if CO2 emissions were taxed

[lemur]

Maybe this should be in speculations. The premise is that if a tax were levied requiring people to pay for CO2 emissions, would the proceeds from the tax end up paying for more CO2 emitting industries, etc. causing a viscous cycle that would lead to hyperinflation? Presumably, if the economy would shift to CO2-free activities, there would be no taxation/fines and no fiscal stimulus caused by redistribution of CO2 tax proceeds. But I would guess that industries would just "pay to pollute" and would receive those payments back in increased revenues from people who wanted the products that they generate with that energy. Is this overly cynical?

[rktpro]

They would, no doubt, increase the values of goods they produce if they have to pay the taxes for the emissions. Also, common people would have to pay taxes for their vehicular-exhaust. This would after all affect the common people. One thing that can be done is imposing fine when the emission from a factory reaches a certain limit. This would create a fear in the people and they would take measures to prevent co2 emission. Factory owners would install long and filtered chimneys and people would reduce the use of vehicle. A new card would be issued to every person which will keep the record of the total emission recorded for a given time period say one month.

[Marat]

The problem with imposing a tax on carbon dioxide emissions is the same as taxing anything that industry has traditionally just dumped into the environment as a free externality of its profit-making processes. The tax would, as stated in the OP, inflate the price (but not the value) of the goods produced, which would promote stagnflation, since per-widget prices would rise (as during a fuel shortage) without economic activity increasing, since the public would just be able to afford fewer widgets after industry priced the carbon dioxide tax cost into them. The ultimate result would be just a lower standard of living.

 

I can't think of any way to force the economy to pay for something -- like protecting the environment or avoiding global warming emissions -- which in itself is not a fungible commodity, without reducing the net wealth of the economy. It would be the historical tragedy of the 17th century Spain all over again. Despite its having assembled more silver and gold than the rest of the world combined as a result of its conquest of most of South America, instead of investing that wealth in productive enterprises, useful commodities, and capital, it just wasted it on better cathedrals and paying monks to say more prayers for the souls of the dead in Purgatory. As a result, the world's richest nation in 1600 was one of Europe's poorest nations by 1800.

 

Similarly, paying large sums to 'buy' things which are not commodities and which cannot produce commodities, like less CO2, mushier wetlands for the snowy owl, and cleaner water, is just a drain on the economy. Even if it amounts to a small drain, such as 2% or 3% a year, having a surplus that size for investment in research and development, reinvestment in infrastructure, or building up new productive capital is what makes an economy flourish or -- if it is not available because it is disappearing in the black hole of the environment -- flounder.

 

Of course, cleaning up industrial processes so they pollute less will produce the much-vaunted 'green jobs,' but that will just inflate the price of the goods produced, since the same widget which used to require 10 workers just to make it and dump the pollution into the fields will now require 10 to produce it and 5 to clean up the pollution, so the price has to pay 15 wages instead of 10. There will be more people employed because of the green jobs, but now instead of having the whole labor force employed in making widgets that give us a higher quality of life, now we will have a large fraction of the labor force employed in producing the intangible of 'less CO2 emission,' which is about as useful a commodity for making our lives better (in the way that our consumer society immediately experiences and rates value) as the Spanish monks produced with their prayers for the dead.

[lemur]

The problem with imposing a tax on carbon dioxide emissions is the same as taxing anything that industry has traditionally just dumped into the environment as a free externality of its profit-making processes. The tax would, as stated in the OP, inflate the price (but not the value) of the goods produced, which would promote stagnflation, since per-widget prices would rise (as during a fuel shortage) without economic activity increasing, since the public would just be able to afford fewer widgets after industry priced the carbon dioxide tax cost into them. The ultimate result would be just a lower standard of living.

Marat, for someone whose posts seem to be well-informed by Marxism, your economic analyses miss the material base a lot, imo (not meant as a personal attack - since you have interesting economic insights, just not at a mechanistic level). I don't think the public would be able to afford less widgets because I think they would just go on buying widgets as subsidized by the CO2 tax. Likewise, I don't think industry would reduce production. Instead they would just go on producing and paying the CO2 tax as a cost of doing business. All in all, I think the whole global economy would just steam along into hyperinflation generated by the recirculation of CO2 taxes. If standard of living would actually decrease, as you say, that would mean the CO2 tax would have an effect, which I think is optimistic at best.

