Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / May 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Fuel surcharge proposed by President Bush on RVs, light trucks and SUVs

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Shad O'Shay - 14 May 2007 17:21 GMT
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070514153116.lbav42t7&show_article=1

Bush to detail plan to curb US 'addiction' to foreign oil

President George W. Bush was set Monday to flesh out a plan to slash US
"addiction" to foreign oil by cutting gasoline usage by 20 percent in
the next 10 years, the White House said.
"The president will make an announcement about his directing the
administration to take action to implement his '20 in 10' plan to reduce
the nation's addiction to oil," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

"He will announce his latest efforts to ensure that the nation is taking
aggressive steps to reduce gasoline consumption," he told reporters.

The announcement due at 1725 GMT will flesh out administrative and
regulatory steps to achieving a reduction in oil consumption, while
urging Congress to pass legislation to help meet the target, Snow said.

Bush set out the goal in his State of the Union speech in January,
seeking to slash US oil imports from the restive Middle East by
three-quarters with a view to boosting the security of the world's top
energy-consuming nation.

The US leader wants Congress to pass legislation setting fuel economy
standards that would result in quintupling the current consumption of
renewable and alternative fuels to 35 billion gallons (133 billion
liters) by 2017. Fuel economy standards will penalize low-mileage,
non-commercial vehicles such as recreational vehicles, light trucks and
SUVs. Such vehicles would pay a 25% surcharge at the pump which would go
towards subsidizing alternative energy research and development.

"It is in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply -- and
the way forward is through technology," he said in his January speech,
warning of US vulnerability "to hostile regimes and to terrorists."
do - 14 May 2007 20:07 GMT
> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070514153116.lbav42t7&show_article=1 
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> the way forward is through technology," he said in his January speech,
> warning of US vulnerability "to hostile regimes and to terrorists."

Hell: if they can't get our money with excess profits they'll get it
with taxes and give Big Oil more subsidies to develop alternatives,
technology?? Give me a break. I was born in the dark but not yesterday.
SnoMan - 14 May 2007 22:07 GMT
>Hell: if they can't get our money with excess profits they'll get it
>with taxes and give Big Oil more subsidies to develop alternatives,
>technology?? Give me a break. I was born in the dark but not yesterday.

I think a gas tax is long overdue. If they had put one of 50 cents to
75 cents or so 15 or 20 years ago we would not have been in pickle we
are in today.  People have proven that they will not conserve unless
it hits them in pocket book. One reason the arab world is not to crazy
about the US is because with about 5% or the world population we use
30% or all the oil used in the world and wast a lot of it. If we paid
more for it we would use it wiser but some seem to think that it is
the right to have cheap fuel. Knock yourself out.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
Ron Recer - 14 May 2007 23:45 GMT
>>Hell: if they can't get our money with excess profits they'll get it
>>with taxes and give Big Oil more subsidies to develop alternatives,
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com

OPEC would be unhappy if we greatly reduced our oil usage or measurably
increase our domestic oil production.  It would cause global demand/prices
to decrease.  Besides little of our oil comes from the middle east.

Ron
Dan Listermann - 15 May 2007 01:45 GMT
 Besides little of our oil comes from the middle east.

Oil is so fungible that where it comes from and where it goes does not
matter much.
Ron Recer - 15 May 2007 16:17 GMT
>  Besides little of our oil comes from the middle east.
>
> Oil is so fungible that where it comes from and where it goes does not
> matter much.
I understand that, but was responding to a post that asserted how 'arabs'
supposedly felt about us using large amounts of their oil.

Ron
SnoMan - 16 May 2007 13:39 GMT
>I understand that, but was responding to a post that asserted how 'arabs'
>supposedly felt about us using large amounts of their oil.

