Except for those in hurricane devastated areas, many Americans do not remember the long and stressful gasoline lines of the '70s & '80s gas crunches. The Asphalt Wonderland had a temporary crunch back in 2003. Perhaps a look back to refresh our memories is called for:
----------------
PHOENIX, Arizona (AP) -- Three hours after she started to search Monday, Judy Bergeron was finally able to find gas for her sport utility vehicle. She first had to visit five stations, and then wait in line for about 45 minutes at the last one.
Motorists in the nation's sixth-largest city found stations with the pumps blocked off by yellow caution tape, or with lines that stretched a block or more. One gas station attendant called police because some patrons were getting upset and others were cutting in line.
There was no way to tell how many stations were affected because as some ran out, others were getting topped off by tanker trucks. But the problems, which seemed to come to a head Sunday, were seen throughout the city.
----------------------
What I found as most fascinating is how cellphones were used to gain a preferential advantage:
Some tanker drivers would call each other to exchange delivery times and location info, then they would call their families or buddies to tell when and where the deliveries would happen. You would see vehicles start to line up at an empty gas station a few minutes before the tanker rig arrived so that they would be served first and minimize their waiting time.
I recall some queues at empty stations would even have pickups with trailered boats lined up before the tanker arrived-- clearly these people had inside information-- no gas shortages for them. Other 'early birds' would not only fuel their vehicles, but would also fill-up extra gasoline cans, presumably for home power equipment, construction machinery like backhoes, etc if this 'early bird' was an independent construction contractor, or maybe they just wanted extra gasoline to hoard.
Those 'out of the info loop' would be at a decided disadvantage until they spotted a forming queue, or saw a tanker pull into a gas-station. They would quickly pull into the waiting lineup, then they would immediately grab their cellphone to alert their inclusive fitness circle of friends and families.
I believe more pipeline breakdowns due to corrosion, ala BP's Prudhoe Bay example, are forthcoming, and we all know Peakoil will make fuel availability much worse. Supply and demand pricing is helpful for the long-term macro-effects, but does nothing to alleviate the local micro-economic condition of people wastefully driving around from one gas station to another seeking to refuel.
This desperate search is extremely stressful if your vehicle is already running on fumes. The past history of gas station queue violence is readily documented for all to read; detritovore addicts clearly will go nuts to get their next fix. Fuel thefts by siphoning, cutting gaslines, or even puncturing gastanks to get the last drops have been discussed here before. There have even been tanker drivers who had their rigs hijacked by gunpoint in the past!
I think we TODers need to discuss what might be the best way to mitigate this potentially violent postPeak problem of the black market in inside information and wasteful fuel searching in urban locales. Here are a few of my ideas:
Any vehicle queuing up at an empty gas station before a tanker arrives clearly had access to inside info--they will be assessed an extra 50%/gal or be limited to only five gallons at the regular price.
Any oil industry employee who discloses the critical dispatching info of tanker-truck deliveries will be terminated. This is also good for preventing hijackings.
A tanker driver will only be told to drive to a certain neighborhood, then when GPS-monitoring confirms that the rig has arrived in this locale, only then does the dispatcher cellphone call to inform of the final destination. This will prevent the tanker driver from having time to alert family and friends. A neighborhood may have 15 gas stations of the same brand-- the trucker has no idea which one of these fifteen is his delivery point until nearly the last minute.
Anyone seeking to merely 'top off' their tank will not be allowed to purchase fuel. You cannot buy gas if your gas-guage reads more than quarter-full--this should effectively end the desire to hoard by keeping one's tank full.
Your vehicle's VIN number will be assigned to one gas station of each brand in your neighborhood, and you will be required to scan this barcode before purchasing. You are then free to choose the best price among these competing brands secure in the knowledge that you will find gas somewhere in your immediate local--no more desperate searching over a broad swath of urban real estate.
You are free to purchase gas at any other gas stations from your assigned stations, but you will be charged any extra $1/gallon for not wisely watching your fueltank indicator and conserving. If your neighborhood community is good at fuel conservation by everyone pedaling bicycles often, then when you finally go to purchase gasoline--it will be cheap-- no Jeavons' Paradox applies from outside customers scooping up the intentional reduced demand savings.
Okay, these proposals maybe workable or not--I have no idea, but I welcome better ideas and discussion on any methods to minimize gasline queue violence for the postPeak Era. Remember, each year it will get continually worse until we successfully transition to PHEVs, mass-transit, and bicycles.
I would propose a system with gas-credits, like a creditcard.
Every car owner them will be entitled to buy a certain amount of gallons of gas every month.
These will be taken of your gas-credit-account.
Credits not spend can be saved for next month. Or can be sold to others via the internet.
Extra credits can be hand out tho those that give special service to the public, like house doktors.
The second thing I would propose is to abolish payroll tax and
compensate the loss of government income by raising the tax on oil products.
The idea of replacing the Social Security tax with a petroleum tax is one of the dumbest ideas that keeps popping up on TOD. How do you propose Social Security meet its obligations as petroleum supply declines? There are those who believe retirees and the disabled deserve to starve or freeze because they failed to properly invest income they never had.
You'd have to have a mechanism to constantly adjust the (carbon, gas, etc) tax as sales volumes fall. Maybe easier and less stressful for everybody to just have a much larger personal income tax exemption that adjusts yearly.
It is my understanding that American retirees as a group are one of the support bases for GWB and the Rethugs. It is hard to have sympathy for anyone who votes Republican yet cannot take care of themselves.
No, they aren't. Rich, white retirees are more likely than not to be Republicans, but ordinary white people are not. It's just some people you know, not the many you don't.
I vote Republican, can take of myself and I have 14 families that depend on me (my employees) for good judgment. How about that responsibility to navigate the PO waters.
I don't think that replacing the Social Security tax with a petroleum tax would have any worse problems than the Social Security tax. For one thing, once there is little oil, there will probably be much less income to tax, so the Social Security system will have problems, no matter what we do.
I personally am pretty much a doomer when it comes to the US monetary system - I am afraid it will fail fairly early on, once people figure out about peak oil, and lending institutions stop making twenty or thirty year loans, including mortgage loans. Even the present downturn in the housing industry, if it gets worse, could hit the monetary system pretty hard.
Another thing to keep in mind is that at any point in time, there will be only so much of quite a few things available - oil, food, fresh water. The current monetary system or some new monetary system can help divide these goods up, but it can't make any more than there is in total.
With all these issues, I think that people should not count on social security, medicare, medicaid, and other social programs. We may luck out and get a little from them, but if there is not enough to go around, social welfare progams are likely to be cut. Private pensions are not likely to fare a whole lot better - they depend on the stock and bond markets to fund them, and will have problems if there are many bankruptcies, or problems with the monetary system.
I have not always voted for the Dems but I have never voted for a Republican even though I am middle aged, Christian, a white man, and blue collar. Perhaps it's my impaired sanity.
There's a simple way around that, too: use the fuel-tax money to rebate Social Security taxes on the first $X of income. As fuel taxes decline, so does the rebate.
A much better idea, speaking as one who recently started an early draw of SS. Those who don't want to plan on SS are welcome not to do so, but there are a lot of voters who have a certain attachment to the idea and a great many of us are not Republicans.
I don't think this is ultimately workable. Instead, let the market provide the solution - fuel station operators can change the prices of the petrol they sell, can't they?
What do you think is not ultimately workable? Th gas-credit system or the trade-in payroll-tax for gas-tax?
The creditsystem actually uses the free-market. As I propose, the credits can be sold, so the highest bidder can get the most gasoline. But at the same time, the poor people and the not-so-in-need-of gas people get money for their sold credits.
I guess I am speaking from an Australian perspective. I'm unaware if massive shortages have occurred here. At least, 'hijackings' are unlikely due to our rational gun policies.
