It's The Energy Anti-Plan!

by hilzoy

Check out this story from the NYT:

"The Bush administration is expected to abandon a proposal to extend fuel economy regulations to include Hummer H2's and other huge sport utility vehicles, auto industry and other officials say. The proposal was among a number of potential strategies outlined by the administration in 2003 to overhaul mileage requirements for light trucks - sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and minivans. It had been seen by industry officials as likely to be adopted."

Actually, it's even worse than it sounds:

"Roughly speaking, corporate average fuel economy regulations - known as C.A.F.E. standards in the industry - divide each automaker's annual new vehicle production into two categories: passenger cars and light-duty trucks. New cars must average 27.5 miles a gallon and light trucks 21.2 miles a gallon in 2005 models and 22.2 miles by 2007. The figures represent lab-generated mileage and overstate the numbers that can be achieved on the road. Rules for cars are not being changed.

When the current two-category system was created in the 1970's, cars ruled the American road. Since then, automakers have developed new classes of vehicles that qualify as trucks, including S.U.V.'s, minivans and family-oriented pickup trucks with two rows of seats. As a result, not only is the number of vehicles on the road increasing, but the average new vehicle is getting lower mileage than it did two decades ago because so many more new vehicles are trucks. An increasing emphasis on horsepower is also a major factor.

Larger sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks weighing more than 8,500 pounds when loaded, like many Hummers and Ford Excursions, have been exempt from the regulations. When the system was created, vehicles of that weight were generally used for commercial purposes, but now hundreds of thousands sold each year are intended for family use. Automakers have had powerful incentives to produce such vehicles because they are exempt from fuel regulations, have had rich profit margins, and many consumers can claim tax breaks for them. The administration had suggested including larger S.U.V.'s in fuel economy regulations in a first wave of proposals in December 2003, but domestic automakers objected that such a move would harm their fragile bottom lines.

The decision not to include larger S.U.V.'s was a recent development, said people briefed on the deliberations, who declined to be identified before the plan is made public. There could still be revisions, and the plan's release will be followed by a public comment period and then a revised final rule, which must be published by next April to have an effect on 2008 models. Gasoline prices have become a powerful counterweight to regulatory benefits given the biggest gas guzzlers. Many automakers, seeing the weakness in sales of large S.U.V.'s this year - they have recovered only after heavy discounting - are re-emphasizing plans for smaller, lighter S.U.V.'s in the future.

Under the Bush administration plan, about half a dozen size classes will be determined by the vehicle's length and width. Instead of an overall mileage requirement for the total fleet of light trucks a manufacturer sells in a model year, makers will have to meet some kind of target or average within each size class. As a result of the proliferating categories, it will probably become more difficult to predict fuel economy trends. "It's an invitation to game the system and increase our oil dependence and the pollution that results," said Dan Becker, a global warming strategist at the Sierra Club. "The Bush administration is failing to use the most powerful weapon in its arsenal to save people money at the pump.""

So let's see if I have this straight. Our fuel economy standards now separate vehicles into two classes, sorted by weight, and require that the fuel efficiency of a manufacturer's vehicles within each class average to a given amount. The good news: that provides an incentive to build smaller vehicles within each class. The bad news: it doesn't cover the hugest gas-guzzlers of them all. We now propose to change to a system that separates vehicles into about six classes, not two. That does away with the good news: auto makers will have no incentive to build small as opposed to non-monstrously-large SUVs. But we do not take the opportunity to do away with the bad news by covering gas-guzzling monsters that no one needs anyway.

This would make no sense at any time. It makes anti-sense at a time when we badly need to reduce our reliance on oil for both economic and national security reasons. If this anti-sensical anti-plan ever came into contact with a coherent and reasonable proposal of any sort, there would be an explosion and a huge flash of light, and the entire universe would be destroyed. Which, no doubt, is why it has been carefully sequestered within the Bush administration.

Comments

[dmbeaster]

The Bush docrine-- the purpose of government is to enrich your cronies. So much opportunity.

[Kevin Donoghue]

The Onion already covered this.

[Gromit]

I have a proposal that I think would go a long way to encouraging consumers to buy more fuel-efficient cars on its own, not to mention encouraging them to use the vehicles they do buy more efficiently, and should add only a few dollars to the price of each car sold: Every new car should have a fuel efficiency meter on the instrument panel.

