afransen
Senior Member
"Do remember, the automobile companies want the rebate provision removed because it serves as a means of identifying fuel-efficient cars!"
Why not tell people how much gas a car wll consume, like "This vehicle will consume approx. 18,000 litres of gasoline to travel 160,000 km." Make the fuel efficiency more meaningful to buyers?
"No one actually knows what happens in the world of alternate scenarios."
*sigh*
"And fuel taxes are not a solution to the problems of fuel efficiency"
Proof to that effect?
"Easy. There are more cars on the road than ever before."
I said all else equal, including the number of cars. That means, given everything else is the same as it is today, except gas prices were higher, what proof do you have that higher gas prices would not decrease consumption?
""Government decisons" have, for example, pushed automobile manufacturers to greatly improve fuel efficiency, reduce pollution emissions, improve safety and consumer protection."
But not to the extent they should have. Governments are too afraid and too slow to act, in general.
"Okay, gasoline is a good in that enables transportation."
No. Transportation is the good. Gasoline is just the means to the end. If there are two identical vehicles, but one requires twice the fuel as the other to travel a distance, the one that requires more fuel doesn't produce a greater beneficial effect. Excess fuel usage is just that: waste. We encourage conservation by increasing the savings of using the more efficient vehicle...
"Gasoline is more expensive and taxed more now than in the past. Yet there are more automobiles on the road per capita than in the past."
You don't get it... The price of gas isn't the only thing that determines car usage. Sure, car ownership increased while gas prices increased. Does that mean that fuel cost has no effect on car usage? In that case, gas could cost a thousand dollars a litre and car usage would continue to increase? Think about it--the argument you present is fallacious.
"Sulphur and lead were removed from gasoline by direct action; removal was not a product of tax-tinkering."
Sure, but that isn't to say that the same end could not have been achieved with a tax instead. A sufficient tax on lead in gasoline (so that removing the lead lead to a net reduction in cost of gasoline) could have lead to the same reduction in lead content.
As far as incandescent bulbs go, the real goal of that policy is to reduce demand for electricity. The same can be accomplished by increasing the cost of electricity, by rewarding conservation across the board, rather than just in terms of lighting.
As far as agreeing to disagree, I think you aren't quite grasping what I'm trying to say, so we wouldn't be talking about the same thing anyway.
Why not tell people how much gas a car wll consume, like "This vehicle will consume approx. 18,000 litres of gasoline to travel 160,000 km." Make the fuel efficiency more meaningful to buyers?
"No one actually knows what happens in the world of alternate scenarios."
*sigh*
"And fuel taxes are not a solution to the problems of fuel efficiency"
Proof to that effect?
"Easy. There are more cars on the road than ever before."
I said all else equal, including the number of cars. That means, given everything else is the same as it is today, except gas prices were higher, what proof do you have that higher gas prices would not decrease consumption?
""Government decisons" have, for example, pushed automobile manufacturers to greatly improve fuel efficiency, reduce pollution emissions, improve safety and consumer protection."
But not to the extent they should have. Governments are too afraid and too slow to act, in general.
"Okay, gasoline is a good in that enables transportation."
No. Transportation is the good. Gasoline is just the means to the end. If there are two identical vehicles, but one requires twice the fuel as the other to travel a distance, the one that requires more fuel doesn't produce a greater beneficial effect. Excess fuel usage is just that: waste. We encourage conservation by increasing the savings of using the more efficient vehicle...
"Gasoline is more expensive and taxed more now than in the past. Yet there are more automobiles on the road per capita than in the past."
You don't get it... The price of gas isn't the only thing that determines car usage. Sure, car ownership increased while gas prices increased. Does that mean that fuel cost has no effect on car usage? In that case, gas could cost a thousand dollars a litre and car usage would continue to increase? Think about it--the argument you present is fallacious.
"Sulphur and lead were removed from gasoline by direct action; removal was not a product of tax-tinkering."
Sure, but that isn't to say that the same end could not have been achieved with a tax instead. A sufficient tax on lead in gasoline (so that removing the lead lead to a net reduction in cost of gasoline) could have lead to the same reduction in lead content.
As far as incandescent bulbs go, the real goal of that policy is to reduce demand for electricity. The same can be accomplished by increasing the cost of electricity, by rewarding conservation across the board, rather than just in terms of lighting.
As far as agreeing to disagree, I think you aren't quite grasping what I'm trying to say, so we wouldn't be talking about the same thing anyway.