The scheme would require some kind of massive, centralised planning to be enforceable. Charging individuals differing amounts for fuel is the first error, in my opinion. Also assuming that anyone queueing up at a fuel station has 'insider information' - what if all stations in an area are out of petrol? Does that criminalise every person queuing?
It seems you're presenting this idea in the context of some kind of future American society. Instead of working to socialise fuel, I would hope that by 'then', we would have moved away from ICE passenger vehicles.
I also wonder if you're trying to solve the problem from an oil-producer's perspective, or government perspective - basically capitalistic or socialist approaches to the situation.
Checking fuel guages, VIN etc. would all require extra personnel - why not just get some armed guards/police to secure fuel stations, and allow them to sell available supplies for whatever price 'the market' reaches 'equillibrium' at?
Price spikes + extra security seems to solve the issue for me.
If American neighbourhoods devolve into armed confrontations, you only have your military-industrial complex to blame.
Or, simply ration fuel - weren't 'they' already doing that for truckers somewhere?
Just about every gasoline pump in the US has a credit card payment slot. Simply allocate, i. e. ration gasoline to a reasonable average user rate, and require all gasoline purchases to be made by credit card. No more gallons on the card, no gasoline.
If there is a problem with that concept peddle it as a homeland security measure, in that we can monitor the driving of terrorist. The folks in the asphalt paradise will lap that up 8-)).
Rationing by allocation will get you long waiting lines & empty supermarkets. It is the most efficient way of wrecking the economy. Have we all forgotten the USSR?
If it comes to the point where we actually have a shortage and need to resort to extreme measures, do you really think the economy is going to be humming along fine? Hopefully higher oil prices will push us away from ICE cars before the point where we have to start rationing fuel. At that point the economy is wrecked period...doesn't really matter how you try to solve the crisis.
I believe rationing by price is always more effective than rationing by quantity, and is much easier to administer to boot. But I see no reason why we couldn't easily setup a two-tier pricing system that would benefit relocalization forces in detritus use, limit the worst of Jeavons' Paradox, yet still respond overall to the international price of crude/barrel. Scanning the barcode VIN # is much better than the odd-even day rationing we had back in the earlier days and all the corruption it created.
For example, my little scooter combined with my lack of owning a cellphone puts me at a decided disadvantage in moving to the 'early bird' front of the gasoline queue. A pickup owner, with a cellphone for inside info, and extra gas cans in the back of his pickup can beat me to the forming queue every time. My attempts at Powerdown are working against me, even if I can afford the 4 gallons to fill my tank, if when I finally reach the gas pump--none is available. Yet, long-term, I want the price to go as high as possible, so others will be forced to eventually downscale in their vehicle use too.
Trust me: I had the gas siphoned out of my '69 GMC pickup in the early seventies--It was no fun waiting 24 hours till my even-day came up, then waiting in a hours-long queue in the blazing sun with a five gallon gas can to later heft a quarter mile home for the partial refilling of my tank.
Riding a scooter vs. driving my old pickup effectively triples my energy circle's radius; I can cover a much larger territory, if needed, for the same cost. But, by staying within the original radii or less; by trying to relocalize myself as much as possible, it creates big savings for me and the environment. With the two-tier system, I could buy 1/4 gallon outside my neighborhood, pay the distance penalty cost, yet know that I have adequate fuel so that when I get back to my neighborhood, that I can refill near my house at the going market rate.
Rationing by price as a function of your distance from home is how nature imposes it controls--I am merely proposing the same for us humans. A predator cannot seek prey further than it's abilities to bring the bacon home to feed Momma and the kids; it's energy level constrains it to patrolling a discrete territory-- as detritus energy becomes limited, I suggest we must all learn to travel in increasingly smaller circles.
I would recommend just getting an electric scooter and some form of self power generation. Then you won't have to worry about this problem if it comes to pass.
My speculative proposals allow the gas station owners to set the market price; to respond to supply & demand, but it will be a two-tiered 'roaming' system to help promote Westexas's HELP idea of conservation and relocalization, and reduce the postPeak tendency of detritovores driving all over the place seeking fuel when spot shortages become commonplace. Otherwise, unless you and me have access to the local inside info, we can always expect to be forced to the end of the line, no matter how much we are willing to pay per gallon. In short, a black market in fuel info is more valuable than a black market in fuel supply.
My speculative proposals allow the gas station owners to set the market price; to respond to supply & demand,...
Bob, gas station owners make about five cents per gallon, sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. They are at the mercy of their suppliers as far as the price is concerned.
After Katrina and Rita last year, the wholesale price in many of places jumped far more, per gallon, than their profit margins. As a result many station owners did not have enough money to buy a new load. Many had to bag off their pumps until they could raise enough money for a load or else wait for the wholesale price to drop.
My point is, with such tiny profit margins, how on earth can service station owners "set the market price"? They get whipsawed by the market price just as much as we consumers do. They have no control over the market price.
What am I missing Bob? Is there something in your proposals that give them more control?
In Mississippi I believe it is impossible to raise prices on the same load of fuel, or at least it was in the state of emergency after Katrina. However, in Florida it is not and I saw a nearby gas station raise their prices 3 times in one day, a total of 19 +/- cents (without any deliveries). So they are making more money off the same load of fuel. Seems like they are making more money than normal, not less.
Thxs for responding. I don't claim to be an expert on gas station operation: I did not know that operators can be so severely whipsawed by their suppliers. I thought that they had much greater control over pricing decisions [within legal bounds], potential profit margins, etc to manage their considerable investment in a gas station. Sounds like a lousy business to own, even more so postPeak, unless they can be legislated more business freedom from their suppliers. For the same type of gasoline, and all from the same pipeline, gasoline in my neighborhood can vary by seven cents or more per gallon-- so there must be some local pricing power at work.
I am not sure it cost that much to get in the Gas station business. In most cases around here (NJ)the stations are owned by the companies and are just leased by the people that run the operation.They are pretty much under the thumb of the companies.
Yes, they vary by as much as seven cents here too Bob, but that is between different brands. Exxon or Shell is much higher than Murphy Oil, (Wal-Mart), and so on. Locally owned stores are usually buy into a franchise for their gasoline. These are usually the cheapest brands on the market. They price as low as they can and still get business. Of course thay can raise prices as much as they like, but then they drive away their business, gasoline business as well as the rest of their stuff.
thats why they are your one stop shop for just about any junk food you can imagine. because they earn so little on gas, they use it as a means to get you in the door so you can buy higher profit margin items.
One huge problem with your scheme is that it would allow the suppliers or government to punish individual areas (like voting districts) by cutting off fuel to them and forcing their residents to both travel farther AND pay a surcharge.
I know a gas station owner who has had to constantly borrow more and more money to pay for the gas when it arrives. The oil companies pretty much want COD. Since he has more money borrowed and rates are up his interest cost are up. To make it worse more and more people are using credit cards to pay for the gas. The credit card company's charges are on the gross amount of the sale, which is higher cutting into the profit. I have read where some gas stations are spending $1000.00 a week and more in credit charge charges.
I was in various small business for 40 years. Many weeks I paid my employees on Friday and hoped I would do enough business over the weekend to cover the payroll. If there was a snowstorm I was in trouble. This is called (playing the float). It is even harder to do now that checks clear faster. When you are in this kind of situation, and many gas stations are, it is very hard to raise prices higher then the competition when you need the cash to pay the expenses.
Many things seem easy in theory but putting into practice is much different.
This sort of thing would be greatly helped by a bit of "price gouging". Economics is useful in the micro short term, not just the macro short term.
The hurricane evacuations, including the totally unncessary ones from some parts of Houston, would have been much safer and more orderly with some "gouging". A bit of "gouging" would also have saved much useless time and effort in Phoenix - and freed up gas spent driving in circles for useful purposes.
