Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Inspired (as I often am) by either the insights or the foolishness of a guest post at Judith Curry’s always-provocative blog, I decided to take a look at the relationship between fuel price and miles driven. My inspiration came from my amusement at the guest author’s use of the following graph to establish a relationship between fuel cost and how much people use their cars. I think a relationship exists, but the graph used by the author doesn’t show it. Figure 1 shows that graph:
Figure 1. Per capita fuel use, compared to the fuel price, for the OECD countries. SOURCE
Now, it certainly looks like there’s a clear relationship there, but that’s an illusion. My objection to the graph was, the countries divide into two groups. On the bottom right you have the European OECD countries, plus Japan. Plus one fish.
On the top left, you have the US, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. What’s not to like?
Well, ignoring fuel price for the moment, who would you think would drive more miles—a citizen of the US, or a citizen of Japan? An Aussie, or a Belgian? A Canadian, or an Italian? So all the guest author has shown in that graph is that the folks in large countries, with miles and miles between cities, drive more than Europeans and Japanese.
But of course, I couldn’t leave it there, so I linked to the following lovely graph of automobile use in the US that I ran across during my research. It shows, year by year since 1956, how many miles Americans have driven, and what the gas price was during that year.
Figure 2. Miles driven compared to the fuel price. Click to embiggen. SOURCE
Now that shows some very interesting patterns. The main oddity I noticed is that there is what might be termed a price shock effect—in the year of a big jump in prices, for example 1974, the mileage driven drops compared to the previous year. But then look what happens from 1974 to 1978 … the price stays stable, but the number of miles driven each year goes up steadily, without reversal.
But of course, I couldn’t leave it there. I digitized the data, to see what kind of relationships I could understand and reveal through further analysis. And as usual, I was surprised by what I found.
First, taking the data as it is given, there is no statistically significant relationship between the two variables, pump price and miles driven. The R2 is only 0.03. (“R2” is a measure of the relationship between two datasets, where an R2 of 1.0 indicates a perfectly linear relationship between the two, and an R2 of 0.00 indicates no relationship. So an R2 of 0.03 is … well … pathetic. So as far as a direct relationship between prices and miles driven, not happening.
Once I saw that, I wondered, well, what if I include a temporal trend in the linear regression? The way that I usually do that is simply to include the date as a variable. And to my surprise, the R2 went from 0.03 up to 0.98 … Figure 3 shows an emulation (multiple linear regression result) of the number of miles that Americans drive, versus the value estimated based on year and pump price.
Figure 3. The emulation is a multiple linear regression, using the year and the pump price as independent variables, and the actual average miles driven by Americans as the dependent variable. R2 = 0.98
Dang, sez I … that’s pretty impressive.
But of course, I couldn’t leave it there. A fixed annual increment, a simple trend like I used, is just a way to understand the data. It’s not an explanation involving some plausible mechanism. And more to the point, I also didn’t like those two years up at the top right of Figure 3, which are 2009 and 2010. In those years, Americans drove about a thousand miles less than expected. So I though about why that might be, and even a bear of little brain would go “global financial meltdown, duh”. And that made sense overall as well, because how far I drive doesn’t just depend on the pump price. It also depends in part on how much money I have in my jeans. When I’m flush I drive more, and when times get hard, I drive less regardless of the price of gas.
So I thought that instead of using the year, I’d try using the per-capita GDP as the second independent variable. Figure 4 shows those results.
Figure 4. The emulation is a multiple linear regression, using the real per capita GDP and the pump price as independent variables, and the actual average miles driven by Americans as the dependent variable. R^2 = 0.98 GDP SOURCE
Yowzah! Now that’s what I call shaving with Occam’s razor. It turns out that pump price and per capita GDP do an excellent job of estimating the number of miles driven, with very little error.
So, what does the magic equation that gives us the excellent results shown in Figure 4 say about the relationship between miles driven on the one hand, and gas price and per capita GDP on the other?
Well, it says that for every twenty-five-cent increase in the pump price of gas, Americans drive about a hundred miles less. Gas price goes up, miles driven go down. Makes sense.
And it says that for every $430 increase in per capita GDP, Americans drive about a hundred miles more. Wealth goes up, miles driven goes up. Also makes sense.
