News One Reason I Can't Take All the Science on Global Warming Seriously

[Skyhunter]

I did express my opinion regarding solutions

But I offered as evidence the fact that fuel consumption is relatively unchanged even though the price of fuel has doubled. This evidence supports my assertion that human behavior is not greatly effected by the cost per mile to operate an automobile.

 

[Economist]

Apparently, he hasn't spent much time in Maine. Here, most jobs are in centralized locations and the population is diffuse. Many of the people working in the New Balance factory where my wife works drive 50-75 miles every day to commute to the only well-paying job in their reach.

From an economic point of view this would not necessarily matter. If gas per mile is cheaper than people can more easily afford to live even a little farther from work. They also may live in the same place, but choose to drive more often to various entertainment, such as driving to bars, movies, dinner, etc more often. People may also choose to ride the bus less. Besides, even if it has one effect in Maine, doesn't mean it won't have completely different effects in other states (in some cases, these might even be the opposite effects that occur in Maine). Essentially, it's an empirical question which is why my professor was talking about empirical results.

Just for the record, it's a similar argument that states that increasing bridge lanes does not always decrease congestion. Essentially, people factor the bridge congestion into their decision making, and more lanes sometimes leads to equal congestion.

It sounds like something that might come out of the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation - neocon blather, not real life.

LOL. Considering my prof is an academic and the chair of the economics department at a well respected university (with a well respected economics department), I'm pretty sure he was talking about a good publication in a solid economic journal. Besides, his point was that if you really want to decrease the miles that people drive, then you do so by using a tax, because the econometric paper showed that the fuel standard policy didn't help. In his exact words, "It was a dumb policy choice, given their stated environmental goals."

 

[Economist]

The point is (and I shouldn't have to explain it) that a very large percentage of people in this country commute to centralized locations to work. Increasing the efficiencies of their vehicles would positively benefit our environment and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

Again, let me state, this is an empirical question. Isn't that why scientists run experiments, analyze data, etc, in order to distinguish between which theories do a better job of explaining real world events. I mean, many intelligent people have layed out the theory that better fuel efficiency will decrease gasoline consumption. While other intelligent people have layed out a theory that says better fuel efficiency will have no effect on gasoline consumption. Both theories are plausible, so we need to go to the data and see which one seems more plausible.

I'm sorry that I don't know the paper off the top of my head. It's not even an area of economics that I am that interested in. It's just when I first heard about it, I said to myself, "Huh, that's interesting. I've never thought of it that way. I just always assumed that fuel efficiency standards would decrease the amount of miles people drove. But maybe not." Just for the record, I am not trying to persuade any of you to believe it. I just wanted to throw another argument out there that many probably haven't heard of.

Besides turbo, you don't seem to be throwing out evidence. You keep talking about how you've been around the block and know better. And then you accuse me of being hard headed and wanting to buy into conservative bs. You're not even considering that I could be right on this issue. I must just be biased, and making up comments from my professor that must have only been published in something by Cato or Heritage. In fact, my biggest beef with many of the college kids who walk around talking about global warming and climate change is that they're not even educated in the field. Most of them just saw the Al Gore movie, and hear all their professors talking about global warming. Some of them won't even consider for a moment that they could be wrong, especially given the current political nature of the issue. I suspect that some may not care about the truth, but rather they care about being part of a certain ideology and set of beliefs that all intelligent people are supposed to have. Just for the record, I am not accusing any of you guys of this.

 

[Economist]

People have regular daily routines that many times involve hours of driving. While some may, if their vehicle is more efficient, opt to take longer recreational trips, or drive before considering other options, for the most part, people don't let their MPG and the price of fuel influence their behavior much.

Wow! You could win the Nobel Prize in Economics as you have just disproved the Law of Demand, something that has yet to be done!

Ok, I'm just joking around with the comment above, so nobody needs to get all sensitive and respond to it. Seriously though, people do make decisions based on the costs of things, even when it comes to fuel. With something like fuel, these effects are not always as apparent in the short run. For example, if gas increases greatly next month (and stays that way) people will not move next month, because it sometimes takes people time to adjust to changes in prices. Nor will they sell their SUV immediately. However, in a few years when they look for a new car, they may get rid of the SUV. Similarly, they may choose to move closer to work in a few years. Similarly, if you make gas cheaper (which is essentially the effects of fuel standards) then you will also alter peoples decisions, albeit in different ways. Besides there are many decisions that one could make in this area, such as whether to drive to work or take the bus, whether or not to carpool, how often do I drive to entertainment events, or which places do I go for entertainment, etc. Don't underestimate the amount of decisions humans make based around prices/costs, as it is so important that economics is a study of mainly how these prices/costs effect individual decision making.

For example fuel prices have doubled yet fuel consumption has remained constant or increased.

Well, you might be incorrect about this. Often times when people talk about fuel prices, they are not controlling for inflation, so their statistic is completely meaningless. I have often heard that when controlling for inflation, gasoline prices in the 80's were actually higher than they are today. Furthermore, you have to control for changes in income to see the effects of an increase in prices on consumption.

Check out this chart: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/12/one-perspective-on-gas-prices.html

Who can afford not to drive?

I don't know, but when prices rise you quickly find out. Do you really think that doubling or tripling of gas prices has no effect on miles driven? This is like saying, who can afford not to eat? But when real prices of food increases, you will see people change their decisions as it relates to food consumption.

 

[Contrapositive]

Who can afford not to drive?

I haven't had a car in almost four years. I get by just fine by walking and public transportation.

 

[opus]

LOL. Considering my prof is an academic and the chair of the economics department at a well respected university (with a well respected economics department), I'm pretty sure he was talking about a good publication in a solid economic journal. Besides, his point was that if you really want to decrease the miles that people drive, then you do so by using a tax, because the econometric paper showed that the fuel standard policy didn't help. In his exact words, "It was a dumb policy choice, given their stated environmental goals."

This is the worst appeal to authority I've seen in this thread. Post evidence, or retract your claim. "MY PROF SAID IT SO IT MUST BE TRUE!11"

Well, you might be incorrect about this. Often times when people talk about fuel prices, they are not controlling for inflation, so their statistic is completely meaningless. I have often heard that when controlling for inflation, gasoline prices in the 80's were actually higher than they are today. Furthermore, you have to control for changes in income to see the effects of an increase in prices on consumption.

Check out this chart: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/12/one-perspective-on-gas-prices.html

That relies on household income - for the single person living alone today, you can expect them to pay much more gasoline than if they were a single male than in the 1950's.

Besides turbo, you don't seem to be throwing out evidence. You keep talking about how you've been around the block and know better. And then you accuse me of being hard headed and wanting to buy into conservative bs. You're not even considering that I could be right on this issue. I must just be biased, and making up comments from my professor that must have only been published in something by Cato or Heritage. In fact, my biggest beef with many of the college kids who walk around talking about global warming and climate change is that they're not even educated in the field. Most of them just saw the Al Gore movie, and hear all their professors talking about global warming. Some of them won't even consider for a moment that they could be wrong, especially given the current political nature of the issue. I suspect that some may not care about the truth, but rather they care about being part of a certain ideology and set of beliefs that all intelligent people are supposed to have. Just for the record, I am not accusing any of you guys of this.

So because you're angry at students that talk about global warming while not really knowing anything about it, you do the exact same thing while only on the other side?

Just for the record, it's a similar argument that states that increasing bridge lanes does not always decrease congestion. Essentially, people factor the bridge congestion into their decision making, and more lanes sometimes leads to equal congestion.

This is correct. (as you can see, I'm not totally against rational self-interest) But you may not be correct on the fuel efficiency question - because if you look at the "polluters", much of it is in the trucking industry. Transportation of goods will not change in terms of fuel efficiency. Yes, your argument may apply to the average joe who will move out farther into suburbia if efficiency goes up. Ultimately the best thing to combat global warming from a transportation perspective is urban density, and urban geography majors will know this first-hand. But fuel efficiency is supposed to be a good thing, because at least it will make the transportation industry more green. Of course, that means putting in upgrades and increased maintenance, which certain lobbyists do not want. It probably won't do much to stop global warming, but I can't imagine higher fuel efficiency being a bad thing in a general respect.

Essentially, I tend to agree with Don Boudreaux here: http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/02/lets_have_less_.html

Especially when he says, "The truth remains that these scientists have no expertise to judge whether government can be trusted with the power and resources to "combat" global warming. Nor can these scientists tell us how a free market likely would deal with global warming's consequences. Contrary to widespread belief, environmental scientists can legitimately say nothing about whether, or how, to respond to global warming."

He is published in The Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily, Regulation, Reason, Ideas on Liberty, The Washington Times, The Journal of Commerce, the Cato Journal, and several scholarly journals such as the Supreme Court Economic Review, Southern Economic Journal, Antitrust Bulletin, and Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking.[/url]
Yes, we should leave it to the economists to solve the world's environmental problems, Gods of the economy..

 

[Skyhunter]

I haven't had a car in almost four years. I get by just fine by walking and public transportation.

Almost 2 years for me.

The more people who just do it, the more people will see that it can be done. Eventually public policies will change.

 

[Economist]

This is the worst appeal to authority I've seen in this thread. Post evidence, or retract your claim. "MY PROF SAID IT SO IT MUST BE TRUE!11"

LOL. I got to say that you are very entertaining. I'm not going to waste my time looking for it, because I doubt it will do any good. If I came up with some solid evidence I think you would just try and shoot it down.

That relies on household income - for the single person living alone today, you can expect them to pay much more gasoline than if they were a single male than in the 1950's.

Isn't it per capita income? Per capita means per person.

So because you're angry at students that talk about global warming while not really knowing anything about it, you do the exact same thing while only on the other side?

Nope, not exactly on any side. I'm not qualified to talk about environmental science. But maybe environmental scientists aren't qualified to discuss all the economic implications of global warming?

Transportation of goods will not change in terms of fuel efficiency.

Yeah, you're probably right. Transportation of goods will not depend on the costs of that transportation. Are you kidding me? Fuel efficiency, gas prices, etc effect the costs of transporting things, which then effects the amount of transportation which takes place.

He is published in The Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily, Regulation, Reason, Ideas on Liberty, The Washington Times, The Journal of Commerce, the Cato Journal, and several scholarly journals such as the Supreme Court Economic Review, Southern Economic Journal, Antitrust Bulletin, and Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking.[/url]
Yes, we should leave it to the economists to solve the world's environmental problems, Gods of the economy..

I like how you criticize me for "appealing to authority," and then you discredit a guy based on where he has published instead of his actual ideas or research. Besides, he's not trying to solve the world's environmental problems. He's just skeptical to allow environmental scienctists to tackle economic problems.

 

[opus]

LOL. I got to say that you are very entertaining. I'm not going to waste my time looking for it, because I doubt it will do any good. If I came up with some solid evidence I think you would just try and shoot it down.

I can't shoot down articles without posting my own articles. But if this is your way of saying "no, I won't because my professor is all-knowing and I agree with him", then sure I'll take it as that.

Isn't it per capita income? Per capita means per person.

Oh it does, I just assumed it was household. Anyways, read the blog post Mankiw links to,
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-goldilocks-economy-can-handle-3-gas.html
It shows the methodology - but importantly - it shows critiques of the data in the comment section. :)

Nope, not exactly on any side. I'm not qualified to talk about environmental science. But maybe environmental scientists aren't qualified to discuss all the economic implications of global warming?

Agreed. However, environmental scientists know what works and what doesn't work in terms of what is needed to stop global warming. There is no doubt about that - they are the ones with the data and the right models.

The question for economists is how to implement these necessities into public policy - but clearly the Economic Council in the US Presidency does not want a thing to do with it.

Yeah, you're probably right. Transportation of goods will not depend on the costs of that transportation. Are you kidding me? Fuel efficiency, gas prices, etc effect the costs of transporting things, which then effects the amount of transportation which takes place.

So lower transportation costs, means lower cost of goods, and you somehow translate this into people needing twice as many vegetables?

I like how you criticize me for "appealing to authority," and then you discredit a guy based on where he has published instead of his actual ideas or research. Besides, he's not trying to solve the world's environmental problems. He's just skeptical to allow environmental scienctists to tackle economic problems.

For me discrediting him based on his publications to institutes to organizations such as CATO, how is that an appeal to authority? He even references his own letter to the Washington Post. Sure, he has valid scepticism, but that's the end of his story. The whole reason global warming is happening is because we are polluting. Why are we polluting? Pollution is an "undesirable" social outcome from rationally motivated actors. I don't see how economists will come up a decision to save the planet, when they are still stuck in this neoclassical paradigm.

