OT of an OT: Ethanol

[Renegade 13]

Baron Munchausen said:
We really need to think about lifestyle changes that reduce the need for everyone to have their own personal vehicle to drive to work every day, to drive to the grocery store, etc.

I'm sorry, but that's dead wrong in a lot of cases, an idea predicated on everyone living in a city. I, and most other people not living in a city, have no choice about having a personal vehicle. Some examples; In Northern BC, there is no public transit. It takes about 40 minutes to travel to work, a distance of about 60km one way. The nearest grocery store is 20 minutes away, at 100km/hr. We, and everyone else who don't live in a city, have no choice in the matter.

Thermodyne said:
OK, so where are we? Alcohol cost too much and dumps more carbon into the air per unit of energy than just burning gas.

Inaccurate. There is no net release of carbon.

What if every new home had to have some form of solar power installed? It could be power cells or heat panels. In the Northern areas wind turbines could be substituted. 20k added to a 400k home is not that big of a deal over 30 years.

As you mentioned, in Northern areas this would not work. Winter isn't a great time of year for sunlight. I think wind turbines would be a lot more expensive than solar, and for that matter where would the average city-dwelling person put a wind turbine? You'd need a lot of them and a good, constant wind to be of any use. Wind is impractical in cities and solar is no good in Northern areas. So what do people in those positions do?

What if every new car or truck under 2 tons had a meaningful fuel tariff added to the price.
35mpg+ no tariff
35-28 $300
27-23 $500
22-18 $1000
Less than 18mpg $5000

Again, I do not like this idea. Those of us who need trucks for the 4x4 ability, just to get around in the spring/fall when the roads turn to slippery ****e, should we take a massive hit just because of our geographical location? I don't think so. Go for it with things like SUV's or something, those are totally luxury. Or have exemptions based upon locale. Then again, that's just more red-tape, so the money taken in through you tariffs would probably end up being eaten in beaurocracy.

Additionally, each state would collect additional fees based on the formula for tags. All collected funds go to energy research and mass transit. No use of these funds for roads.

Energy research, sure. Transit, no way. Again, everyone living in rural areas would pay in but experience no benefit whatsoever. Rural people already subsidize the mass transit systems for city people with our taxes (little of which is ever actually spent in rural areas....only a few votes in those areas after all...) No good making it worse than it already is.

Recreational fuel for boats, small aircraft, and such where it can be regulated surcharged and set at say 300%.

Again, many farmers/ranchers/etc use "recreational vehicles" such as 4-wheelers and snowmobiles to either get around their land or to, for example, chase cattle when the need arises. Taxing it will only hurt those least able to pay. And for that matter, should we all just kill every motorized sport there is, to save a wee bit of gas or to generate a bit of money? No thanks. I don't want that world.

And lastly, countries not adopting economy and environmental measures at least equal to those in the US will be subjected to stiff tariffs on their good imported into the US. If we are going to bite the bullet, then so should the rest of the world.

This the the part I hate the most. It's going to sound utterly rude, but your comment struck me as the stereotypical arrogant American attitude. We can do whatever the hell we want because of our God-given right to do whatever the hell we want. Sorry, but you put tariffs on Canada for not adopting what is essentially an American domestic policy, we'll be slapping tariffs on you right back. As will the rest of the world. Oh, and while you're at it, you'll have to kill NAFTA as well. And since the American economy is in the crapper unlike ours, guess who's going to be hurt the most from all the tariff's flying around? "If we are going to bite the bullet, so should the rest of the world" It's that kind of arrogance that, IMO, causes the opinion most of the world has of Americans. It's also just not practical.

I sincerely do apologize if I offend anyone with my comments towards the end, but I needed to say it. I hope we're all adult enough to accept differing viewpoints and some criticism of attitudes.

[Captain Kwok]

I understand your comments re: rural areas - but keep in mind in North America and most other developed nations over 80% of people live in urban areas - so it makes good sense to encourage the use of public transportation etc. as a general policy. A single bus at capacity can remove 20-25 cars on the road. My personal beef is with long-distance commuters and (beyond responsible) multi-car families. Also another beef I have is with the design of housing communities these days too - it pratically forces people into their cars for everything...

