The Antiplanner’s faithful ally, Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute, has a different take on Obama’s fuel-economy plan in an op ed in USA Today.
That makes two op eds by Cato Institute scholars in Some hair loss cures fall into the categories of getting a transplant or using some sort of medication, such as tadalafil buy or another performance enhancing supplement. The condition is marked by urinary and genital pain for at pfizer viagra sales least three of the past six months. Video Tutorials Once you have got browse enough material to induce some understanding, the next move order cialis from canada is to travel on-line and realize some video tutorials to work out how a number of the ideas you are currently acquainted with look when really put to use. The FDA has listed the following problems then there are 100% chances of you facing erectile dysfunction for once or more than once in your life time. continue reading that storefront cialis best prices the same issue of USA Today. (The newspaper accidentally left a word out of the penultimate paragraph, which should read: “Moreover, building high-speed rail consumes enormous amounts of energy and emits enormous volumes of greenhouse gases.”)
If gasoline prices remained in today’s neighborhood (that is, near their historical average, adjusted for inflation), the fuel savings from these new hybrids would not offset the higher sticker prices.
This kind of claim seems meaningless without considering the number of miles driven. In other words, the fuel savings might not offset the higher sticker price over 100 miles. But what about 1000 miles? 10000? 100000? Why not provide us with this kind of information? Is there really no number of miles such that the fuel savings could not offset the sticker price?
Greenhouse gas emissions might not decline much, if at all. U.S. emissions would likely decline, but reduced U.S. demand for crude would mean reduced global crude prices, which in turn would increase demand for  and consumption of  oil outside the USA. Eventually, most if not all our reductions might be offset by increases elsewhere.
Hmmm…not sure about the microeconomic theory here. A demand curve is constructed by counting the number of people who would purchase a unit of a good/service at every given price. If the demand for gas in the US decreased, that would mean that the number of people who would purchase a unit of gas (presumably at every price level) would be less. This would mean that the global demand curve would shift down, intersecting the global supply curve at a new equilibrium, with a lower price and lower quantity. The number of people in other countries who would purchase a unit of gas at every price level would remain unchanged, other things being equal.
Finally, drivers and passengers would be less safe. Plenty of hard evidence suggests that smaller, lighter cars equal more highway injuries and fatalities.
I would guess that at least some of this “hard evidence†involves either accidents between smaller cars and bigger cars, or comparisons of the effects of accidents involving smaller cars with the effects of accidents involving bigger cars.
Mr. Taylor appears to be another self-proclaimed economist who doesn’t actually hold a degree in economics.
Plenty of hard evidence suggests that smaller, lighter cars equal more highway injuries and fatalities.
This is bullsh–. Well, it’s not bullsh– when you are struck by an SUV/truck/bus/car lobby preferred vehicle, but it is bullsh– for all other cases.
DS
Technically, the shift in demand to the left would first result in disequilibrium where there was excess supply. At this point the price would decline in response until the quantity of demanded increased and the quantity supplied decreased enough to generate equilibrium. Thus the reduced amount would be somewhat less than the amount the US reduced their demand – depending on supply and demand elasticities of course.
Also, that’s if you think that oil prices behave as rational as microeconomic theory would dictate. Alternatively, if we’ve hit peak I think some theorize that prices will behave more erratically.
Since we are talking about a production flow over time, then technically yes, US consumption would be replaced by both the US and other countries consumption in the FUTURE, but this would prolong the supply of oil for perhaps several additional years farther than without a reduced demand by the US. More signficantly, reducing US demand through alternative energy would be good because of the fact the oil will likely run out soon whether or not countries make some minor adjustments.
Sustainibertarian, you bring up some good points.
For that matter Karlock, O’Toole, Cox, etc are just bigots against life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Like why be so hostile to having more housing & travel options?
Since when have suburban trains, been anti-suburban?
THWM,
You can have all the options you want — as long as you are willing to pay for them. I am willing to pay for mine, but don’t expect me to pay for yours.
Dude the world don’t work that way!
If you want to smoke 10 kilos of crack in your basement, have consensual sex with Mr.Cox & Mr.Karlock, paint the exterior walls of your house magenta and drive around Bandon on a dirt bike dressed like Ronald McDonald in a kilt, that’s fine with me.