I would gladly like environmental economists or economic environmentalists to step in, but clearly there's an issue of power here.

 

[turbo]

Besides, his point was that if you really want to decrease the miles that people drive, then you do so by using a tax, because the econometric paper showed that the fuel standard policy didn't help. In his exact words, "It was a dumb policy choice, given their stated environmental goals."

As Skyhunter pointed out, people's driving habits (and gasoline consumption) really have not changed since gas prices abandoned the $2 realm and topped out over $3. The idea that you can modify people's behavior by slapping another, higher tax on gasoline is not supported by the facts. People who have to drive to make a living will still drive and tighten up elsewhere. Most places in this country are optimized for automobile access, and public transportation serves very few, aside from those who live in cities. Driving is a necessity for most of us, not a choice.

Increased gasoline taxes are a bad idea, anyway. They are horribly regressive and they penalize people who cannot afford to live in the places where they have to work to earn a living. Case in point - coastal cities in Maine such as Portland, Brunswick, and Belfast are homes to many large business, hospitals, insurance companies, etc. The rank-and-file workers who work in such places cannot afford to buy properties in those cities nor pay the property taxes on them, so they find more affordable properties with lower taxes maybe 50 miles inland, and commute to their jobs each day. They cannot afford to raise families in a city where a tiny 1 bedroom, 1 bath condo sells for more than $200,000, and modest homes in nearby bedroom communities routinely sell for $400K-500K. Median income in Maine's largest city (Portland) is about $35,000 according to the 2000 census, and you can't afford much of a mortgage on that pay. Those workers have to buy houses in areas far enough from Portland that the property prices haven't been jacked up too badly, and they have to drive daily to work. Raising gas taxes on them will not decrease their gasoline consumption-just leave them with less money to feed and clothe their families and pay for electricity, heat, etc.

For state income figures.
http://www.maine.gov/spo/economics/economics/medianinc.php

 

[ShawnD]

Case in point - coastal cities in Maine such as Portland, Brunswick, and Belfast are homes to many large business, hospitals, insurance companies, etc. The rank-and-file workers who work in such places cannot afford to buy properties in those cities nor pay the property taxes on them, so they find more affordable properties with lower taxes maybe 50 miles inland, and commute to their jobs each day.

This is true almost everywhere. The reason suburbs exist is because the cost of housing drops significantly as you move farther from the middle of any city. I'm not sure if it would be the majority, but this certainly puts a lot of people a long way away from work. My drive to work is about 50km; I live in the suburbs. Many people live farther away from their work than that when they live in towns right next to major cities. For example, my city of Edmonton has at least 3 towns next to it, and most of those people work in Edmonton. Even farther out, maybe 50 miles from city limits, are even more small towns. Many of those people drive to Edmonton every day for work.

So yeah, higher prices won't really lower fuel consumption. It will just hurt the people who live far from work because they couldn't afford to live near work in the first place.

 

[Economist]

Oh it does, I just assumed it was household. Anyways, read the blog post Mankiw links to,
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-goldilocks-economy-can-handle-3-gas.html
It shows the methodology - but importantly - it shows critiques of the data in the comment section. :)

His article wasn't even my main point. My main point was that gas prices are not at an all time high. This is only true when looking at nominal dollars, which tells you nothing.

http://www.fintrend.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm

 

[Phred101.2]

Wouldn't it be great if not so many people had to actually get to where they work.
BTW, I think that this doesn't just need to happen, it will happen, just like oil will eventually get to over $200 /b

 

[Economist]

Wouldn't it be great if not so many people had to actually get to where they work.
BTW, I think that this doesn't just need to happen, it will happen, just like oil will eventually get to over $200 /b

I agree. Modern technology has allowed many more people to work from home these days. I always wonder if in the next 20 - 30 years, the majority of people will work from home. I guess they probably won't exclusively work from home, but what if they only had to go to the office once or twice a week and could do the rest from home.

 

[mheslep]

Wouldn't it be great if not so many people had to actually get to where they work.
BTW, I think that this doesn't just need to happen, it will happen, just like oil will eventually get to over $200 /b

Don't be so sure. Commodity prices most always have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Simon-Ehrlich.png" over the long term (~50yrs), though I'm not sure oil technically qualifies as a commodity since one can't recycle it after 1st use.

 

[Astronuc]

Don't be so sure. Commodity prices most always have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Simon-Ehrlich.png" over the long term (~50yrs), though I'm not sure oil technically qualifies as a commodity since one can't recycle it after 1st use.

Oil and gas are commodities and are traded as such, however they are consumables (like food), as opposed to a precious metals or durable goods.

 

[Economist]

What are the empirical papers? (citation?)

I think your characterization of your prof's lecture is over simplified.

I would like to see the evidence that supports that assertion.

I believe this is the paper my professor was referring to, although if I remember correctly there was also another paper that was a more technical econometric analysis.

Journal of Economic Perpectives - Volume 17, Number 4 - Fall 2003 - Pages 203 - 217

Title: Policy Watch: The Economics of Fuel Economy Standards

Authors:
Paul Portney (President, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.)
Ian Parry (Fellow, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.)
Winston Harrington (Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.)
Howard Gruenspecht (Deputy Administrator, Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.)

Conclusion:

We draw several strong conclusions from the literature pertinent to government-mandated fuel economy standards. First, there is no doubt that far more efficient tools exist for reducing oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. But the most efficient of these--taxes on gasoline or the carbon content of fuels, or tradable allowances for carbon emissions--face especially stiff opposition in the current political climate. Second, while it is a less efficient approach, the current regulatory edifice supporting CAFE standards would be greatly improved by making fuel economy credits transferable between passenger car and light-duty truck fleets and especially between different manufacturers. Such a change would engender much less political opposition than raising existing taxes or creating new ones.

However, if the only choice before us were tightening CAFE standards as they now exist or doing nothing at all, the authors of this paper could not reach agreement on a recommendation. More stringent standards would reduce oil consumption and carbon dioxide emissions, but not quite as much as one might expect because of the rebound effect. The social costs of this additional driving, moreover, could be about as large as the beneficial effects of CAFE. Throw in the pre-existing taxes on gasoline, and it's quite possible that tightening CAFE could do more harm than good. This conclusion may change if the marginal benefits of reduced oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions increase over time or if technologies to improve fuel economy turn out to be relatively inexpensive.