When the price is allowed to rise, the black market never forms in the first place and there's no need to worry about it. In addition, for example, the problem of people who refuse to plan ahead when a hurricane is coming disappears. They'd remember an $8/gallon last-minute price far better than any amount of governmental nagging and exhortation. Plus, they wouldn't top off their tanks along the way - and delay traffic in the process - unless they actually needed to. And they wouldn't re-wire their gas gauges to display whatever was needed. And they wouldn't be endangered by delays at long lines engendered by physical shortages or by elaborate bureaucratic qualification-checking procedures.
The trouble with complicated, dictatorial, bureaucratic approaches - price controls, rationing, martial law, etc - is that people devise workarounds, or it simply proves to be impossible to hire enough incorruptible bureaucrats (or fuel truck drivers) to enforce those approaches fairly. Either way, they provide people with powerful incentives to spend great gobs of time and money on evasion, at great expense to any effort at mitigation.
Politically, of course, there's a problem. Complicated oppressive bureaucratic approaches are an easy political sell because the attitude of the Great Shiftless Moron Mass is that no sacrifice is too great for somebody else to make when the chips are down. So the gas station people are supposed to stock up to the gunwales, and hang around until the wind reaches 120mph, the better to serve the blithely irresponsible who refused to prepare, and in order to punish them for being evil wicked gas station people, they're supposed to do all this for free. After all, it's great and glorious fun to bite the venal corporate hand that feeds us. And it's never politically correct to expect a voter to take responsibility for anything, such as filling the tank while the hurricane is still out at sea.
The political problem, though, is simply a known disadvantage of democracy - and likely one reason why the founders of the U.S.A. distrusted the short term whims of the people and didn't put direct (or more direct) democracy into the constitution. Their solution was representative democracy, but sometimes that doesn't work either, especially in the presence of electronic media, which short-circuit the originally-intended deliberative processes.
Tssk, tssk, tssk...
That is very politically UNcorrect, you seem to say :
With direct democracy the most irresponsible lead the show.
With representative democracy the most irresponsible STILL lead the show longterm PLUS the "representative" and "special interests" add their own gouging.
Do not despair of democracy, Iraq HAS democracy, only villains like Putin don't want democracy.
Don't see how any rationing type system could work. Some ideas, particularly the truck tracking via GPS and final destination only known at the end of the drive, will be implemented as they are more useful to the oil distribution industry than actually stopping insider info. We will always have insider info to a privileged few. That is unavoidable. The best rationing schemes would be actions taken by pump owners themselves. They could limit their sales to X number of gallons per vehicle. This would allow their best customers to be serviced and the supplies to be maximized over the most vehicles. This seems the easiest and fairest method. Coupled with price rises in the market, something like this would provide the maximum benefit with the least special privilege situations.
On an individual level we all need to start doing everything we can to reduce our use of fossil fuels (but TODers already know this). As the Israel/Lebanon war shows us, we are financing all sides of this type conflict by buying oil. We finance Iran, Israel for the war, outsource our jobs to China and India, and then get to finance the reconstruction! Surly a mad situation for the US.
#1 wouldn't work, because in stead of queueing up for gas ahead of time, they'd just circle the block like a vulture until the tanker arrived. No surcharge, and they would only lose, what, 3 or 4 places in line? They'd still be way up at the front of the line.
This strikes me as going at the wrong end of the problem. My inclination would be to increase taxes on energy and provide public transportation. Force the transition sooner rather than later.
Your quote: "My inclination would be to increase taxes on energy and provide public transportation. Force the transition sooner rather than later."
No disagreement from me, but it seems our politicians will not react until the fuel crisis causes much violence. I am hoping my speculative ideas [or better ideas by other TODers!] might mitigate this transition period as it takes years to build an effective and efficient network of mass-transit. What are our best ideas that can belatedly implemented by our leaders during this interrim period? Forcing rich and poor alike to shrink their wandering circles by imposing a draconian distance premium faster than relatively uniform supply and demand would impose seems to have some merit, IMO. Otherwise, a wealthy person attempting to buy gas in a distant neighborhood will be quantity limited by a shower of rocks from the locals. We are an extremely territorial animal at crunchtime.
Eventually, fuel will become so expensive and scarce that only the critical needs of the police, fire, and local military will be allowed to burn it, the remaining amount will be controlled by politically connected black marketeers carefully selling to the highest bidders, like DeBeers diamond control. Try to imagine a US that has burned all its native supply, and only one supertanker/ month reaches our shores.
The public transit solution is limited by the size and number of the buses or rail cars they use. The system I worked for could handle less than 2% of the county population at any point in time. Over the course of a working day they could sqeeze in maybe 6% of all commuters. I doubt if public transit as it now stands could handle more than 10% of all workers in America.
I talked to someone who lived in Paris. He claimed that the Paris metro had the capacity to accomodate the entire commuting population of Paris. If this is true, you could theoretically solve the commuting problems of any large urban center by building similar systems.
I have to withdraw a prior argument against your idea about educating the young to prepare for peak oil. I argued they were already hyperconsumers at a young age. Yesterday my 8 year old nephew was overheard saying we weren't going to have enough oil and we needed to make electric cars and electric windmills. He had more to say. I didn't tell him this, he had been listened in to one of my conversations. Don't know how his SUV driving parents are going to take his new found wisdom.
Nurture that new-found wisdom in the little one as much as possible! Many people will try to put your nephew back into his hyperconsumer trance. He may slip back into it, but you may plant the seeeds of awakening sooner or later.
I've watched my kids battle hyperconsumerism. Often, I think they are losing. They resent our relative material "poverty" but are also able to articulate ideas about our impact on the planet, and what options we already choose. They are usually proud that their parents are thinking about the environment the kids will inherit in a few years.
Most parents simply project "more of the same" and I guess assume that they willl be doddering about on some golf course when the kiddos move into their own McMansions with four car Hummer-storage units.
It is not the oil companies that dispatch the trucks. It is the individual gas stations that call the trucking company at all hours of the day and night to "immediately" go pickup a load of fuel for them at the terminal. If the station owners even think there is going to be an increase in wholesale gas prices they will call the trucking company to go pickup a load before the price increase starts. (as little as 0.01/gal will trigger this). My neighbor runs a small gasoline trucking business (about 8 tankers) and it is one crazy business to be in!
As to allocating fuel to each vehicle owner, that would be great. I own 10+ vehicles so would get a gas allocation for each vehicle. That would do wonders for the used car business.
And how do you diferentiate between the jock who just likes driving a big 4x4 pickup and the farmer/businessman who has to drive a big pickup?
You can't haul a load of sweet corn and mellons to the farmers market nor a load of shingles to reroof a house with a weenie electric toy.
I went through the 70's gas shortages in Arizona which were the result of government price control interference in the markets. Dump the anti-gouging laws and let the market determine the price. If the price goes too high they won't sell enough and they will have to lower the price to sell the stuff. Any government scheme is only going to cause more problems than it will solve.
So basically what you're saying is that rather than raise the prices (and punish the hell out of those people who own Hummers), you'd rather just have elaborate beurocratic checks so that the hummer owners don't suffer any worse than the people driving vespas.
You do want to actually save gas, right? Just raise the price. Voila, nobody going to fill up their boat anymore, fewer hummers on the street, and nobody driving around (or waiting in line) for hours to find gas.
It would suck for the poor, but that can be handled by giving those that are truly poor some sort of tax rebate or something. Just cut them a check if their income is below X, then those that don't use gas get rewarded for their lifestyle, those that do, well at least it doesn't hurt them so badly. The soccer moms won't be evicted by higher gas prices, but they'll feel the pain and maybe make a more sane choice of vehicle next time.
Sure, you will punish the people that own the hummers, but rationing by price punishes others, who dont own hummers but do need to get to work, often in smaller vehicles. Nurses on Night shift etc.
