Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GE Morton]

... Explicit subsidies accounted for only 8 percent of the total. The remaining 92 percent were implicit subsidies, which took the form of tax breaks or, to a much larger degree, health and environmental damages that were not priced into the cost of fossil fuels, according to the analysis.

Note "only eight percent". Thus, we can say that, globally, fossil fuels are not subsidised beyond that of other industries at the rate $11,000,000 per minute. Rather, the fossil fuel industry's specific subsidies extracted from taxpayers is a mere $880,000 per minute.

My comments referred to US subsidies, Sy. Some countries do indeed subsidize that industry, but in the US "explicit subsidies" are minuscule, and most of those are for sidelines with some "greenie" justification, such as "clean coal" and biofuel development.

[Sy Borg]

Coal, oil, and natural gas received $5.9 trillion in subsidies in 2020 — or roughly $11 million every minute — according to a new analysis from the International Monetary Fund.

... Explicit subsidies accounted for only 8 percent of the total. The remaining 92 percent were implicit subsidies, which took the form of tax breaks or, to a much larger degree, health and environmental damages that were not priced into the cost of fossil fuels, according to the analysis.

Note "only eight percent".

Exactly! That's why I said the cost was "or whatever", and I stand by that. When the fudge factor is over 90%...

What I do know (or at least believe strongly) is that we would be better off if we paid directly, as nearly as possible, for the miles we drove. Then each of us would only drive the miles that made sense to us, based on real economics. I don't know how much that would reduce driving, but it surely would have the effect of reducing miles driven.

It's not just driving, alas, but the kinds of cars that people drive, or should I say, trucks: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -emissions

This global phenomenon has its roots and impetus in the US, where in the 1980s the car industry carved out a new category called the “sport-utility vehicle”, a sort of mash-up between a truck, a minivan and the traditional American family car. After successfully lobbying lawmakers to class these vehicles as light trucks rather than cars, binding SUVs to less stringent fuel efficiency standards, the industry set about slotting them into almost every arena of American life.

Once a workhorse that lugged tools around or was used for bumpy off-road driving, the SUV morphed into the default option for families puttering around suburbia and even for people in the cores of densely populated cities. The look and cost of SUVs stretched to suit all tastes – the 1984 Jeep Cherokee, a boxy, spartan offering considered the first SUV, has spawned successors ranging from the compact Kia Sportage to the sporty Mercedes ML.

The industry found that American drivers enjoy the lofty seating position of SUVs, as well as the capacity and the comforting feel of security their bulk provides, even if half of all journeys taken in the US are mundane trips of under three miles to run errands rather than high-octane adventures in the Rocky Mountains. For many Americans, SUVs invoke alluring qualities of fortitude and independence.

GE might point out that this is more a failure of the people than a failure of institutions, and it's a reasonable position. Institutions may use their power to influence the public with marketing and lobbying. Ideally, we each have a responsibility to do the work needed to make informed choices. Further, the high cost of SUVs makes clear that the buyers are wealthy enough to know better, but they choose not to.

The more I think about it, the more humans deserve everything that's coming to them. It's a shame we will wipe out all the best animals before our upcoming population correction. I suppose we should learn to love cockroaches, rats, mice and jellyfish as they proliferate at the expense of animals that don't tend to build up into plagues.

There will come a time when just trying to visit increasingly scarce natural spaces will be expensive.

[Ecurb]

Please provide a breakdown of your "$75 or whatever." Until the last couple of decades federal and state highways in the US are were financed primarily (about 80-90%) with fuel taxes. That figure is now about 50%, due to diversions of the fuel tax revenues to other purposes, such as public transit boondoggles and even to supporting public schools.

Spending tax money raised from specific taxes on specific things constitutes a form of dissembling. Every measure supporting a State Lottery states, "The money will be spent only on public schools" (or some such popular expense). However, this does not mean that the budget for public schooling will increase. It's likely that the budget will remain the same, and money from the general fund that was formerly spent on schools will be diverted to support other (less popular) government programs.

