Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. [/quote] You got any fact to back up your CAFE/death rate argument? In the 55 mph, pre CAFE 70s, the death rate was about 60,000/100M vehicle miles. Now, with traffic more than doubled and 70 mph speed limits, it's only 35,000/100M veh. miles. All the explanations I know of that explain this improvement run afoul of more gov't regs. Hmmm... could there be more beneficial gov't regs where cost and benefit accrue in different places? Another way to do CAFE, would be to tax fuel. CAFE is such a heavy handed "command and control" type reg. It takes choices away from consumers. A fuel tax would let "free market" forces guide the production possibilities and let consumers vote with their $$. I would prefer that to CAFE, but CAFE is a tolerable reg as is. Do you know when the CAFE stds were put in place and why? [/quote] Don, Your stats on improving death rates per 100M vehicle miles has nothing to do with CAFE standards or any environmental regulations. Vehicles today have better navigation controls, better tires, better braking, better steering, computer controls allow better response actions to potential hazards, highways today have all but rid themselves of deadly spots (few "Dead Man's" curves are left) and have better barriers to accidents where vehicles leave the road, techniques for compensating for snow and ice are much improved. Even traffic congestion has had a part in reducing the propesity to accidents. That being said, it is true that mortality rates for drivers of smaller/lighter vehicles are higher than for those of larger/heavier vehicles, and that is simply the laws of physics at work. Since the response to CAFE by the automakers was to reduce the tare weight of the vehicles, it is axiomatic that that will lead to higher statistical mortality rates for drivers of smaller vehicles relative to mortality rates for drivers of larger vehicles when there is an impact collision. It is now possible to allow larger heavier vehicles and still meet fuel efficiency goals by implementing hybrid technologies, but then you have the increased costs to deal with. Right now, assuming a normal life span of a family vehicle, you are still spending more on the puchase price of the hybrid than what you are saving in increased fuel efficiency for the same size vehicle. Your idea of taxing fuel to force consumers to make fuel efficiency choices is intriguing, but you're missing two truths: (1)We already tax fuel to pay for highway improvements. Would you be willing to put all the revenue from increasing fuel taxes into the Highway trust fund, or would you give that money to some other cause? If, as I suspect, you'd probably try to fund Amtrak or some transit project with that money, then I'd be opposed, as would most Americans. Such transport modes only serve a few select portions of the country, unlike highways which transverse the nation everywhere. Let Amtrak and transit users pay their own way. (2)Why not let the market decide the price of fuel? If higher fuel prices cause consumers to choose more fuel efficient vehicles, then let it be so. If not, then raising a fuel tax to try and force such choice would be pointless. Now, if you instead are opting for a local option fuel tax for only the congested urban areas, I have no problem with that. Then if those cities want to use that revenue for transit, that is their choice, and since it is local only it does not affect non-urban areas. I say go for it!
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag