[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: E-M:/ Re: Studies that study nothing, reports that reportnothing -Reply



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from John D Swerdlow <swerdlow@umich.edu>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't followed who's who in this discussion, but i do have two
comments:
1)  Please drop the condescending tone
2)  The price of gasoline does not reflect the negative externalities.
Two ways the government can try to correct the resulting economic
inefficiency is to tax gasoline up to a price that does include external
costs or to try to reduce consumption by regulation (e.g., fuel efficiency
standards).

-John S.

 On Mon, 24 Nov 1997
JerrodM@aol.com wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enviro-Mich message from JerrodM@aol.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> In a message dated 97-11-24 16:12:57 EST, Pete Pasterz writes:
>  >>There are a few, small, underappointed and underpowered cars available
> that we can  "choose", but the point was that the average for all vehicles
> should (and can) be much  higher.  Just like the pollution reductions in cars
> that we achieved, so can we change the  technology of the engines to use
> fuels more efficiently.   Just look at the Rosen (owner of  Compaq computers)
> jet-flywheel system, the hydrogen engine being developed by an east  coast
> company, or even the Electric/gas hybrid car introduced in Japan by Toyota.
> <<  
>  
> Ah, where to begin? With the facts, the dreams or the delusions of grandeur?
> PP and his ilk, not satisfied with the free choices made by tens of millions
> of people, have appointed themselves the arbiters of that "should and can
> be." Regarding the other pie-in-sky concepts, maybe they will eventually pan
> out (but at what price?), but these have all been around for decades. I spent
> time in the late 60's on some of these ideas, and I suppose that others will
> be touting them when all the readers of this list are long gone.
> 
>  >>People don't buy them [45 mpg cars now available] because they have been
> 1) convinced that  bigger = safer (which is only true as long as the spread
> between the mass of vehicles is increasing such as the current
> self-fulfilling prophesy of the sale of more units of trucks--including
> SUV's--than cars in the U.S.) 
> 
>    Jerrod: Not true. Bigger provides greater crush distance and padding in
> single vehicle incidents. Has little or nothing to do with delta-mass.
> Besides, your argument turns on itself, because your crowd has been the one
> trying to force an abnormally great differential by pushing for artificial
> controls on mpg.
> 
> 
> >>and that Trucks are the most desirable in terms of personal image (Power,
> outdoors image); 
> 
>    Jerrod: As opposed to those who used to say (or still do?) that a VW bug
> was the most desirable?
> 
> 
> >>and 2) misled by the false economics of motor fuels--that is that as we
> deplete them, and they increase our global climate change the cost (adjusted
> for inflation)  GOES DOWN!   You can bet that values would change radically
> if the cost at the pump would double. (remember 1973-1978 and the sales of
> Japanese vehicles)
> 
>    Jerrod: Guess they can't be being depleted if the cost goes down, non?
> Unless you have invented a new reverse kind of supply/demand economics, that
> is. Of course if gas prices were to climb, smaller cars would be relatively
> more attractive and relative demand would increase. The market does work, and
> I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that fact.
> 
> 
> >>This "convincing" (read marketing, advertising.....) is because the auto
> industry knows that they can sell these vehicles at a much HIGHER PROFIT than
> cars of any kind, let alone not having to spend $$ on R&D to design a more
> efficient transportation system.
> 
>    Jerrod: Partially true. There's an old saying in the auto industry that
> you can put in $10 of value for $5 of cost. What's wrong with that?
>  
> >>The only features lost are: Hauling .5 to 1 ton of cargo, towing heavy
> equipment, or getting  traction in off-road travels.   How many people REALLY
> need to do these things daily,  weekly, monthly or even yearly???   Most of
> these vehicles are used for commuting/errand  running, which can be done by
> foot, on a bike, on a bus, in a train, in a small car, in a big car--all more
> efficiently than in a truck.<<
>  
>    Jerrod: You can't be serious. I once saw an analysis like this that
> observed that toilets are almost never used, and therefore are "inefficient."
> You might try to remember that efficiency is proportional to output and
> inversely proportional to input, and that lots of people can have different
> ideas about how to measure those quantities. It's the height of arrogance to
> substitute your definition of "output" or "need" for that of the person
> actually putting up the money. Tch, tch.
> 
> 
> ==============================================================
> ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
> and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
> http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/
> 
> Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
> majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"
> ==============================================================
> 


==============================================================
ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"
==============================================================