Now, the “carbon taxes” I’ve seen discussed are on the order of $20-$30 per tonne of CO2. And by coincidence, $28 per tonne of CO2 emitted is equal to twenty-five cents per gallon of gasoline. So if a $28/tonne carbon tax is imposed on gasoline, how much less might Americans drive?
Well … a hundred miles less … wow, such a stupendous gain, be still, my beating heart …
And how much actual change in our driving habits is a hundred miles less per year?
Well … since Americans drive about 10,000 miles per year, it’s a gigantic, massive reduction in miles driven of one percent.
And that, dear friends, is all the bang you get for your twenty-five-cent per gallon carbon based energy tax. A one percent reduction in miles driven. One freaking percent, and they want to impoverish the poor for that? Grrrr ….
So … what does this mean for the debate on carbon-based energy taxes?
First, it means that in the American situation, there is no way that the benefits of energy taxes are worth the cost. Why? Because the effect of a typical CO2-based energy tax on miles driven is minuscule, only a 1% reduction for a $28 per tonne of CO2 energy tax.
Next, a very slight increase in per capita GDP will nullify the energy tax entirely. Also by coincidence, it turns out that if the current per capita GDP goes up by about 1% (~$430), that will increase the mileage driven by 100 miles … so a 1% increase in per capita GDP will completely nullify a $28 per tonne of CO2 energy tax. And the GDP goes up by one percent all the time …
Next, it means that in order to have more than a one-year effect, the tax will have to continually rise.
The problem with a carbon based energy tax can be seen by thinking back to Figure 2, where I noted the “shock effect”, and how after the slight reduction in miles driven as a result of the 1974 big jump in pump price, after that one-year reduction the miles driven went right back to increasing year after year, with no change in the gas price.
So a one-time jump in the price will make little difference, just a one-year reduction in the miles driven. But by the next year or two, assuming that the per-capita GDP continues to rise as it has in the past, the miles driven will be rising again.
Next, it means that a carbon-based gasoline tax is wildly regressive. To see why, let me start with a slight digression, by bringing in a concept from accounting, that of “fixed”, “variable”, and “semi-variable” costs.
Fixed costs are those costs you can’t do anything about. The amounts are fixed, you can’t reduce them, you just have to pay them.. Maybe rent. Taxes.
Variable costs are costs that are entirely optional. Think maybe eating at restaurants. You don’t have to spend a penny on that if you don’t want to.
Semi-variable costs are costs that you can change, but you can’t eliminate entirely. These would be things like food costs. You can run them up or down, but you can’t eliminate them.
Now, think about the corresponding concepts as applied to the subject at hand—fixed, variable, and semi-variable miles driven.
Fixed miles are things like a commute to work. Short of changing your job or your residence, you can’t change that. You just rack up those miles every year.
Variable miles are things on the order of visiting Grandma in Arizona. You love to do it, but you don’t have to go.
Semi-variable miles are things like going to the post office to get your mail. You can cut the trips down, but not to zero.
What this graph shows me is that any energy tax on gasoline will hit the hardest on the poorest, the people who mostly use their car to get to work. The problem is not just that more of the wages of the poor go to energy, although that is also a problem.
But in addition to the higher percentage of their wages going to energy, the majority of their miles are fixed miles, so they can’t cut back on them. They have to drive them, so they have to pay the tax.
For the wealthy, on the other hand, lots of their miles driven are variable or semi-variable, so they can just scale down a bit. The energy tax means nothing to them. But for the poor, it can be a budget-buster.
This is one of the many reason why energy taxes are so regressive—because for the poor, fixed costs for everything squeeze them all the time, not just fixed fuel costs but also the other bills they have to pay every month. So when energy prices go up, Al Gore and James Hansen just cut back on visiting the grandchildren they love to talk about, no problem for them.
But the single mom whose gas budget barely covers getting to work, she can’t cut back on her gas use, it’s already cut to the bone. So when she pays the energy tax, she is forced to cut back on something for either the kids or herself.
And all of that for a pathetic 1% reduction in miles driven. That’s criminal.
