help me understand... I live 20 miles from where I work... after the cost of gas increases, how many miles will I be from work?
-
Features
Why is California on fire? and Oregon? Who's to blame?
- Thread starter Lumpenproletariat
- Start date
help me understand... I live 20 miles from where I work... after the cost of gas increases, how many miles will I be from work?
J842P
Veteran Member
On average, people will change their behavior to consume less gasoline. For example, buying more fuel efficient cars. Maybe you won't, but on average, people will.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Agreed. They will carpool more. Want to live closer to work. They'll find a way.
No--you're making the mistake of assuming a static situation. At the time of implementation it does nothing, but going forward it provides a financial encouragement towards less polluting behavior. Companies can change their behavior so as to lower the pollution tax bill. (I would increase the pollution taxes as this happens--it would benefit the ones that did good, hurt the ones that did bad.)
James Brown
Veteran Member
All things being equal, most people would rather drive larger cars rather than smaller. Two advantages: You can carry more stuff (cargo, passengers) and larger vehicles are believed to be safer than smaller cars in collisions.
When the price of gas goes up sharply--like during an oil shock--then things stop being equal. When driver's gasoline budgets double or triple because they still need to get to work every day, then they gradually shift to smaller, more-fuel efficient vehicles.
But over time, the price increase stops being a surprise. People stop complaining about the price of gas and adjust their budgets. Particularly if incomes go up but the price of gas does not, then the gasoline budget becomes a smaller and smaller bite. And since people would rather drive larger cars, they gradually shift to larger, less-fuel-efficient vehicles, because they can afford to.
In the sixties, cars were big and fuel-guzzlers. In the seventies, people started driving smaller cars because the price of gas skyrocketed. And in the eighties, when the price of gas stabilized and even fell, people started driving bigger and bigger cars. The same thing happened during the oil spike in the mid-2000s.
One way to break this cycle is to make these gas taxes go up every year. Tell people that gas will double in price next week, and they'll bitch and moan. But eventually they'll adjust and keep driving big cars. But tell people that gas will go up (via taxes) ten percent every year for the indefinite future, then we might see people downsize their cars, move closer to work, make the expensive choices to forestall rising fuel costs a decade in the future.
Will that do the trick? I don't know. Health care costs go up every year much faster than inflation; are people incentivized to eat and live healthier because of it? Education costs have risen quickly too. What incentived behaviors are people adopting to accommodate that?
But with rising gas taxes will come higher costs on everything, since everything gets hauled around via gas. Are we okay telling people that their lives will be ten percent more expensive every year because of gas taxes, but it's for a good cause (less climate change decades from now)? I personally think it will be a tough sell.
When the price of gas goes up sharply--like during an oil shock--then things stop being equal. When driver's gasoline budgets double or triple because they still need to get to work every day, then they gradually shift to smaller, more-fuel efficient vehicles.
But over time, the price increase stops being a surprise. People stop complaining about the price of gas and adjust their budgets. Particularly if incomes go up but the price of gas does not, then the gasoline budget becomes a smaller and smaller bite. And since people would rather drive larger cars, they gradually shift to larger, less-fuel-efficient vehicles, because they can afford to.
In the sixties, cars were big and fuel-guzzlers. In the seventies, people started driving smaller cars because the price of gas skyrocketed. And in the eighties, when the price of gas stabilized and even fell, people started driving bigger and bigger cars. The same thing happened during the oil spike in the mid-2000s.
One way to break this cycle is to make these gas taxes go up every year. Tell people that gas will double in price next week, and they'll bitch and moan. But eventually they'll adjust and keep driving big cars. But tell people that gas will go up (via taxes) ten percent every year for the indefinite future, then we might see people downsize their cars, move closer to work, make the expensive choices to forestall rising fuel costs a decade in the future.
Will that do the trick? I don't know. Health care costs go up every year much faster than inflation; are people incentivized to eat and live healthier because of it? Education costs have risen quickly too. What incentived behaviors are people adopting to accommodate that?
But with rising gas taxes will come higher costs on everything, since everything gets hauled around via gas. Are we okay telling people that their lives will be ten percent more expensive every year because of gas taxes, but it's for a good cause (less climate change decades from now)? I personally think it will be a tough sell.
Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
I assume Loren would tax carbon-users, but make tax reductions across the board. So incentives would still be there.
The problem I see is that the carbon tax would apply unequally — there'd be winners and losers. Companies that use a lot of energy would see their stock prices plummet; companies that don't wouldn't. That may be good from society's viewpoint, but many legislators and voters — especially those who would lose their jobs — would find it very unfair. Politically it is difficult.