 

 

 

[A Tripolation]

All I can say is that a CO₂ tax would be disastrous for farmers. I really want to know how you expect us to replace our diesel engines with their featherweight electrical counterpart. Electric motors simply cannot produce the amount of torque needed to tow and power farm equipment.

 

The profit margins for farmers are already slim. I do not understand why there is a desire to make food any more expensive.

[lemur]

All I can say is that a CO₂ tax would be disastrous for farmers. I really want to know how you expect us to replace our diesel engines with their featherweight electrical counterpart. Electric motors simply cannot produce the amount of torque needed to tow and power farm equipment.

 

The profit margins for farmers are already slim. I do not understand why there is a desire to make food any more expensive.

Farmers would just pass their costs on to the food industry. Consumers would pay higher prices and ask for subsidies for more jobs and higher wages from government, who would have the money to provide it from CO2 taxes. Hence the viscous cycle that would result in hyperinflation.

[swansont]

Is there an example of any other tax or government regulation that has led to hyperinflation?

 

In 2006, the EU implemented the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive, which restricted the use of hazardous materials like lead, mercury and cadmium in things like electronics. It's not even US legislation, but a lot of the electronics components you buy in the US are RoHS compliant, probably because it wasn't worth it to manufacture two types of resistors/capacitors, etc. or integrated products made from them. Presumably the restricted materials were used because they were cheaper, and coming up with compliant alternatives increased costs, which were then passed along to the consumer. So, where's the hyperinflation? Computers get more powerful and cost about the same as they have for the last decade or two. IOW, deflation in terms of computing power for the dollar/euro.

 

 

Businesses absorb increased costs all the time. Sometimes they do something to increase efficiency, sometimes they just let profit margins suffer and try to expand their customer base. They don't always raise prices. Not all businesses would be affected by a carbon tax, and, oh by the way, the amount and structure of a carbon tax are huge variables that haven't been specified, and it seems likely that the response to such a tax is very dependent upon the size of it, as well as how it is implemented. Companies replace/upgrade equipment all the time as part of a normal lifetime management. A tax that is phased in could be combatted with more efficient/greener equipment that does not necessarily represent a large additional expenditure of money beyond what the company was already going to spend. This really isn't all that different from the US clean air and water initiatives of the 1970's, which did not cause hyperinflation. Inflation spikes in that time frame correlates really well with the price of oil and one response was a shift to more efficient cars. Why would the economic response to a carbon tax be any different that the historical response to taxes or government regulations?

[Marat]

Logically there is a large variety of ways that the economy can respond to consumer goods getting more expensive because of a carbon tax. Consumers can buy fewer goods (which is in part what cigarette and alcohol taxes, as well as import duties, are designed to encourage) or just pay more for the same number of goods. Industry can absorb the costs if it believes it can still make an acceptable profit and cannot optimize profits by selling at increased prices, or it can try to optimize profits by selling at higher prices to meet a relatively inelastic demand. All these things will depend, as noted above, on the size of the carbon tax, the nature of the things being sold, the technological adaptations in response to the tax, etc. Since most sales taxes are inflationary, the carbon tax, which will essentially amount to a sales tax, will probably have the same effect.

 

It is also an open question what the government will do with the proceeds of a carbon tax. If it uses the extra cash to invest in non-productive activities, as it is often tempted to do, like making more useless aircraft carriers to sail around the world at $4 billion each without ever producing anything of value beyond employing a few sailors, or invading Iraq at $1.5 trillion just to 'produce' destruction in someone else's country for no tangible benefit, then clearly the effect of the tax will be just to diminish the productive capacity of the economy.