Now please, folks, don’t insult my intelligence by claiming that it’s OK to harm the poor because of that well-worn fantasy, the fabulous claim that wealth redistribution will make it all OK. It won’t. Anyone who believes it will make it all OK has not spent enough time around government programs.
To start with, even the best-intentioned programs only reach a percentage of those most affected. Next, the poorer that people are, the less likely they are to hear about such programs. Think people living in apartments versus people living in their cars. Next, the paperwork required is all too often complex, confusing, and intrusive. Next, many of the poorest people are mistrustful of government. Also, immigrants are often equally fearful of government, and many don’t speak the language. Next, the people who end up getting the most benefits are often not those who suffered the most losses. Next, administering such a program requires a large expensive workforce of bureaucrats and paper pushers to make it function. And of course, they’re all Union, can’t be fired, plus we’ll be stuck paying these pluted bloatocrats their megabucks in retirement money ’til they shuffle off to a warmer place … and I’m not thinking Florida. Next, as with any government program, waste will consume more than you imagine. Think IRS conferences in Las Vegas and thousand dollar hammers. Next, parasitic rent-seekers like lawyers and consultants will be circling the honey-pot and making off with some of that good honey. And finally, there’s never been a government program that people didn’t scam, game, and cheat, so somewhere between a little and a lot of money will simply be stolen.
So no, wealth distribution will only make things worse, or on the best day with a following wind it might “break even” by taking from one bunch of the poor and giving to another bunch … and meanwhile the people at the bottom of the economic pile are hit the hardest. And whether you are a conservative or a liberal, that should appall you.
And finally … we’re going to create all that pain and create a giant bureaucracy and waste piles of money for a crappy 1% reduction in miles driven, a temporary reduction that will be wiped out by the next 1% increase in per capita GDP?
Really? That’s the brilliant plan? Screw the poor and the economy for a 1% reduction in miles driven?
Spare me. That’s more than foolish, that’s a crime against the indigent and everyone else in the country. Almost any other conceivable response to the imagined horrors of CO2 would be preferable. Taxes on energy are destructive and damaging to individuals, to businesses, to the environment, to the economy, and more than anything to the poor, and to turn it from mindless idiocy to criminal tragedy, there is nothing to show for it at the end of the day but a temporary 1% reduction in miles driven—from an energy tax, there’s no lasting gain, only lasting pain.
w.
DATA: The spreadsheet with the data and graphs is here.
[UPDATE] I just wondered, how much will the $28 per tonne of CO2 gasoline tax cost per year? Average fuel economy of the US fleet, cars and trucks, is about twenty mpg. Average person drives ten thousand miles, at twenty mpg that’s five hundred gallons. The tax at twenty-five cents per gallon on five hundred gallons is $125 per year.
In response to that tax, we can expect people to cut fuel use by 1%, or 5 gallons per year. Gas is around four bucks a gallon, so that’s $20 worth.
So the plan is to charge the average driver $125 per year in gas tax, and in response to that he’ll use $20 less gas, reducing his bill at the pump from $2,000 per year to $1,980 per year and cutting his CO2 emissions by a whacking great 1% … who thinks these plans up, and how can we catch them and stop them?
[UPDATE 2] I also got to wondering, just how much CO2 would a $28 per tonne of CO2 applied to gasoline consumption actually save? There’s 8.9 kg (19.6 pounds) of CO2 in a gallon of gasoline. Crazy but true, it’s the extra weight of the oxygen. So we’d be saving one whole percent of that, or .089 kg per gallon. Multiply that by the number of gallons of gasoline burned in the US, about 134E+9 gallons, and we end up with 0.01 gigatonnes (billion metric tonnes, E+9 tonnes) of CO2 saved.
And compared to a hundredth of a gigatonne, how large are the global CO2 emissions? Well, it’s about 9 gigatonnes of carbon C emitted per year, so as CO2 the mass is (16 + 16 + 12) / 12 of that to allow for the extra weight of the oxygen, or 33 gigatonnes of CO2 per year.
And the $28 carbon based energy tax would reduce that by 0.01 gigatonnes of CO2, which is a reduction of three hundredths of one percent (0.03%) … folks, have we truly gone so mad that such a trivial gain, three hundredth of one percent reduction in CO2 emissions, so small as to be absolutely unmeasurable, is used to justify this crazy tax?