The gas mileage numbers on the sticker are inflated by controlled testing conditions, giving buyers an unrealistic idea of what they are really getting on the road (i.e. it doesn't tell you the gas mileage you are getting hauling three kids, a spouse, a dog, and six bags of groceries through a congested suburb with the AC on full blast and underinflated tires). If people actually knew what they were getting in real life, I suspect gas usage would drop, and there would be a lot more consumer demand for efficient vehicles than there currently is.

[Phil]

Every new car should have a fuel efficiency meter on the instrument panel.

They do. It's called "an odometer and a fuel gauge." Most people are just too lazy to do the math or to look in the little book to see what their gas tank's capacity is.

[Slartibartfast]

Anyone recall what the consequences are for not complying with CAFE standards?

[Gromit]

Yes, Phil, just like they are too lazy to use the odometer and a watch to calculate the speed at which the car is traveling. Sheesh.

Anyway, the point is that folks are generally happy to remain in denial about how much fuel their cars consume. It hits them at the pump, and to some extent this surely curbs consumption, but it doesn't hit them when they are sitting in traffic with the engine idling (where they would see the gas mileage meter ticking downward). We have speedometers so people can regulate their own behavior. Why not fuel economy meters for the same reason? What if we could cut back on broad, sweeping regulations by enacting inexpensive ones that help harness market forces better?

[Slartibartfast]

Gromit, if people can happily ignore the evidence provided by their wallets, what's the odds they'll also blissfully ignore the evidence of some fuel-efficiency meter?

And how do you suggest this meter will work? Do you think it ought to represent cumulative (since the last fill-up, for instance) or instantaneous fuel economy? How do you think something like this would change driving behavior?

FWIW, this sort of thing has been added as a feature to some cars; the first time I saw this was back in the early 1980s, on a Cadillac (believe it or not).

[alex]

The Republicans have made it clear that policy is for sale to corporate bidders. The only real change has been a quantum leap in its egregiousness.

Let 'em get rid of the fuel economy standards altogether. Adam Smith's invisible hand is usually content to doodle quietly in the corner, but when its red-hot fingernail inscribes "$5.99/gal" on America's nutsack we'll get the hint. Our country has repeatedly demonstrated that we're not interested in long-term planning, risk management, or boring threat reduction. We want to drive fast, watch things go bang, and eat grilled meat.

I wish I didn't sound so negative, but what are you going to do with people who refuse to pay attention to anything smaller than a catastrophe?

[paul]

What if the amount of tax per gallon were linked to the curb weight of your vehicle? Pull up to the pump in a Prius, pay your share based on its weight and the impact it has on the environment. Gas up your SUV and pay a bit more, based on the road damage it leaves behind. Road surfaces don't seem like they're worse: they are, and it's in large part due to the increased volumes of oversized vehicles taking kids to soccer practice, etc.

Right now, the "gas guzzler" tax paid for at purchase time is easily just rolled into the purchase price and financed along with the vehicle. If people are content to pay interest on a tax, I doubt a little gauge on the dashboard will move them: a strip of electrical tape will render it out of sigh, out of mind.

I don't see the appeal of those things. They're expensive, unsafe (ironic that so many are purchased to haul kids around), and from all accounts difficult to maneuver and park. If people had an idea of the real costs associated with them, perhaps they're buy something more sane.

[Dantheman]

"FWIW, this sort of thing has been added as a feature to some cars; the first time I saw this was back in the early 1980s, on a Cadillac (believe it or not)."

I've seen it too, in a late '80's Lincoln that I rode with with a partner for business meetings. It was instantaneous gas mileage, which is nearly useless, as no one will watch it while they are moving, and everyone knows you are getting 0 mpg while standing still.

[Slartibartfast]

Yep, that's exactly what I was getting at.

[hilzoy]

Dantheman: not true, actually. I have both an instantaneous thingo and a cumulative gas mileage one, resettable at will. Though maybe it helps that the first is in graphical form, so I don't have to look at tiny numbers. But I always play games with myself when I'm driving, since I'm bored. It used to be, how fast could I get from, say, my home to my office door. Now It's: how high can I keep the mpg? It completely altered my driving habits.

