, it's not about raising taxes. I've repeatedly said that any fuel tax should be revenue neutral. So it's about shifting taxes. And even then its not really about taxes at all. It's about creating an incentive to use less fuel which would also create a market for efficient vehicles and alternatively powered vehicles. A gas tax is just one method. If you can think of another that is as effective then I'd be all for it.
As far as giving your employees a 4 day work week do you really think that saves fuel? I personally burn more gas on the weekends than I do on a work day.
Payroll taxes have been going into the general fund for years to offset the budget deficit. So the precedence of shifting funds from one account to another has been set. How difficult would it be to shift X amount of dollars from the the fuel surcharge fund into the SS fund, which would then go into the same black hole it always goes to. Now just don't take payroll taxes out of the first few thousand dollars a person makes. He could still receive credit for having paid into the system. And SS would be no more broke than it is today.
therefore the gas price would be $4 now with the addtional $1 tax . . . and that would be devastating
Devastating is a very commonly used word when people talk about higher fuel prices. The current economy may be slowing down but it is still fairly strong. The housing market is the biggest reason for the slow down, not fuel prices. If we get a couple hurricanes this year we may find out just how devastating $4/gallon gas is. It may not be all that bad but at that point people will start saying that it will be $5 gas that is devastating.
Revenue-neutral tax change is easier said than done. And frankly, I don't see why people should be penalized for using gas or energy instead of iron, copper, etc.. What should be penalized is the government printing press :-)
As far as giving your employees a 4 day work week do you really think that saves fuel? I personally burn more gas on the weekends than I do on a work day.
4 10hr-days probably does save fuel over 5 8-hr days. 10-hr days help them avoid the rush-hour traffic. That alone enables their Civic's and Corolla's to get 35mpg instead of 18mpg on the commute. If they do decide to drive around on the day that they are off, it means they find something to accomplish that is more worthwhile than the cost of gas. Instead of wasting time and gas in rush hour traffic, they get to do something they find worthwhile . . . that IMHO, is quality of life improvement. If you personally burn more gas on the weekend than you do on a work day, then you also implicitly agree that quality of life improvement is more important than saving gas. Also, shopping on Monday or Wednesday (depending on which day the person chooses to take off) avoids the weekend afternoon shopping traffic; that in and of itself saves even more gas . . . also help alleviate weekend afternoon traffic on major thoroughfares; that improves the quality of life for everyone else on the road.
BTW, I'm not advocating government mandate for 4x10hrs. Different lines of business have to decide for themselves what works.
At $3 a gallon, people are already aggregately driving less than they used to in a statisticly meaningful way. That's despite a rising vehicle registeration count. That's quite devastating . . . remember, recession is defined as two quarters of slow growth, not (requiring) negative growth!
What are you talking about? When did I say anything about a transfer program from rich to poor. When I said that you wouldn't collect payroll taxes on the first few thousand dollars of income this would apply to everyone, rich and poor alike. The rich person would save the same amount as the poor person. It's a transfer of a few hundred dollars for everyone from a payroll tax to a fuel tax.
As far as your point that it makes no more sense to tax oil than it does to tax anything else, including work, well that is a personal opinion. IMO, I think that it is in the best collective interest of the US to use less oil, more so than other commodities and certainly making more sense than penalizing people for working. The ultimate, long term goal would be to spend less on energy and not have to export wealth to get it. Resulting in a higher US standard of living. Will it require a temporary sacrifice? Absolutely. No different than going to college, which represents a temporary sacrifice for long term gain. If the consensus is that there is no value in energy self sufficiency than there is no point in making this sacrifice.
recession is defined as two quarters of slow growth, not (requiring) negative growth!
Really? I'd always heard that it was 2 consecutive quarters of declining GDP. What is the definition of slow growth?
Energy is essentially the cheapest stuff for burning. When the paper money gets debased enough, people will burn money to heat their houses instead of any substance we normally consider fuel. I don't see any point in making the cheapest stuff more expensive. Such regulations will inevitably raise the demand from interest groups who think they deserve government subsidy (heating) for fuel because they are poor. Such subsidies will in turn make the paper money worth even less, and consequently fuel and just about every other basic material more expensive. Why not just leave the economy the heck alone. Copper, pig iron and uranium have gone up even more than oil. We don't hear cries of copper tax and iron tax only because consumers do not buy copper, pig iron and uranium in bulk, therefore less observant of the real issue here: the debasement of the US Dollar.
Recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of "sub-par" GDP growth; "par" is defined by inflation adjuster. i.e. if GDP growth is lower than inflation for two quarters, it's a recession. Of course, the agency that does the pronouncement reserves the right to make subjective judgement, on top of the whimsical numbers that are called GDP and government acknowleged inflation rate.
(**my truck actually has dual saddle tanks for a total of 32 gallons, but back in 2005, both of them went bad, and I only had my mechanic replace one)