[GE Morton]

Spending tax money raised from specific taxes on specific things constitutes a form of dissembling. Every measure supporting a State Lottery states, "The money will be spent only on public schools" (or some such popular expense). However, this does not mean that the budget for public schooling will increase. It's likely that the budget will remain the same, and money from the general fund that was formerly spent on schools will be diverted to support other (less popular) government programs.

That is often true. But the issue raised here was whether users of highways should pay their costs. They did, until the last few decades (and still do in some states).

[Sculptor1]

Please provide a breakdown of your "$75 or whatever." Until the last couple of decades federal and state highways in the US are were financed primarily (about 80-90%) with fuel taxes. That figure is now about 50%, due to diversions of the fuel tax revenues to other purposes, such as public transit boondoggles and even to supporting public schools.

Spending tax money raised from specific taxes on specific things constitutes a form of dissembling. Every measure supporting a State Lottery states, "The money will be spent only on public schools" (or some such popular expense). However, this does not mean that the budget for public schooling will increase. It's likely that the budget will remain the same, and money from the general fund that was formerly spent on schools will be diverted to support other (less popular) government programs.

Tax money is not spent. The link between tax income and monies spent by government does not exist.

The source of money is the government which is paid ad hoc by government agencies with computers.
The government has to "spend" (create money) before taxes can be gathered.
When tax is gathered it is deleted.
The idea that these two number has to be balanced is a political choice.
A deficit is the degree to which the government wants to improve and stimulate the economy; a surlus is the degree to which is wishes to strangle progress.

[GE Morton]

The industry found that American drivers enjoy the lofty seating position of SUVs, as well as the capacity and the comforting feel of security their bulk provides, even if half of all journeys taken in the US are mundane trips of under three miles to run errands rather than high-octane adventures in the Rocky Mountains. For many Americans, SUVs invoke alluring qualities of fortitude and independence.

GE might point out that this is more a failure of the people than a failure of institutions, and it's a reasonable position. Institutions may use their power to influence the public with marketing and lobbying. Ideally, we each have a responsibility to do the work needed to make informed choices. Further, the high cost of SUVs makes clear that the buyers are wealthy enough to know better, but they choose not to.

"American drivers enjoy the lofty seating position of SUVs, as well as the capacity and the comforting feel of security their bulk provides . . ."

Well, those advantages may be counted in the "plus" column for some SUV buyers, but they are not controlling motives for most. People buy SUVs because of their versatility --- because you can haul large items in them, such as a sheet of plywood for some DIY project or 10 bags of mulch for the garden; sleep in them on a camping, fishing, or hunting trip (and have room for all your gear), navigate overgrown forest roads and have better control on snowy/icy streets, because they have high clearance and 4-wheel drive, and haul your kid and his teammates, and their gear, to and from their soccer match.

True, you don't need those advantages for most daily errands. But you need them sometimes --- frequently for most people in the Western US --- and that is sufficient justification for buying one. Of course, you could buy different vehicles for different purposes, but for most that would be cost-inefficient (not mention unaffordable for many).

The Guardian article is wrong, BTW, in saying SUVs first appeared in 1984. The first was the Chevrolet K5 Blazer, introduced in 1969. Pics below, of the '69 Blazer and an SUV outfitted for camping.

1969blazer.jpg (79.99 KiB) Viewed 1501 times

camperSUV.jpg (343.3 KiB) Viewed 1501 times

[Sy Borg]

GE, I get SUVs when living in the American west, where the lifestyle is less urban. Sydney's north and east, from what I've seen, these environmental problems on wheels are a positonal good. Like Levi jeans when I was young, SUVs seem more a social requirement in some circles than a status symbol.

People trying to create impressions to each other via material goods is obviously wasteful. A tragedy of the commons applies here. Many know that wasteful consumption is unethical in a world under environmental stress, but such waste confers practical advantages in people's lives on a day-to-day basis.