SUV type vehicles are getting more highly taxed in the UK. The idea being that Yummy Mummies driving 'Chelsea Tractors'in London feel some pain. The problem is, that a Sheep farmer operating in marginal land in the North of Britain, really does need his battered old Land Rover, yet he gets stiffed for the same tax as the Chelsea tractor driver. The tax increase is about 5 Starbucks lattes for the metropolitan driver or in the farmers case, about three additional sheep.
The question is do we really need an SUV / Large saloon. The simple answer absolutely not. Now maybe Fashion and peer pressure will kill off the Gas Guzzler craze.
Ultimately, turning up at the school gates / sports field /yuppie larve party in one of these will be social death. You know, a bit like lighting up a cheroot at a school play.
Personally, I would just fucking ban them. Unless you could prove you really need them and the bar of proof would be very high (''show me some of your sheep'').
From what I understand of American ownership of SUV's they are classed as 'trucks' and attract a tax rebate. Is this true? Then stop it. It is stupid. Proof that you really do need a 6000 lbs truck for you livelyhood should be a pre-condition of a tax rebate. Well sod that. If you are rich enough to afford a hummer 2, you dont need the tax rebate and you can in fact afford a $5000 / year tax on the damn thing. (The tax could be hypothecated to public transport or light rail projects).
Dont tell me anybody in an urban setting working in a ''soft hand profession'' needs a bloody hummer to get to , or continue his or her work.
Tradeable Carbon Credits have also been proposed. Not keen on this either. The rich can 'buy' these credits off the immobile poor and continue hogging the lanes and guzzling gas. Carbon Credits should be non-tradable. If you know you will run out of credit before the annual renewal, you may be tempted to think about Fuel Efficiency and non essential, discretionary travel.
If the rich can 'buy' other peoples carbon credits, then it is just a scam and will just dissolve social cohesion.
Picture this: the poor labourer walks to his job to repair the road so that the rich can continue joy riding in gas guzzlers.
An outright ban has a chance of working. Social engineering the lines at a gas station does not. Generally I like the ideas here.
A few nitpicks.
If the laborer (lets take me, for example) that walks to work has credits, why should he not be able to sell them? That would punish those that don't drive. Drive, or you can't use your credits. Also a bad idea. If you want to make it fair and effective, give credits to everyone and let them sell them. Sure, some rich punk might still be able to drive his hummer, but if he has to put food on the table for 20 people in order to do so, then let him do it.
The plan shouldn't be to get rid of Bill Gates' hummer (lets imagine he has one...) the plan should be to get 90% of them off the road. Higher taxes will do that. Tax the hell out of gasoline, and then divide it up per-capita and mail the proceeds out to everyone. Drive less than average, you gain money, drive more than average, you lose money. The farmer needs it for his sheep, then I guess sheep are going to be a little more expensive. I think that'll be OK, and surely it's rare to begin with. Most SUVs cannot drive offroad without sustaining severe damage, despite the look of them, often they're more fragile than little economy cars. I seriously doubt many farmers have them.
''Drive less than average you gain money, drive more than average, you loose money.''
That may work. But it must be linked to carbon emmisions.
Why? What comes out of the tail-pipe is the key driver.
Example: A Nurse who may cut 15000 miles in a Civic may cause less pollution to get to work than a yuppie in an SUV that cuts 7500 miles. Chances are that the yuppie will cut in excess of 15000 miles anyway.
My problem with tradeable credits is that the poor (who cannot drive) enable the rich to continue an easy motoring lifestyle (they can afford to drive).
If the rich can drive / fly whenever , wherever they wish, then the reduction in carbon required for PO / GW mitigation will not happen.
We have a de-facto carbon trading system in place right now:
A Kalahari Bushman expells very little carbon. A member of any Western Industrialised Nation (WIN) expells a lot more carbon.
Is it right that the bushman should suffer the effects of PO/GW created by a WIN person?
No. It is not right.
Carbon rations should not be transferable. You get your ration and that is it. It does not matter how ''rich'' you are. And no, bellowing the phrase ''Dont you know who I am? '' Should cut absoloutley no ice. Then a WIN Person will then need to work out how to drastically reduce carbon emmissions.
A WIN person wont do this overnight. A WIN person cannot suddenly achieve the carbon - free status of a bushman.
That is not the point. What we in the West have to do is conserve as soon as possible and cut carbon use. But cutting frivolous carbon use must be an absoloute imperative.
That means all of us. The rich cannot be exempted by some kind of trade or 'special exemptions'.
Carbon trading would enable the rich to swap dollars (theoretical and increasingly useless bits of paper) for access to actual physical substances that can alter the climate and deplete a resource. They could do it just for their own pleasure and enjoyment.
Envisage this: two thirds of humanity use little carbon. All humanity get a 'carbon ration'.
The One third 'buy' the other two thirds hypothetical carbon ration. Nothing changes. The amount of carbon is the same.
Who knows?
However , one of the most positive aspects of the USA is that the population can adapt very quickly to changing circumstances. A manifestation of this is the success of Toyota when compared with the failure of GM and Ford.
People are not stupid. Cutting engine capacity will become the cool thing to do. People who insist on buying giant penis-extenders will , ultimately , be laughed at. (which kind of negates the reason why people buy these things in the first place).
At the end of the day, we all need to get to work.
Tradeable credits never going to happen. That would be egalitarian. What has been egalitarian in USA in past quarter century? Rationing by price, period.
Bahrain's Gulf Daily News: Ford puts production brake as sales slump
NEW YORK: Struggling auto giant Ford Motor said yesterday it was slashing its US vehicle production as it battles to recapture customers who are deserting its gas-guzzling SUVs in favour of Japanese models. http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=152897&Sn=BUSI&IssueID=29152
So -- as to whether we should ban them, well ... people are already getting the message. Personally, I don't think yet another law is going to do much. And I'd hate to see the bureaucracy that would go around determining, "Ok, this one for your business will give you a tax credit, but this one for this business won't." And are we really going to hire the police, equip them, buy them cars, and pay for their gas so they can go and check every business that claims a tax credit for a Suburban?
(because I'm assuming you know that the Hummer-sized credit was already phased out in 2004, and it's only a Suburban-sized credit. And that it's only if the vehicle is purchased by a business. Right?)
Gas-guzzler tax? All for it. Especially on a recurring basis. And, if people decide to pay for these behemoths, that's fine. Just use the proceeds to be specifically earmarked for energy conservation projects (personally, I like projects that will reduce electrical and natural gas usage -- those are likely to have less of an effect on the price of oil).
It's amazing to me that when people get into these "Ford vs. Toyota" type of pizzing matches, they think that all Toyota does is build hybrid Priuses...let's take a bit of a broader view, with return to commentary at the end....
"First developed a couple of years ago in Japan, the G60 is the brainchild of Aisin Seiki Co. Ltd., a cutting-edge subsidiary of Toyota Motor Corp., and maker of about 85% of the auto parts for the parent company, "as well as parts for virtually every major automaker in the world," notes Aisin admirer Bill Cetti, chief executive officer of the Leesburg, VA-based Eco Technology Solutions LLC (or ECOTS; www.Ecotsusa.com). Aisin also delves into technologically innovative energy systems like the G60, which was originally developed for Daihatsu. Power generation is especially prominent at Aisin Seiki, he adds, "with almost every type of DG product you can think of under development there right now."
It can be called Artistic Engineering, Artful design, creative industrial design, modern efficiency.....whatever....but the point is, IT SELLS, IT WORKS, IT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POVERTY LIVING IN SHACKS IN THE DARK AND COLD OR LIVING IN THE ARTFUL, CREATIVE AND REWARDING DESIGNED AND MASTERFULLY CREATED CULTURE WE WERE ALWAYS PROMISED.