Fuel tariffs on new vehicles with poor fuel economy can also be configured based on rural vs. urban etc. For things like small vehicles, many snowmobiles etc. are already configured to run on pure ethanol fuel...

Also for the record, urban areas receive less back in services/infrastructure than what they pay for in taxes in comparison to rural areas.

Also, solar power is far more expensive than wind power. A wind turbine in a windy area costs about 3-5 cents/kwh, where solar power can range from 20-50 cents/kwh. The technology is still expensive and the return low. Wind turbines are a good bet for the windy northwest!

I do agree it would be difficult for the U.S. to impose tariffs based on fossil fuel products etc. when it is the U.S. that by far that uses the most per capita...

[Renegade 13]

Captain Kwok said:
I understand your comments re: rural areas - but keep in mind in North America and most other developed nations over 80% of people live in urban areas - so it makes good sense to encourage the use of public transportation etc. as a general policy. A single bus at capacity can remove 20-25 cars on the road. My personal beef is with long-distance commuters and (beyond responsible) multi-car families. Also another beef I have is with the design of housing communities these days too - it pratically forces people into their cars for everything...

Fuel tariffs on new vehicles with poor fuel economy can also be configured based on rural vs. urban etc. For things like small vehicles, many snowmobiles etc. are already configured to run on pure ethanol fuel...

Also for the record, urban areas receive less back in services/infrastructure than what they pay for in taxes in comparison to rural areas.

Also, solar power is far more expensive than wind power. A wind turbine in a windy area costs about 3-5 cents/kwh, where solar power can range from 20-50 cents/kwh. The technology is still expensive and the return low. Wind turbines are a good bet for the windy northwest!

I do agree it would be difficult for the U.S. to impose tariffs based on fossil fuel products etc. when it is the U.S. that by far that uses the most per capita...

Well, I'm always happy to have my ignorance exposed. After all, how else will I learn!??

I agree that with the sheer number of city dwellers that there are, it is sensible to encourage mass transit. Makes a lot of sense. But charging those who have no choice about travelling for how much they travel and putting it into the endless pit that is mass transit isn't a good idea, I think. But maybe that's just me.

I didn't realize urban areas didn't get as much back as compared to rural areas. But most of what is put into rural areas are for things like the Trans-Canada highway maintenance which doesn't specifically benefit any demographic, it benefits both rural and urban people equally when they travel across the country. In fact, roads are pretty much all that money gets spent on in rural areas. After all, what else can it be spent on!

Also didn't realize the economic comparison between wind and solar. Still would be difficult though to fit a wind turbine in the yard of the average city person!

What really needs to be looked at is energy generated from tidal turbines. Use waves and tidal action to generate power. Since neither the wind nor the moon are going away any time soon, it'd work well.

[Captain Kwok]

Wind and hydro are generally the cheapest forms of power. Programs that allow individuals (particularly in rural area) to purchase turbines and then sell the electricity to the local grid should be encourage even more!

Mass transit is not a money pit and has many tangible benefits - even for people in rural areas such as reducing smog emissions and things of that sort. In general, its road systems are more subsidized than transit by government.

The disparity with tax collection and service distribution between urban and rural areas is really just logical. Because people in rural areas require services like health care etc., but the tax base is usally too small to justify a 'locally' regional hospital. In the same kind of way, Ontario/Alberta/BC tend to subsidize some of the other lower populated provinces at the federal level. It's part of the price we pay to live in our society.

[Suicide Junkie]

I agree that with the sheer number of city dwellers that there are, it is sensible to encourage mass transit. Makes a lot of sense. But charging those who have no choice about travelling for how much they travel and putting it into the endless pit that is mass transit isn't a good idea, I think. But maybe that's just me.

Sounds to me like a great place for some of those exceptions and conditions and complex gyrations that the tax system is known for.