Though when you tell other people how they should live their lives, that’s a problem.
I staunchly support both individual rights and societal responsibilities!
The Antiplanner said: I am willing to pay for mine, but don’t expect me to pay for yours.
THWM: I’m more than willing to pay for my part, though you have to pay for your part too!
Like why be so hostile to having more housing & travel options? — Highwayman
I don’t anyone’s hostile to that in general. The devil’s in the details.
I am willing to pay for mine, but don’t expect me to pay for yours.
Shorter Randal:
I refuse health insurance and will die lonely and miserable on the side of the road because I eschew community.
No wonder their ideology can’t get play. People all over the country want community, and a sad small-minority ideology wants to tear it down.
DS
O’toole probably believes in Lindsey Williams’ “The Energy Non-Crisis” myth. So it doesn’t matter how much oil we use because the the CIA or whomever has been keeping the size of Alaskan oil reserves a secret. Funny how the many geologists say otherwise, but the preacher Williams seems to know more than the actual experts.
D4P wrote:
“I would guess that at least some of this “hard evidence†involves either accidents between smaller cars and bigger cars, or comparisons of the effects of accidents involving smaller cars with the effects of accidents involving bigger cars.”
If both cars hit something hard and unyielding like a bridge support or a tree, the damage for the small and large cars will be similar. But in a collision between a large and small car, the smaller car will suffer a greater amount of energy discharged than the larger car, and consequently more damage.
There is something else too – if a modern car, which is rigid, hits an older car of a smaller or similar size, the modern car will crush the older car. One test involved the collision of two MPVs, same type and size, and the difference was stark. In the modern car, the front passenger compartment was largely unaffected. In the old car, the front passenger compartment was crushed. If the occupants had been people rather than crash dummies, there would have been a fatality – their legs would have been sliced off.
Which leads to an obvious point – it’s about not having any collisions in the first place! More busy roads need to have crash barriers, medians, multiple lanes and turning lanes. Slower speed limits also reduce the number and severity of collisions. Those countries which have adopted these policies have seen a reduction in casualties. The Montana paradox is also out there.
Op ed:
“If the proposed fuel efficiency standards were in place today, Edmunds.com reports that only four cars  the 2010 Toyota Prius (50 mpg), the 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid (42 mpg), the 2010 Honda Insight (41 mpg) and the 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid (39 mpg)  would meet the standard. Angry environmentalists might thus find themselves key-scratching “gas guzzlers” such as the 2009 Honda Fit (31 mpg), the 2009 Mini Cooper (32 mpg) and the 2009 Smart ForTwo (36 mpg).”
There are plenty of cars in the UK that can do better than that. Here are the official UK combined efficiency values:
Mini 53mpg
Smart ForTwo 60mpg (I’m not sure where they got 36mpg from)
Volkswagen Golf GT (2.0 litre diesel) 58mpg.
The official UK mpg combined value for a Mini Cooper is also 32mpg. Which suggests that the methods for measuring these values varies a bit from country to country, but if the driver doesn’t need to have a stupidly large engine which makes more noise when sat in a traffic jam, there are options available which comfortably beat 35 mpg.
I put this article forwards without comment.
http://www.examiner.com/x-6173-Ford-Examiner~y2009m5d20-Hybrid-Myth-You-will-not-save-money
I put this article forwards without comment
Perhaps the author’s thesis arose because the failing company he used to work directly for is lagging far behind the curve.
DS
Though it’s sad that the act of driving a car or taking a train is seen as some sort of absurd political agenda for Mr.O’Toole, Mr.Cox & the oligarchs that pay them.
Live and let live.
H-man, WTF?
Please make sense & a point.
What’s the “political agenda of a car or transit”?
Who are the “oligarchs” that pay for people who do the econ/cost-benefit analysis?
H-man, Regarding your slight rants:
You should really learn more communication (& logic) skills before you try to “say” whatever you are are trying to convey. You just try to throw a “monkey-wrench”/doubt into the issue, but without any thought.
H-man, What kind of world do you want? Who pays for what? What kind of infrastructure & lay-out? My guess is that you want to get out out of the hospital, but the doctors know that you have a hard time with reality.
Thanks I know it’s crazy world.
Though Scott, it’s too bad there isn’t some sort of 12 step Assholes Anonymous program available for you.