Sorry about the caps, but there must be some way to get people to see that what we are suffering most from is a crisis of will and intellect, not a crisis of fuel. PLEASE, look back, we have known for decades this time would come! Why do you think we talked about solar and wind and nuclear fusion and underground cities and meglev trains and product design and industrial design for the last half century? We knew, we always knew we would need it! Then we forgot we would, stopped educating our children on creativity, aesthetics, art, design, culture, and the interrelationship between these, and went down and bought retro Thunderbirds and gigantic trucks....(!!!!), how did a generation educated in the most liberal arts, designer, creative, original artistic environment you could dream of fall so far off the track?
Please do not let this happen to our young, do not go down the path of "damm what you think is creative and rewarding, get something that pays!!", path....do the noble thing, America actually needs the talant and creative inventiveness you showed when you were young.....whether your a banker or an engineer, a politician or just a customer.....Thank you
I'm counting on a price spike to provoke an emotional reaction, which you are alluding to. This should provoke some sort of government sponsored rationing in addition to all sorts of silly draconian measures against Chelsea tractors, as the scapegoating kicks off, to address the "inequality".
(I don't expect anybody to admit that they were living in a fool's paradise - they'd much rather pick on scoccer mums who talk about inane things as if they were important.. ;-) They are, afterall, genuinely irritating...)
The way I see it, this artificial rationing should check the price in the short term, but long term drive the price spike further as it mutes the short term price signals.
I posted this yesterday. The Author, Mary-Anne Sieghart of the Times / Sunday Times is er... what you would call a 'social commentator'. Very bright and very cute (in a middle aged male fantasy kind of way...). She picks up and amplifies trends. She pissed me off a year ago when she stated in one of her articles that the UK was self sufficient in oil. I wrote to her about PO and the depressing position of the UK. (even got a reply).
Point is: People like her (Yummy Mummies with kids to drop off, parties to attend, etc) actually make a difference. If MA Sieghart comes down on SUV's, then suddenly, the manufacturers of SUVs have a really serious problem.
Watch this space. MA Seighart may have just crippled an entire SUV industry...
You could make heavy fuel-inefficient trucks sufficiently uncomfortable that they were unappealing to all but actual workmen who needed the cargo capacity.
Anyway I support a "feebate"---transfer payments from buyers of low-efficiency vehicles to high efficiency vehicles, with perhaps exemptions only for "base level" trucks (no SUVs) with only utilitarian options: basic radio, no sunroof, no leather seats, no massagers, whatever.
but the last couple of administrations have effectively turned the legal system into an arm of the Cosa Nostra. Who, exactly is going to protect us from the black market when the criminals are in charge?
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
Except for those in hurricane devastated areas, many Americans do not remember the long and stressful gasoline lines of the '70s & '80s gas crunches. The Asphalt Wonderland had a temporary crunch back in 2003. Perhaps a look back to refresh our memories is called for:
----------------
PHOENIX, Arizona (AP) -- Three hours after she started to search Monday, Judy Bergeron was finally able to find gas for her sport utility vehicle. She first had to visit five stations, and then wait in line for about 45 minutes at the last one.
Motorists in the nation's sixth-largest city found stations with the pumps blocked off by yellow caution tape, or with lines that stretched a block or more. One gas station attendant called police because some patrons were getting upset and others were cutting in line.
There was no way to tell how many stations were affected because as some ran out, others were getting topped off by tanker trucks. But the problems, which seemed to come to a head Sunday, were seen throughout the city.
----------------------
What I found as most fascinating is how cellphones were used to gain a preferential advantage:
Some tanker drivers would call each other to exchange delivery times and location info, then they would call their families or buddies to tell when and where the deliveries would happen. You would see vehicles start to line up at an empty gas station a few minutes before the tanker rig arrived so that they would be served first and minimize their waiting time.
I recall some queues at empty stations would even have pickups with trailered boats lined up before the tanker arrived-- clearly these people had inside information-- no gas shortages for them. Other 'early birds' would not only fuel their vehicles, but would also fill-up extra gasoline cans, presumably for home power equipment, construction machinery like backhoes, etc if this 'early bird' was an independent construction contractor, or maybe they just wanted extra gasoline to hoard.
Those 'out of the info loop' would be at a decided disadvantage until they spotted a forming queue, or saw a tanker pull into a gas-station. They would quickly pull into the waiting lineup, then they would immediately grab their cellphone to alert their inclusive fitness circle of friends and families.
I believe more pipeline breakdowns due to corrosion, ala BP's Prudhoe Bay example, are forthcoming, and we all know Peakoil will make fuel availability much worse. Supply and demand pricing is helpful for the long-term macro-effects, but does nothing to alleviate the local micro-economic condition of people wastefully driving around from one gas station to another seeking to refuel.
This desperate search is extremely stressful if your vehicle is already running on fumes. The past history of gas station queue violence is readily documented for all to read; detritovore addicts clearly will go nuts to get their next fix. Fuel thefts by siphoning, cutting gaslines, or even puncturing gastanks to get the last drops have been discussed here before. There have even been tanker drivers who had their rigs hijacked by gunpoint in the past!
I think we TODers need to discuss what might be the best way to mitigate this potentially violent postPeak problem of the black market in inside information and wasteful fuel searching in urban locales. Here are a few of my ideas:
- Any vehicle queuing up at an empty gas station before a tanker arrives clearly had access to inside info--they will be assessed an extra 50%/gal or be limited to only five gallons at the regular price.
- Any oil industry employee who discloses the critical dispatching info of tanker-truck deliveries will be terminated. This is also good for preventing hijackings.
- A tanker driver will only be told to drive to a certain neighborhood, then when GPS-monitoring confirms that the rig has arrived in this locale, only then does the dispatcher cellphone call to inform of the final destination. This will prevent the tanker driver from having time to alert family and friends. A neighborhood may have 15 gas stations of the same brand-- the trucker has no idea which one of these fifteen is his delivery point until nearly the last minute.
- Anyone seeking to merely 'top off' their tank will not be allowed to purchase fuel. You cannot buy gas if your gas-guage reads more than quarter-full--this should effectively end the desire to hoard by keeping one's tank full.
- Your vehicle's VIN number will be assigned to one gas station of each brand in your neighborhood, and you will be required to scan this barcode before purchasing. You are then free to choose the best price among these competing brands secure in the knowledge that you will find gas somewhere in your immediate local--no more desperate searching over a broad swath of urban real estate.
- You are free to purchase gas at any other gas stations from your assigned stations, but you will be charged any extra $1/gallon for not wisely watching your fueltank indicator and conserving. If your neighborhood community is good at fuel conservation by everyone pedaling bicycles often, then when you finally go to purchase gasoline--it will be cheap-- no Jeavons' Paradox applies from outside customers scooping up the intentional reduced demand savings.
Okay, these proposals maybe workable or not--I have no idea, but I welcome better ideas and discussion on any methods to minimize gasline queue violence for the postPeak Era. Remember, each year it will get continually worse until we successfully transition to PHEVs, mass-transit, and bicycles.Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Every car owner them will be entitled to buy a certain amount of gallons of gas every month.
These will be taken of your gas-credit-account.
Credits not spend can be saved for next month. Or can be sold to others via the internet.
Extra credits can be hand out tho those that give special service to the public, like house doktors.
The second thing I would propose is to abolish payroll tax and
compensate the loss of government income by raising the tax on oil products.
I don't think that replacing the Social Security tax with a petroleum tax would have any worse problems than the Social Security tax. For one thing, once there is little oil, there will probably be much less income to tax, so the Social Security system will have problems, no matter what we do.
I personally am pretty much a doomer when it comes to the US monetary system - I am afraid it will fail fairly early on, once people figure out about peak oil, and lending institutions stop making twenty or thirty year loans, including mortgage loans. Even the present downturn in the housing industry, if it gets worse, could hit the monetary system pretty hard.
Another thing to keep in mind is that at any point in time, there will be only so much of quite a few things available - oil, food, fresh water. The current monetary system or some new monetary system can help divide these goods up, but it can't make any more than there is in total.
With all these issues, I think that people should not count on social security, medicare, medicaid, and other social programs. We may luck out and get a little from them, but if there is not enough to go around, social welfare progams are likely to be cut. Private pensions are not likely to fare a whole lot better - they depend on the stock and bond markets to fund them, and will have problems if there are many bankruptcies, or problems with the monetary system.
The creditsystem actually uses the free-market. As I propose, the credits can be sold, so the highest bidder can get the most gasoline. But at the same time, the poor people and the not-so-in-need-of gas people get money for their sold credits.
Why would this not work?
The scheme would require some kind of massive, centralised planning to be enforceable. Charging individuals differing amounts for fuel is the first error, in my opinion. Also assuming that anyone queueing up at a fuel station has 'insider information' - what if all stations in an area are out of petrol? Does that criminalise every person queuing?
It seems you're presenting this idea in the context of some kind of future American society. Instead of working to socialise fuel, I would hope that by 'then', we would have moved away from ICE passenger vehicles.
I also wonder if you're trying to solve the problem from an oil-producer's perspective, or government perspective - basically capitalistic or socialist approaches to the situation.
Checking fuel guages, VIN etc. would all require extra personnel - why not just get some armed guards/police to secure fuel stations, and allow them to sell available supplies for whatever price 'the market' reaches 'equillibrium' at?
Price spikes + extra security seems to solve the issue for me.
If American neighbourhoods devolve into armed confrontations, you only have your military-industrial complex to blame.
Or, simply ration fuel - weren't 'they' already doing that for truckers somewhere?
Just about every gasoline pump in the US has a credit card payment slot. Simply allocate, i. e. ration gasoline to a reasonable average user rate, and require all gasoline purchases to be made by credit card. No more gallons on the card, no gasoline.
If there is a problem with that concept peddle it as a homeland security measure, in that we can monitor the driving of terrorist. The folks in the asphalt paradise will lap that up 8-)).
I believe rationing by price is always more effective than rationing by quantity, and is much easier to administer to boot. But I see no reason why we couldn't easily setup a two-tier pricing system that would benefit relocalization forces in detritus use, limit the worst of Jeavons' Paradox, yet still respond overall to the international price of crude/barrel. Scanning the barcode VIN # is much better than the odd-even day rationing we had back in the earlier days and all the corruption it created.
For example, my little scooter combined with my lack of owning a cellphone puts me at a decided disadvantage in moving to the 'early bird' front of the gasoline queue. A pickup owner, with a cellphone for inside info, and extra gas cans in the back of his pickup can beat me to the forming queue every time. My attempts at Powerdown are working against me, even if I can afford the 4 gallons to fill my tank, if when I finally reach the gas pump--none is available. Yet, long-term, I want the price to go as high as possible, so others will be forced to eventually downscale in their vehicle use too.
Trust me: I had the gas siphoned out of my '69 GMC pickup in the early seventies--It was no fun waiting 24 hours till my even-day came up, then waiting in a hours-long queue in the blazing sun with a five gallon gas can to later heft a quarter mile home for the partial refilling of my tank.
Riding a scooter vs. driving my old pickup effectively triples my energy circle's radius; I can cover a much larger territory, if needed, for the same cost. But, by staying within the original radii or less; by trying to relocalize myself as much as possible, it creates big savings for me and the environment. With the two-tier system, I could buy 1/4 gallon outside my neighborhood, pay the distance penalty cost, yet know that I have adequate fuel so that when I get back to my neighborhood, that I can refill near my house at the going market rate.
Rationing by price as a function of your distance from home is how nature imposes it controls--I am merely proposing the same for us humans. A predator cannot seek prey further than it's abilities to bring the bacon home to feed Momma and the kids; it's energy level constrains it to patrolling a discrete territory-- as detritus energy becomes limited, I suggest we must all learn to travel in increasingly smaller circles.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
My speculative proposals allow the gas station owners to set the market price; to respond to supply & demand, but it will be a two-tiered 'roaming' system to help promote Westexas's HELP idea of conservation and relocalization, and reduce the postPeak tendency of detritovores driving all over the place seeking fuel when spot shortages become commonplace. Otherwise, unless you and me have access to the local inside info, we can always expect to be forced to the end of the line, no matter how much we are willing to pay per gallon. In short, a black market in fuel info is more valuable than a black market in fuel supply.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Bob, gas station owners make about five cents per gallon, sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. They are at the mercy of their suppliers as far as the price is concerned.
After Katrina and Rita last year, the wholesale price in many of places jumped far more, per gallon, than their profit margins. As a result many station owners did not have enough money to buy a new load. Many had to bag off their pumps until they could raise enough money for a load or else wait for the wholesale price to drop.
My point is, with such tiny profit margins, how on earth can service station owners "set the market price"? They get whipsawed by the market price just as much as we consumers do. They have no control over the market price.
What am I missing Bob? Is there something in your proposals that give them more control?
Ron Patterson
Thxs for responding. I don't claim to be an expert on gas station operation: I did not know that operators can be so severely whipsawed by their suppliers. I thought that they had much greater control over pricing decisions [within legal bounds], potential profit margins, etc to manage their considerable investment in a gas station. Sounds like a lousy business to own, even more so postPeak, unless they can be legislated more business freedom from their suppliers. For the same type of gasoline, and all from the same pipeline, gasoline in my neighborhood can vary by seven cents or more per gallon-- so there must be some local pricing power at work.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I am not sure it cost that much to get in the Gas station business. In most cases around here (NJ)the stations are owned by the companies and are just leased by the people that run the operation.They are pretty much under the thumb of the companies.
I know a gas station owner who has had to constantly borrow more and more money to pay for the gas when it arrives. The oil companies pretty much want COD. Since he has more money borrowed and rates are up his interest cost are up. To make it worse more and more people are using credit cards to pay for the gas. The credit card company's charges are on the gross amount of the sale, which is higher cutting into the profit. I have read where some gas stations are spending $1000.00 a week and more in credit charge charges.
I was in various small business for 40 years. Many weeks I paid my employees on Friday and hoped I would do enough business over the weekend to cover the payroll. If there was a snowstorm I was in trouble. This is called (playing the float). It is even harder to do now that checks clear faster. When you are in this kind of situation, and many gas stations are, it is very hard to raise prices higher then the competition when you need the cash to pay the expenses.
Many things seem easy in theory but putting into practice is much different.
The hurricane evacuations, including the totally unncessary ones from some parts of Houston, would have been much safer and more orderly with some "gouging". A bit of "gouging" would also have saved much useless time and effort in Phoenix - and freed up gas spent driving in circles for useful purposes.
When the price is allowed to rise, the black market never forms in the first place and there's no need to worry about it. In addition, for example, the problem of people who refuse to plan ahead when a hurricane is coming disappears. They'd remember an $8/gallon last-minute price far better than any amount of governmental nagging and exhortation. Plus, they wouldn't top off their tanks along the way - and delay traffic in the process - unless they actually needed to. And they wouldn't re-wire their gas gauges to display whatever was needed. And they wouldn't be endangered by delays at long lines engendered by physical shortages or by elaborate bureaucratic qualification-checking procedures.
The trouble with complicated, dictatorial, bureaucratic approaches - price controls, rationing, martial law, etc - is that people devise workarounds, or it simply proves to be impossible to hire enough incorruptible bureaucrats (or fuel truck drivers) to enforce those approaches fairly. Either way, they provide people with powerful incentives to spend great gobs of time and money on evasion, at great expense to any effort at mitigation.