[Tim]

I saw it on a rented minivan, and it had running averages as well as instantaneous values. It's probably pretty easy to do since the instrument panel is all computerized nowadays.

[Dantheman]

I'd agree that the running averages calculator would be useful. I just haven't seen them widely available as yet.

[Tad Brennan]

"unsafe (ironic that so many are purchased to haul kids around),"

paul--

agreed.

But they are designed and marketed to give people the *impression* that they are safer, even as that impression is belied by the statistics. Careful marketing studies research a variety of details of styling--grill design, window design, the whole package--to give consumers the *impression* that they will be safer in an SUV. To look tough; look rugged; look manly.

So: there's a choice between something that *actually* makes you safer, where the statistics and the evidence bear out the claim. On the other hand, there's something which delivers a sub-rational appeal to your gut, sending a variety of misleading signals that tell you, falsely, that it will make you safer.

The aggressively-promoted appearance of security, which makes you quantifiably less secure. Loud projections of toughness, that make you less safe. Huh. Sounds kinda familiar.

But folks buy it. Because they trust their guts, their easily manipulated guts; because there is a concerted campaign in commerce and politics to denigrate facts, denigrate evidence, and fetishize the Holy Gut. Down with reason! Down with statistics! All power to irrational image-manipulation! All power to the Leader and his infallible Gut!

Gary Wills said it on Nov. 3: they don't just want to roll back the New Deal. They want to roll back the Enlightenment.

p.s.--we had a used '94 Ford Windstar for many years. It had a gas-consumption read-out that averaged over a moving window, which seemed to be roughly the last tank's-worth. (The fact that one could never tell what the moving window was, did somewhat detract from its utility. I like the design on hilzoy's, where you can re-initialize the window at will.)

[hilzoy]

Mine is on my unbelievably wonderful Prius, which is responsible for the fact that I find out about gas prices mostly from the news. Just one more reason to get one.

[Ugh]

I thought the only reason why SUVs weren't safer was that they rolled over more easily than cars, but that for all other crashes they were safer. Am I wrong?

[Francis]

I'm with Alex on this one -- CAFE standards are useless. If the auto market were an oligopoly (like it was when the Big 3 had an awesome percentage of total sales), then regulation was needed. Given the presences of the Japanese, there are enough car makers out there to build what people want.

States can always impose "road wear" fees on overweight vehicles in the state licensing process.

[Bruce Baugh]

A friend of mine got a Prius recently, and I was delighted at the quality of the information available to the driver, and the quality of its presentation. Some great interface there. I look forward to seeing that kind of thing trickle down, and believe that it will end up changing a lot of people's habits. Improved accessiblity - that is, having it there and in a form easy to understand - amounts to improved quality of data.

[hilzoy]

Ugh: just working from memory here, but: SUVs have -- I want to say a worse record than cars, but it's at least a bad one -- when it comes to single-vehicle crashes. This largely reflects their rollover rate, though I think partly also the fact that they're harder to maneuver plays a slight role.

They have a better than normal record (in terms of their own occupants getting killed) in multi-vehicle crashes, but since this is largely die to the fact that they cause huge damage to the occupants of other vehicles involved in the crash, it's not so great -- the casuality figures for people involved in crashes involving an SUV are a lot worse than those for crashes involving only normal cars, or cars and minivans. And this isn't just due to their size, but also to things like: because of their high road clearance, their bumpers didn't hit car bumpers in head-on collisions, but tended instead to skate up the front of a car, propelling the whole SUV into the car's cabin. (Thus the better figures for minivans.)

Taken as a whole, I think (again, working from memory) that their safety figures, when restricted to the occupants of the SUVs themselves, so not including occupants of other vehicles involved in a crash, were slightly better than average, though not by much (due to the single-crash figures.) When you extend 'safety' to include all involved in a crash, they were dramatically worse.

[Tim]

IIRC, for head-ons, especially with big objects, cars beat the older truck chassis SUVs because they have crumple zones designed in fore and aft. The newer, smaller SUVs I don't know about.

[Chuchundra]

Anyone recall what the consequences are for not complying with CAFE standards?

They shove a living snake up your ass?

[Ugh]

Thanks hilzoy. So maybe people aren't so crazy to think that they're safer buying an SUV (obviously applying the selfish "I'm safer" definition of safety)?