[Will]

re: requiring all newly built homes to have some kind of renewable energy capability built with it.
It's a good idea in theory. But, as always, the devil is in the details, and it would not be feasible to implement this as a federal law. The most that could be done is have a tax credit for builders making homes with this, or a grant to local governments if there are ordinances requiring such. This would give incentive to the private sector and municipal governments, respectively, to look into the renewable energy options. For both, the incentives alone aren't enough, but combined with increased value of the house, it pushes the return on the investment just that little bit higher to make it worthwhile. The value of the house would go up due to the improvements, which means developers can sell at a higher price, and the municipality can get more tax revenue from the property, and that's where the money really comes from.
Also, Renegade, you need not worry about the city folk needing to build turbines in their yard. You won't find a new house being built in the middle of a city, you'll find it being built on an empty plot outside of the city.

re: the company using TDP to turn agricultural and consumer waste into crude oil, methane, and minerals.
Sounds great, but the article is dated November 2003, and I haven't found any information on the company that goes beyond 2004. I'm going to guess that this particular venture, while still worth looking into after more research, is a bust.

re: Urban vs. Rural (and really, both vs. Sub-Urban) as far as taxes
I see nothing wrong with the fuel-efficiency tarrif, and I would add additional taxes on the price of gasoline as well. But I wouldn't implement it overnight, that is just asking for economic disaster. Even if people know increased costs are coming, it still costs a lot of money NOW to avoid those extra costs in the future. So if everyone had to pay more for it now, there would be problems. Have a 10-to-15 year plan, where the gas tax and fuel efficiency tax are slowly increased; by the end of the cycle, the majority of vehicles would be replaced anyway, and there is a good incentive along the way to encourage people to choose fuel-efficiency. So what if it ends up costing more for people who live 20km from the nearest place that could be called a town? The cost of living in rural areas are vastly smaller compared to urban and suburban areas, plus you can get a huge house for under $100,000, along with an acre or more of land around it. People choose to live there, and if the negligable costs comprared to cities is too much, they can move a little closer to the city.

And really, when you look at taxes, a disproportionate amount comes from urban areas, since that is where the majority of the wealth is created. A small part of that is invested back into cities as services, but most of it goes to... not rural areas. Rural areas in general recieve more money for services than is paid in those areas in taxes. A lot of that is in the form of Social Security, Medicare, etc., but also in education, safety (police and fire depts), military (a lot of bases are in remote areas), and transportation (especially if there is a significant route between larger cities). But rural areas only get a little bit more than they put in. The biggest chunk of tax dollars go to suburban areas. For example, the area I live in, Los Angeles County. LA and its five "satellite cities" comprise the largest industrial complex in the United States, has the largest international port on the West Coast, the largest financial center west of the Mississippi, etc. All of these are in urban parts of LA. And most of the tax income from these industries goes to... the Valley, and the southern part of the county bordering Orange, suburban areas. It's used to build new roads, new schools, new infrastructure, for a population that has been exploding since WWII.

re: tarrifs on imported goods unless certain policies are in place
I don't see the "stereotypical arrogant American attitude" in implementing tarrifs. It's simple economics. The point of all these little taxes and incentives is to guide the free market to make certain choices over what would otherwise be the most cost-effective choice. Most (or some would say all) rational people would agree that at some point, the developed world needs to stop using fossil fuels. If the US takes this view to heart, and implements these costs on American industry, then foreign products have a cost advantage. The tarrif isn't meant to change policy in other countries, but to offset the penalty that American products would inherently have. If, for example, Canada implemented similar taxes, then there would be no need to balance things out. And it wouldn't throw out NAFTA or any other trade treaty, since treaties supercede Acts of Congress in US law. Canada and Mexico would not be affected by the tarriff, and are free to do as they wish (however, reforms like this would be more likely to happen in Canada first, and right now the Mexican government is so weak, if the US does it, they probably could be coerced into doing the same soon after). Any country without a trade treaty that explicitly forbids tarrifs based on the country's policies would be subject to the tarrif.