All those “take a bus or bicycle, or a train” comments make me very angry.
They are made by people who have no idea, yet possess the audacity to teach others how to live.
Buses and trains are heavily subsidized. I take UK as example. If majority of nation took to trains and buses, the nation would go bankrupt. Train companies say that they raise prices to cool demand, because trains are overcrowded as they are.
When I lived in London, I did not have a car. I walked everywhere, and if it was too far, I took a bus, or a train.
Now I live in a small town, and not having a car is equivalent of being in home prison. There is no train to take my kids to school, and no bus to the shop. If I try bicycling down our country lanes, I’d better make sure my Will is up to date, as I will be running a high chance of being a roadkill.
And no, I don’t drive in circles just to burn fuel, believe it or not, and I dont need to be told what to do.
Great job, WIllis. You really have to be amused by people arguing your logic when you have an R^2 of 0.98. No model is perfect (or should be considered so). But wouldn’t climate alarmists just die to have the climate agree half as well with their models?
John says:
July 10, 2013 at 4:58 am
I didn’t know that anybody needs a car to survive. I wonder how people survived 100 years ago.
I would say that at least 80% of poor people wouldn’t need a car if there would be sufficient public transport system. They would save money as well and could afford more and could have better life, but it is…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Geez, are you really that dumb??? A 100 years ago there WAS NO TAX at least in the USA. If you own land now YOU HAVE TO PAY TAX or you lose it. That means you have to earn money and that means you have to sell your labor or the fruits of your labor in some manner. That means TRANSPORTATION.
Second you have the RURAL POOR thanks again to the big Ag Corporations. For the USA according to the United States Department of Agriculture:
In 2011, 17.0 percent of the population, or nearly 8.2 million people, living in nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) areas were poor.
You really need to start looking at a bit of history.
So from the very start of the USA there was political favoritism for the big boys AND the farmers were making and shipping goods to market.
BTW, the Whiskey Rebellion has still not completely died out. The NSS lost more than one caver ridge walking looking for new caves to being shot to death in the very poor rural areas of the USA.
I don’t understand. Are the “years” and the “pump price” multiplied together to get the “emulated miles driven?” What is the relationship between these variables?
“3×2 says:
July 10, 2013 at 12:22 pm
Why are you not currently scrounging for food, shelter and fuel like a typical Ethiopian today (or an unemployed English Cotton worker in 1863)?”
And even Ethiopians in good paying jobs, some westerners are probably wearing sneakers made there right now, are having to do that too.
Willis: “Oh, right, the mythical payroll tax reduction … as an advocate of that, I’m sure you can explain how that helps the unemployed guy sleeping in his car and looking for work?
What’s that? It doesn’t help him?
Then how in the hell can you call it “revenue neutral” with a straight face?
Re-read the section I wrote above about your “revenue neutral” nonsense.”
Of course the effect of a tax cannot be neutral for everyone, but I think the payroll tax break I suggested would actually benefit almost every low-income family with a member on a payroll.
Even “the unemployed guy sleeping in his car and looking for work” would probably be better off if an RN carbon tax replaced the market distorting maze of subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy that we have now. If potential employers were not paying various taxes and fees to support those subsidies, they might be able to afford to hire him.
This article is a real blast of common sense and scientific revelation. It shines like a light in a dark Climate Changed World.
Mike M says:
July 10, 2013 at 5:38 am
John says: “I wonder how people survived 100 years ago. ”
Wonder no more, the answer is – no where NEAR as well as today!
In 1913 most everyone still got around by horse power…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Too right.
My husband’s aunt delivered milk everyday in a pony cart. This would be in before heading off to school.
People like john do not seem to realize child labor and slavery ended not because of the do-gooders but because of the Industrial Revolution and access to cheap Energy. I have friends I grew up with and worked with who grew up in houses with no electric or plumbing. Who did farm chores before and after school and got yanked out of school to help as needed. One guy was over 21 and dating a teacher while a senior in high school. Not because he was dumb but because he had missed so much school. (This was upstate New York BTW)
As author of the original study criticized in this blog, let me respond. Willis Eschenbach fails to address the key issues raised in my study.