[Gromit]

Gromit, if people can happily ignore the evidence provided by their wallets, what's the odds they'll also blissfully ignore the evidence of some fuel-efficiency meter?

The odds are less. Out of sight, out of mind is a powerful psychological principle, and we frequently ignore the things we do because it is easy to ignore them. So make it harder to ignore. If the buyer wants to tape over the meter, fine. I think the number who will do this will be vanishingly small, not least because people like useful gadgets on their dashboard.

And how do you suggest this meter will work? Do you think it ought to represent cumulative (since the last fill-up, for instance) or instantaneous fuel economy? How do you think something like this would change driving behavior?

It will work just like the one in my Civic Hybrid. It is built into the odometer display, where you get trip A and trip B, each with their own cumulative gas mileage, plus an instantaneous graph. I don't know if this is the case for economy cars, but every SUV on the road today probably has computer-controlled fuel injectors. This is speculative, but I would be surprised if this data was not already available to the onboard computer, so it might just be a matter of adding some lines of code and wiring a display into the dash.

FWIW, this sort of thing has been added as a feature to some cars; the first time I saw this was back in the early 1980s, on a Cadillac (believe it or not).

Yes, some cars. I'm talking about all new models. There is a powerful disincentive for manufacturers to highlight the fuel economy of today's gas guzzlers any more than is required by law. These things are only put in cars that get good mileage already, which defeats the purpose I'm proposing.

[bernard Yomtov]

These kinds of mileage meters have been around, in various forms, for some time. I used to have a car with a display that could be set to show lots of things, with cumulative mileage one of the options.

I think people do respond to this sort of feedback, in the very short run maybe more so than to prices. This is because it lets you change your driving behavior instantly, whereas with higher prices the change is slower - get a more efficient car, figure out a different way to get to work, - etc. In addition, it can be turned into a sort of game. I had the same experience as hilzoy. For a while I tried to see how fast I could make a certain regular trip. When doing better started requiring extreme stupidity I switched to paying attention to gas mileage.

(Aside to Chuchundra: No. But very creative.)

[Gromit]

If nothing else, having the meter in my car (well, from a practical standpoint, really my wife's car) has made us much more aware of maintaining proper tire pressure. Whenever the mileage starts to drop, that's the first thing we check. Of course, electronic tire pressure sensors in all cars would help with this, too, but I suspect that would cost quite a bit more.

[idook]

re: gas mileage gauge. That information is already available in all cars since 1996. My guess is that the first to put a gauge in the instrument panel will be Toyota, followed by Honda. Meanwhile American auto makers will be lobbying Congress to ban "distracting information displays" in vehicles (this will not apply to DVD players).

[notyou]

Whenever the mileage starts to drop, that's the first thing we check. Of course, electronic tire pressure sensors in all cars would help with this, too, but I suspect that would cost quite a bit more.

Tire pressure sensors (to detect flats) were recently mandated and will soon start appearing in new cars. Expect pricier models to include actual tire pressure readings instead of just a 'Falt Tire' warning light.

[Slartibartfast]

And for redundancy, there's the handy-dandy analog backup model.

[Gromit]

Notyou, I had forgotten about that. Thanks for pointing it out.

[bob mcmanus]

I don't think it matters. Too much of our oil consumption is in China making our DVD players.

And it is not just cars. It is houses 50 miles from work with 500 square foot great rooms that contain the majority of our national savings.

Bush and Greenspan have been desperately trying to avoid a real recession, prolonged, because of the revenue declines and spending that would put the tax cuts into jeopardy. But we needed one a long time ago, in order to lower various demand and take the excess dollars out of circulation. You can't cheat the business cycle.

[Drew]

I have a serious question. I am a network technician. Part of my job is installing networks. That means that two to three times a week, I'm taking fifteen or so computers and delivering them anywhere from 2 to 8 hours away. I can't do this in a Prius. Why should I be taxed to death because I am required to have a large vehicle? For that fact, what about tractor/trailers that only get about 6 or 7 MPG and weigh 10 times as much as your average SUV? Are they supposed to pay 10 times as much for fuel? Somehow I think the impact on the economy would be a little negative if that were attempted. Maybe I'm misunderstanding where you're going with this, but that's where I end up.