Politically, of course, there's a problem. Complicated oppressive bureaucratic approaches are an easy political sell because the attitude of the Great Shiftless Moron Mass is that no sacrifice is too great for somebody else to make when the chips are down. So the gas station people are supposed to stock up to the gunwales, and hang around until the wind reaches 120mph, the better to serve the blithely irresponsible who refused to prepare, and in order to punish them for being evil wicked gas station people, they're supposed to do all this for free. After all, it's great and glorious fun to bite the venal corporate hand that feeds us. And it's never politically correct to expect a voter to take responsibility for anything, such as filling the tank while the hurricane is still out at sea.
The political problem, though, is simply a known disadvantage of democracy - and likely one reason why the founders of the U.S.A. distrusted the short term whims of the people and didn't put direct (or more direct) democracy into the constitution. Their solution was representative democracy, but sometimes that doesn't work either, especially in the presence of electronic media, which short-circuit the originally-intended deliberative processes.
Tssk, tssk, tssk...
That is very politically UNcorrect, you seem to say :
With direct democracy the most irresponsible lead the show.
With representative democracy the most irresponsible STILL lead the show longterm PLUS the "representative" and "special interests" add their own gouging.
Do not despair of democracy, Iraq HAS democracy, only villains like Putin don't want democracy.
On an individual level we all need to start doing everything we can to reduce our use of fossil fuels (but TODers already know this). As the Israel/Lebanon war shows us, we are financing all sides of this type conflict by buying oil. We finance Iran, Israel for the war, outsource our jobs to China and India, and then get to finance the reconstruction! Surly a mad situation for the US.
Matthew
This strikes me as going at the wrong end of the problem. My inclination would be to increase taxes on energy and provide public transportation. Force the transition sooner rather than later.
cfm in Gray ME
Your quote: "My inclination would be to increase taxes on energy and provide public transportation. Force the transition sooner rather than later."
No disagreement from me, but it seems our politicians will not react until the fuel crisis causes much violence. I am hoping my speculative ideas [or better ideas by other TODers!] might mitigate this transition period as it takes years to build an effective and efficient network of mass-transit. What are our best ideas that can belatedly implemented by our leaders during this interrim period? Forcing rich and poor alike to shrink their wandering circles by imposing a draconian distance premium faster than relatively uniform supply and demand would impose seems to have some merit, IMO. Otherwise, a wealthy person attempting to buy gas in a distant neighborhood will be quantity limited by a shower of rocks from the locals. We are an extremely territorial animal at crunchtime.
Eventually, fuel will become so expensive and scarce that only the critical needs of the police, fire, and local military will be allowed to burn it, the remaining amount will be controlled by politically connected black marketeers carefully selling to the highest bidders, like DeBeers diamond control. Try to imagine a US that has burned all its native supply, and only one supertanker/ month reaches our shores.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I have to withdraw a prior argument against your idea about educating the young to prepare for peak oil. I argued they were already hyperconsumers at a young age. Yesterday my 8 year old nephew was overheard saying we weren't going to have enough oil and we needed to make electric cars and electric windmills. He had more to say. I didn't tell him this, he had been listened in to one of my conversations. Don't know how his SUV driving parents are going to take his new found wisdom.
I've watched my kids battle hyperconsumerism. Often, I think they are losing. They resent our relative material "poverty" but are also able to articulate ideas about our impact on the planet, and what options we already choose. They are usually proud that their parents are thinking about the environment the kids will inherit in a few years.
Most parents simply project "more of the same" and I guess assume that they willl be doddering about on some golf course when the kiddos move into their own McMansions with four car Hummer-storage units.
As to allocating fuel to each vehicle owner, that would be great. I own 10+ vehicles so would get a gas allocation for each vehicle. That would do wonders for the used car business.
And how do you diferentiate between the jock who just likes driving a big 4x4 pickup and the farmer/businessman who has to drive a big pickup?
You can't haul a load of sweet corn and mellons to the farmers market nor a load of shingles to reroof a house with a weenie electric toy.
I went through the 70's gas shortages in Arizona which were the result of government price control interference in the markets. Dump the anti-gouging laws and let the market determine the price. If the price goes too high they won't sell enough and they will have to lower the price to sell the stuff. Any government scheme is only going to cause more problems than it will solve.
This is an aweful idea.
So basically what you're saying is that rather than raise the prices (and punish the hell out of those people who own Hummers), you'd rather just have elaborate beurocratic checks so that the hummer owners don't suffer any worse than the people driving vespas.
You do want to actually save gas, right? Just raise the price. Voila, nobody going to fill up their boat anymore, fewer hummers on the street, and nobody driving around (or waiting in line) for hours to find gas.
It would suck for the poor, but that can be handled by giving those that are truly poor some sort of tax rebate or something. Just cut them a check if their income is below X, then those that don't use gas get rewarded for their lifestyle, those that do, well at least it doesn't hurt them so badly. The soccer moms won't be evicted by higher gas prices, but they'll feel the pain and maybe make a more sane choice of vehicle next time.
SUV type vehicles are getting more highly taxed in the UK. The idea being that Yummy Mummies driving 'Chelsea Tractors'in London feel some pain. The problem is, that a Sheep farmer operating in marginal land in the North of Britain, really does need his battered old Land Rover, yet he gets stiffed for the same tax as the Chelsea tractor driver. The tax increase is about 5 Starbucks lattes for the metropolitan driver or in the farmers case, about three additional sheep.
The question is do we really need an SUV / Large saloon. The simple answer absolutely not. Now maybe Fashion and peer pressure will kill off the Gas Guzzler craze.
Ultimately, turning up at the school gates / sports field /yuppie larve party in one of these will be social death. You know, a bit like lighting up a cheroot at a school play.
Personally, I would just fucking ban them. Unless you could prove you really need them and the bar of proof would be very high (''show me some of your sheep'').
From what I understand of American ownership of SUV's they are classed as 'trucks' and attract a tax rebate. Is this true? Then stop it. It is stupid. Proof that you really do need a 6000 lbs truck for you livelyhood should be a pre-condition of a tax rebate. Well sod that. If you are rich enough to afford a hummer 2, you dont need the tax rebate and you can in fact afford a $5000 / year tax on the damn thing. (The tax could be hypothecated to public transport or light rail projects).
Dont tell me anybody in an urban setting working in a ''soft hand profession'' needs a bloody hummer to get to , or continue his or her work.
Tradeable Carbon Credits have also been proposed. Not keen on this either. The rich can 'buy' these credits off the immobile poor and continue hogging the lanes and guzzling gas. Carbon Credits should be non-tradable. If you know you will run out of credit before the annual renewal, you may be tempted to think about Fuel Efficiency and non essential, discretionary travel.
If the rich can 'buy' other peoples carbon credits, then it is just a scam and will just dissolve social cohesion.
Picture this: the poor labourer walks to his job to repair the road so that the rich can continue joy riding in gas guzzlers.
An outright ban has a chance of working. Social engineering the lines at a gas station does not. Generally I like the ideas here.
A few nitpicks.
If the laborer (lets take me, for example) that walks to work has credits, why should he not be able to sell them? That would punish those that don't drive. Drive, or you can't use your credits. Also a bad idea. If you want to make it fair and effective, give credits to everyone and let them sell them. Sure, some rich punk might still be able to drive his hummer, but if he has to put food on the table for 20 people in order to do so, then let him do it.
The plan shouldn't be to get rid of Bill Gates' hummer (lets imagine he has one...) the plan should be to get 90% of them off the road. Higher taxes will do that. Tax the hell out of gasoline, and then divide it up per-capita and mail the proceeds out to everyone. Drive less than average, you gain money, drive more than average, you lose money. The farmer needs it for his sheep, then I guess sheep are going to be a little more expensive. I think that'll be OK, and surely it's rare to begin with. Most SUVs cannot drive offroad without sustaining severe damage, despite the look of them, often they're more fragile than little economy cars. I seriously doubt many farmers have them.
