But that’s an invisible cost, don’t you see? If, at your college, every student had to pay for the electricty used by their room and a pro-rated share of the general use, I think you’d see some conservation efforts catch on right quick.
Look, I’m going to be HURT if gasoline spikes above $2/gallon (currently $1.69 where I fill up. Go Sheetz! Always two cents cheaper!) but I can’t see that it’s a bad thing. Use will certainly go down when it becomes less affordable.
I remember learning that gas demand was inelastic, that demand wouldn’t change depending on price. But I think we might just test that this summer. And that might bring prices down.
Ah, yes. The “Poor Elderly Chicogans Extermination Act of 2000.” Go for it, but you pay for the funerals when poor people start dropping like flies during northern heat waves like they did in ’97 (‘98? I’m getting so old I forget). Or you can wait for the technology to catch up with the law and phase in the requirements over a longer time, like the Bush administration is doing. Here is the story for the curious. They approved the rules for washers and dryers, so if you have a chance to by a laundromat in a poor area, you will be a rich person in a couple of years. The air conditioning rules were eased a little (not repealed) so that people might actually be able to afford an air conditioner.
I’m almost stunned beyond recognition that you actually typed both of the bolded sections and failed to make the connection. Americans Like Big Cars. We’re a big country. We’re fat, we live on big houses on big pieces of land, and we go to big shopping malls in big cars.
Ford has been making an Explorer-sized vehicle for years and years. Same with Chevy and the Suburban. The entire reason these things became popular in the first place (and the reason minivans succeeded) is because fuel-efficiency rules put station wagons and other big cars out of the picture. Regulate light trucks, and I swear soccer moms all over the country will get their Semi licenses. How’s about we let the price mechanism take care of this problem instead of trying and failing to do it by government fiat. It worked in the ‘70s; it’ll work again.
Which leads to Jonathan Chance’s point and a GQ aside. Over the short term, gasoline consumption is relatively inelastic to price. That’s because Americans consider relatively little of the driving Americans do to be “optional.” They still “have to” go to the store, to work, pick up the kids, etc. And even on vacation, gasoline cost is a fairly small portion of the overall vacation budget (that said, vacation driving does tend to drop a little during periods of high gas prices, as people go to Six Flags instead of all the way to Disneyworld, etc, but vacation consumption is a small portion of overall gasoline usage). Over the longer term, however, gasoline consumption is fairly elastic, as cars get replaced. This rude lesson Detroit learned in the ‘70s.
But, as a sop, I will admit the ANWR thing is kind of stupid. Yeah, we probably ought to drill it and yeah, the environmental damage would be minimal, and yeah, the people who actually live there are all for it, but candidly there isn’t a whole lot of oil and probably even less recoverable and marketable gas, and it ain’t worth spending the political capital on in my eyes.
The question was asked how the Govt could mandate conservation. I merely gave examples.
I don’t quite make the connection between mandating efficient air conditioners and killing Chicogans. Are you saying the that the rules required confiscation of older equipment?
Thanks for the clarification, but your link goes nowhere for me.
I don’t buy the waiting for the tech to catch up with the law argument though. They aren’t even going to bother to develop the technology until the law requires it. For example, the air in LA is cleaner today than it was 20 years ago because the law required auto manufactures to figure out how to clean up car exhaust. They didn’t develop the catalytic converter out of the goodness of their hearts but because they were REQUIRED to.
The fact that cars were regulated for fuel consumption more agressively than trucks most likely a mistake. My point was that since building cars on truck bodies gave the auto manufacturers a loophole, over time the efficiency of the vehicles on the road WENT DOWN. Law of unintended consequences kicks in.
As you say, the only sure way to get more efficient vehicles is to make the fuel cost large enough to be painful for consumers. On the other hand, we could fix the truck loophole and possibly get the auto manufacturers to start developing more efficent cars now BEFORE they become a necessity. Doesn’t it take a few years for that to happen?
Finally, I’d like to point out that not all Americans are stupidly wasteful on purpose. Many of us are because we don’t have a choice. For instance, in many cities (LA for instance) the zoning laws make it illegal to have stores in residential neighborhoods. It isn’t possible to walk to the store because it isn’t legal to have a store within walking distance. Now that isn’t market forces that makes that happen, it’s the law that artifically reinforces the need to drive.
Market forces are a nice idea, but the market does NOT react perfectly to consumer desires. Most companies guess at what their customers want, those that guess the worst go out of business. But the all you have to do to stay in business is screw up less than your competition. If you want to see an example of this, just look at your cable company
Well, of course the link goes nowhere for you. The only way to get the link to work is to have the person who codes it in not be an idiot. You got no such luck when I did it. Try this one. link.