 

If God demanded of us that we produce something of no intrinsic value, merely to serve religious needs, like a Tower of Babel, then that would generate some employment but it would ultimately be economically detrimental, since it would represent the investment of scarce labor and capital resources in making something which is unproductive rather than in answering tangible needs for improved infrastructure, industrial capacity, housing, etc. Similarly, if we now have to invest labor and capital resources in buying something which is not directly valuable, like less CO2 in the atmosphere, then those scarce resources are being squandered, at least in terms of the traditional needs of a consumer society, since the investment neither provides additional consumer goods nor increases the capacity to produce consumer goods, and that is a real cost to our economy.

[John Cuthber]

You can only produce hyperinflation by printing more money or something else that dramatically reduces the value of each pound or dollar.

Carbon taxation doesn't do that.

 

The idea that the people would buy fewer widgets is offset by the fact that the government could reduce other taxes and maintain the same budget.

So the people who are paying less tax would have more money and could buy just as many widgets as before, even though the widgets cost more.

There would need to be a bunch of tax collectors but they would get paid (presumably more than their previous jobs or they wouldn't change career) and they could buy more widgets too.

The demand for widgets wouldn't be greatly affected.

 

After a short while the manufacturers would invest in low-carbon ways to make widgets an they price would drop again. Tax revenue would fall so other taxes would need to rise to balance the budget.

There would be less cash in people's pockets and they would only be able to buy as many widgets as they had in the first place.

[lemur]

All the posts in this thread have interesting perspectives. Mine was just based on a simple observation that I don't think anyone in the high-energy economies is really planning to cut down on energy use due to carbon tax. I think there's an unspoken assumption that people will find a loophole to continue to drive and air condition their home and office and they'll just increase their revenues/income to afford the higher taxes. I was trying to point out the irony that when a tax is designed to curtail some type of consumption, it messes the plan up if people start trying to make more money to pay for the tax so they can continue to use as much as they were before.

 

It's like with currently rising gas prices. That is basically exactly what would happen if CO2 or O2-waste was taxed, the price of hydrocarbons would increase. Yet many people just want to work more hours or do whatever it takes to raise their income to a level where they can afford the same amount of gas they were buying before the price went up. People don't seem to realize that price-increases in a free market is the invisible hand's way of encouraging rationing through rational choice to reduce consumption and seek substitutes.

 

That's why I say that if people just continue to want more money to pay for more expensive gas, and the price of gas keeps going up to restrict consumption, there could be hyperinflation. Swansont is right to point out that hyperinflation doesn't happen very often, but it's just the question of what will cause the global economy to really start moving away from high-energy usage per capita?

Edited May 29, 2011 by lemur

[DrRocket]

Maybe this should be in speculations. The premise is that if a tax were levied requiring people to pay for CO2 emissions, would the proceeds from the tax end up paying for more CO2 emitting industries, etc. causing a viscous cycle that would lead to hyperinflation? Presumably, if the economy would shift to CO2-free activities, there would be no taxation/fines and no fiscal stimulus caused by redistribution of CO2 tax proceeds. But I would guess that industries would just "pay to pollute" and would receive those payments back in increased revenues from people who wanted the products that they generate with that energy. Is this overly cynical?

 

 

This a great idea.

 

Politicians should have to pay every time they exhale.

[swansont]

All the posts in this thread have interesting perspectives. Mine was just based on a simple observation that I don't think anyone in the high-energy economies is really planning to cut down on energy use due to carbon tax. I think there's an unspoken assumption that people will find a loophole to continue to drive and air condition their home and office and they'll just increase their revenues/income to afford the higher taxes. I was trying to point out the irony that when a tax is designed to curtail some type of consumption, it messes the plan up if people start trying to make more money to pay for the tax so they can continue to use as much as they were before.

 

It's like with currently rising gas prices. That is basically exactly what would happen if CO2 or O2-waste was taxed, the price of hydrocarbons would increase. Yet many people just want to work more hours or do whatever it takes to raise their income to a level where they can afford the same amount of gas they were buying before the price went up. People don't seem to realize that price-increases in a free market is the invisible hand's way of encouraging rationing through rational choice to reduce consumption and seek substitutes.