I agree with Eschenbach that the graph he criticizes (Figure 4 in my report) by itself does not prove that fuel price affects per capita vehicle travel. My study provides much more evidence. It reviewed more than a half-century of fuel and travel elasticity literature. It highlights four key features:
1. Many demographic and economic factors affect transportation price sensitivities including age, income, employment rates, and the quality of transportation options available to travelers. In particular, per capita fuel consumption tends to be much lower and transportation elasticities tend to be much higher in communities with good walking, cycling and public transit, where residents have viable alternatives to driving.
2. Long-run elasticities (more than five years) are typically three times short-run (less than two years).
3. About two-thirds of the long-run response to fuel price changes consists of changes in vehicle fuel economy (more miles-per-gallon), and one third consists of changes in mileage. Measuring just one or the other will underestimate total fuel savings.
4. Price sensitivities seem to have increased significantly in recent years. Although fuel and travel elasticities seem to be quite low in the U.S. during the last quarter of the twentieth century, a number of studies indicate that they have returned to historically normal levels.
Eschenbach’s analysis fails to address these issues. His regression analysis does not account for demographic, economic and geographic trends during the last quarter of the twentieth century which stimulate automobile travel demand. It only reflects short-term impacts although carbon taxes are intended to affect very long-run consumption. It only considers changes in mileage, not the much larger changes in fuel consumption. It does not evaluate separately the different time periods as my study indicates is needed for accurate results.
My overall conclusion is that the long-run elasticity of fuel consumption to price is typically -0.4 to -0.8 (a durable 10% fuel price increase causes consumption to decline 4-8%), and the long-run elasticity of vehicle travel with respect to fuel price to be -0.2 to -0.3 (a durable 10% fuel price increase typically causes per capita vehicle-mileage to decline 2-3%). Eschenbach and others have found significantly lower elasticities in the U.S. between 1970 and 2004, which probably reflected demographic and economic trends during that period including rising employment rates and real incomes, declining real fuel prices, highway expansions and suburbanization. Many of these trends are now reversing. As a result, U.S. fuel elasticities are likely to increase to historically and geographically normal levels.
These elasticity values are less than unity, so fuel is considered “inelastic”, but much more price sensitive than Eschenbach concludes. The long-run reduction in vehicle travel is two or three times higher than his short-run estimates, the reduction in fuel consumption is two or three times higher than his vehicle-travel reductions, impacts tend to increase if transport options improve, and these are all economic transfers not economic costs, their ultimate impacts on consumers and the economy depend on how revenues are used. Eschenbach adds two common but incorrect assumptions, that carbon taxes are inherently regressive (they harm the poor) and that they are economically harmful. The regressivity of fuel prices depends on the quality of transport options and how revenues are used. If lower income people have good alternatives to driving and revenues are used in ways that benefit poor people, fuel/carbon taxes can be progressive overall. Yes, crude oil price spikes are economically harmful because money is transferred to petroleum producers, but if carbon tax revenues substitute for more economically harmful taxes, such as income or sales taxes, it can support economic development.
A good example is the country of Norway, which is a petroleum producer, has one of the world’s highest incomes and GDPs, has a cold climate and low population density, yet maintains one of the world’s highest fuel taxes and maintains a multi-modal transportation system which encourages walking, cycling and public transit where possible. As a result, Norwegians drive about half as many annual kilometers and consume about half as much petroleum per capita as in the U.S. By discouraging domestic consumption Norway has more petroleum to export, making it more economically successful overall.
For more information:
François Boilard (2010), “Gasoline Demand In Canada: Parameter Stability Analysis,” EnerInfo, Vol. 15/3, Fall, Centre for Data and Analysis in Transportation, Université Laval (www.cdat.ecn.ulaval.ca); at http://www.fss.ulaval.ca/cms_recherche/upload/cdat_en/fichiers/ioiriofo,_vo.15,_oumbir_3,_f_2010.pdf.
Dan Brand (2009), “Impacts of Higher Fuel Costs,” Federal Highway Administration, (www.fhwa.dot.gov); at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/innovation/issue1/impacts.htm.
