Rebounding is important
This sort of thinking isn't applied to most legislation. Think for a moment about safety regulations or safety improvements in automobiles. While there are some drivers who purchase cars for the protection of say, small children passengers, many purchase an SUV or other large vehicle with the presumption that it's safety features will protect them better. They might...except that these are the sorts of people who already drive aggressively and for whom the extra margin of safety becomes an excuse to drive more recklessly (and hence, get into just as many accidents with injuries and fatalities as before). That's the sort of thinking I mean. There's a rational adjustment that takes place. Gasoline is cheaper (and cleaner) for me to use so I can drive more often. Well yes...until everyone else does this thinking as well and clogs up the highways. Then you're not driving, you're wasting fuel and producing pollutants for no gain. Good job.
I'd have to agree with the post: I don't oppose having better environmental and fuel efficiency standards. It's even a potential boon for people who advocate for "state's rights" and forgot they lost the war. No, the actual problem is that taken in isolation, it's not very effective. It needs more to address the overall problem of energy inefficient use in this country. I personally would rather see much higher gasoline taxes and the use of things like smart lights and congestion toll prices on all highways around urban areas. These would all do more to address the actual problem of energy use and also achieve the same public (market) level of support for fuel efficient cars (notice what happened when gasoline was $4/gal, now imagine if the tax was even half that much and/or the subsidies on energy production were removed as well).
"Advanced Stalking"
2 hours ago
Posts
2 comments:
If onion prices were slashed in half I don't think we'd see that much of an increase in onion use. I think there are limits to this sort of thinking. This is not to take away from the precaution offered by this sort of thinking, and I do think it wise to be mindful of this, but I don't think people will start driving to Alaska and back if gas were much more efficiently used.
I look forward to getting rid of my car when I move. It's nice to have, but at the same time, whenever I see the energy consumption per person in this country vs the rest of the world, I can't help but turn red with shame. I'm no better than most americans with regards to energy consumption.
As the article shows through a few studies, it's not a 1 to 1 rate. I suspect if the price of onions went down (such as during a sale or when they're in season, whenever that is), the use of them would increase. Especially if we're talking about the different, more "foodie" varieties of onions. But it wouldn't go up by a ton. Probably not even as much as the 11% offered for using cars.
Cars have a bit wider utility than an onion also. We can use them to go on vacation, to work, to school, to fun, whatever. Low prices of gas allow us to live farther away from work or do all sorts of commuter trips that aren't really necessary. There's plenty of calculations that get tied into this. So yeah..while it's not exactly the end of the world, it's still adding waste somewhere that need not be by a rebound effect from fuel economy.
The primary reason the developed world is shaming us is they use higher energy fees and thus tax energy inefficiency. Having more costly, but energy efficient, technology is nice, and is helpful. But I think it's only going to increase the amount of "waste" in the system if it's taken by itself, even if it reduces the overall amount of energy used. This is why when people are polled on whether they want conservation or innovation, innovation wins hands down. They're too lazy to make any sacrifices in their habits of use.
Post a Comment