 

That's why I say that if people just continue to want more money to pay for more expensive gas, and the price of gas keeps going up to restrict consumption, there could be hyperinflation. Swansont is right to point out that hyperinflation doesn't happen very often, but it's just the question of what will cause the global economy to really start moving away from high-energy usage per capita?

 

In the US we see a reduction in gasoline use when the price approaches $4 a gallon, so I think people are very aware of it. And by "global economy" I think you have to substitute "US economy" because we have one of the highest per-capita energy consumption values around, especially normalized to climate — the few countries with comparable or higher values are generally located north or south of the latitudes the US occupies. Most of the temperate-zone countries consume about half of the per-capita energy we do. Most industrialized countries are also ahead of the US in attacking the CO2 problem.

 

Some people will undoubtedly just pay to pollute, but that does not mean everyone would. Again, this all depends on the structure, which has not been defined. If you tax the energy producers then the consumers don't have any say at all, but then most utilities are monopolies and can't change rates without approval. It could be that they are forced down a path of improving efficiency rather than raising rates. But this is already happening in various places in the US — there are states that have mandated a certain fraction of renewable energy be produced, and utilities are moving to comply. Do we see any dire effects from this?

[John Cuthber]

Hyperinflation only occurs under very unusual circumstances and those are not in place. The introduction of a carbon tax wouldn't change that.

So the simple answer to the question in this thread's title is "no".

How can I be so sure?

Simple; there already is a carbon tax on a lot of fuel; it's the tax / duty paid on vehicle fuel.

 

We have a carbon tax, we don't have hyperinflation so carbon tax doesn't cause hyperinflation.

 

That fairly obvious fact leads me to wonder why the question got asked in the first place.

Was it some sort of scaremongering or what?

[lemur]

In the US we see a reduction in gasoline use when the price approaches $4 a gallon, so I think people are very aware of it. And by "global economy" I think you have to substitute "US economy" because we have one of the highest per-capita energy consumption values around, especially normalized to climate — the few countries with comparable or higher values are generally located north or south of the latitudes the US occupies. Most of the temperate-zone countries consume about half of the per-capita energy we do. Most industrialized countries are also ahead of the US in attacking the CO2 problem.

My first question would be how. My first hypothesis would be that US consumers manage to get a car regardless of socioeconomic level so there is simply a higher per-capita rate of car ownership and driving. Also, even lower income people tend to have air conditioning and heat, often subsidized in some way or other, and what's more because of subsidies, the bill can get run up higher than someone who was paying out of pocket, which compounds with the fact that the equipment and insulation is often less efficient than it would be for people who have an economic investment in their home/business and therefore an incentive to modernize energy-efficiency.

 

So if you divide the world up into national-regions and make everyone feel good about themselves because their region is ahead of the US per capita, you might just be obfuscating the fact that the people who are not excluded from driving and liberal climate control are using just as much or more as the US per capita rate. You could also be obscuring that those regions are reducing their average per-capita usage by dividing the population into an energy-elite and energy-masses, which might not be a terrible idea but it makes national comparisons like comparing apples and oranges where elites claim superiority by pairing themselves in statistical population with people deprived of the freedom to choose to consume more if they wanted to.

 

Some people will undoubtedly just pay to pollute, but that does not mean everyone would. Again, this all depends on the structure, which has not been defined. If you tax the energy producers then the consumers don't have any say at all, but then most utilities are monopolies and can't change rates without approval. It could be that they are forced down a path of improving efficiency rather than raising rates. But this is already happening in various places in the US — there are states that have mandated a certain fraction of renewable energy be produced, and utilities are moving to comply. Do we see any dire effects from this?

I don't understand how they could improve efficiency without raising rates if their operating costs remain the same.

 

Hyperinflation only occurs under very unusual circumstances and those are not in place. The introduction of a carbon tax wouldn't change that.

So the simple answer to the question in this thread's title is "no".

How can I be so sure?

Simple; there already is a carbon tax on a lot of fuel; it's the tax / duty paid on vehicle fuel.

 

We have a carbon tax, we don't have hyperinflation so carbon tax doesn't cause hyperinflation.

 

That fairly obvious fact leads me to wonder why the question got asked in the first place.