That may work. But it must be linked to carbon emmisions.
Why? What comes out of the tail-pipe is the key driver.
Example: A Nurse who may cut 15000 miles in a Civic may cause less pollution to get to work than a yuppie in an SUV that cuts 7500 miles. Chances are that the yuppie will cut in excess of 15000 miles anyway.
My problem with tradeable credits is that the poor (who cannot drive) enable the rich to continue an easy motoring lifestyle (they can afford to drive).
If the rich can drive / fly whenever , wherever they wish, then the reduction in carbon required for PO / GW mitigation will not happen.
We have a de-facto carbon trading system in place right now:
A Kalahari Bushman expells very little carbon. A member of any Western Industrialised Nation (WIN) expells a lot more carbon.
Is it right that the bushman should suffer the effects of PO/GW created by a WIN person?
No. It is not right.
Carbon rations should not be transferable. You get your ration and that is it. It does not matter how ''rich'' you are. And no, bellowing the phrase ''Dont you know who I am? '' Should cut absoloutley no ice. Then a WIN Person will then need to work out how to drastically reduce carbon emmissions.
A WIN person wont do this overnight. A WIN person cannot suddenly achieve the carbon - free status of a bushman.
That is not the point. What we in the West have to do is conserve as soon as possible and cut carbon use. But cutting frivolous carbon use must be an absoloute imperative.
That means all of us. The rich cannot be exempted by some kind of trade or 'special exemptions'.
Carbon trading would enable the rich to swap dollars (theoretical and increasingly useless bits of paper) for access to actual physical substances that can alter the climate and deplete a resource. They could do it just for their own pleasure and enjoyment.
Envisage this: two thirds of humanity use little carbon. All humanity get a 'carbon ration'.
The One third 'buy' the other two thirds hypothetical carbon ration. Nothing changes. The amount of carbon is the same.
Who knows?
However , one of the most positive aspects of the USA is that the population can adapt very quickly to changing circumstances. A manifestation of this is the success of Toyota when compared with the failure of GM and Ford.
People are not stupid. Cutting engine capacity will become the cool thing to do. People who insist on buying giant penis-extenders will , ultimately , be laughed at. (which kind of negates the reason why people buy these things in the first place).
At the end of the day, we all need to get to work.
washingtonpost.com (free registration required):
Truck and SUV Sales Plunge as Gas Prices Rise
GM, Ford Hit Hardest in September
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301657.html
Yeah, that was from last September. So, how about something more recent (as in, a few hours ago):
KansasCity.com:
Sales wane, so Ford adjusts
At Claycomo, F-150 truck production crews will be idled for several weeks in months ahead.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/15310061.htm
Bahrain's Gulf Daily News:
Ford puts production brake as sales slump
NEW YORK: Struggling auto giant Ford Motor said yesterday it was slashing its US vehicle production as it battles to recapture customers who are deserting its gas-guzzling SUVs in favour of Japanese models.
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=152897&Sn=BUSI&IssueID=29152
CNN.com:
US Auto Sales Drop in July As Toyota Surges
August 2 2006: 9:19 AM EDT
DETROIT (Reuters) -- U.S. auto sales slid 17 percent in July as Americans shunned trucks and opted for more fuel-efficient cars, catapulting Japan's Toyota Motor Corp. past Ford Motor Co. into the No. 2 spot for the first time.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/01/news/companies/daimler.reut/index.htm
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=152897&Sn=BUSI&IssueID=29152
So -- as to whether we should ban them, well ... people are already getting the message. Personally, I don't think yet another law is going to do much. And I'd hate to see the bureaucracy that would go around determining, "Ok, this one for your business will give you a tax credit, but this one for this business won't." And are we really going to hire the police, equip them, buy them cars, and pay for their gas so they can go and check every business that claims a tax credit for a Suburban?
(because I'm assuming you know that the Hummer-sized credit was already phased out in 2004, and it's only a Suburban-sized credit. And that it's only if the vehicle is purchased by a business. Right?)
Gas-guzzler tax? All for it. Especially on a recurring basis. And, if people decide to pay for these behemoths, that's fine. Just use the proceeds to be specifically earmarked for energy conservation projects (personally, I like projects that will reduce electrical and natural gas usage -- those are likely to have less of an effect on the price of oil).
http://www.distributedenergy.com/de.html
What is "Micro-Mini Cogen"?
http://www.distributedenergy.com/de_0609_market.html
What does this have to do with Toyota?
"First developed a couple of years ago in Japan, the G60 is the brainchild of Aisin Seiki Co. Ltd., a cutting-edge subsidiary of Toyota Motor Corp., and maker of about 85% of the auto parts for the parent company, "as well as parts for virtually every major automaker in the world," notes Aisin admirer Bill Cetti, chief executive officer of the Leesburg, VA-based Eco Technology Solutions LLC (or ECOTS; www.Ecotsusa.com). Aisin also delves into technologically innovative energy systems like the G60, which was originally developed for Daihatsu. Power generation is especially prominent at Aisin Seiki, he adds, "with almost every type of DG product you can think of under development there right now."
It can be called Artistic Engineering, Artful design, creative industrial design, modern efficiency.....whatever....but the point is, IT SELLS, IT WORKS, IT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POVERTY LIVING IN SHACKS IN THE DARK AND COLD OR LIVING IN THE ARTFUL, CREATIVE AND REWARDING DESIGNED AND MASTERFULLY CREATED CULTURE WE WERE ALWAYS PROMISED.
Sorry about the caps, but there must be some way to get people to see that what we are suffering most from is a crisis of will and intellect, not a crisis of fuel. PLEASE, look back, we have known for decades this time would come! Why do you think we talked about solar and wind and nuclear fusion and underground cities and meglev trains and product design and industrial design for the last half century? We knew, we always knew we would need it! Then we forgot we would, stopped educating our children on creativity, aesthetics, art, design, culture, and the interrelationship between these, and went down and bought retro Thunderbirds and gigantic trucks....(!!!!), how did a generation educated in the most liberal arts, designer, creative, original artistic environment you could dream of fall so far off the track?
Please do not let this happen to our young, do not go down the path of "damm what you think is creative and rewarding, get something that pays!!", path....do the noble thing, America actually needs the talant and creative inventiveness you showed when you were young.....whether your a banker or an engineer, a politician or just a customer.....Thank you
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
(I don't expect anybody to admit that they were living in a fool's paradise - they'd much rather pick on scoccer mums who talk about inane things as if they were important.. ;-) They are, afterall, genuinely irritating...)
The way I see it, this artificial rationing should check the price in the short term, but long term drive the price spike further as it mutes the short term price signals.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1071-2315816.html
I posted this yesterday. The Author, Mary-Anne Sieghart of the Times / Sunday Times is er... what you would call a 'social commentator'. Very bright and very cute (in a middle aged male fantasy kind of way...). She picks up and amplifies trends. She pissed me off a year ago when she stated in one of her articles that the UK was self sufficient in oil. I wrote to her about PO and the depressing position of the UK. (even got a reply).
Point is: People like her (Yummy Mummies with kids to drop off, parties to attend, etc) actually make a difference. If MA Sieghart comes down on SUV's, then suddenly, the manufacturers of SUVs have a really serious problem.
Watch this space. MA Seighart may have just crippled an entire SUV industry...
Anyway I support a "feebate"---transfer payments from buyers of low-efficiency vehicles to high efficiency vehicles, with perhaps exemptions only for "base level" trucks (no SUVs) with only utilitarian options: basic radio, no sunroof, no leather seats, no massagers, whatever.
but the last couple of administrations have effectively turned the legal system into an arm of the Cosa Nostra. Who, exactly is going to protect us from the black market when the criminals are in charge?