I do not think that you do understand though. Arabs are not happy
because we waste it and sure they get money from it but they know the
well will run dry one day and their source of wealth will dry up. They
are angry with US wasting it and wanting to pump more and more of it
at faster rates out of ground and deplete their supply years sooner.
Unlike most US drivers they know that their oil supply in not
unlimited and are no in a hurry to pump it out too quickly. To put
into perspect how much oil we use ever day, it would take about
150,000 semi tanker trucks (which hold about 7000 gallons each) every
day to feed US crude oil hunger and this is growing. THe oil to fill
these trucks is not limitless. Of that amout, it would take 56,000
trucks a day to haul the gas produced and used currently as of April
2007 (it is up over last year by about 700 truck loads a day).  BTW,
The US is the only major "power" that consumes far more oil than they
produce. Only china exceeds it production at this time  but by a far
small amount and china has not devloped its own rpossible reserves.
The US which must import about 15 million barrels of crude a day
(about 60%) just to meet demand (or about 90,000 tanker truck loads a
day)  The Alaskan refuge that they want to tap into has about a 6
month supply of oil  when put into perspective with how much oil is
there and what we use daily. Far more would be gained with
conservation than trying to drill more wells.  
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
miles - 15 May 2007 01:40 GMT
> I think a gas tax is long overdue. If they had put one of 50 cents to
> 75 cents or so 15 or 20 years ago we would not have been in pickle we
> are in today.

Overdue?  We've had a gas tax on all vehicles since 1919 in some states
and federal began in 1932.  It's 18.4 cents a gallon.  Add to that the
average state tax of 25 cents and we're close to your 40 cents.
California is 40 cents a gallon state.  If you want it to cause dramatic
conservation taxes would have to be several $'s as it is in the UK where
gas is about $6.50 a gallon.
Jim Redelfs - 15 May 2007 03:53 GMT
> I think a gas tax is long overdue.

Where have YOU been since FOREVER?  Every gallon of gas you have EVER
purchased has had a federal tax levied on it.  Probably a state tax, too.

> If they had put one of 50 cents to 75 cents or so 15 or 20 years ago
> we would not have been in pickle we are in today.

It wouldn't make ANY difference, even if we WERE in "a pickle" today.  (We
aren't.)  Gas is over $3/gallon and more miles are being driven than ever.

> One reason the arab world is not to crazy about the US is because
> with about 5% or the world population we use 30% or all the oil
> used in the world and wast a lot of it.

You're serious, aren't you?   [shaking head in disbelief]

The Arab world doesn't care ONE BIT where their oil is going or how it is
being used.  Sheesh!   :(

> If we paid more for it we would use it wiser

I doubt it.

Obviously, in your <ahem> "mind", $3.10/gallon is still cheap.

> but some seem to think that it is the right to have cheap fuel.

At what price would you believe it is no longer "cheap"?
Signature

             <sigh>
JR

Dean - 15 May 2007 21:19 GMT
>>Hell: if they can't get our money with excess profits they'll get it
>>with taxes and give Big Oil more subsidies to develop alternatives,
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>-----------------
>TheSnoMan.com
/

Your 'stupid' is showing.  Yes, we use more oil than any other
country.  But we produce the most GNP/barrel, the least pollution per
$ of GNP and, AND, have the best economy of any industrialized
country.

Dean
Jim Redelfs - 16 May 2007 00:45 GMT
> we produce the most GNP/barrel, the least pollution per $ of GNP
> and, AND, have the best economy of any industrialized country.

Horrors!  SHAME on us.
Signature

           :)
JR

Jud Hardcastle - 14 May 2007 23:18 GMT
> Fuel economy standards will penalize low-mileage,
> non-commercial vehicles such as recreational vehicles, light trucks and
> SUVs. Such vehicles would pay a 25% surcharge at the pump which would go
> towards subsidizing alternative energy research and development.

And just HOW does he propose to pull that off technically? Aren't fuel
surcharges normally added by COMPANIES to reflect fuel charges that
exceeded that in their tarriff--IE to pass that charge on to
users/customers? The entire concept is BACKWARDS for consumer fuel.

