«

As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
branches the following occured to me last night.

The United States spends an incredible amount of money to protect its
oil supply worldwide as a strategic economic neccesity. It pays in many
lives as well as taxpayer money.

Why does the United States not take a "strategic" initiative with
respect to reducing oil _consumption_? This would mean:

1) Mandating higher gasoline taxes for gas guzzlers and credits to
efficient cars.

With todays technology an RFID can easilly be mated to a vehicle licence
plate to tell the pump what tax rate/rebate to apply to a particular
vehicle. This is better than revising CAFE and will self adjust as the
mpg goal changes every few years. Even set a goal mpg where the
gasoline is free for vehicles that meet the goal (paid for by the worst
guzzlers).

2) Part of thje guzzler tax would go to the "efficient" users, part of
the taxes would go to funding for more mass transit.

3) Mandating minimum ethanol content in all gasoline (10%).

4) Mandating speed governors on vehicles with a radio module that
receives speed limit data from road side transmitters. The vehcile
would be allowed a 10 mph above limit buffer, but no more.

"Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
news:uy9ag.49962$.. .
>
> As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
> branches the following occured to me last night.
>
> The United States spends an incredible amount of money to protect its oil
> supply worldwide as a strategic economic neccesity. It pays in many lives
> as well as taxpayer money.
>
> Why does the United States not take a "strategic" initiative with respect
> to reducing oil _consumption_? This would mean:
>
> 1) Mandating higher gasoline taxes for gas guzzlers and credits to
> efficient cars.
>
> With todays technology an RFID can easilly be mated to a vehicle licence
> plate to tell the pump what tax rate/rebate to apply to a particular
> vehicle. This is better than revising CAFE and will self adjust as the
> mpg goal changes every few years. Even set a goal mpg where the gasoline
> is free for vehicles that meet the goal (paid for by the worst guzzlers).
>
> 2) Part of thje guzzler tax would go to the "efficient" users, part of the
> taxes would go to funding for more mass transit.
>
> 3) Mandating minimum ethanol content in all gasoline (10%).
>
> 4) Mandating speed governors on vehicles with a radio module that receives
> speed limit data from road side transmitters. The vehcile would be
> allowed a 10 mph above limit buffer, but no more.
>
Because many of the above things go against the grain for our people's idea
of keeping the government out of our faces....Any politician that pushes
those kinds of things would be soundly trounced in the next election. I'm
not saying that the ideas are necessarily bad....I'm just answering your
question....

On Mon, 15 May 2006 21:04:26 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
> branches the following occured to me last night.
>
> The United States spends an incredible amount of money to protect its
> oil supply worldwide as a strategic economic neccesity. It pays in many
> lives as well as taxpayer money.
>
> Why does the United States not take a "strategic" initiative with
> respect to reducing oil _consumption_? This would mean:
>
> 1) Mandating higher gasoline taxes for gas guzzlers and credits to
> efficient cars.
>

Why? We already tax the rich and give to the poor, lazy, and gov't
employee's.

> With todays technology an RFID can easilly be mated to a vehicle licence
> plate to tell the pump what tax rate/rebate to apply to a particular
> vehicle. This is better than revising CAFE and will self adjust as the
> mpg goal changes every few years. Even set a goal mpg where the
> gasoline is free for vehicles that meet the goal (paid for by the worst
> guzzlers).
>

As if high prices aren't punishment enough?

> 2) Part of thje guzzler tax would go to the "efficient" users, part of
> the taxes would go to funding for more mass transit.
>

Oh sure, good idea...not.

> 3) Mandating minimum ethanol content in all gasoline (10%).
>

It already is being done, especially in the winter time, problem is there
is not enough ethanol available for the demand.

> 4) Mandating speed governors on vehicles with a radio module that
> receives speed limit data from road side transmitters. The vehcile
> would be allowed a 10 mph above limit buffer, but no more.

Unsafe, poor pipe dream, irrational.

Do your part for yourself, don't impose on me while you are doing it, don't
expect me to subsidize your sorry ass.

Most people who aren't foolish know that the money taken away in taxes for
"special projects/needs" always end up in another fund of an unrelated
project or line the pockets of their "friends".

When you go slow to save MPG then for heavens sake stay in the right hand
lane else you are the cause of others increased driving costs when you back
up traffic and they try to work their way around you.

If the cost of fuel is too high for you then take the bus or rapid transit
depending on where you live, or sell and move closer to work.