Kenneth Gillingham (2010), Identifying the Elasticity of Driving: Evidence from a Gasoline Price Shock in California, Stanford University (www.stanford.edu); at http://www.stanford.edu/~kgilling/Gillingham_IdentifyingElasticityofDriving.pdf.
Shanjun Li, Joshua Linn and Erich Muehlegger (2011), “Gasoline Taxes and Consumer Behavior,” Stanford (http://economics.stanford.edu); at http://economics.stanford.edu/files/muehlegger3_15.pdf.
Todd Litman (2005), “Efficient Vehicles Versus Efficient Transportation: Comparing Transportation Energy Conservation Strategies,” Transport Policy, Vol. 12/2, March, pp. 121-129; at http://www.vtpi.org/cafe.pdf.
Todd Litman (2011), “Transportation Elasticities: How Prices and Other Factors Affect Travel Behavior,” Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at http://www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf.
Todd Litman (2012), “Changing North American Vehicle-Travel Price Sensitivities: Implications For Transport and Energy Policy,” Transport Policy, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.06.010; at http://www.vtpi.org/VMT_Elasticities.pdf.
Fred Pearce (2011), “End of the Road for Motormania,” New Scientist, 2825 (www.newscientist.com); at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128255.600-the-end-of-the-road-for-motormania.html.
Elisheba Spiller and Heather M. Stephens (2012), “The Heterogeneous Effects of Gasoline Taxes: Why Where We Live Matters,” Resources for the Future (www.rff.org); at http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-DP-12-30.pdf; complete report at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2129396.
Clark Williams-Derry (2011), “Toll Avoidance And Transportation Funding: Official Estimates Frequently Overestimate Traffic And Revenue For Toll Roads,” Sightline Institute (www.sightline.org); at http://www.sightline.org/research/sprawl/toll-avoidance-and-transportation-funding.
John says: @ur momisugly July 10, 2013 at 5:43 am
…..It is impossible, that some can’t just accept that car riding is a cultural thing not economical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right…
Anyone else want to fund John’s move to a place like Sutton County, Texas? There is a nice place for sale prefect for furthering his education. link
I am sure our Canadian and Aussie friends can also pick some nice spots for him to live in too.
Bring your bike John and don’t for get the several gallons of water.
John says:
July 10, 2013 at 6:53 am
Of course they would like to change with me, because I’ve made decisions to give me a choice.
I just can’t see how it relates to those who drive a car, because they can’t be poor when they can afford to have a car even a 20 year’s old one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is YOUR CHOICE.
I lived in cities in apartments for most of my adult life. I FINALLY have my farm. My husband is in his seventies and I am in my sixties. We live on what was a dirt road in the south with the temperature in the high eighties to 100F (30C to 38C) the humidity ~60 to 80%.
You want me to bike on narrow roads for over 35 miles to go shopping??? To pick up 500lbs of feed??? You are either very very myopic, selfish or as someone else stated an idiot troll.
I think you miss my point. English Cotton in 1863 or Ethiopian ‘Sneakers’ in 2013. Both represent ‘wealth’ that didn’t exist before. Wealth is not a constant!
Todd Litman says:
July 10, 2013 at 12:50 pm
“A good example is the country of Norway, which is a petroleum producer, has one of the world’s highest incomes and GDPs, has a cold climate and low population density, yet maintains one of the world’s highest fuel taxes and maintains a multi-modal transportation system which encourages walking, cycling and public transit where possible. ”
I’m friggin 67 years old. I’m not walking,cycling, or riding public transportation. .I worked over 50 years and that has provided us with a retirement income sufficient enough to do almost anything we want, within reason. It’s called freedom the American way.I frequently thank my ancestors for fleeing Europe about 100 years ago. Socialist democracies don’t not appeal to me. They may be your ideal, but not mine. Imitating Europe is a bad thing.
I stopped reading John’s comments after the sentence, “In short term the increase of price will hurt the poor, but in long run they would be forced to change their habits and they may even benefit from the increase.” It brings to mind one of my favorite lines from Robert Heinlein:
“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.” From The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. It’s that word, FORCED. Who decides what change is good, and what change is bad? If John were forced by the government to buy a car and abandon the bicycle because cars are safer (never mind whether or not this statement is actually true or not–the government won’t care as long as it serves its purpose) would he like that? I’d fight for John to be able to keep his bicycle.