 

[opus]

I match your paper with my counter-paper!

Title: The Economics of CAFE Reconsidered: A Response to CAFE Critics and A Case for Fuel Economy Standards

Authors:
David Gerard and Lester B. Lave (Center for the Study and Improvement of Regulation at Carnegie Mellon University)

Abstract:

Next, Gerard and Lave revisit the economic logic of minimum government fuel economy standards. They show that even rational, well-informed consumers will choose vehicles with fuel economies that are inconsistent with social preferences for fuel conservation. Therefore, there is a case for the CAFE standards even if existing problems with the transportation system are addressed. The authors conclude that the CAFE critics have made a good case for increasing the gasoline tax $1.50 per gallon or more, but that they have not made a compelling argument against the CAFE program itself.

Never thought I'd find this from the AEI, lols

 

[Economist]

Never thought I'd find this from the AEI, lols

I don't know why not. Brookings is a respectable think tank, but is definitely considered left leaning. That's not the point however. My real point was that, just because it makes intuitive sense that CAFE standards would decrease gas consumption does not make it so. Especially considering that these standards fundamentally change the costs/benefits (i.e. incentives) that people face when driving. Furthermore, if there are decreases in gas consumption, they can possibly be very small.

In all fairness, I also posted an article from a professional economics journal and you posted something from a think tank. I had to bring this up, because if your article was from a professional economics journal and mine was from CATO, I know you wouldn't let it go.

 

[ShawnD]

My real point was that, just because it makes intuitive sense that CAFE standards would decrease gas consumption does not make it so. Especially considering that these standards fundamentally change the costs/benefits (i.e. incentives) that people face when driving. Furthermore, if there are decreases in gas consumption, they can possibly be very small.

True, but making tighter CAFE standards would give more options to people who want to save money. Right now if you want to get something that gets decent mileage, your only options are the ugly prius, the hybrid camry, or a compact car. The prius is ugly as hell so that's out of the question, compact cars might not be big enough depending on family size (you'll need a minivan/suv if you have 3 or more kids). So that leaves 1 car, which again is arguably too small for a family of 5+. It's easy to fit 4 people in a car, but 5 is really pushing it.

Right now there just aren't any options. If you have a family of 5+, you basically need a minivan if you want to haul them around at the same time, and today's minivans have terrible gas mileage. There are no hybrid minivans, there are no 4-cylinder minivans, and I think Subaru is the only company that still makes the smaller station wagon which was popular before the invention of the minivan.

 

[turbo]

Right now there just aren't any options. If you have a family of 5+, you basically need a minivan if you want to haul them around at the same time, and today's minivans have terrible gas mileage. There are no hybrid minivans, there are no 4-cylinder minivans, and I think Subaru is the only company that still makes the smaller station wagon which was popular before the invention of the minivan.

My wife's Subaru Legacy (they offer wagons, Outback, and Forester as well) is scary-good at maintaining traction in slippery weather, and the fuel economy is tremendous. Now, when is Subaru going to offer an AWD compact pickup with traction control and anti-lock braking? I'll be first in line.

 

[Economist]

True, but making tighter CAFE standards would give more options to people who want to save money. Right now if you want to get something that gets decent mileage, your only options are the ugly prius, the hybrid camry, or a compact car.

Don't we already have CAFE standards? So what makes you think this will change. Besides, making companies have cars with better gas mileage will probably raise the price of a new car. It's like when all cars were required to include airbags, then the price of a new car went up. Essentially, people who wanted airbags could have already bought a car with airbags, but they'd have to pay for it. The law does not change this, and therefore everyone who wants a new car has to pay for airbags since it's standard.

What, you think you can force companies to make products with higher costs, and they're not going to pass those costs onto you the consumer by charging higher prices for their product?

 

[ShawnD]

I'm looking at this year's Subaru models and I can't find any that have good gas mileage. All in American mpg, based on automatic transmission since that's what the majority of cars have.
http://www.subaru.com/shop/specifications.jsp?model=IMPREZA&trim=SPORT&command=features - 20/27
http://www.subaru.com/shop/specifications.jsp?model=TRIBECA&trim=5PASS&command=features - 16/21
http://www.subaru.com/shop/specifications.jsp?model=OUTBACK&trim=OUTBACK&command=features - 20/26
http://www.subaru.com/shop/specifications.jsp?model=LEGACY&trim=25ISPECIALEDITION&command=features - 20/27
http://www.subaru.com/shop/specifications.jsp?model=FORESTER&trim=25X&category=PERFORMANCE - 20/26
http://www.subaru.com/shop/specifications.jsp?model=IMPREZAWRX&trim=STI&command=features - 19/25 (my brother has this car, it's awesome)

Compare that with your stereotyped huge SUV, the http://www.ford.com/vehicles/vehicle-showroom#/suvs/ford-expedition-2008 at 17/23 for 2WD or 16/21 for AWD.

The compact I'm driving right now is rated at 25/36 and my yearly gas budget is in the ballpark of $2400. In your wife's Legacy it would be $3,000. If I had a minivan, it would be $3,750 (I would get the AWD model). In the Ford tank it would be $4,285. And for lol sake, the prius (48/45) would be $1,250.

Maybe with some CAFE standards we could get the cost effectiveness of a prius with the style of anything-but-the-prius.

 

[ShawnD]

Besides, making companies have cars with better gas mileage will probably raise the price of a new car.

I hear that in libertopia it costs more money to make smaller engines. Big engines like a mustang V8 are so cheap that factories just give them away!

With the number of people driving 1-ton pickup trucks to white collar jobs, I would have to say no we do not have CAFE standards at this time.

 

[Economist]

I hear that in libertopia it costs more money to make smaller engines. Big engines like a mustang V8 are so cheap that factories just give them away!

People obviously want cars with better gas mileage. So if it's cheap to produce such a car, then please explain to me why companies aren't doing it? After all, it'd be in their greedy, profit-maximizing self interest.

With the number of people driving 1-ton pickup trucks to white collar jobs, I would have to say no we do not have CAFE standards at this time.

What exactly are you trying to say here? That you think we need more/higher CAFE standards? Surely you can't think that there is no such thing as CAFE standards at this time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy

The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations in the United States, first enacted by Congress in 1975, are federal regulations intended to improve the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks (trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles) sold in the US in the wake of the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo.