This is similar to America's health-care dilemma. Efficiency and efficacy may dictate putting private health insurance companies out of business! But your sister-in-law, a claims adjustor, would lose her job.
In the short term you might carpool, use rail, or arrange with your employer to work four 10-hour shifts instead of five 8's. In the longer term, your demand for gasoline will be even more elastic: you might accept the job offer 5 miles away, or reconsider your next house purchase. These changes will be good for you financially, and good for society and for the planet.
More generally, the complaint "But it wouldn't help ME" misses the whole point. Government and the market-place are not here to help Gun Nut or any other gasoline user specifically. There are many millions of other Americans.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 38,970
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Something I just heard today. California only controls about 3 percent of its forest land. More than fifty percent is under federal control. So Trumpy, why aren't you raking those forests?
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Narcissist-in-chief Quack Terlet Dump only speaks what makes his sycophants call out his name. They don't know either and they don't give a damn anyway. They just want to faun, swoon even.
More and more it looks like Biden is playing Jesse Owens to NOTUS's American Hitler wannabe.
More and more it looks like Biden is playing Jesse Owens to NOTUS's American Hitler wannabe.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,570
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
(carbon tax = "gas tax") -- You mean the congressmembers were prevented by a screaming mob of idiots from enacted it (screaming because they think cheap gas is a God-given entitlement, and gives them instant gratification, which is all the screaming mob understands) -- yes, that may be correct.
And of course, Cap-Trade created no sudden losers. A law which abruptly erased many billions of valuation from various companies would, rightly or wrongly, be perceived as very unfair.
I am still quite curious why you advocate carbon tax in this thread, but unfettered markets in the Fair-vs-Free thread. If your essential dogma is that good government interventions are good, but bad government interventions are bad, I think you'll get broad support for that principle across the entire political spectrum!
The Utilitarian Principle is common to both issues.
"Free trade" = greatest good for the greatest number.
Tax carbon emissions to reduce the damage being done ("externalities") = greatest good for the greatest number
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,570
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
The key word is "pretty" --- just tax it however high enough to get the job done. It's OK to have the higher tax be phased in gradually. The fact is that gas consumption will decrease as the tax increases higher and higher. It would get the job done like it's not getting done so far.
I hate to accuse you of being one of the screaming idiots in the MOB of riff-raff who think they're entitled to cheap gas as their God-given right -- but this sounds like a way to get all the motorists-consumers off the hook, to let them keep over-consuming gasoline.
What better way is there to tax the consumption than to tax the consumers consuming it? What is more logical and transparent than to simply tax every consumer of carbon, individually, where they make the choice to consume more, or maybe to reduce their consumption?
This would apply to businesses also which burn fuel, in transportation and any kind of production. If they run their air conditioner too much, the higher electricity bill would cause them to make that change.
I fail to see what makes more sense than to impose a tax -- penalty, cost of damage -- onto every user who makes a decision to burn more carbon. Every consumer, every individual, household, business, etc. They all pay for their fuel, or for their electricity, at some point. Why aren't they the ones who have to change and decide to use less? including switching to alternatives?
And a further point: this ultimately means that EVERYONE will pay, or sacrifice, because even those who don't drive or pay a utility bill will still pay indirectly one way or another. Such as consumers buying products at the store, which will cost a little more because of the higher transportation costs.
So the cost will be spread out among everyone, pretty evenly. But everyone who can save somewhere will have the incentive to make the change, to reduce their waste.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,570
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Does every controversy have to come to this dead-end that everyone has their own "truth" and there's no way society can ever fix anything because no one can prove what the truth is that's being argued about?
There should be some objective answers to some questions, which do not just end in the usual Red vs. Blue standoff.
Are the Australia fires also due to climate change? or to mismanagement of the forests?
What about 50 years ago? Did the same fires happen back then? Apparently not. Or did they? or 100 years ago?
The theory about forest management could be tested: Do a change in either Oregon or in California, on a large scale, to remove the dead wood, etc., which Trump says is the real problem. Do it in only one area, not all the fire zones, and see if next year the fires in that area are smaller or fewer.
There are real ways to get objective answers to these questions. It's wrong to continue letting the impasse about the real facts prevent anything from being done. There are ways to resolve most of the dispute.
Probably a thorough study and debate on all the facts, by someone other than the Red-Blue fanatics, would answer the questions and determine how much forest management reform is needed, and how much the problem is due to climate change.