Almost forgot. We own a Corvette, Chevy Tahoe, and a Cadillac STS. We don’t drive much anymore, but that’s our choice, not the socialist government.
Willis, if you were on the other side of the climate debate, you would probably be a grant-fed multi-millionaire, but of course, the only way that would be possible is if there was unequivocal evidence that CO2 is the main control knob and the natural thermostat not supported. Like many others, I initially had no reason to distrust the control-knob folks. It did seem to be getting warmer and intuitively (often an unreliable helper) I could accept that we were burning more fuel and increasing our population. My skepticism arose when I encountered the alliances of scientists with the UN, Green anti-human activist organizations, science/government/policy agenda and then my anger arose with the dishonesty, dirty tricks, fiddling with climate records, blackballing dissenting scientists, dispatching editors that didn’t toe the line….something had to be very wrong with AGW theory if they needed to pile on all this other stuff.
These were the negative inducements to changing my mind. After reading your thermostat hypothesis and your subsequent tropical thunderstorm governor which clicked in when a hot spot arose with sun blocking clouds and a vertical heat engine to send the heat aloft to where it could be shipped out to outer space … well that sealed the deal for me. The 31C SST ceiling you demonstrated was, for me, an E=mc^2 moment. The stinginess of the CAGW folk with other than positive feedbacks got me thinking- with a couple of billion year history of continuous life, with temp swings of only 7-10C, and armed with your thermostat hypothesis, I was securely in the skeptical camp.
Your trashing of the effectiveness of economic policy of taxes to dissuade people from driving their cars, your posts on agricultural productivity and other BENEFITS of more CO2, the idiocy of corn ethanol and its effect on food prices, the unsustainability of sustainable energy sources and the CAGW policy war on the poor, etc, have been a service to mankind. But I don’t need to tell you that, like saving the Nile crocodile, you won’t be thanked so much.
Joe Born says:
July 10, 2013 at 6:59 am
Wills Eschenbach: “[A]ny energy tax on gasoline will hit the hardest on the poorest.”…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Willis is correct.
The last time gas prices went up it had an immediate impact on my hay and grain costs. Roughly if you double the cost of fuel and you also double the cost of feed and hay. The only reason this is not seen by the city consumers is the price is muffled by the bureaucrats and corporations. Once the family farmers who are stabilizing food prices are driven out of business, probably with in a decade or so with the Food Modernization Act now in place, expect to find the Ag business to take advantage of their consolidation of the food industry and raise prices through the roof.
Patrick
“No, that is incorrect! MOST people do NOT live in in cities.”
How it can be possible that 82% is not most people, I just checked this.This is far mucg greater
John says:
July 10, 2013 at 7:39 am
“So you think all the poor choose to be poor by making poor decisions.”
No, they didn’t choose to be poor as companies don’t choose to bankrupt. But people may have made poor decisions.
However true reason why African are poor is their lack of capital (including human capital)….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No John, you are wrong AGAIN. Africa is poor because of piss poor government and Kleptocracies. See: Zimbabwe: From Breadbasket to Dustbowl
John
I didn’t know that anybody needs a car to survive. I wonder how people survived 100 years ago.
Much of the US population in 1900 was rural, they lived on farms. If they were lucky, they were able to go into town once a month, mainly for necessities like sugar, salt, flour, other foodstuffs and clothing, and even a short trip of 5 miles took a long time with horses and wagons. Roads were mainly dirt or mud, depending on the weather, and were rarely cleared of snow in the winter. Your bicycle wouldn’t work well in that world. Both sets of grandparents’ main mode of transport from the farm was by horse, even into the 1930’s. There were few rural towns with rail access (those that had it prospered and many still survive even without the railroads servicing them) and farmer’s had to convince trains to stop even if they were located along the tracks.