Was it some sort of scaremongering or what?

No, it was just an extension of the observation that nothing could ever seem to motivate most people to get around in vehicles smaller than 2000lbs or live, work, and go out in public in buildings that are not climate controlled. It just seems like there are incredibly powerful cultural resistances to these two aspects of lifestyle-change and I question whether any amount of tax could impel people to choose to give up driving and climate control. I have been working on it for years, and I consistently get praised by people who at the same time always have lists of reasons why they wouldn't want to do what I do. It's like there's this deep faith in people that as long as the majority of people resist change, the government or economy will somehow be forced to make things work for them. This causes me to think that the price will keep going up, either by taxes, market forces, or both because the resistance to radically changing consumption patters is just too deep-seated.

 

 

[John Cuthber]

"No, it was just an extension of the observation that nothing could ever seem to motivate most people to get around in vehicles smaller than 2000lbs or live, work, and go out in public in buildings that are not climate controlled"

You seem to have forgotten to add the word "American" to that (just before the word people).

 

For the other 95% of the world's population, things are different.

[swansont]

My first question would be how. My first hypothesis would be that US consumers manage to get a car regardless of socioeconomic level so there is simply a higher per-capita rate of car ownership and driving. Also, even lower income people tend to have air conditioning and heat, often subsidized in some way or other, and what's more because of subsidies, the bill can get run up higher than someone who was paying out of pocket, which compounds with the fact that the equipment and insulation is often less efficient than it would be for people who have an economic investment in their home/business and therefore an incentive to modernize energy-efficiency.

 

I would be easily convinced that Americans drive more than people in other countries.

 

It's a much harder sell that poor citizens use as much (or even more) energy as wealthy ones, with the difference made up by the subsidies, especially without statistics to back it up. Smaller dwellings generally require less energy. Any hypothesis has to overcome that rather large hurdle.

 

So if you divide the world up into national-regions and make everyone feel good about themselves because their region is ahead of the US per capita, you might just be obfuscating the fact that the people who are not excluded from driving and liberal climate control are using just as much or more as the US per capita rate. You could also be obscuring that those regions are reducing their average per-capita usage by dividing the population into an energy-elite and energy-masses, which might not be a terrible idea but it makes national comparisons like comparing apples and oranges where elites claim superiority by pairing themselves in statistical population with people deprived of the freedom to choose to consume more if they wanted to.

 

That's incredibly hypothetical. Once again, data are required. Especially since we're talking about many countries with socialized assistance levels that exceed the US's. The US level of energy consumption is much higher than in China and India, the two countries with a larger population, and also greatly exceeds the couple of countries just below the US in population. You quickly get to the level that if there are countries with such "energy elites," the countries are small, and at that point, who cares, since it has a minimal impact on the overall picture? The US is an energy hog, no matter how you slice it.

 

I don't understand how they could improve efficiency without raising rates if their operating costs remain the same.

 

Since you have provided no particulars about the situation, this is so open-ended that I don't know what information you want. Companies will improve efficiency the same way they have all along. They'll do it with the normal capital expenditures they have been making all along. Utilities have been doing this, so you should be able to research that if you are interested.

[Marat]

If we take a carbon tax as essentially equivalent in its effects to higher fuel prices, then we already have a real-world model of a developed economy operating under these conditions, and that is Europe, where it is always freezing cold indoors in winter, people read by the window to delay turning on the lights, houses are heated by night-storage heat which draws power at off-peak prices, and the cars look like motorized tricycles and weigh about half as much. In short, people respond by buying less fuel and live in misery as the cost. Whether North Americans would be willing to adapt to that lifestyle after having been culturally educated in a more lavish way of living is something I doubt.

[rktpro]

If we take a carbon tax as essentially equivalent in its effects to higher fuel prices, then we already have a real-world model of a developed economy operating under these conditions, and that is Europe, where it is always freezing cold indoors in winter, people read by the window to delay turning on the lights, houses are heated by night-storage heat which draws power at off-peak prices, and the cars look like motorized tricycles and weigh about half as much. In short, people respond by buying less fuel and live in misery as the cost. Whether North Americans would be willing to adapt to that lifestyle after having been culturally educated in a more lavish way of living is something I doubt.

