There are a number of subsidies going on that mean that they didn’t pay for the true cost of it, not to mention the cost that comes about after they burn it.
Though, I disagree with the OP as to make it a criminal offense, and think that it would be a far better idea to curtail excessive gasoline usage by imposing and raising gas taxes.
If we pay for gas closer to what the actual cost of it is, then we may make a bit of progress.
I dunno. We already kind of do that with various curfew/quarantine laws and for younger drivers. Allowances are made for driving to work or to school or to the grocery store or to the doctor. Driving anywhere else can earn you a ticket.
Those are usually only temporary as a result of a crisis. We don’t just have curfew laws in effect all the time.
I don’t think that trying to have one imposed permanently would fly too well, especially nationally.
Those are younger drivers, not adults. We do restrict the freedoms of children to some extent.
So, I can’t go visit my parents, or my friends? I can’t take my dog to the park or the groomer? You only mention grocery store, so that means I can’t go to the hardware store to pick up some paint, or out to a restaurant when I don’t feel like cooking?
I don’t necessarily require that it be permanent.
Under some of the rules I saw during the recent quarantines, no, you couldn’t have done any of that.
The grocery store was just an example.
Probably, what would have to happen is to come up with a list of specific behaviors that would be prohibited, and or a clear, consensus definition of what constitutes “wanton waste.”
Maybe also there would have to be circumstances where the cost to society was greater than the cost to the people paying for the wated fuel.
My town has already outlawed drive-thrus. Mostly for air quality, but reducing fuel consumption was also a justification.
You ask this like it’s purely hypothetical. What happens is the US Office of Price Administration institutes rationing, and if they catch you being naughty, it’s 10 years imprisonment, $$$$$$, or both.
It’s not going to do much good if only applied for a week or a month. As soon as it’s lifted, people will go back to their gas guzzling ways.
But you are not talking about local regulations, you are talking about imposing a country wide curfew. Under the rules I was under during quarantine, I could do all of that.
You are proposing limiting people’s freedoms to travel, associate, and to conduct commerce. You should be specific in the freedoms you are curtailing.
Once again, I think that your goals are far better accomplished by raising gas taxes than trying to impose restrictions on people.
Maybe you can get an idling ban, many municipalities already have those. But anything else on your list is not only going to be a pretty hard sell, it’s not going to accomplish what you want, it’s just going to piss people off, and by people, I mean pretty much everyone, not just coal rollers or convoyers.
Yes, this especially. It is already illegal to run an overly polluting or idling engine, and let’s not forget Congestion Charges. Plus, when fuel costs $10/gallon like in non-OPEC Norway, people will be less inclined to waste it.
I assume that it would be in response to a current crisis, whether war or a gas shortage. How long that crisis lasts isn’t specified.
The point is that we already have made some restrictions on where and when people can drive. So the argument that we cannot make such restrictions does not hold water. Local or state restrictions would fall under the scope of this discussion.
I’m not proposing anything. I am asking for discussion on what would need to happen before wasting fuel, however you define it, would begin to be prohibited by law.
That makes it even worse, a “temporary” measure to a permanent crisis. Gas isn’t coming down anytime soon, or ever. It is a limited resource, much of which is sourced from dubious locales.
And… it contributes to climate change, and that’s also something that will never be over.
How long it lasts isn’t specified because it is indefinite.
But local and state won’t cut it for what you want. For what you want, it needs to be federal. And what you are proposing is significantly more restrictive than was enacted even at those levels.
And I don’t know if you noticed, but measures taken for the purpose of slowing a pandemic and saving lives got quite a bit of pushback. When it’s not about saving lives, and more about trying to save a bit at the pump, I’ll be joining those protestors.
Certainly sounds like you are trying to propose measures to criminalize things that you see as a waste of fuel.
Depends on what you mean. If you mean how expensive gas is, or how damaged the climate is, nothing and never. If you mean what government changes would be required to pull this off, then what first needs to happen is for the Constitution to be ripped up, and an authoritarian government instituted.
OTOH, raising gas taxes requires none of that, can be explained as necessary for the maintenance of roads, and accomplishes what you want to accomplish in reducing gasoline usage.
Again, I am not proposing anything, and from your responses, you certainly don’t know what I “want”.
You bring up good points about climate change possibly being a trigger and about the pushback, but nothing else you have said is germane to this discussion.
Generally in GD, people take a position on some topic. The factual question of whether such a law could be written or how is answered. So people are naturally moving on to “would such a law be a good idea?” And the answer seems to be a resounding “no”.
You seem annoyed that people think this is a bad idea, and unwilling to claim that you support it. Which… great? If you’re not proposing this, then maybe we all agree it’s a bad idea and we can call this one resolved.
Or you could make some actual claims and argue in favor of them.
If I am annoyed at anything, it is faulty assumptions, kneejerk reactions, and an overall miscomprehension of what is a clear and simple question. But perhaps a different forum would have been more appropriate. That’s not for me to say.
I chose to put it here because I don’t think that there is one single factual answer to the question.
I’m not asking whether it is a good idea. I assumed in my OP that it is something that could reasonably happen and that it’s something that would be likely to happen given the right circumstances (see my comments on war rationing). It could very well be the best idea from a short list of bad ideas.
I think it could happen, certainly, since a lot of bad laws get written.
There are plenty of actual good ideas to reduce fuel use, so we probably don’t need to spend a lot of effort on the list of bad ones.
But that’s not the question I asked.
No, but it’s a statement you just made that is I believe incorrect.
I guess not, as you haven’t actually said what it is that you want, leaving anyone to have to guess at what that actually is.
Is there an actual reason for you proposing that we discuss this, or is it just idle musing that can be dismissed?
Now there is something to be discussed. Why do you assume that this could reasonably happen? I do not think that it could happen without severe changes to our government and society, almost all of which would not be for the better.
No, it would stay pretty much at the bottom of pretty much any list of bad ideas.
So, since you are being evasive on this, and making a big point that people don’t know what it is that you want this to accomplish, why don’t you start with that, then we can tell whether this idea of yours is a good way of accomplishing that, or if there are better ways of achieving your goal.
Is this actually all about shutting down the Freedom Convoys?
I was composing a nice long reply to you, but we’re done.
If anybody wants to know what I’m actually asking, read the first sentence of the OP.