Regarding the government proposal to require better MPG for new vehicles to lower air pollution
and dependence on foreign oil.
John says:
Why can't the free market decide this issue? If pollution is the problem
in certain areas then tax the fuel to encourage conservation. Otherwise
dependence upon foreign oil is a supply and demand problem.
Mike says:
Of course, you say let the free market decide it, but the government need to
tax it? That makes no sense. If people really wanted to cut the amount of
fuel their vehicles used, they would be buying fuel efficient cars. We
don't see that, though...
John says:
I don't think that pollution is a problem in most areas, but if it is a
problem in some areas then there is a cost to the health of others in using
fuel. This cost is not taken into account in the price of gasoline if there
is no gas tax. Having a tax incentive to use less fuel is far less
intrusive than government mandating that we use less fuel. Also I believe
that all government transportation costs should be paid for by fuel taxes as
a user fee. In Utah they try to collect transportation money using other
methods and I find this annoying.
Larry says:
I agree that government taxation is not a purely free market solution. The
advantage is it does allow price cues to the consumer, but the extra money
just goes to the government, which will find any excuse to raise taxes.
Taxation should be for government expenses, not for social engineering.
Although absurd, the government instead of adding a tax, could encourage
fuel sellers/producers to all charge a higher amount. Let's say a 10% tax on
fuel was instead turned into a 10% price increase. The consumer would be
encouraged to conserve, but the government would not be encouraged to grow.
Maybe the best solution is for the government to spend R&D for low
pollution additives or formulations which it offers to all fuel producers
for free.
When people have been given a choice between high mpg cars and big SUVs,
They have chosen big SUVs. Even though they have to pay significantly higher
fuel costs with a SUV.
John Says:
Although it tends to be exaggerated by the environmentalist crowd, there
might be secondary costs associated with some
products, and the libertarian types have often suggested some sort of user
fee associated with pollution as a better alternative to regulation. (i.e.
an effluent output tax.)
Larry says:
The ideal solution would be for environmentally concerned groups to create
pollution-free energy sources (for transportation and electricity), which
can compete with standard energy sources. They could then create their own
companies based on these technologies, or offer the results free to all
companies.
I think fuel cell technology has alot of potential as it is made better
and more economical.
John says:
If you want no government coercion then this is the ideal solution. What
happens though when a problem becomes too bad, like the smog in L.A.?
Maybe the ideal solution is that people choose to move out of L.A. That
works for me. :-) I wish that L.A. would dry up and blow away.
Seems to me that government exists for the purpose of protecting rights, and
at some point if they tell me that I can't pollute or discourage me from
doing so then they are actually protecting the rights of others? People
have to breath the smog that I create.
Larry says:
Jason made the same point about Mexico City. He said they could make people
with an even license plate drive on half the days, and the odd on another.
This sounded too obtrusive to me. I came to the same conclusion, if the
smog becomes too bad, people will leave, which will then lower the smog
level. It's cool that you came to a similar conclusion.
John says:
Not necessarily. If other people make where I live uninhabitable then is
that not a violation of my rights? It is like somebody opening a landfill
next to my house or a motor speedway or an airport.
This gets back to my beef with the notion that government has to stay out of
everything to maximize freedom. No, sometimes government is there to
protect rights. Preventing air pollution I see as part of protecting
rights, but some libertarians would say that we can't do that because we
can't have any regulation.
Larry says:
Maybe city governments could create industrial plants to clean smog out of
the air. This would allow people to continue to drive and use as much as
they wanted. This plant could be developed and run with fuel taxes, which
only can be used for this purpose. This tax would be a reimbursement to the
government for the external cleanup cost, not a incentive to cut driving. I
don't know if I trust government to derive the external cost of smog. If
they are wrong they may badly distort the market and unduly burden the poor
with higher gas costs and increased car prices by several thousand dollars.
John says:
Good point.