 

[ShawnD]

People obviously want cars with better gas mileage. So if it's cheap to produce such a car, then please explain to me why companies aren't doing it? After all, it'd be in their greedy, profit-maximizing self interest.

Actually, that's exactly what the Japanese have been doing since they started selling cars in the US, and it's probably why their market share has increased so much.

The Japanese are still moving in that direction. Toyota came out with the prius, which combined today's efficiency with the horsepower of 80's cars in order to get something that had incredible gas mileage (and horrible performance). The idea caught on and now you need to get on a waiting list if you want to buy one. Then they put that same system in their Camry, which is apparently http://blog.fastcompany.com/archives/2006/07/05/camry_hybrid_is_a_hit.html . Toyota has stated that it will start making hybrid models of their other cars.

The problem is that there's a total lack of competition and choice right now. If you want a car that doesn't cost several thousand dollars per year just for gas, you have 1 company to choose from.

Surely you can't think that there is no such thing as CAFE standards at this time?

Trucks and SUVs are pretty much exempt from those rules. http://www.tsc.berkeley.edu/newsletter/Summer05-SUVs/history.html .

But the 1975 CAFE standards contained concessions to business. Though the concessions were intended for light trucks in order to avoid unfairly penalizing vehicles used for businesses, the SUV makers were able to exploit them. They made their SUVs tall enough to be considered capable of off-road operation and thus earn a "light truck" designation. They also made them so heavy, more than 3 tons (or 6,000 lbs.), that they could take advantage of other "truck" loopholes despite the fact that they were largely passenger vehicles. The situation was compounded by light truck exemptions of up to $7,700 in taxes for “gas-guzzler” vehicles with the worst fuel economy. By the end of the 1970s, CAFÉ rules said cars must get 27.5 miles per gallon by 1985, whereas light trucks would only need to achieve 20.5.
...
...
The Clean Air Act gave SUVs at least twice the pollution credits as cars, but those weren't the only advantages that their vehicle class received during the first big decades for SUVs. Tax code changes in depreciation regulations around 1984 severely crimped deductions for purchasing business vehicles ($17,500 spaced evenly over five years), unless the purchased vehicle weighed more than 3 tons. The rationale was that farmers buying trucks needed a break on depreciation. A luxury tax enacted in 1990 for vehicles costing more than $30,000 also exempted vehicles over 3 tons, another nod to farmers and other business buyers . Few SUVs were that big or costly when these incentives began in 1990, but they would be by the end of the decade, and people would want to buy them.

Let's summarize. The biggest vehicles on the road, SUVs and full size trucks, get the following benefits:
-they get twice the pollution credits as cars
-their gas mileage standards are far below that of other vehicles even when they're non-business use
-they have enormous tax deductions tied to them


The government basically encourages people to buy the most inefficient vehicles possible. That is the exact opposite of why CAFE standards were created in the first place.

 

[Economist]

The problem is that there's a total lack of competition and choice right now. If you want a car that doesn't cost several thousand dollars per year just for gas, you have 1 company to choose from.

You still haven't exactly answered my question. If people want cars with low gas mileage so bad, and it's so easy/cheap for companies to make their cars this way, then why is there a "total lack of competition" and only "1 company to choose from?"

Trucks and SUVs are pretty much exempt from those rules.

So you think SUVs and Trucks should have these same standards? Do you think that this is largely related to the reason they get bad gas mileage? Again, if their customers want it (which they surely do) and the company can provide it for their customers easily/cheaply then why doesn't it happen?

As Thomas Sowell likes to say, "And then what?" For example, someone might recommend greatly raising taxes on the rich, and Thomas Sowell would ask, "And then what?" He's referring to the numerous steps, stages, unintended consequences and decisions that are made after and in response to that particular piece of legislation. Going back to the example of greatly raising taxes on the rich, it's very likely that these people will decide to work less because of such high marginal tax rates. Or it's possible that some of them will move to a different country (like that French musician who moved because he was paying such high taxes). Anyway, my basic point is that we should think about why trucks and SUVs don't have these standards in the first place, and more importantly what would be the effects of that legislation if they were required to?

So, we could pass a law that requires trucks and SUVs to be part of the CAFE standards. And then what?

 

[edward]

People want inexpensive larger vehicles that get good MPG and that isn't going to happen. The Toyota Highlander hybrid at $35,000 is as close as is possible. A lot of people wouldn't be seen driving a $12,000 Toyota Yaris.

CAFE was also a driving factor in the introduction of small economical vehicles. Toyota came out with the Tundra and Sequoia then balanced their average MPG with the Yaris.

The top MPG vehicles:

http://www.kbb.com/kbb/ReviewsAndRatings/GroupReviewsHome.aspx?ContentUniqueName=KBBWebContent-720

 

[ShawnD]

You still haven't exactly answered my question. If people want cars with low gas mileage so bad, and it's so easy/cheap for companies to make their cars this way, then why is there a "total lack of competition" and only "1 company to choose from?"

Mostly because only 1 company has figured out what people want, which is probably why Toyota is the #1 auto maker in the world. Eventually the market will go that way, but people like myself get raped by fuel prices for however long it takes to get there.

So you think SUVs and Trucks should have these same standards? Do you think that this is largely related to the reason they get bad gas mileage? Again, if their customers want it (which they surely do) and the company can provide it for their customers easily/cheaply then why doesn't it happen?

Why shouldn't they have the same standards? A Nissan Altima has over 250hp and it manages to stay within the limits. Pickup trucks in the 70s and 80s had less power than that and they worked just fine. A Toyota Tacoma with a 2.7L engine gets 20mpg in the city, which is easily within the limits. Why is it so hard to get all other trucks within those limits? There's no way anybody could argue that modern trucks need to have 400hp and should be exempt from the law. I'm not saying trucks like the 5.7L Toyota Tundra with 380hp and 400lb of torque should be illegal, but people should expect to be taxed up the ass when it fails to pass environmental standards. Or if it's for business use, it could have some kind of exemption; farms are considered to be home businesses in case you are wondering.

Anyway, my basic point is that we should think about why trucks and SUVs don't have these standards in the first place, and more importantly what would be the effects of that legislation if they were required to?

So, we could pass a law that requires trucks and SUVs to be part of the CAFE standards. And then what?

