|
|
| |
McCain admitted guilt and returned some money—that makes up for petty corruption. But the point is policy not corruption. The 1989 S&L crisis warned of the danger of banking deregulation. McCain missed the warnings and stuck by his de-regulation advisor, Phil Gramm (It's-a-mental-recession), for 15 years—till July 2008.
McCain says that in September he finally got it—bankers need to be regulated. What do you think? Watch for Phil Gramm in the video. More on Phil Gramm
|
|
| |
Act I – The Passenger Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Act
(“500mpg Cars”) Charges new cars and light trucks, $150 per "MPG" for each MPG they fall below the national average (capped at $6000), and rebates $200 per MPG for each MPG in excess of the average. 'MPG' is calculated taking into account petroleum replacement by electricity, hydrogen, etc. A 33 mpg car in a 22 mpg world would get a rebate of $2,200 ($200 x 11mpg). Act I would also establish a low interest fuel-efficient loan program for Americans earning less than median income.
|
|
| |
Claims: Increase average fuel efficiency by at least 50% by 2020. Reduce private transport-related oil consumption by 33%. Save Americans over $30 billion per year and cut vehicle-related carbon emissions by nearly 75%.
Cost: Act 1 will cost an estimated $12B per year or roughly 40% of the fuel savings.
|
|
| |
Analysis:
Feebates hold great promise as a replacement for CAFE standards, because they eliminate the contentious standard-setting process, which is dominated by car companies.
Question 1. It costs $12B/year because rebates ($200/MPG) are more than fees ($150). Why not change $150 to $200? That gives more incentive, and makes it totally free.
Question 2. If we can save ourselves $12B/year so easily, isn't there something wrong with this calculation?
Question 3. Are you sure you want to (your critics will put it this way) "Implement a $12B/year subsidy to make cars cheaper so people will buy more of them?"
Question 4. Why not make the feebate "revenue neutral?" This will protect you against the "tax and spend" accusation, and it will not reduce the incentives one bit.
Question 5. Rather than make up numbers, why not wait till you read the NAS report on CAFE standards and use their numbers to estimate the costs and savings?
Question 6. Concerning the fabulous CO2 claim, was the CO2 generated in the production of hydrogen, electricity and ethanol taken into account? [Hint: the answers starts with the letter "N," and it makes a big difference.]
Question 7. Rather than basing incentives on "MPG," why not do it as it is done now and base them on gallons per mile? This results in rewards and penalties that are proportional to the gallons saved. Using MPG does not.
Summary: Drop the lending scheme and stick to energy. Drop the wild claims, make it revenue neutral, get some professional help with it, and you will have a great proposal. Back to Energize America
|
|
http://zfacts.com/p/561.html | 10/11/08 09:29 GMT
Modified: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 03:33:58 GMT
|
| |
| Carbonomics
Fix the Climate
Charge OPEC
Free Book
(till publication) |
|
|
|