The area I used to live in was a top 150 metropolitan area in the country, 21 miles from my job. Few bike paths and most streets were not designed for bike traffic and a major river crossing with most bridges being Interstate. I could drive this in 30 – 35 minutes easily and my car got 35mpg with gas at $1.85 at the time. I had my car serviced for a few days so I took the local mass-transit (bus) service which cost $3.50 each way with 5 transfers. My commute time increased to 1hr 45min and these four days of mass transit had two bus breakdowns with waits of 45min for a replacement to arrive.
With my car, I could stop at a grocery store on the way home so no real increased mileage to do any shopping for the entire week. If I were to stop for groceries on the bus, I would have to walk to a different store, walk back and have to pay full fair carrying perhaps two days of groceries.
So why would I rather drive? Time, convenience (the grocery and other stores along my drive), expense and not having to be at the whim of someone else.
Also, 100 years ago most of the people in the US heated their homes with coal and wood burning stoves with fire and burn fatalities common. Diseases like cholera, diptheria, typhoid fever, polio, tetanus, measles, mumps and many others were common and life-threatening even for the rich. Malaria outbreaks happened in Washington DC, St. Louis and even NYC. Appendicitis and peritonitus were often fatal. Life expectancy was low (50-60 yrs) and infant and childhood mortality rates were high (20%).
Yes it is surprising that anyone survived 100 years ago. If we can continue progressing, in 2113 people will be surprised any of us survived.
Willis: Maybe I’m missing something, but the chart that set you off shows the relationship between the price of fuel and per capita energy use. Yet you spend the better part of your post going on about miles driven. There certainly are many factors that affect fuel use beyond price, but trying to show that by substituting miles driven for per capita energy use isn’t the way to go about it. Sure, the number of miles driven affects energy use, but so do a lot of other things, like the size and efficiency of the vehicles being driven (and population density &c.).
Also, I wouldn’t be so confident in your results showing a very strong correlation among real per capita GDP, the pump price, and miles driven. This analysis shows that from about 1970 to 1995 in the United States, GDP and vehicle miles traveled moved in tandem; that is, an increase in GDP led to a proportional increase in miles traveled. After 1995, however, vehicle miles traveled increased at a slower rate than the economy, suggesting the link between the two factors is not as strong as it once was.
John,
You are mistaking “City” for “Urban.” In old-world countries the two are probably synonymous, but they are not in the US. I believe 18% “rural” is probably about right if forced to separate the American population into “Urban” and “Rural”. However, there is a HUGE difference between what counts as city life where car use can be limited and where most people live. Take a tour of Queens through google maps and you will see the difference. Even there in the midst of the largest city in the US the population density is low enough that not having a car would be a different category of citizenship. The Dallas Fort Worth region is ~5-6 million people depending on how it is counted, but only maybe a half million would really consider themselves living “in the city.”
If you want to compare what would work for limited auto use you would really have to compare to “Urban Core” populations, not “Urban”. Even then some cities (Houston) are not livable for a productive family without a car. Note the use of the word “productive.” Can you live there without a car? Yes. Can you live there and contribute more to society through production of goods and services than you consume through aid packages? Not likely.
John says:
July 10, 2013 at 4:58 am
I would say that at least 80% of poor people wouldn’t need a car if there would be sufficient public transport system. They would save money as well and could afford more and could have better life, but it is
The stupid it hurts.
Public transportation may work starting from a certain human density and a certain number of humans. Under it there cannot be any efficient public transportation. It costs much more then driving a car, in all, energy and costs and time. Each solution is best in certain circumstances.
Another good read. But why, in figure 2, do you have cost on the vertical axis and miles on the horizontal axis? Usually, antecedents go on the horizontal axis and hypothesized consequences go on the vertical.
NotAboutToChange says:
July 10, 2013 at 8:17 am
I can’t even imagine trying to carry two carts worth of groceries, clothing and other miscellaneous goods back to a residence using “public transportation”….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have done it. Carrying groceries and laundry and such on a bike. It is fine on level terrain in moderate weather when the distance isn’t too far, the roads are wide and you are young. It really sucks when it is snowing hard and 30 below or 90F and 80% humidity. (I never did figure out how to put chains on my bike…)
For older people without the decent reflexes of the young or with health problems, it is a cruel punishment that can lead to physical damage or death. My husband was hit by a car while biking (head injury) and so was his brother (lost a leg)