And then what? Trucks and SUVs on the road already would be grandfathered and exempt from the new laws. Current CAFE standards would apply to trucks and SUVs, and the result would be smaller engines and possibly smaller vehicles. You could still put a Tacoma engine in the full size Tundra in order to get more hauling capacity (by volume). Trucks that need more power would be part of a different class of vehicle that is exempt from CAFE standards, and would be heavily taxed unless used for business purposes. People who actually use trucks as trucks, such as farmers, would be unaffected by the new rules because they are a business. People who want a 5.7L V8 to drive to the office would get taxed up the ass. People who use trucks for smaller things like moving furniture would just get something like a Toyota Tundra which is well within the limits.

 

[mheslep]

-they have enormous tax deductions tied to them

No, that last is an exaggeration. Being not subject to the luxury tax is hardly a tax deduction, and only the largest, most oversize SUVs are going to qualify as farm vehicles. Heck those things are trucks, they're hardly 'Sport' vehicles at that size.

 

[mheslep]

Going back to the example of greatly raising taxes on the rich, it's very likely that these people will decide to work less because of such high marginal tax rates. Or it's possible that some of them will move to a different country (like that French musician who moved because he was paying such high taxes). ...

Ah your youth shows. If I may say so, this is the definitive example of of notable, high times musicians objecting to high European taxes. The top English bracket was 95% back then. I believe they all left England for awhile.

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet

Taxman!
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

Don't ask me what I want it for (Aahh Mr. Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more (Aahh Mr. Heath)
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

And you're working for no one but me
Taxman!

 

[Economist]

Ah your youth shows. If I may say so, this is the definitive example of of notable, high times musicians objecting to high European taxes. The top English bracket was 95% back then. I believe they all left England for awhile.

What exactly are you referring to? According to wikipedia the guy left in late 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Hallyday

In late 2006, Hallyday announced that he would move his "permanent" residency to Gstaad, Switzerland, to escape the high tax rate imposed by the French government. Swiss law allows wealthy individuals to claim residency if they live six months and one day in the country and then pay a fixed tax based on expenses, such as rent or assets in Switzerland, rather than a percentage of their income. Hallyday has said that he would move his residency back to France if it changes its tax laws. Hallyday supported Nicolas Sarkozy in the 2007 French Presidential Elections..

Mostly because only 1 company has figured out what people want, which is probably why Toyota is the #1 auto maker in the world. Eventually the market will go that way, but people like myself get raped by fuel prices for however long it takes to get there.

LOL. This is the most rediculous answer I have heard in awhile. Yeah, it's rediculously profitable but no one knows it yet. If that were true, then why don't you become a business consultant and go speak with the CEOs of other car companies. If it's so profitable but they're just to stupid to realize it, and you're so intelligent to realize it, then you could make a killing by offering them advice. Better yet, maybe you could start your own car company and really make a killing.

Why shouldn't they have the same standards? A Nissan Altima has over 250hp and it manages to stay within the limits. Pickup trucks in the 70s and 80s had less power than that and they worked just fine. A Toyota Tacoma with a 2.7L engine gets 20mpg in the city, which is easily within the limits. Why is it so hard to get all other trucks within those limits?

Well, my understanding is that one thing CAFE standards have done, is give car makers an incentive to make lighter cars because I heard it's one of the cheapest ways to get better gas mileage. When you hear older people asking, "Why do cars these days just buckle up in an accident? Back in my day cars were made sturdier, and blah, blah, blah." Maybe this is part of the reason? Maybe one reason they didn't make SUVs and trucks have the same standards is because they felt it wouldn't be fair, because they felt it's more difficult for them to decrease gas mileage.

There's no way anybody could argue that modern trucks need to have 400hp and should be exempt from the law.

Wow, this is a deep insight! Obviously modern trucks don't need 400hp, but some people want 400hp, and who are you to stop them. I don't see your point, as we don't need most things we use in the modern World . No one needs a computer, no one needs a cell phone, and no one needs a car either. The point is people want these things because they make life better to some degree.

 

[mheslep]

What exactly are you referring to? According to wikipedia the guy left in late 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Hallyday

The Beatles man! Those lyrics were Tax Man off the Revolver album. BTW, you quoted me by mistake above - on the other blurbs - that was ShawnD.

 

[ShawnD]

LOL. This is the most rediculous answer I have heard in awhile. Yeah, it's rediculously profitable but no one knows it yet. If that were true, then why don't you become a business consultant and go speak with the CEOs of other car companies. If it's so profitable but they're just to stupid to realize it, and you're so intelligent to realize it, then you could make a killing by offering them advice. Better yet, maybe you could start your own car company and really make a killing.

I don't see how it's wrong. There seems to be an overwhelming correlation between Toyota creating the two most efficient vehicles on the road and them having incredible sales on those two vehicles; you need to get on a waiting list just to buy one. When I bought my car in 2006, the Honda Civic was the best gas mileage 4-seat car in Canada, not including the prius which was almost impossible to get (huge waiting list). Surprise surprise, that Honda Civic is also the best selling car in Canada. People actually buy cars that get good gas mileage? No Way!

If you want to know why GM, Ford, and Chrysler all have a "junk" rating from Moody's and Standard & Poor, there's your answer. You'll also notice that the "car" category is dominated by Japanese companies, while "light truck" is dominated by an American companies. That gives you an idea as to which companies are working on gas mileage and which ones don't really care.

Well, my understanding is that one thing CAFE standards have done, is give car makers an incentive to make lighter cars because I heard it's one of the cheapest ways to get better gas mileage. When you hear older people asking, "Why do cars these days just buckle up in an accident? Back in my day cars were made sturdier, and blah, blah, blah." Maybe this is part of the reason? Maybe one reason they didn't make SUVs and trucks have the same standards is because they felt it wouldn't be fair, because they felt it's more difficult for them to decrease gas mileage.

Lighter vehicles do get better gas mileage, but the mistake is to assume that cars of today are lighter than cars of 20 years ago (which had terrible gas mileage in today's terms).
My previous car was a 1992 Ford Tempo, curb weight of 2600 pounds. My current car is a 2006 Honda Civic, curb weight of 2600 pounds. Both cars are classed as compact cars, and both were the bottom of the line from their respective companies. In imperial gallons, the actual mileage I got from that Tempo was about 24mpg in the city, my Civic gets 37mpg in the city (remember that imperial gallons are bigger than US gallons). When comparing horsepower, the Tempo had ~100HP while the Civic has 140HP.

