vball’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Its hard to argue against a greater federal role when building codes are independently converging.  It also pretty clear that the devil is in the details.  If there is a prescriptive code, then there should be a flexible energy budget as well.

  On The case for a national building energy code posted 4 months ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  lordy

  Transportation Alternatives needs to keep its eye on the ball rather than alienating people who are having fun in doing the right thing.  Alienating people with silly quips based in aesthetics rather than hard data is worse than irrelevance.

  Lets give credit where credit is due.  Vespa has created a 2-stroke engine that can pass european emissions without a catalytic converter.  In light of the efficiency of 2-stroke engines, this is news.  They are working on a hybrid scooter.  They are selling gorgeous 4 stroke scooters that are efficient, relatively clean, and versatile.  They are not loud.On Scooter ridership zooms as gas prices rise posted 1 year, 5 months ago 6 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  AMFA

  Grist! Please cover the retention of the Alternative Motor Fuels Act rules for so-called fuel economy averaging!  As long as this rule is maintained, companies can drastically alter their averages for the better merely by minimally altering their fleets to burn ethanol.  There are several devils in the details.On House Democrats agree to raise auto fuel economy to 35 mpg posted 1 year, 11 months ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "both/and" attacks "either/or"

  I'm really not sure why there has to be a debate between carbon taxes and automobile efficiency, but I have a good idea of whom the debate might serve.  The nature of the debate is perfectly crafted for pass the buck politics -- and who will win?  Texas?  Michigan?  Undoubtedly Congressman Dingell.

  We need pay-as-you-drive auto insurance, congestion fees, toll roads, gas taxes, carpooling incentives, better public transit, fee-bates and/or (real) gas guzzler taxes and/or some other type of efficiency regulation, safe streets for non-drivers, and land use that is not exclusively based on the automobile.  We need a carbon tax and an enforceable carbon trading system wouldn't hurt at all insofar as some emissions just aren't going to go away anytime soon.  I'm not going to fly to europe with renewables in my lifetime, and somehow the cost to the world of those emissions needs to be internalized.

  Biodiversivist, your chart is unclear.  Not all energy use results in the same amount carbon emissions (e.g., hydroelectric = none).  What the heck is your chart supposed to represent?On He's pro-carbon tax, anti-CAFE -- which matters more? posted 2 years, 4 months ago 20 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  a critique of the whole debate

  Ironically, Dingell was not uninvolved with the creation of the CAFE system, which was born out of the refusal of Congress to adopt a gas tax proposal that came out of the Ways and Means (tax) committee in the midst of the first oil shock.  Originally, CAFE was proposed and adopted as an alternative to the gas tax.  For a variety of reasons the gas tax proposal failed -- including the fact that the chairman of Ways and Means crashed his car while driving drunk with a stripper, the fact that CAFE was supported over gas taxes by pro-consumer/anti-corporate advocate Ralph Nader, and the fact that members of Congress are keenly aware that gas-buying drivers vote but corporations do not.  Notably, the system was created because of the oil shock, not for environmental reasons.  Because the catalytic converter actually reduced vehicle efficiency at the time, the system was created to take into account the efficiency hit of environmental regulations.

  CAFE is no panacea.  Again, politically, CAFE is an attempt to regulate corporate conduct without touching the drivers (i.e., voters) who are (1) choosing what cars they are driving, and then (2) wasting gas and polluting with those cars.  Thus, the CAFE mindset holds that carmakers are to blame for the conduct of consumers, which is surely not the whole elephant.  Conservatives have made the dubious argument that increasing efficiency actually increases the incentive to drive.  On this logic, inefficient SUVs are apparently our salvation, which is just the sort of crazyness one expects from loopy hacks.  It is certainly the case, however, that raising CAFE does not have a direct and exclusive effect on the amount of emissions in this country.  The amount of emissions from any emitting car is ultimately determined by the amount it is driven.  Raising the cost of energy would have a more direct effect, but because it is politically unpopular we are left with a never ending debate over CAFE.

  The "corporate average" (CAFE) system is in some respects bizarre.  No fine has ever been imposed on the Big 3, which produce this country's most inefficient vehicles, because when their whole fleet is averaged their vehicles are more efficient than imports that essentially don't get the benefit of averaging.  That is in some respects the poltical virtue and environmental vice of the system -- bizarre protectionism.  Manufacturers, such as Ferrari and BMW, have paid millions upon millions of fines under the CAFE system.  An inconsistently applied protectionist luxury tax is perhaps fine and dandy, but it doesn't really address the inefficient use of oil in this country.

  Although there has never been any evidence that the CAFE system has had an adverse impact on the Big 3, Dingell has consistently sought to keep it that way by seeking to derail proposals that would transform the industry -- bizarrely or otherwise.  What we need from Dingell and from the environmental community is a win-win vision of how to move this country's fleet from inefficient vehicles to more efficient vehicles.  One of the best ways to do this without the bizarre effects of averaging is to create fee-bates, whereby fees placed on inefficient vehicles subsidize more efficient vehicles.  Of course, that would mean that we would be honest about actually doing something that would have an effect on consumers.  There is no reason to believe that Detroit cannot survive the transition to efficiency, and insofar as Dingell and the Big 3 insists that this is the case, we should be going after them both with verve.On He's pro-carbon tax, anti-CAFE -- which matters more? posted 2 years, 4 months ago 20 Responses