ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
Pamela Zurer's idea to raise fuel taxes dramatically is simply the wrong way to go (C&EN, July 24, page 3). It would penalize the U.S. economy and take too long to have a noticeable impact on the nation's fuel consumption, primarily because of the time required to turn over the U.S. automotive fleet (normally about 10-plus years). I agree with her goal—who doesn't?
A better approach, however, might be the following: In year X (2007, perhaps?), Congress mandates a one-time 33% increase in the CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standard, to go into effect in year X + 3, followed by a 2% per year mandated increase in following years. Starting in year X + 3, Congress provides substantive tax credits to replace gas guzzlers with the new fuel-efficient vehicles. The tax credit is based on the differential in miles per gallon between the old and the new vehicle.
This simple approach would result in a much faster reduction in our nation's gasoline consumption than Zurer's "penalty" approach. If we turned over our automotive fleet in five years, this would mean that we would reduce our oil consumption by at least 6 million barrels per day (about 30%), and probably more.
Emissions would be dramatically reduced. The worst offenders in terms of mileage are also the worst offenders in terms of pumping out pollution.
The automotive manufacturers would get a needed shot-in-the-arm. In addition to the obvious sales, this "positive" approach allows them to better anticipate how the market is going to behave, to design the vehicles needed to supply this altered market, and to develop the manufacturing capability required by this radically new generation of vehicles.
Finally, there would be at least a neutral effect on our economy, and likely a very beneficial one.
M. J. Plodinec
Aiken, S.C.
What a shock to see that there is still someone in the world of journalism who can write. Thank you for your clear, pithy thoughts. You asked for ours:
A car-on-rail service would be driver-friendly (as opposed to the cumbersome AutoTrain).
Every building should have a duct for piping cold winter air from outside to the refrigerators.
Revive the synfuels program that was so active in the late 1970s (and on which I worked as a postdoc). An added benefit is the reverse-conversion of carbon dioxide to fuel.
Yes, the first two ideas use mechanical—rather than chemical—solutions; that just shows how versatile chemists are.
Thank you again for asking.
Rouvain Bension
Brighton, Mass.
As an interim solution to Zurer's request, my idea is for people in positions such as hers to promote the expansion of atomic power for electricity and the funding of more efficient ways to reprocess lead batteries.
All of Zurer's ideas have been in place for some time here in Germany, where I live. Right now, we purchase atomic power from all our neighbors, and as far away as Ukraine, where our taxes are used to subsidize the building of new plants according to the old Russian model.
As a first step to a long-term solution, I recommend separating energy production from ideology. Every alternative should be judged not only on cost but also on material balance—waste air, water, solid waste, and surface area required per kilowatt-hour.
J. R. Malone
Sinzheim, Germany
Zurer's editorial was a welcome check on the media and political hype about alternative energy sources. I was surprised she didn't mention the one source with the capacity to make an immediate difference, namely nuclear power. Substituting nuclear fuels for the natural gas burned in our power-generating plants would have far more impact than any of the suggestions in her list. That's my idea "for getting out of the hole we've dug for ourselves."
Robert M. Coquillette
Lexington, Mass.
There are other options Zurer did not mention in her editorial. In Asia, many taxis and other vehicles for hire use bottled gas, propane I believe. I realize there are some safety issues with hydrogen, although hydrogen would be an ideal fuel. Taxes never work because the money is never used for what it was intended. We are already paying fuel taxes, and the condition of our interstate and road systems continues to deteriorate. The money needs to go to private funding because government has never demonstrated that it can administer programs efficiently to get results. So please, don't advocate more taxes so that "the government can take care of us."
Len Farias
Fuquay-Varina, N.C.
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on X