 

This might occur only when tax is really high.

[CharonY]

In the US we see a reduction in gasoline use when the price approaches $4 a gallon, so I think people are very aware of it.

 

In addition, the market also seems to be sensitive towards that. When gas prices rose, suddenly cars with better mileages were suddenly more attractive.

My link

 

 

Note that between 1990 and 2006 the mileage only rose by 2 mpg. Between 2006-2010 it by over 3 mpg. The same table also shows that imported cars consistently had higher mileage, i.e. that the development of new technologies was not the critical factor. In other countries where gas is taxed higher, higher mileage cars have been introduced earlier, which may offset additional costs (and provide additional benefits in terms of pollution).

 

where it is always freezing cold indoors in winter, people read by the window to delay turning on the lights, houses are heated by night-storage heat which draws power at off-peak prices, and the cars look like motorized tricycles and weigh about half as much.

 

Where (and when) in the heck in Europe have you lived? To my eyes the cars at least in Germany actually were of better quality than you get them in the US. Or do you think that this is a tricycle, for instance?

Interestingly the same model appears to have less MPG in the US than in Germany, I am not sure why.

 

What you get, however, is a high-efficiency central heating system and (way) superior insulation.

Edited May 30, 2011 by CharonY

[lemur]

I would be easily convinced that Americans drive more than people in other countries.

That may be the case, but I don't see what good it does to put it like that. All it does is cause people to focus on national difference and focus on blaming America(ns) instead of looking for ways to solve the problems. If people would look at energy-conservation as a global issue, they could work on creating alternatives to energy-inefficient practices and identify bottlenecks for anyone globally who faces obstacles curtailing their energy usage. Ethnic differentiation and blaming doesn't help anything.

 

It's a much harder sell that poor citizens use as much (or even more) energy as wealthy ones, with the difference made up by the subsidies, especially without statistics to back it up. Smaller dwellings generally require less energy. Any hypothesis has to overcome that rather large hurdle.

True, I have seen houses with multiple heat-pumps running next to each other simultaneously. On the other hand, they are heat pumps and not wall-unit a/c and there is probably better insulation and tighter draft-control in the newer house. Again, the point is to identify potential for gain and bottlenecks to achieving it and strategizing what is needed to remedy the problems, not blaming of one class or nationality over others. If you think wealthy people should live smaller or at least eliminate climate control or limit it to zones, that would make sense. Just be aware that when you suggest that a small elite of wealth people are allowed to maintain even a little luxury, it causes the entire middle and lower classes to claim that they shouldn't have to curtail their lifestyles because there are richer people who aren't doing so. No progress comes from finger-pointing and saying "I'll change when they do first."

 

That's incredibly hypothetical. Once again, data are required. Especially since we're talking about many countries with socialized assistance levels that exceed the US's. The US level of energy consumption is much higher than in China and India, the two countries with a larger population, and also greatly exceeds the couple of countries just below the US in population. You quickly get to the level that if there are countries with such "energy elites," the countries are small, and at that point, who cares, since it has a minimal impact on the overall picture? The US is an energy hog, no matter how you slice it.

I would rather view energy-consumption in terms of global classes instead of nationalities. What you're saying is that if an energy-wasting person has Chinese or Indian nationality, they are less of a problem that if they would have US nationality. This is because you are looking at nations as collective households. In reality, the globe consists of individuals with individual cultural practices. If someone is riding a bike to work in San Diego and living in a tent, they are in the same global class with someone living in a tent and riding a bike to work in Beijing. Likewise, if someone uses a tank of gasoline a week in both cities, they are in the same global gasoline-consumption class.

 

Since you have provided no particulars about the situation, this is so open-ended that I don't know what information you want. Companies will improve efficiency the same way they have all along. They'll do it with the normal capital expenditures they have been making all along. Utilities have been doing this, so you should be able to research that if you are interested.

Oh, if you mean lowering costs and passing the savings on to their clients, then I can see what you mean.