So what do we learn from this? Between 1992 and 2006, a period of 14 years, gas mileage for the same weight improved by 54% while horsepower increased by 40%. I'll bet my balls that this same improvement was observed for trucks. If the horsepower of today's trucks was scaled down to that of 1992 or earlier, there's a damn good chance they would be within CAFE standards for cars.

Wow, this is a deep insight! Obviously modern trucks don't need 400hp, but some people want 400hp, and who are you to stop them.

Obviously I don't need to pour used motor oil on my lawn, but I really want to, and why should the government stop me? Because the law is supposed to apply to everyone equally. You can't say one guy can pour oil on his lawn and another can't, just like you can't logically say one person can ignore CAFE standards while everybody else has to follow them.

If they can do that without failing the standards for gas mileage, then go for it.edit:
For curiosity sake, a 1992 Ford F150 gets about 12mpg city, 14 highway. US gallons, real world, 302 cubic inch engine (that's about 5L if I calculted it right), 150HP.
A 2006 Ford F150 gets 12mpg city, 17mpg highway. Engine is 5.4L in size with 380HP.
Gas mileage for trucks stayed the same while horsepower increased by 153%

 

[opus]

From the Economist today:

In energy economics this is known as the “rebound effect."
...
Since then, says Steve Sorrel, an economist who produced a report about the rebound effect for Britain’s Energy Research Centre, there has been little research into just how big the rebound effect is. Estimates of the “direct” effect range from almost zero to over 100% (ie, greater efficiency encourages so much more consumption that net energy use actually goes up).
The precise size of the effect depends on both the good in question and the wealth of those consuming it.
...
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN-sponsored group of experts, notes the effect’s existence but says nothing more. Most economists believe that the direct effect, at least, is fairly small, although they are much less sure about indirect effects. Others—such as Len Brooks, an energy expert formerly employed by the UK Atomic Energy Authority—reckon that rebound is a big enough problem to make energy efficiency programmes almost useless.

 

[Economist]

You guys may remember me mentioning at (at least) one point in this thread that I generally don't trust governments, politicians, beurocrats, etc, to correctly make big decisions. Well, I just read an article that reminded me why I'm so skeptical on the subject. http://www.globalisation.eu/blog/governance/we-do-need-international-action-on-climate-change,-don%27t-we?-200801181289/

It's one of the great mantras of our time, that we absolutely need to have international cooperation to deal with both the causes and effects of climate change. From Kyoto and Bali to the European Union's insistence that only it, as a multi-national body, possibly has the ability to deal with such a multi-national problem.

However, we also have the age old problem that when bureaucrats and politicians begin to try and pick winners, the policies or technologies that are chosen to deal with such problems, well, let us be reasonable and say that they don't have a very good track record. Indeed, there is a strong current in economics which says that the incentives they face mean that they will almost always choose the wrong ones, a good outcome being purely a matter of blind luck.

So it seems to be with the insistence, in both the US and the EU, that biofuels should play a large part in reducing emissions. Recent days have found the EU Environment Commissioner having to, well, recant:

After admitting that no one thought about the environmental or the economic implications of turning specific cropsinto biofuels, the EU has decided to think again about the use of those fuels.

And:

"We have seen that the environmental problems caused by biofuels and also the social problems are bigger than we thought they were. So we have to move very carefully," Stavros Dimas told the BBC on Monday, Jan. 14.

And:

His climb-down came as the Royal Society cautioned in a report that the production of biofuel - energy sources made from plant material - could be more polluting than traditional fossil fuels.

That Royal Society report is here:

To maintain high rates of annual production, arable crops are generally fertilised at rates of up to 350kg/ha/yr of nitrogen. If new land is brought into cultivation for biofuels, as seems necessary to meet policy requirements, after the first year or two sustained production will require regular fertiliser applications, which in turn will lead to an increase in emissions of N2O. The IPCC estimates that 1% of added nitrogen is returned to the atmosphere through activities that result in the mineralisation of soil organic matter (IPCC 2006). However, a recent paper by Crutzen et al (2007), which considers N2O release from rivers, estuaries and coastal zones, animal husbandry and the atmospheric deposition of ammonia and NOx, highlights that it is more likely that the amount of nitrogen returned to the atmosphere as N2O is in the range 3–5%. Using this larger range of N2O emissions could significantly reduce the currently assumed GHG emission gains from replacing conventional fossils fuels with biofuels such as biodiesel from rapeseed and bioethanol from maize.

That is, to put it mildly, extremely alarming. That rise in N2O emissions (the RS is as always very gentle in its phrasing) means not that biofuels will reduce emissions less than previously thought, but that they will increase them, to greater than the levels using fossil fuels originally.

All of which leaves us in a rather uncomfortable position really. Well meaning attempts to deal with a perceived problem by means of international politics and bureacracies has actually lead to a worse outcome than if nothing had been done. Said politicians and bureaucrats now having to admit that they hadn't actually thought through the issue before they made their pronouncements.

 

[turbo]

You guys may remember me mentioning at (at least) one point in this thread that I generally don't trust governments, politicians, beurocrats, etc, to correctly make big decisions. Well, I just read an article that reminded me why I'm so skeptical on the subject. http://www.globalisation.eu/blog/governance/we-do-need-international-action-on-climate-change,-don%27t-we?-200801181289/

Would you mind mind highlighting problematic studies, and pointing out exactly where they they are wrong? It would be nice to see WHY these studies are so wrong, and to see papers supporting the science that underlies your views.

 

[Evo]

Would you mind mind highlighting problematic studies, and pointing out exactly where they they are wrong? It would be nice to see WHY these studies are so wrong, and to see papers supporting the science that underlies your views.

Yes, it's true, the push toward corn based ethanol and the third world countries jumping on depleting rainforests for palm oil production are proving disastrous. Ivan can probably give you stats.

 

[binzing]

I think the main problem is the government getting control of, and manipulating, the facts. Just leave the real scientists alone.

 

[chrisrandall]

its a joke

the world may be gradually warming but to say all this science stuff about it. I do agree that the world is changing and getting slightly warmer , but i do not believe that it is anything to worry about. look at the average temps they've gone up like two degrees. I have a hard time believing in all the scientificl theroies i hear about this topic. just my oppinion.