[Renegade 13]

Will said:
So what if it ends up costing more for people who live 20km from the nearest place that could be called a town? The cost of living in rural areas are vastly smaller compared to urban and suburban areas, plus you can get a huge house for under $100,000, along with an acre or more of land around it. People choose to live there, and if the negligable costs comprared to cities is too much, they can move a little closer to the city.

Well this all depends on the size of the city you're talking about, but if you're talking a large city then yeah, cost of houses and land is considerably cheaper in rural areas. But take a look at the taxes for in a different light. People who live in rural areas are often farmers and ranchers. Namely, the people who need to fuel their tractors and other farm machinery. Add these taxes on when your fuel bill is already at a couple thousand (at least) per month, and you're going to be killing off a lot of small operations. Simple fix, exempt farms and ranches and the like from these new taxes, as they are already exempted from many taxes.

And really, when you look at taxes, a disproportionate amount comes from urban areas, since that is where the majority of the wealth is created.

I'm actually not sure about more going to rural than urban (though I am sure sub-urban gets more than both!). In Vancouver, billions are being spent on new rapid-transit systems. Billions extra, on top of the usual. All we get is cracks sealed on our highways, sometimes not even that. Can't cost more than a few dozen million per year. Of course, things you mentioned such as military bases etc. are for the benefit of all, not one single group, so it can't be counted in the equation. As are trans-continental highways and the like, since they're necessary for industry to occur in the cities as well, so they can't really be counted as solely rural either.

re: tarrifs on imported goods unless certain policies are in place
I don't see the "stereotypical arrogant American attitude" in implementing tarrifs. It's simple economics. The point of all these little taxes and incentives is to guide the free market to make certain choices over what would otherwise be the most cost-effective choice. Most (or some would say all) rational people would agree that at some point, the developed world needs to stop using fossil fuels. If the US takes this view to heart, and implements these costs on American industry, then foreign products have a cost advantage. The tarrif isn't meant to change policy in other countries, but to offset the penalty that American products would inherently have. If, for example, Canada implemented similar taxes, then there would be no need to balance things out. And it wouldn't throw out NAFTA or any other trade treaty, since treaties supercede Acts of Congress in US law. Canada and Mexico would not be affected by the tarriff, and are free to do as they wish (however, reforms like this would be more likely to happen in Canada first, and right now the Mexican government is so weak, if the US does it, they probably could be coerced into doing the same soon after). Any country without a trade treaty that explicitly forbids tarrifs based on the country's policies would be subject to the tarrif.

That's the thing, in a capitalist society the economy isn't supposed to be "guided" by the government. It's not capitalism then, it's closer to socialism. And yes, I think it is an arrogant attitude to think that the American idea is the best idea there is or can be! Tariffs for not doing as the States thinks is best is arrogant, since it's automatically dismissing the idea that other countries have the right to do as they wish with their own economic policy. If the States decides to implement such an idea, go for it, but don't try to force the rest of the world into doing what ONE country thinks is a wise measure. Of course, I'm sure I'll be disagreed with on this particular point.

[Will]

Renegade 13 said:
Well this all depends on the size of the city you're talking about, but if you're talking a large city then yeah, cost of houses and land is considerably cheaper in rural areas. But take a look at the taxes for in a different light. People who live in rural areas are often farmers and ranchers. Namely, the people who need to fuel their tractors and other farm machinery. Add these taxes on when your fuel bill is already at a couple thousand (at least) per month, and you're going to be killing off a lot of small operations. Simple fix, exempt farms and ranches and the like from these new taxes, as they are already exempted from many taxes.

And farmers and ranchers already get huge subsidies. Slight adjustments to these would more than offset additional costs.