Alan Browne wrote:
>
> As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
> branches the following occured to me last night.
>
> The United States spends an incredible amount of money to protect its
> oil supply worldwide as a strategic economic neccesity. It pays in many
> lives as well as taxpayer money.
>
> Why does the United States not take a "strategic" initiative with
> respect to reducing oil _consumption_? This would mean:
>
> 1) Mandating higher gasoline taxes for gas guzzlers and credits to
> efficient cars.
>
><< Snipped bits out >>
>
> 2) Part of thje guzzler tax would go to the "efficient" users, part of
> the taxes would go to funding for more mass transit.

Oddly enough, I wrote a paper for my Master's degree almost 40 years ago
proposing same, although no transfer to "efficient" cars.

>
> 3) Mandating minimum ethanol content in all gasoline (10%).

Ethanol comes about through incentives, economics.
>
> 4) Mandating speed governors on vehicles with a radio module that
> receives speed limit data from road side transmitters. The vehcile
> would be allowed a 10 mph above limit buffer, but no more.
>

There's not a snowball's chance in Hell on this last one, for reasons
already enumerated.

Would this latter fly in Canada, or any country represented here?

--
john mcwilliams

Why? Because the government cannot figure out how to make Air Force
One fly from Washington DC to California on E-85 fuel __ to allow a
bike riding-guy from Texas a chance to show he can pedal his bike just
like the regular bike riders.
= = =
Alan Browne wrote:
> As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
> branches the following occured to me last night.
>
SNIP
> receives speed limit data from road side transmitters. The vehcile
> would be allowed a 10 mph above limit buffer, but no more.

Alan Browne wrote:

>
> As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
> branches the following occured to me last night.
>
> The United States spends an incredible amount of money to protect its
> oil supply worldwide as a strategic economic neccesity. It pays in many
> lives as well as taxpayer money.
>
> Why does the United States not take a "strategic" initiative with
> respect to reducing oil _consumption_? This would mean:
>
> 1) Mandating higher gasoline taxes for gas guzzlers and credits to
> efficient cars.
>
> With todays technology an RFID can easilly be mated to a vehicle licence
> plate to tell the pump what tax rate/rebate to apply to a particular
> vehicle. This is better than revising CAFE and will self adjust as the
> mpg goal changes every few years. Even set a goal mpg where the
> gasoline is free for vehicles that meet the goal (paid for by the worst
> guzzlers).

So how many days do you think it is going to take before a market develops
in bootleg RFID devices which report to the pump that your Navigator is a
moped?

> 2) Part of thje guzzler tax would go to the "efficient" users, part of
> the taxes would go to funding for more mass transit.

What is an "efficient user"?

> 3) Mandating minimum ethanol content in all gasoline (10%).

Which accomplishes what other than a farm subsidy?

> 4) Mandating speed governors on vehicles with a radio module that
> receives speed limit data from road side transmitters. The vehcile
> would be allowed a 10 mph above limit buffer, but no more.

So how long do you think it will be before people discover that putting some
tinfoil around the antenna or cutting the wire to it causes the governor to
respond as if it is in an area where control has not yet been implemented?

Sure, you can come up with counterstrategies. In every case they will cost
more to implement than they will cost to defeat.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Alan Browne wrote:
>
> As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
> branches the following occured to me last night.
>
> The United States spends an incredible amount of money to protect its
> oil supply worldwide as a strategic economic neccesity. It pays in many
> lives as well as taxpayer money.
>
> Why does the United States not take a "strategic" initiative with
> respect to reducing oil _consumption_?

'Cause the guys in the White House didn't get rich from encouraging
conservation.

98% of everything these clowns do boils down to maximizing oil company
profits [the other 2% is makin' sure they don't have to pay any taxes on
those profits].

Single answer to all your questions:

We don't have leaders in the US, we have gutless sacks of **** who are
bought and paid for by big corporations and special interests. The current
administration, whose "energy policy" was based on consumption, is merely
the latest in a very long line of totally inept hacks when it comes to doing
anything about the energy habits of the US. We need leaders, we get Nixon,
Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. If's ****ing embarassing.