 

[Gokul43201]

the world may be gradually warming but to say all this science stuff about it. I do agree that the world is changing and getting slightly warmer , but i do not believe that it is anything to worry about. look at the average temps they've gone up like two degrees. I have a hard time believing in all the scientificl theroies i hear about this topic. just my oppinion.

And your opinion is worth noting over that of the professionals in the field because...?

 

[DrClapeyron]

In the world of unemployment, geologists have global warming to fall back on. Employment goes down, the threat of global warming sky rockets. The same is true with life science, medical and chemists; when employment is low anthrax, sars, west nile, chicken fever suddenly become world epidemics that must be cured right away. Physicists unfortunately have the extraterrestrial collision, of which few people care, but they can do the same things mathematicians and computer scientists do when Y2K and online security, cyberterrorism become front page news.

 

[Gokul43201]

In the world of unemployment, geologists have global warming to fall back on. Employment goes down, the threat of global warming sky rockets. The same is true with life science, medical and chemists; when employment is low anthrax, sars, west nile, chicken fever suddenly become world epidemics that must be cured right away. Physicists unfortunately have the extraterrestrial collision, of which few people care, but they can do the same things mathematicians and computer scientists do when Y2K and online security, cyberterrorism become front page news.

You forgot to add the smilie to explain the context of your post!

 

[drankin]

Well, along the lines of the opening post, it's been a pretty freakin cold winter this year! Actual global warming would be nice right now! A winter like this, I have a hard time buying the hype.

 

[Amp1]

I believe GW is a fact and the methane hydrate (clathrate) destabilization events described in Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum: filling an ocean? #7 are to my sense, something that has a greater than even probability of happening. The glaciers are indeed melting all over the world; the sea ice at the north pole is thinning at an accelerating pace as temps rise with the most rapidity there. The ice locked in the South Pole is also melting and calving bergs the size of small countries.
I read somewhere that there is a threshold temperature at which destabilization events become certain to happen; it is logical to assume that would happen if oceans continue to warm and clathrate melts at some finite temperature.

 

[FRE]

I am not an expert on global warming, but it seems to me that there is a point which is being overlooked.

Obviously there are different opinions, but does anyone really think that the probability that we are contributing to global warming is zero? Assuming that global warming would have extremely serious consequences, just what is the numerical risk we are prepared to take?

If the consequences of global warming would be serious, then perhaps a risk of 10% would be unacceptable in which case we should be taking steps to avoid the risk. Why hasn't this been considered?

 

[FRE]

Originally Posted by Economist:
"People obviously want cars with better gas mileage. So if it's cheap to produce such a car, then please explain to me why companies aren't doing it? After all, it'd be in their greedy, profit-maximizing self interest."

Surely that's a valid question. The technology that could be used to improve fuel efficiency is instead being used to increase power. It is not unusual now for cars to get > 1 horsepower per cubic inch, and some cars now have 300 horsepower or more. Many family cars will accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in less than 8 seconds, which 20 years ago, would have been considered extremely fast for a family car. If modern engine technology had instead been used to improve fuel mileage, then we'd have smaller engines and cars would take perhaps 10 or 11 seconds to accelerate from 0 to 60 mph.

An otto-cycle (4-stroke, spark ignition) engine is most efficient when it is working hard. The power is controlled by the throttle valve and, when it is not fully open, power is wasted sucking air in against the vacuum created by the throttle valve (pumping losses). When a smaller engine is used, then the throttle valve is generally open farther, reducing pumping losses, and efficiency is higher. Of course this is somewhat oversimplified and there are other factors involved, but it is basically correct.

As to why manufacturers are using bigger engines than required, it seems to be because people like high power. High power must sell, otherwise car advertisements would not be so performance oriented.

 

[Economist]

Originally Posted by Economist:
"People obviously want cars with better gas mileage. So if it's cheap to produce such a car, then please explain to me why companies aren't doing it? After all, it'd be in their greedy, profit-maximizing self interest."

Surely that's a valid question. The technology that could be used to improve fuel efficiency is instead being used to increase power. It is not unusual now for cars to get > 1 horsepower per cubic inch, and some cars now have 300 horsepower or more. Many family cars will accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in less than 8 seconds, which 20 years ago, would have been considered extremely fast for a family car. If modern engine technology had instead been used to improve fuel mileage, then we'd have smaller engines and cars would take perhaps 10 or 11 seconds to accelerate from 0 to 60 mph.

An otto-cycle (4-stroke, spark ignition) engine is most efficient when it is working hard. The power is controlled by the throttle valve and, when it is not fully open, power is wasted sucking air in against the vacuum created by the throttle valve (pumping losses). When a smaller engine is used, then the throttle valve is generally open farther, reducing pumping losses, and efficiency is higher. Of course this is somewhat oversimplified and there are other factors involved, but it is basically correct.

As to why manufacturers are using bigger engines than required, it seems to be because people like high power. High power must sell, otherwise car advertisements would not be so performance oriented.

Hey, I got quoted! That's a first for me (I think).

Anyway, good points. Especially the last paragraph which ties in the importance (and often left out) element of consumer behavior, consumer preferences, consumer demand, etc.

 

[Economist]

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/02/nasty-dogs.html

Nasty dogs?
by Russell Roberts

Arnold at EconLog has a very nice post on the environmental impact of dogs:

"Which do you think takes a bigger toll on the environment, owning a dog, or owning an SUV? My bet would be on the dog. I'm thinking of all of the resources that go into dog food.

You could argue that children also consume a lot of resources, but that is different. A dog does not have the potential to discover a cure for cancer. A dog is not going to provide for you in your old age.

I personally have nothing against dogs. But it does seem to me that environmentalism inevitably points toward a policy of extermination of pet dogs. Unless environmentalism is simply hatred of industry."

What's particularly interesting are the comments. People are angry. Dogs are great, they say. They make people's lives better.

No doubt. So do SUVs. So do grapes from Chile. I think Arnold was merely suggesting that there are tradeoffs. If you make tradeoffs for dogs (which of course you should), why not make them for SUVs?

 

[drankin]

I don't think SUVs are the problem. Sure, it wouldn't hurt if we all just rode a bicycle but even if we did, what are we going to do about... China. As well as other up and coming countries? That's IF we are in FACT causing the world to be warmer and it is not simply an Earth weather cycle. Underneath all that ice in the poles is ancient plant life, it's happened before. It wasn't always ice up there.