Renegade 13 said:
I'm actually not sure about more going to rural than urban (though I am sure sub-urban gets more than both!). In Vancouver, billions are being spent on new rapid-transit systems. Billions extra, on top of the usual. All we get is cracks sealed on our highways, sometimes not even that. Can't cost more than a few dozen million per year. Of course, things you mentioned such as military bases etc. are for the benefit of all, not one single group, so it can't be counted in the equation. As are trans-continental highways and the like, since they're necessary for industry to occur in the cities as well, so they can't really be counted as solely rural either.

Per-capita. It would be silly to look at total dollar amount going to a given area, you need to see how many people it is being spent on. If you just look at total amount, then yes, I could see where you get the idea that rural taxes pay for urban mass transit. But it's simply false, taxes from urban areas subsidize development in suburban and rural areas, not the other way around. And yes, while some things like major roads and military bases are for the benefit of all, the economy of the area immediately surrounding the (often rural) area gets a huge boost out of it.

Renegade 13 said:
That's the thing, in a capitalist society the economy isn't supposed to be "guided" by the government. It's not capitalism then, it's closer to socialism. And yes, I think it is an arrogant attitude to think that the American idea is the best idea there is or can be! Tariffs for not doing as the States thinks is best is arrogant, since it's automatically dismissing the idea that other countries have the right to do as they wish with their own economic policy. If the States decides to implement such an idea, go for it, but don't try to force the rest of the world into doing what ONE country thinks is a wise measure. Of course, I'm sure I'll be disagreed with on this particular point.

Economics 101, Renegade
You are wrong on one point though. While the economy in that case would not be a laissez-faire free market captialist economy, it is still a free market, and it is still capitalism. Socialism implies that at least some part of the economy is planned (presumably by everyone, but the government is a 'good enough' substitution). Canada has this in its health care system; entirely government owned, paid for by taxes, free to the people. And yes, that has problems. But if you think that any government intervention in economic issues makes the economy not capitalist, or socialist, then there is not a single capitalist economy on this planet. That would require no zoning laws, no emissions laws, no controls on banking, no oversight of accounting practices, no tax deductions or exemptions of any sort, and so on, and so on. We learned a long time ago that pure captialism, or pure socialism, or pure communism, is a bad idea. So, any economy in the world worth speaking of combines elements of all forms. These taxes would just be another form of it.

And you have missed my point entirely for the reason the tarrifs are valid. They are not a policy tool to force other countries to do as the US. And frankly, most countries don't need any encouragement, and will end up doing something similar regardless of US actions. The tarrif is meant to allow fair competition between US and foreign firms. For example, take steel. If it is estimated that the new taxes directly cause steel made in the US to be $10 more expensive per ton, then US steel is at a disadvantage to say, Chinese steel. But! If the US put a tariff on steel coming from China, to the amount of $10 per ton, then the two can compete evenly in the market. The tariff isn't forcing China to adopt the same policies at all, but it does force domestic buyers of steel to buy based on the controllable costs of producing the steel only. Otherwise, US producers would be saddled with the double burden of increased costs and cheaper competitors. The tariff doesn't apply to countries with similar policies because those policies result in the same costs for producers in that country, so no adjustment is required. The other government already took care of it.

Now, an "arrogant" way of forcing policy change would involve telling the other government they need to adopt certain changes, implement a tariff on their products that is very much in excess of the difference of costs based on the policy difference (take the above example, and make the tariff $100 instead of $10), threaten to put an embargo into effect, and 'accidentally' blow up a building during a training exercise. We're not talking about that though, are we now?

[Renegade 13]

Will said:
Per-capita. It would be silly to look at total dollar amount going to a given area, you need to see how many people it is being spent on. If you just look at total amount, then yes, I could see where you get the idea that rural taxes pay for urban mass transit. But it's simply false, taxes from urban areas subsidize development in suburban and rural areas, not the other way around. And yes, while some things like major roads and military bases are for the benefit of all, the economy of the area immediately surrounding the (often rural) area gets a huge boost out of it.

Point taken. Of course, before being sure of the fact, I'd want to take a look at the actual numbers for my specific province and area, but you may be right.