[Gromit]

Drew, I think if we are going to solve our energy problems long-term, we are either going to have to find renewable, low-to-zero-emissions sources for transportation fuel, or we are going to have to rethink our current distribution systems for goods (or both). When you consider the fact that the money we pour into the Middle East to keep our own oil cheap in turn subsidizes China's ability to ship us cheap goods, drain our manufacturing economy, and loan us more money to pour into the Middle East, the effects of our cheap gas prices seem pretty negative to me.

[derrida derider]

So the free-market-loving US of A has gone for fiddly regulations on fuel economy, with all the problems regulation causes (not least of which is the incentives for buying off the regulators).

I can't understand this - why not just do what the rest of the developed world does? Just tax fuel properly to take account of the environmental and national security costs associated with its consumption. Make the tax big enough and there will be no need for regulation - have a look at any common European car to see what I mean. Only seriously rich jerks and those who have a genuine need will drive Hummers.

And of course it would raise enough funds to actually afford your income tax cuts.

[Drew]

Yes, derrida, and have a look at any serious Euorpean economy. They are taxed to death and choking on it.

Gromit: What, exactly, would you propose to change the entire infrastructure of our transportation system? Hybrid rigs to haul across the US won't work. Putting everything on train is obviously not cost efficient or they would be doing it now. And the way the different parts of the US are interdependant on each other prohibits localizing. And even if localizing were to work, the group most impacted would still be the small to medium business owner. The plumber and electrician who has to use a van to carry around parts. The bread maker who has to use a truck to deliver bread. There are tons of these type businesses that there's just no way to change how they work. And absorbtion of a tax in the proportion that you're talking about would simply put them out of business.

[Gromit]

Drew: Hybrid rigs to haul across the US won't work.

Says who? Are you saying rigs have achieved optimum efficiency? Does a modern truck recapture energy when braking or going downhill? Do they halt fuel consumption when idle? If not, these vehicles still have a long way to go. For that matter, why couldn't you be using a more efficient van to haul network equipment? Because consumers are demanding cheaper fuel at the pump more loudly than they demand efficient vehicles at the dealerships. This is predictable, but ultimately foolish.

And even if localizing were to work, the group most impacted would still be the small to medium business owner.

I'm no economist, but I find this fairly incredible. Are you saying that a business that trucks its goods across town will be hurt more by rising fuel prices than a business that ships its materials to China, ships its goods from China to a U.S. seaport, then from the seaport to a distribution center, then from that center to a big box store? I'm not an economist, but I suspect that as oil prices rise fuel costs will become a much greater proportion of the business costs for Wal-Mart than for the local baker or plumber. Am I mistaken?

Granted, fuel taxes will only affect the parts of the journey within the U.S., but taxes alone are a half-measure, and those who use little fuel subsidize the big consumers through income taxes anyway, which just creates an incentive for more consumption. Our Middle-East policy is clearly counterproductive, and we aren't taking adequate steps to insure that if we withdraw support from horrible regimes there that we'll be insulated from the negative effects of rising oil prices. This is negligence on the part of our leaders and on the part of us as consumers. Of course, it doesn't help that the energy industry owns the White House, lock, stock and barrel, though this problem is hardly unique to the current administration. But if we just say we want cheaper gas, that's all the politicians will hear.

[Tim]

Hybrid rigs to haul across the US won't work.

Don't see why not. A diesel-electric hybrid would actually be more efficient than a gas-electric.

[Slartibartfast]

I think once you start introducing the idea of widespread hybrids, the one thing you cannot do is neglect to consider the monetary and environmental cost of the millions of battery sets per year that must be replaced.

I'm sure someone, somewhere has considered this, though.

[Phil]

Putting everything on train is obviously not cost efficient or they would be doing it now.

Well, it certainly isn't when compared to the fact that the rest of us essentially provide an enormous subsidy for a) the cost of the fuel used by truckers and b) the cost of the wear-and-tear on the roads and the environmental impact. If shippers had to bear the full costs of those things, they'd be looking for rail solutions in a heartbeat.

[Slartibartfast]

shippers had to bear the full costs of those things, they'd be looking for rail solutions in a heartbeat.