Is the pump going to recognize an SUV from a economy car or an RV from a
van and add the surcharge? It certainly isn't going to be done by A
HUMAN--I haven't seen a non-self-serve pump in years. Change the pumps
to read a "type of vehicle" card before accepting a credit card? What
would keep you from using a card for your other car? Standardize the
barcode on registration stickers and build barcode readers into the fuel
nozzles? I can see it now--point the nozzle at the sticker and wait for
the pump to go beep. Build a transponder into the car or registration
sticker ala toll tag? Might work but who's going to pay for the reading
equipment at the pump?

The only way I can think that might actually work would be an IRS
refund. IE charge EVERYONE the 25% upfront but then refund it IF the
person itemized gas tickets and proof of ownership of an economy vehicle
(but which vehicle used the fuel?). I don't think this is very "doable".
Signature

Jud
Dallas TX USA

Harry Harris - 14 May 2007 23:40 GMT
>> Fuel economy standards will penalize low-mileage,
>> non-commercial vehicles such as recreational vehicles, light trucks
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> (but which vehicle used the fuel?). I don't think this is very
> "doable".

The easiest way would be to add the fuel mileage surcharge to the
sticker cost of any new gas guzzling vehicle sold. Grandfather the old
ones in. There's no way I can see to single them out at the pump. The
initiative should not be retroactive. That's not fair.

Harry Harris

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

js - 15 May 2007 13:47 GMT
On May 14, 3:18 pm, Jud Hardcastle
<I5i5changethistodash5...@xemaps.com> wrote:
> In article <f2a28q$eu...@aioe.org>, beverlyhi...@steakhouse.org says...> Fuel economy standards will penalize low-mileage,
> > non-commercial vehicles such as recreational vehicles, light trucks and
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Jud
> Dallas TX USA

Jud - Shad made up the second part - about the surcharge for RVs.  The
only way to feasibly differentiate is through a tax on the vehicle,
not the fuel it uses.  There are discussions at the federal level that
have produced suggestions that manufacturers be penalized for their
over consuming fleets which of course will be reflected in the price
of new cars.

The RV Manufacturers Association is apparently not too happy about
this - as one might suspect.

Here's the curious part.  A family of four drives 400 miles in their
car using 20 gallons of gas and stays in a hotel.  Another family of 4
flies the 400 miles using 30 gallons of aviation fuel, rents a car,
and stays in a hotel.  The RV family drives their RV 400 miles, burns
40 gallons of gas and stays at a campground in the woods.

Which family leaves the biggest carbon footprint?

js
Ron Recer - 15 May 2007 16:29 GMT
> On May 14, 3:18 pm, Jud Hardcastle
> <I5i5changethistodash5...@xemaps.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> The RV Manufacturers Association is apparently not too happy about
> this - as one might suspect.

It seems to me that as federal regulations for average miles per gallon have
caused the size of the average car to be reduced, they have become to small
for many families and thus the sales of SUVs and vans have increased.  A lot
of SUVs carry only one passenger, the driver, while many families need the
SUV/van size to carry their kids and the kid's stuff.

Is it better to drive two high mileage low capacity vehicles than one high
capacity low mileage vehicle to move a given number of people from point A
to point B?

Ron

> Here's the curious part.  A family of four drives 400 miles in their
> car using 20 gallons of gas and stays in a hotel.  Another family of 4
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> js
js - 15 May 2007 18:51 GMT
> > On May 14, 3:18 pm, Jud Hardcastle
> > <I5i5changethistodash5...@xemaps.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ron - it depends on the cost per mile including things like
depreciation, maintenance, fuel, insurance, etc.

If you have one 50K SUV at 15 miles per gallon the breakeven is NOT
two 25K 30 mpg compacts.

js
Jerry - 15 May 2007 19:16 GMT
> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070514153116.lbav42t7&show_article=1
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> the way forward is through technology," he said in his January speech,
> warning of US vulnerability "to hostile regimes and to terrorists."

Shad is here for one reason, to troll.  Ignore him and he'll go away.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.