 

 

[swansont]

That may be the case, but I don't see what good it does to put it like that. All it does is cause people to focus on national difference and focus on blaming America(ns) instead of looking for ways to solve the problems. If people would look at energy-conservation as a global issue, they could work on creating alternatives to energy-inefficient practices and identify bottlenecks for anyone globally who faces obstacles curtailing their energy usage. Ethnic differentiation and blaming doesn't help anything.

 

 

It would be easier to view this as a global problem if the US didn't lag the rest of the industrialized world in attacking the problem. Solutions exist. In the EU, it's not uncommon to pay more in tax for gas than we do for the gas. Germany and Italy have adopted feed-in tariffs to make solar more attractive. China leads the world in installed wind power. In the US, many politicians act like they are going to wet themselves at the mention of any energy policy that isn't drill baby, drill.

[John Cuthber]

If we take a carbon tax as essentially equivalent in its effects to higher fuel prices, then we already have a real-world model of a developed economy operating under these conditions, and that is Europe, where it is always freezing cold indoors in winter, people read by the window to delay turning on the lights, houses are heated by night-storage heat which draws power at off-peak prices, and the cars look like motorized tricycles and weigh about half as much. In short, people respond by buying less fuel and live in misery as the cost. Whether North Americans would be willing to adapt to that lifestyle after having been culturally educated in a more lavish way of living is something I doubt.

 

I see your definition of misery seems to be not having a car with a 7 litre engine. I don't have a car; how miserable should I bee about not paying for one, fuelling it, taxing it, insuring it etc? Obviously, it's a handy thing to have sometimes- that's what taxis are for.

My house hasn't got storage heaters, btw.

 

I also dispute the idea that all Americans are "culturally educated" at all. I cite Arnie as Governor as evidence. Also the fact that this is a joke

http://xkcd.com/850/

indicates that there's something missing in the cultural education of many Americans.

[lemur]

It would be easier to view this as a global problem if the US didn't lag the rest of the industrialized world in attacking the problem. Solutions exist. In the EU, it's not uncommon to pay more in tax for gas than we do for the gas. Germany and Italy have adopted feed-in tariffs to make solar more attractive. China leads the world in installed wind power. In the US, many politicians act like they are going to wet themselves at the mention of any energy policy that isn't drill baby, drill.

Comparing governments is something different than comparing individuals and culture. There is nothing preventing people living in North America from turning off their a/c and parking their cars except cultural norms and expectations of how to live. There is nothing preventing people from working and consuming more locally, eliminating the need to drive to work and recreation activities. It's just poor planning and organizing underwritten by access to plenty of money to pay for the gas.

[swansont]

Comparing governments is something different than comparing individuals and culture. There is nothing preventing people living in North America from turning off their a/c and parking their cars except cultural norms and expectations of how to live. There is nothing preventing people from working and consuming more locally, eliminating the need to drive to work and recreation activities. It's just poor planning and organizing underwritten by access to plenty of money to pay for the gas.

Given that we can do these things and many Americans don't, tell me why we shouldn't be be focusing on the cultural and political shortcomings? Finding new solutions will mean nothing if they are not adopted. Look at the pushback by some on the adoption of more efficient light bulbs (that is, more than the 3% efficient bulbs we use at the moment)

[Marat]

There is also a structural problem precluding energy efficiency in North America, and that is the existence of an infrastructure built on the assumptions of 'car culture,' which requires a 6-mile round trip by car to buy a bag of chips (crips) at the mall and get back to the suburbs. The urban centers are ghost towns after 6 PM, since everyone is transported 10 to 30 miles out from work to get to their suburban homes, and the public transportation system is essentially non-existent, and is now being cut back to reduce government debt, with the fuel crisis and global warming now taking second place to the debt obsession.

 

It would cost trillions to tear down that infrastructure laboriously constructed from 1950 to the present, positively designed to waste fuel, and replace it with compact, internally varied urban centers such as Jane Jacobs recommended. Since Europe never lost its livable, concentrated urban environments and its excellent public transport networks, it will always be ahead in energy conservation.