Hey, if anyone has a link that points to quantitative discussion of this sort of thing, please pass it on. I'm not expressing doubt, but rather an interest in seeing how the numbers come out.

[hilzoy]

Drew: on your blog (which I don't feel like creating an account for) you wrote:

"However, one of their authors (hilzoy) is most definately far left. He seems to enjoy the favorite lefist passtime of blaming Bush for everything. In this post, he rails against the Bush energy policy as not doing anything right. Most of his wrath seems to be directed at changing CAFE regulations.

I’ll be the first one to admit that I don’t know much about CAFE, but I think this post and its subsequent comments point out two immediate and consistant leftie positions. First, if something seems to be going wrong, the government must regulate it. Secondly, the way to regulate it is to tax it. "

First, I'm not far left. Left, yes. Far, no.

Second, I'm female.

Third, if you don't know much about CAFE standards, it might be worth finding out about them before you write stuff. For starters, they don't involve taxes.

[Slartibartfast]

Hey, not everyone reads the About page, although it'd seem to be the thing to do when summarizing about a weblog.

[hilzoy]

Slarti: True. Though I wouldn't have bothered had it not been for point 3. (One of his commenters said: Simply more proof that a good liberal is one with a hemp necktie affixed to an oak limb.)

And (while I was having fun with trackbacks) I found:

"Hilzoy has a very good post up over at Obsidian Wings. He takes on one of his fellow Wingers..."

-- The only comment so far says:

""He" takes on one his "fellow" wingers?
Hehe."

Which I quite liked.

[Phil]

Slart, I'll see what I can find; my memory on specifics is somewhat hazy, but I can dig something up.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Well, it certainly isn't when compared to the fact that the rest of us essentially provide an enormous subsidy for a) the cost of the fuel used by truckers and b) the cost of the wear-and-tear on the roads and the environmental impact. If shippers had to bear the full costs of those things, they'd be looking for rail solutions in a heartbeat"

Unlike Slarti, I'm actively skeptical. For starters, the rail system doesn't actually go everywhere that trucks go. Second you have to commit to much larger groupings of stuff to use the rail system effectively. Third if you rely primarily on a rail system you have to pretty much abandon the 'in time' stocking which means that you have to utilize expensive warehousing. And that is just the stuff I know off the top of my head. I'm sure if I spoke to one of the shipping experts in my company they could come up with the really bad trade-offs.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

P.S. when I say "expensive warehousing" I mean two things. First it is expensive to use space in a city just to store stuff you intend to sell. Second it will drive up housing costs because the warehouse is taking up valuable space which would currently be used for things like housing or retailing.

[Phil]

OK, scratch "rail solutions" and enter "alternate shipping methods"; that's jumping the gun. But, Sebastian, ISTR from what I've seen/read on the topic that all the things you mention are an effect of heavily-subsidized trucking, not a cause; that is, in-time stocking is achievable precisely because shippers don't pay the full cost of truck shipping.

[Slartibartfast]

Sebastian, I'm always skeptical, I simply don't express an opinion until I've got some ammo.

[Jeremy Osner]

The obvious solution in this day and age of networked communications seems to me, to use virtual shipping -- If we just ship all our goods across the internet we've no need to maintain all these brick-and-mortar interstate freeways. Hie! The future is calling!

[Slartibartfast]

Great idea! Post your fax number and I'll fax you $20!

[Kevin Donoghue]

Yes, derrida, and have a look at any serious Euorpean economy. They are taxed to death and choking on it.

Oh dear. It seems I am living in an unserious Euorpean (or possibly European) economy.

[Jeremy Osner]

Yeah, I've already moved over to paying my creditors exclusively by fax.

[Amos Newcombe]

I bet you guys think you're joking about this kind of stuff.

[Drew]

FWIW, hilzoy, I had no idea you were a woman. I apologize. But I also see no need to get snippy. But since you have...

Let's clarify a bit for those of us who can't read.

I’ll be the first one to admit that I don’t know much about CAFE, but I think this post and its subsequent comments point out two immediate and consistant leftie positions. First, if something seems to be going wrong, the government must regulate it. Secondly, the way to regulate it is to tax it.