[Ecurb]

GE, I get SUVs when living in the American west, where the lifestyle is less urban. Sydney's north and east, from what I've seen, these environmental problems on wheels are a positonal good. Like Levi jeans when I was young, SUVs seem more a social requirement in some circles than a status symbol.

People trying to create impressions to each other via material goods is obviously wasteful. A tragedy of the commons applies here. Many know that wasteful consumption is unethical in a world under environmental stress, but such waste confers practical advantages in people's lives on a day-to-day basis.

I live in the American West -- Oregon -- and although there are plenty of people for whom an SUV is reasonable, there are many others who are "posers". Not so much with SUVs as with pick-up trucks. Massive pick-ups that get 15 mpg. They "need them to haul something", maybe 2 times a year. If we had a more communal society, pick-ups would be available to everyone who needed to haul something. There'd be 1 pick-up for every 40 or 50 today. They would be widely available. And people could drive their Priuses when they're not hauling.

[Ecurb]

By the way -- the above would work for cars in general. Suppose we had a car "collective". You'd sign up and pay, and get a code with which you could drive any car in the collective. Now -- at any given time, 95% of cars are sitting there -- parked. Isn't it likely that with -- say 30% of the cars owned in the U.S. now -- there was a good collective, it would save consumers money, limit the need to make more and more cars, and facillitate transportation almost as easy and convenient as it is today (there would always be a car within 1/2 block of your house). (It'll work even better with self-drivning cars.)

[Sy Borg]

GE, I get SUVs when living in the American west, where the lifestyle is less urban. Sydney's north and east, from what I've seen, these environmental problems on wheels are a positonal good. Like Levi jeans when I was young, SUVs seem more a social requirement in some circles than a status symbol.

People trying to create impressions to each other via material goods is obviously wasteful. A tragedy of the commons applies here. Many know that wasteful consumption is unethical in a world under environmental stress, but such waste confers practical advantages in people's lives on a day-to-day basis.

I live in the American West -- Oregon -- and although there are plenty of people for whom an SUV is reasonable, there are many others who are "posers".

Thanks for the info. Ultimately, conformity is demanded of the moderately ambitious, if they hope to be trusted. The middle class and upper middle class can be thought of as the Outer Party, in Orwellian terms. In all societies, those at the top of societies have tended not to bothered with adhering strictly to laws (or bothering with them at all), but those in the echelon below are tightly bound by social rules and norms.

[Ecurb]

That is often true. But the issue raised here was whether users of highways should pay their costs. They did, until the last few decades (and still do in some states).

I know you believe in paying for what benefits you personally, but I still think it's a bit of a red herring. We collect money in taxes. We try to tax in a manner that is fair, that doesn't impose undue hardships on citizens, and that funds the programs we want to fund. Would you approve if 80% of the taxes collected from a family with 3 school-aged children were ear-marked for education, and 80% of the 80-year-olds' earmarked for Medicare. It's irrelevant. They all go into the same pot and out to different providers. I'll grant that the gas tax is different in that it collects more money from those who benefit from roads, but it's still a BIT of a red herring. The reason to raise the gas tax is not to collect more money for highway maintenance, but to eliminate (or reduce) highway driving. Building more roads with gas-tax money is like poring gasoline on a fire.

[GE Morton]

I live in the American West -- Oregon -- and although there are plenty of people for whom an SUV is reasonable, there are many others who are "posers". Not so much with SUVs as with pick-up trucks. Massive pick-ups that get 15 mpg. They "need them to haul something", maybe 2 times a year. If we had a more communal society, pick-ups would be available to everyone who needed to haul something. There'd be 1 pick-up for every 40 or 50 today. They would be widely available. And people could drive their Priuses when they're not hauling.

Not practical. First a defined group would have to own the pick-up, and restrict availability to members of that group. The first time a member wanted the pick-up and found it unavailable (because another member was using it for the weekend) he'd bail out of the group and buy his own. And, of course, if you really only need an SUV or pick-up once or twice a year, you can rent one from Hertz.

