Comments for Out of Austin, a sustainability blog http://outofaustin.wordpress.com pursuing a more perfect planet Thu, 21 May 2009 13:51:52 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Renewables in Africa by Kim Jarrett http://outofaustin.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/renewables-in-africa/#comment-67 Kim Jarrett Thu, 21 May 2009 13:51:52 +0000 http://outofaustin.wordpress.com/?p=158#comment-67 There's so much trouble in the world--but I have faith that we will work through it together. Thanks for your response. There’s so much trouble in the world–but I have faith that we will work through it together. Thanks for your response.

]]> Comment on Renewables in Africa by grierique http://outofaustin.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/renewables-in-africa/#comment-66 grierique Thu, 21 May 2009 02:01:49 +0000 http://outofaustin.wordpress.com/?p=158#comment-66 Interesting writing Will come back again. Interesting writing Will come back again.

]]> Comment on Texas Should Change the Water Rule of Capture by Evottaggiglig http://outofaustin.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/texas-should-change-the-water-rule-of-capture/#comment-59 Evottaggiglig Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:35:33 +0000 http://outofaustin.wordpress.com/?p=116#comment-59 Maaaan, you know there is such thing in the web like search engine, http://google.com if you don't, go there to understand why this post is bullshit Maaaan, you know there is such thing in the web like search engine, http://google.com if you don’t, go there to understand why this post is bullshit

]]> Comment on Our part of the oil problem by Robert Rapier http://outofaustin.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/our-part-of-the-oil-problem/#comment-57 Robert Rapier Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:38:41 +0000 http://outofaustin.wordpress.com/?p=73#comment-57 I have given a lot of thought to GM and the electric car. I have come to the conclusion that they killed it just because it wasn't good enough for the masses and they thought they were wasting their money. (The range was terrible, the costs to operate were very high, and then it took a very long recharge). Even now - and I just wrote an update on electric cars - they are going to be very expensive relative to their internal combustion brethren, and battery technology has come a long way since GM killed the electric car. And mind you I am a HUGE fan and advocate of electric cars. But I can't say with certainty that they are going to sell yet. I hope they do. But given where they are now, I don't think it's a surprise that GM killed the electric car program because they didn't think they were going to get a payback on their investment. There are multiple reasons why Europe's infrastructure is set up as it is. Some are historical; many towns grew up before the age of the automobile, so they are compact. But as autos made inroads, the Europeans put very stiff taxes on fossil fuels (encouraging more efficient diesel and penalizing gasoline) and this discouraged gas guzzlers and the development of sprawl. People just can't afford to commute 20 miles to work in an SUV here. But in the U.S., we have never excelled at long-term planning. Cheers, Robert I have given a lot of thought to GM and the electric car. I have come to the conclusion that they killed it just because it wasn’t good enough for the masses and they thought they were wasting their money. (The range was terrible, the costs to operate were very high, and then it took a very long recharge). Even now – and I just wrote an update on electric cars – they are going to be very expensive relative to their internal combustion brethren, and battery technology has come a long way since GM killed the electric car. And mind you I am a HUGE fan and advocate of electric cars. But I can’t say with certainty that they are going to sell yet. I hope they do. But given where they are now, I don’t think it’s a surprise that GM killed the electric car program because they didn’t think they were going to get a payback on their investment.

There are multiple reasons why Europe’s infrastructure is set up as it is. Some are historical; many towns grew up before the age of the automobile, so they are compact. But as autos made inroads, the Europeans put very stiff taxes on fossil fuels (encouraging more efficient diesel and penalizing gasoline) and this discouraged gas guzzlers and the development of sprawl. People just can’t afford to commute 20 miles to work in an SUV here. But in the U.S., we have never excelled at long-term planning.