You, hilzoy, brought up the CAFE standards, which are simply government regulations sticking their noses where they don't belong. Hence the first part of the paragraph. The immediate response, in the form of a comment from paul is:

What if the amount of tax per gallon were linked to the curb weight of your vehicle? Pull up to the pump in a Prius, pay your share based on its weight and the impact it has on the environment. Gas up your SUV and pay a bit more, based on the road damage it leaves behind.

Hence the second part of the paragraph. That shouldn't bee too hard to figure out.

As for the whether or not a rig would be more efficient as a hybrid, did you ever consider the fact that a huge amount of the time spent driving a rig is NOT braking? And the downhill portions of the road simply provide momentum for the uphill portions. Anything providing more drag on the wheels would simply make it harder to climb the next hill and create less fuel efficiency rather than more.

Trucks vs trains: As someone else stated, trains don't go everywhere they're needed and even if they went more places, you'd still have to have a way to get the products from the train to the consumer.

And I think that small businesses would be hurt the most by the proposed "curb weight" tax because they would be paying a tax burden out of porportion with what they are earning.

[Phil]

You, hilzoy, brought up the CAFE standards, which are simply government regulations sticking their noses where they don't belong

Er . . . at the risk of endangering my own hard-earned libertarian credentials, I'd posit that as long as the government both owns and has to maintain the roads, and is generally responsible for cleaning up air pollution and setting local air quality standards, their noses indeed belong in the matter of fleet fuel economy standards.

[Drew]

I'd posit that as long as the government both owns and has to maintain the roads, and is generally responsible for cleaning up air pollution and setting local air quality standards, their noses indeed belong in the matter of fleet fuel economy standards.

By that standard, the fact that the government hands out millions in welfare checks and picks up the healthcare tab for the uninsured gives them the right to legislate reproductive issues. Or healthcare issues in general.

[Anarch]

True. Though I wouldn't have bothered had it not been for point 3. (One of his commenters said: Simply more proof that a good liberal is one with a hemp necktie affixed to an oak limb.)

As long as we're swinging with you, hilzoy, I consider us in good company. For the, um, thirty seconds that's worth.

[Kent Gibson]

your blog is in the Zoo under: Top/Computers/Internet/On_the_Web/Weblogs/Personal/O

if you would like to change your category, just tell me.

http://www.bigblogzoo.com

[derrida derider]

Yes, derrida, and have a look at any serious Euorpean economy. They are taxed to death and choking on it. - Drew

Which studiously misses the point. Putting a tax on fuel needn't raise the total taxes paid - you can use the money to abolish death duties, eliminate tax on capital, reduce income tax, waste it all on missile defence, give multibillion dollar compensation to the oil companies, or whatever you think appropriate.

Arguments about how much the government should raise in tax are quite separate from arguments on the best way to raise that amount.

[Slartibartfast]

Arguments about how much the government should raise in tax are quite separate from arguments on the best way to raise that amount.

I don't disagree with this, but I think that a blanket fuel tax is going to translate to elevated transportation and production costs, which I believe is going to disproportionately impact the cost of low-cost items like produce and clothing. Which is one of those things you've got to consider when evaluating whether a particular approach is best: does this scheme translate to more of a regressive tax?

I'm also not a big fan of taxation as a means to discourage frowned-upon behaviors, but that's an entirely different discussion.

[derrida derider]

"I'm also not a big fan of taxation as a means to discourage frowned-upon behaviors"

Why the hell not? The point of discouragement by taxation as against discouragement by regulation, coercion, moral suasion or whatever is that it results in less intrusion by government into individuals' lives.

It leaves people free to make their own decisions. If you are a NASCAR person who loves the sound of a big old iron pushrod V8 in your car then you can pay the (exorbitant) price without some bureaucrat forbidding it. The same if you really do need a big car with off-road capability. And it automatically gives an incentive for the carmakers to keep looking for fuel economies beyond any minimum that regulation mandates.

Pigovian taxes (as economists call them) are the free market solution to mispricing of resources.

[derrida derider]

Oh, and it's not clear that a fuel tax is regressive. The question has been pretty exhaustively covered in the non-US literatures (where, because the tax is large, its an important issue on which there's plenty of data). Most studies find the final incidence broadly neutral.

Anyway, even if it was regressive you can use the proceeds to pay for a progressive tax cut (eg raise the bottom income tax threshold, increase the EITC, etc) to offset it.