If "auto clubs" of the type you envision were practical they would already exist.

BTW, you're a neighbor. I'm in eastern Washington State.

[GE Morton]

GE, I get SUVs when living in the American west, where the lifestyle is less urban. Sydney's north and east, from what I've seen, these environmental problems on wheels are a positonal good. Like Levi jeans when I was young, SUVs seem more a social requirement in some circles than a status symbol.

More a lifestyle requirement than a social requirement. I'd think SUVs would be quite popular in Oz. Plenty of places to go where those would be the ideal vehicle.

[Sy Borg]

GE, I get SUVs when living in the American west, where the lifestyle is less urban. Sydney's north and east, from what I've seen, these environmental problems on wheels are a positonal good. Like Levi jeans when I was young, SUVs seem more a social requirement in some circles than a status symbol.

More a lifestyle requirement than a social requirement. I'd think SUVs would be quite popular in Oz. Plenty of places to go where those would be the ideal vehicle.

Yes, to the office. To the shops. To friends' places. To do errands. Australians are far more concentrated in major cities than Americans. I have seen many thousands of SUVs this year. In that time I saw one with mud and some wear, that was not shiny and pristine.

SUVs are absolutely positional goods; they are primarily wanted mostly for social reasons. Of course there are post hoc rationalisations claiming utility. Every now and then these trucks no doubt come in handy to carry stuff around. Most don't fit any more people than a sedan, though. Two in the front, three in the back.

[Ecurb]

Not practical. First a defined group would have to own the pick-up, and restrict availability to members of that group. The first time a member wanted the pick-up and found it unavailable (because another member was using it for the weekend) he'd bail out of the group and buy his own. And, of course, if you really only need an SUV or pick-up once or twice a year, you can rent one from Hertz.

If "auto clubs" of the type you envision were practical they would already exist.

BTW, you're a neighbor. I'm in eastern Washington State.

YOu're probably right, although I disagree with your pro-capitalist notion that if an idea is practical it would already exist. The notion that people are "rational" in the realm of economics is, I think, mistaken. Examples of irrational behavior abound. I know a great many people who buy a gym membership in the hope that by doing so they will trick themselves into going to the gym more often. Yearly memberships at the local YMCA are $60 a month. You can buy a ten-visit punch card for $60. I'm guessing that at least half the YMCA members would save money buying the ten punch card. They may go to the Y more than ten times in any given month during the year only once, and some months (when they are injured or on vacation) they don't go at all. Why do they buy the membership? Either they refuse to estimate properly how many visits they make, or they think that when each given visit is "free", they will go more often. It's like setting your clock ten minutes fast so you won't be late. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

Renting a pick-up is a hassle, and people would rather (irrationally) buy a pick-up -- spending an extra $5000 a year in gas and car payments - than spend $100 twice a year to rent one. Partly, this is decision based on status. Also, the ethos of capitialism and consumerism frowns on communal endeavors such as those I suggested. And the start-up marketing costs would be high (in the communal car idea you'd have to get maybe half of the people involved for it to work). Communal efforts would also be attacked by the Captains of Industry. The car manufacturers would look with horror on an idea that would eliminate the need for 2/3 of the cars bought today.

Nonetheless, when self-driving cars become available, I think my idea might come to fruition. Think of the success of Uber and Lyft, which was fueled by ubiquitous mobile phone use. If cars were self-driving, you could order a car on your phone, and it would pick you up within 3-5 minutes. YOur costs would probably be far, far less than those of owning your own car. You could probably be charged by the mile, to involve elderly people who don't even like to drive, and use the service to go to the grocery store. Again, you would need to get a fairly large percentage of the people to enroll to make the business model viable. Manufacturing self-driving cars might involve the auto industry cutting its own throat. The down-side: it might involve people driving MORE, given how economical and easy it would be, which would create more pollution.

I'm on the other side of the Cascades, The left side, on maps.