Cheers, Robert

]]> Comment on Our part of the oil problem by Kim Jarrett http://outofaustin.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/our-part-of-the-oil-problem/#comment-56 Kim Jarrett Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:05:48 +0000 http://outofaustin.wordpress.com/?p=73#comment-56 Fair enough. But note, the discrepancy between the U.S. and Europe regarding mass transit and SUV use cannot solely be attributed to smarter taxing in Europe. In the U.S., automakers killed the railroads. Then, in the early 80s, they (especially GM) killed R&D on the electric car. This is verifiable. We have this huge, disconnected land where vehicle ownership was both elevated as an ideal and rendered a necessity by the death of rails. Notice the recent stimulus legislation particularly addresses Amtrak and rails. Fair enough. But note, the discrepancy between the U.S. and Europe regarding mass transit and SUV use cannot solely be attributed to smarter taxing in Europe. In the U.S., automakers killed the railroads. Then, in the early 80s, they (especially GM) killed R&D on the electric car. This is verifiable. We have this huge, disconnected land where vehicle ownership was both elevated as an ideal and rendered a necessity by the death of rails. Notice the recent stimulus legislation particularly addresses Amtrak and rails.

]]> Comment on Our part of the oil problem by Robert Rapier http://outofaustin.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/our-part-of-the-oil-problem/#comment-55 Robert Rapier Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:43:07 +0000 http://outofaustin.wordpress.com/?p=73#comment-55 Kim, I am also highly in favor of reining in suburban sprawl and incentivizing mass transit. Guess what is very effective at that? Higher gas prices. :-) No problem with suburban sprawl in Europe, and mass transit is everywhere. Again, I like what works. High gas prices have shown again and again that they will reduce gasoline demand. Regarding the details of the tax credit - those things are easy to manage. One reason I favor phasing it in is to minimize the year to year impact. If I raise your taxes by $0.50 this year, you are going to pay $300 more for the year, and then get that back. If that is deemed to be a huge burden, then issue 'stimulus' checks during the year like we do whenever the government feels the need to fuel a spending binge. Cheers, RR Kim, I am also highly in favor of reining in suburban sprawl and incentivizing mass transit. Guess what is very effective at that? Higher gas prices. :-) No problem with suburban sprawl in Europe, and mass transit is everywhere. Again, I like what works. High gas prices have shown again and again that they will reduce gasoline demand.

Regarding the details of the tax credit – those things are easy to manage. One reason I favor phasing it in is to minimize the year to year impact. If I raise your taxes by $0.50 this year, you are going to pay $300 more for the year, and then get that back. If that is deemed to be a huge burden, then issue ’stimulus’ checks during the year like we do whenever the government feels the need to fuel a spending binge.

Cheers, RR

]]> Comment on Our part of the oil problem by Kim Jarrett http://outofaustin.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/our-part-of-the-oil-problem/#comment-54 Kim Jarrett Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:38:29 +0000 http://outofaustin.wordpress.com/?p=73#comment-54 It sounds like a sensible plan. Though, it too seems very idealistic. Economics is a form of idealism. What about the time value of money? Pay $5 a gallon today, knowing that you are eligible for a tax credit tomorrow--it would take a large campaign to relay to the average person who doesn't have taxes to file the understanding that it's okay to pay $5 a gallon today because you'll get $1200 if you file paperwork at the end of the year. I think that's idealistic. Right now my attention is directed toward reducing suburban sprawl (huge pollution source) by incentivising smart urban density that justifies an increase in mass transit. I think this is where it's at today. Kim It sounds like a sensible plan. Though, it too seems very idealistic. Economics is a form of idealism. What about the time value of money? Pay $5 a gallon today, knowing that you are eligible for a tax credit tomorrow–it would take a large campaign to relay to the average person who doesn’t have taxes to file the understanding that it’s okay to pay $5 a gallon today because you’ll get $1200 if you file paperwork at the end of the year. I think that’s idealistic. Right now my attention is directed toward reducing suburban sprawl (huge pollution source) by incentivising smart urban density that justifies an increase in mass transit. I think this is where it’s at today. Kim

]]> Comment on Our part of the oil problem by Robert Rapier http://outofaustin.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/our-part-of-the-oil-problem/#comment-52 Robert Rapier Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:02:36 +0000 http://outofaustin.wordpress.com/?p=73#comment-52 If you want to get into really specific details, what I have proposed for lower income Americans is a tax credit that offsets the gas consumption of the average American. I have spelled this out in great detail elsewhere, but in a nutshell here it is. The average American consumes something like 600 gallons a year. I want to raise your gasoline taxes - in steps - by at least $2.00 a gallon. In return, I am going to give you an income tax credit of $1200. This would function like the earned income credit; but you can claim it even if you don't have any income. The only caveat is that you must file a tax return to be able to claim the credit. They upside is that if you use less than 600 gallons a year - and now there is great incentive to do so - you will be better off under my plan than you were before. Plus, our overall gasoline consumption will fall. Guaranteed. Cheers, RR If you want to get into really specific details, what I have proposed for lower income Americans is a tax credit that offsets the gas consumption of the average American. I have spelled this out in great detail elsewhere, but in a nutshell here it is. The average American consumes something like 600 gallons a year. I want to raise your gasoline taxes – in steps – by at least $2.00 a gallon. In return, I am going to give you an income tax credit of $1200. This would function like the earned income credit; but you can claim it even if you don’t have any income. The only caveat is that you must file a tax return to be able to claim the credit. They upside is that if you use less than 600 gallons a year – and now there is great incentive to do so – you will be better off under my plan than you were before. Plus, our overall gasoline consumption will fall. Guaranteed.

Cheers, RR

]]> Comment on Our part of the oil problem by Kim Jarrett http://outofaustin.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/our-part-of-the-oil-problem/#comment-51 Kim Jarrett Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:54:55 +0000 http://outofaustin.wordpress.com/?p=73#comment-51 Palatable for whom? If I am a lower-income American, is it more palatable for me to face high prices at the pump and lower income tax rates, or lower prices at the pump and higher income tax rates? The second, because I frequently buy gas but have less income. And there are a lot of low-income Americans. Palatable for whom? If I am a lower-income American, is it more palatable for me to face high prices at the pump and lower income tax rates, or lower prices at the pump and higher income tax rates? The second, because I frequently buy gas but have less income. And there are a lot of low-income Americans.

]]> Comment on Our part of the oil problem by Robert Rapier http://outofaustin.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/our-part-of-the-oil-problem/#comment-50 Robert Rapier Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:34:32 +0000 http://outofaustin.wordpress.com/?p=73#comment-50 My preference is for remedies that have actually been shown to work. We have experience with higher prices. We know people respond to that. This is a big reason of why Europe's per capita usage of fossil fuels is half that of the U.S. I am in the Netherlands right now, and you just don't see the big SUVs and trucks that you do in the U.S. Why? Too expensive to fuel them, so demand is for the smaller vehicles. So this is a proven, effective remedy. Calling for a a nationwide no travel day is not. That is idealism. You might as well just call on all Americans to conserve. But that just doesn't work. People only begin to make mass behavioral changes when they are directly impacted by something. What I would propose is a partial exchange of income taxes for energy taxes. I would sell it on the basis that your overall taxes aren't going up, I just want to change the way you are taxed. I think this would be palatable, and would begin to provide incentive for people to scale back their gasoline consumption. Cheers, RR P.S. That first comment from San Juan is spam. I get a lot of that; people trying to sneak in advertising links through their names. Click on the name and you will see. My preference is for remedies that have actually been shown to work. We have experience with higher prices. We know people respond to that. This is a big reason of why Europe’s per capita usage of fossil fuels is half that of the U.S. I am in the Netherlands right now, and you just don’t see the big SUVs and trucks that you do in the U.S. Why? Too expensive to fuel them, so demand is for the smaller vehicles. So this is a proven, effective remedy. Calling for a a nationwide no travel day is not. That is idealism. You might as well just call on all Americans to conserve. But that just doesn’t work. People only begin to make mass behavioral changes when they are directly impacted by something.

What I would propose is a partial exchange of income taxes for energy taxes. I would sell it on the basis that your overall taxes aren’t going up, I just want to change the way you are taxed. I think this would be palatable, and would begin to provide incentive for people to scale back their gasoline consumption.

Cheers, RR

P.S. That first comment from San Juan is spam. I get a lot of that; people trying to sneak in advertising links through their names. Click on the name and you will see.

]]>