Sorry for the harsh tone, I thought you were trying to throw out more rules at me as opposed to factually answering my question.
As for California’s laws regarding stores, that’s just dumb, as is the whole clothesline thing that Doonesbury is parodying this week. But the local level is the best place to make laws, because the people who have to obey them are closest to the process. Mebbe folks out there ought to start pestering their city councils to start repealing those dumb laws. See? Fewer laws = better.
As for cars, yes the auto companies fought the unleaded gas thing kicking and screaming, but at least the technology existed. My point is that the air conditioner companies literally cannot make a central air conditioner that meets the proposed Clinton standards for under $3K. And the point about the Chicogans is that people would be unable to replace air conditioners as they wore out. In northern climes, buying an air conditioner is already a large expense given the relatively short period each year that one “has to” operate it.
The same thing is true, to a lesser extent, with lawnmowers. B&S introduced a new line of engines that are meant to meet standards as they phase in through ’08. What happened? Every damn buyer bought a smaller lawnmower or squeezed another year out of their stinky old mower, and the company’s earnings went down by ~40% (Full disclosure: I met with Briggs & Stratton Corp. last week, and may or may not have made a debt or equity investment in the company. My and my affiliates’ position in the debt or equity securities of the company, if any, may change at any time and will not be disclosed to readers of this message. This is neither a recommendation to buy or sell securities.)
As to cars these days, I think you’ll find that Ford, in particular, is investing in cleaner engines. But the simple fact is that Americans want and demand big, powerful cars when gas is cheap. The market is a much better mechanism for getting people to buy more efficient cars. Yes, it was a loophole of sorts that the auto companies and consumers took advantage of. No one bothered with the trucks because their sales were so low. Now over half of the Big Three’s production is light trucks. What does that say about the ingenuity of Americans to get what they want?
From the link
*[…Using Bush’s rules] But the up-front costs of meeting the standard will add $213 to the average $2,236 price of a home central air conditioning system by 2006, the government estimates. Buyers will recoup the extra cost through lower utility bills, but it will take them 9.8 years to do so, according to the estimates.
The Clinton standard would have increased the average cost of the units by $335 and extended the payback period to 11 years, making them unaffordable for many families, critics had contended.
The Bush standard for heat pumps would add $144 to their $3,668 average price. The Clinton standard adds $332.
*
That hardly seems to be an overwhelming difference. A 10% increase in efficiency (30% vs 20%) would cost 5%-10% more. That’s hardly a deal breaker.
Nor could they before.
A 5-10% increase in up front cost that pays for itself over the life of the unit is hardly going to make people unable to replace their AC.
I would buy this argument if you were talking 50-100% increase. But 5-10% is about the same as sales tax in most areas. And we have no evidence that the presence of a sales tax makes people unable to replace things.
Not to quibble, but a lawnmower is ENTIRELY a luxury. No-one really needs a lawn, much less a lawn mower. I suspect what you are seeing here is more related to the slowing economy than your new engines. When people feel poorer, they stop buying luxury items. full disclosure: This is one of my pet peeves. Lawnmowers are noisy, polluting beasts, And their owners are nearly always rude enough to run them on weekends. Many are so rude that the run them early on saturday morning.!! And why? for a sterile, boring patch of monoculture grass that they NEVER USE!!!. [sub]did I mention I hate lawn mowers?[/sub]
But I get your point. It is possible to regulate a company to death. On the other hand, no company has an absolute right to make money. Businesses do become obsolete. (Buggy whip anyone?) I can only hope this will happen to law mowers someday…
Or the ingenuity of the auto manufacturers in creating a demand for what they knew how to make. You don’t honestly believe that the only products that exist are the one’s consumers demand do you? I submit that in this day and age, the purpose of advertising is to manufacture demand. Why else would anyone buy the new VW Beetle?
I’m not convinced Cheney and Bush are this subtle, but William Saletan in Slate suggests this is part of a deliberate spin strategy to create an energy crisis in the public mind as a pretext for actions that could be described as anti-environmental. That political strategy would be based on us 'Merkins being too inherently selfish to act in the common good. Granted, while there’s a lot of evidence of that, I think they’re more wrong about that than right. I do believe we have, as a society, much more interest in, well, keeping our house clean than they give us credit for, and will take action against anyone trying to foul it.
Preach it, brother! This drives me nuts. People hit the garage door opener, drive straight in, and close the door behind them. They NEVER GO OUT except to mow, and they bitch about that!
Try this one.