Now, an "arrogant" way of forcing policy change would involve telling the other government they need to adopt certain changes, implement a tariff on their products that is very much in excess of the difference of costs based on the policy difference (take the above example, and make the tariff $100 instead of $10), threaten to put an embargo into effect, and 'accidentally' blow up a building during a training exercise. We're not talking about that though, are we now?

Well, my experience with US tariffs isn't exactly what you'd describe as positive. The US tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber and pointless, politically motivated bans on Canadian beef both had rather negative effects on me. The lumber tariffs were supposedly since our lumber was subsidized more than American lumber (which international committee's have repeatedly shown to be false and the tariffs illegal), yet the tariffs remain to today. And the illegal duties taken by American companies ($5 Billion worth) hasn't been returned to it's rightful owners.

In other words, my experience with American tariffs is that they are heavy-handed, intended to give American businesses an advantage domestically, and most of all politically motivated.

Of course, if it was a fair system of tariffs etc, and if the US wouldn't mind having tariffs imposed on them for having less advanced environmental policies than oher countries, then sure, go for it. Doubt your gov't would appreciate it though!

Thermodyne said:
The way I see it, much of the world has a lot of catching up to do on environmental issues.

I find this hard to believe, since the US has consistently decided against international treaties requiring a lowering of greenhousee gases. Yup, but it's the rest of the world that needs to catch up with the US...

Where the heck are you going to get the energy to till, plant, harvest, ferment, and refine the alky? Do you have any idea how much carbon is vented by an acre of tilled land? Do you have any idea how many regulated chemicals are needed to grow a crop like hybrid corn?

This carbon expenditure needs to be balanced against the equivalent amount of carbon emitted by traditional fuels. Not to mention the fact that once alcohol fuels become commonplace, they would replace the traditional fuels that are used to till the soil, plant, harvest, etc the ethanol, thus giving you a net emission close to zero.

Save that for someone who doesn't know better. You do not need a big Cummings Turbo powered 4x4 to get around in when the weather is bad. Hey, I feel your need, but I don’t buy the reason. I’ve got my full size Chevy 4x4 sitting out back. Biggest engine I could get in a half ton at the time. Heavy duty everything. But I drive a Honda Civic Hybrid to work everyday. And I’ve got a little 44 jeep that will go through any snow and muck that the truck will, on a quarter of the gas. Those big pickups could easily be replaced with smaller more fuel efficient 4x4’s. I have yet to see a farm that didn’t have tractors, wagons, and heavy trucks, what do you really need a big pick up for. Around here every farmer has several. The tax laws encouraged them to buy them. They ride around in them with 40 or 50 pounds of junk in the back and brag about how little fuel they use.


I won’t get into the rural vs. urban thing. I type way to slow for that. I will say that most big cities have a net loss on revenues. As do the rural areas. The revenue hogs are the outer suburbs where development has outrun infrastructure.

Oh, and while we are on the subject…….I thought that up there in the far north, people just got snowed in for the winter. That’s why all the birthdays are in the early summer

Point taken, most rural people do not need a big truck. For them, it is a luxury. And again I agree, no one needs a huge, powerful 4x4. It too is a luxury. But as you seem to agree, and drawing from my own experience, a 4x4 vehicle of some sort is necessary on a, for example, ranch. Yep, every ranch/farm has tractors, wagons, etc. Trucks are kinda useful though to haul those wagons when loaded with hay or something. Especially if it's muddy and slippery.

To be honest, if every farmer or rancher around your area can afford several heavy trucks...well they're a lot richer than almost all the ranchers or farmers around here

Yep, people do get snowed in for the winter. Doesn't mean you can stop feeding the cows.

I'll conceed that heavy trucks are not necessary, but some sort of 4x4 vehicle is.

[Suicide Junkie]

I don't see the "stereotypical arrogant American attitude" in implementing tarrifs.

It is not the idea itself, but the manner in which it is presented.

To me, it sounded aggressive; "if we're gonna do it, we're gonna hit you up for it too."
My impression is that Europe is way ahead of us slobs on this side of the pond.