Buy smart, enable dumb

[DocDiggs]

Editorial

Less Than Meets the Eye

President Bush recently discussed the idea of expanding a tax credit for drivers who buy hybrid cars. At first glance, the notion seems like a winner and generally consistent with Mr. Bush's newfound enthusiasm for alternative fuels and technologies. But on closer inspection, the idea looks like a self-serving political ploy — a quick fix to give the appearance of progress while obscuring serious contradictions in Mr. Bush's approach to oil independence.

The tax credit currently on the books offsets some of the extra cost of hybrid cars, but it is fully available only for the first 60,000 that a manufacturer sells. After that, the amount of the credit dwindles, eventually to zero. If Mr. Bush removed that 60,000-car cap it would presumably lead to the manufacture and sale of more hybrids than would otherwise be the case. That's fine. The problem is that more hybrids are unlikely to reduce overall oil consumption, unless there is a concurrent increase in fuel economy standards. Today's standard for cars — 27.5 miles per gallon— is a fleetwide average. So if carmakers sold more high-mileage hybrids, they could also sell ever-bigger gas guzzlers and still meet the target.

Mr. Bush is a happy man when he is doling out tax breaks. But he is clearly uncomfortable with imposing higher fuel economy standards on automakers.

His often-repeated claim that he awaits Congressional permission to raise the standard is a delaying tactic, and especially cynical for a president who has run roughshod over Congressional authority. Ditto his claim that it will take further study to determine a fair and practical new standard. The 27.5-m.p.g. benchmark is the same now as it was in 1985. In the more than two decades since then, there has been ample study and debate on achievable improvements to what is by now a pathetically low standard. What has been missing all those years, and is missing now, is the political leadership to make those improvements.

Without higher standards, more tax credits for hybrids are all carrot and no stick. That's pandering, and that's just what American drivers do not need.



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/15/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

[Snowden]

The usual unbiased New York Times article! They could be exactly right - or they could be reading someone's mind from afar, and not getting it right. How do we know?

After selling 60,000 hybrid cars, perhaps the manufacturer will/would be able to continue and do well on a smaller tax cut. After all, the government owns 51% of every corporation in this nation - or has that changed? I remember the arguments against the government helping Lee Iococca (sp?), not once but twice. But the government did help, and no doubt would do so again.

Hybrids are available, I believe - is the fuel available for them?

[Bluehawk]

I've been EXTREMELY ticked off at Congress and every President since Jimmy Carter for their unmitigated BS about "fuel efficiency" and "alternative fuels"...

They ALL make excuses and scapegoat everybody in sight... meantime, I sure do wish we normal humans had the exact SAME right to increase OUR incomes when OUR costs increase... eh?

See what I mean, Earl?

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by DocDiggs

The problem is that more hybrids are unlikely to reduce overall oil consumption, unless there is a concurrent increase in fuel economy standards. Today's standard for cars — 27.5 miles per gallon— is a fleetwide average. So if carmakers sold more high-mileage hybrids, they could also sell ever-bigger gas guzzlers and still meet the target.

It can't be all of any one thing. They need to do many things at once.

Originally Posted by Snowden

After all, the government owns 51% of every corporation in this nation - or has that changed?

Where did you get that from? I never heard that at all.

Hybrids are available, I believe - is the fuel available for them?

Yes, or there would be no reason to buy one.

[DocDiggs]

[quote=Woodmonkey]It can't be all of any one thing. They need to do many things at once.[quote]

No. Actually this is exactly the problem. The more fuel efficient cars that a maker builds, the higher above 27.5 cutoff the average goes. People in America want their big SUV's. Therefore, if the average mileage goes up to say, 30.3 mpg, more big SUV's can be built and sold. The magic number is 27.5 and more big SUV's can be built until the average of all company models built drops back to 27.5.

[DocDiggs]

Originally Posted by Snowden

The usual unbiased New York Times article! They could be exactly right - or they could be reading someone's mind from afar, and not getting it right. How do we know? [We can know because the figures have been out there in public for 20 years. This in not some fantasy story made up by the NYT.]

After selling 60,000 hybrid cars, perhaps the manufacturer will/would be able to continue and do well on a smaller tax cut. After all, the government owns 51% of every corporation in this nation - or has that changed? I remember the arguments against the government helping Lee Iococca (sp?), not once but twice. But the government did help, and no doubt would do so again.

Hybrids are available, I believe - is the fuel available for them?

Electricity and gasoline.

[DocDiggs]

Originally Posted by Bluehawk

I've been EXTREMELY ticked off at Congress and every President since Jimmy Carter for their unmitigated BS about "fuel efficiency" and "alternative fuels"...

They ALL make excuses and scapegoat everybody in sight... meantime, I sure do wish we normal humans had the exact SAME right to increase OUR incomes when OUR costs increase... eh?

See what I mean, Earl?

The research into alternative sources of energy was alive and well until the current admin pulled the funding. There was even some very high-tech, futuristic work being done on using seawater as a source by separating the oxygen and hydrogen atoms from the water molecules. As water cover about 75% of the Earth's surface, the source material is plentiful. However, the R & D is so incredibly expensive that it has to be fed funded, at least for the great part of expense. This work no longer exists. Ditto most of the other previously productive research and testing that had been ongoing for some time.

There is R & D going on for cars powered on Hydrogen..that in fact is well along, the problem now being it's distribution.

There is a method for converting old fry cook oil from restaurants into high quality vegetable oil based diesel fuel that could be produced probably more cheaply than fossil fuel, but while the process has been devised, the time and expense of R & D just cannot be bourne by the inventor himself. Can you imagine how much of this product could be made considering the amount of fried food out there?

...and windmill technology has been halted because of lack of any support from gov and the fact that private generating companies get more fedgov tax breaks by using coal and oil.