But the Red-Blue fanatics on both sides don't want any change. Each one has a greater chance of winning and seizing power by preventing anything educational from happening and instead preaching their slogans and stampeding their respective herd of cattle into the Red or Blue cattle car.
Something has to happen to free us from being captive to only the Blue and Red Narratives. There has to be some way to address what's wrong without either the Reds or Blues dominating us and imposing their religion onto us. Right now there is no way that "society" can determine what the real truth is, because every information source is subservient to the Red-Blue tyranny.
In a court trial there is a process for determining the facts, and deciding guilt or innocence. Maybe those are not Red or Blue dominated.
But otherwise there's no way to resolve any question that is a public issue. Rather, each individual alone finds whatever source they think is scientific, and they resolve it individually only, and some could be right, but in the public sphere it can't ever be resolved.
cycomiko
Member
The public in general, and the current prez specifically, are far too stupid to understand science. ANY science.
Trump could actually try out his "theory" whenever he wants.....but of course he doesn't want. The federal government "owns"/maintains something like ~60% of the forests in CA, most of the public forests in OR, and like 45% of the forests in WA. So how about we dump money into the US Forest Service and get it done? If we just need a bunch of people with rakes and shovels then hire the homeless and released prisoners and get going. After that, when a fire breaks out and rages, we listen to scientists from then on and stop paying attention to those who debate via meme on facebook.
The current admin ushered in the era of "alternative facts" and we're now fucked until the adults take over again.
Trump could actually try out his "theory" whenever he wants.....but of course he doesn't want. The federal government "owns"/maintains something like ~60% of the forests in CA, most of the public forests in OR, and like 45% of the forests in WA. So how about we dump money into the US Forest Service and get it done? If we just need a bunch of people with rakes and shovels then hire the homeless and released prisoners and get going. After that, when a fire breaks out and rages, we listen to scientists from then on and stop paying attention to those who debate via meme on facebook.
The current admin ushered in the era of "alternative facts" and we're now fucked until the adults take over again.
You can test it without any work.
It's been decades since we gave forest fires free range to start whenever they wanted and burn out on their own.
Forest fuel doesn't stay fuel forever. So what fell 15 years ago is not typically still there. So the time since the "correct" forest practices stopped is longer than the new high level of fires.
We go back in time, and measure the fire frequency and size versus the number of years since proper forestry practices, and versus the global climate change. And see which one correlates better.
(I think that has already been done.)
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!
Wildfires in California are nothing new, it's not like they just started after the 2016 election. Wildfires are a natural and necessary phenomena. But what we experience here in California (and I suspect the same in other areas prone to wildfires) is that the numerous wildfires that start are mostly due to human activity/interactions. Now, the anti-science, ignorant, religious zealot governor of California, Gavin Newsom actually said, "the hots get hotter, the wets get wetter" and something like "nature bats last and is batting 1,000". Really ? This is the "science" ? He sounds like a moron.
In California it is extremely difficult to get stuff like this done because of the various environmental groups that want to protect every blade of grass or wild flower that they deem important. It's quite a mess. And I doubt the drug addled homeless will be much use or even motivated to help out.
Indeed, "the hots get hotter", how could one possibly argue against that "science". In California, we can't even keep the lights on.
cycomiko
Member
So what do the actual scientists say? I don't know much about your governor. Is he a climate scientist? If you get fires every year, we get them in WA too, then wouldn't they actually burn less hot and less often?
What is your theory?
I personally would prevent people from developing in the fire-prone areas and let them burn. However, in this country, if it doesn't make money it can't be the right answer.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
James Brown
Veteran Member
If carbon is the issue tax carbon. It doesn't matter where the carbon came from, the environmental impact is the same. We should be going after the low-hanging fruit first.
Exactly, a carbon tax. Although I would implement it a bit differently: I would tax carbon production (digging up coal, pulling oil out of a well etc.) and permit the tax to be recouped down the road if the carbon ended up in a form that's not in the environment. (I would make this general--anyone pulling carbon out of the environment can get the tax rebated even if they didn't produce any in the first place.) This means taxing far fewer entities and thus is a lot easier to enforce.
Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
I agree with your suggestions with one possible exception. Trees -- won't many planted trees just be burned before long anyway?Loren Pechtel said:
Planting trees is as you say temporary, it wouldn't qualify. Grow trees, then throw them in an old salt mine and the amount of carbon in the wood qualifies for the tax credit. (But anyone who pulls them back out pays the carbon tax.)
The solution to the climate change fires.
Gun-toting Oregon woman pins down suspect arsonist as wildfires rage on
Gun-toting Oregon woman pins down suspect arsonist as wildfires rage on