"J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>
>> As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
>> branches the following occured to me last night.
>>
>> The United States spends an incredible amount of money to protect its
>> oil supply worldwide as a strategic economic neccesity. It pays in many
>> lives as well as taxpayer money.
>>
>> Why does the United States not take a "strategic" initiative with
>> respect to reducing oil _consumption_? This would mean:
>>
>> 1) Mandating higher gasoline taxes for gas guzzlers and credits to
>> efficient cars.
>>
>> With todays technology an RFID can easilly be mated to a vehicle licence
>> plate to tell the pump what tax rate/rebate to apply to a particular
>> vehicle. This is better than revising CAFE and will self adjust as the
>> mpg goal changes every few years. Even set a goal mpg where the
>> gasoline is free for vehicles that meet the goal (paid for by the worst
>> guzzlers).
>
> So how many days do you think it is going to take before a market develops
> in bootleg RFID devices which report to the pump that your Navigator is a
> moped?
>
>> 2) Part of thje guzzler tax would go to the "efficient" users, part of
>> the taxes would go to funding for more mass transit.
>
> What is an "efficient user"?
>
>> 3) Mandating minimum ethanol content in all gasoline (10%).
>
> Which accomplishes what other than a farm subsidy?
>
>> 4) Mandating speed governors on vehicles with a radio module that
>> receives speed limit data from road side transmitters. The vehcile
>> would be allowed a 10 mph above limit buffer, but no more.
>
> So how long do you think it will be before people discover that putting
> some
> tinfoil around the antenna or cutting the wire to it causes the governor
> to
> respond as if it is in an area where control has not yet been implemented?
>
> Sure, you can come up with counterstrategies. In every case they will
> cost
> more to implement than they will cost to defeat.
>
And they don't endear us to the government, either. In the early 80's they
stopped selling 100+ octane gasoline, and my perfectly good, fairly new, BMW
motorcycle began to ping horribly. I made several minor engine
modifications, (stronger centrifugal advance springs, for example) but I
couldn't get the pinging to stop. So, I had to trade it in for a new model.
This didn't endear me to the government. It constituted the only sacrifice I
ever expected to make toward being friendly to the environment. - A
sacrifice of several thousand dollars.....Now, when they ask me to buy
environmentally friendly vehicles, I tell them to "shove it".....

J. Clarke wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
>>branches the following occured to me last night.
>>
>>The United States spends an incredible amount of money to protect its
>>oil supply worldwide as a strategic economic neccesity. It pays in many
>>lives as well as taxpayer money.
>>
>>Why does the United States not take a "strategic" initiative with
>>respect to reducing oil _consumption_? This would mean:
>>
>>1) Mandating higher gasoline taxes for gas guzzlers and credits to
>>efficient cars.
>>
>>With todays technology an RFID can easilly be mated to a vehicle licence
>>plate to tell the pump what tax rate/rebate to apply to a particular
>>vehicle. This is better than revising CAFE and will self adjust as the
>>mpg goal changes every few years. Even set a goal mpg where the
>>gasoline is free for vehicles that meet the goal (paid for by the worst
>>guzzlers).
>
>
> So how many days do you think it is going to take before a market develops
> in bootleg RFID devices which report to the pump that your Navigator is a
> moped?

If a "Moped" comes to the pump, the pump will allow it x gallons. That
RFID code is suspended for 24 hours.


>
>
>>2) Part of thje guzzler tax would go to the "efficient" users, part of
>>the taxes would go to funding for more mass transit.
>
>
> What is an "efficient user"?

It begins with a choice of an efficient vehicle. If you _really_ need a
larger vehicle, you'll certainy be willing to pay for it.


>
>
>>3) Mandating minimum ethanol content in all gasoline (10%).
>
>
> Which accomplishes what other than a farm subsidy?

See other posts. Asked and answered.
>
>
>>4) Mandating speed governors on vehicles with a radio module that
>>receives speed limit data from road side transmitters. The vehcile
>>would be allowed a 10 mph above limit buffer, but no more.
>
>
> So how long do you think it will be before people discover that putting some
> tinfoil around the antenna or cutting the wire to it causes the governor to
> respond as if it is in an area where control has not yet been implemented?

The next layer of this is enforcement of course. Much like if you sell
cigarettes untaxed or sell moonshine.

>
> Sure, you can come up with counterstrategies. In every case they will cost
> more to implement than they will cost to defeat.

Since there are a lot of counterstrategies it would appear that they
payoff. For example, last time I was in Munich, the subway had no
attendants or turnstiles. You paid, you punched the right number of
lines for the distance and off you went. From time to time there is an
inspection party. Big fines for cheating...

The real point is not all the implementation details, but the
recognition that left to their own freewill, most people will continue
to waste energy prolifically. It is quite easy to turn that off.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.