Toyota: "No Financial Justification in US for Buying Hybrids"

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously. Pollution is acceptable. This is widely agreed upon in the regulatory world (EPA, OSHA, whatever). As it should be. For instance, suppose the manufacture of steel caused as a bioproduct, the production of dioxin, a major carcinogen. Should steel making be outlawed? No. Instead, what happens is that government regulations proscribe an acceptable level of pollution (although some pollutants can be deemed so toxic that a zero-level is the only acceptable level). Basically, sound regulation is all about cost-benefit analysis, not absolute prohibitions on pollutants, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. The problem here is that the people doing the analysis (the regulators) are not the ones that bear the costs or reap the benefits (or suffer the downsides) of their regulations.

[ QUOTE ]
Both create deadweight economic losses. The question is which creates a smaller loss. Bureaucracy, while definitely undesirable, is much more efficient than private litigation (which by the way, requires that the government pay for a separate bureaucracy known as the court system).

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "private litigation" - I got confused when you said it requires a government-funded bureaucracy.

I can't see how bureaucracy is more efficient than litigation - even litigation in state-run courts (of course, the efficiency of litigation can be further increased by moving out of state-run courts into true private arbitration). I'm interested in hearing more, though.

[ QUOTE ]
But my basic point is, when trying to figure out how an injury should be avoided, you need to look at the lowest cost avoidance. Voluntary compliance by individuals (due to the threat of civil or criminal liability from regulation), can be a very cheap solution (provided the regulation does not grow too unweildy). Private enforcement of rights is very very expensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why doesn't the threat of "very very expensive" private enforcement of rights have the same deterrent effect of encouraging "voluntary compliance"?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, a regulatory bureaucracy has a financial incentive to not solve the problem. If the problem were solved the regulatory agency could not generate revenue nor justify its existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually erroneous. Bureaucracy does not have an incentive to not do its job--its the opposite. The incentive bureaucracy has is to do its job, and then some. This is why bureaucracy grows. When laws get passed, bureaucracy steps in an starts the supervision/enforcement cycle, thus justifying its existence. One of the biggest complaints about the "administrative state" is that bureaucracies, through the rulemaking process, can essentially make an end run around the democratic legislative process, and start creating more and more quasi-laws that cost an ever increasing amount to comply with. For example, the consumer product safety commission prescribed the distance that slats on a baby crib can be spaced. Why? Because once upon a time, some kid got his head stuck between slats spaced too widely apart, and he got killed. So now government has created (independent of the democratic legislative process), a rule that costs all purchasers of baby cribs more money. THIS is why people hate bureaucracy--not because they go around trying to NOT do their job.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't you agreeing with him here? You're saying that the constant drive to create new regulations sustains bureaucracy. He's saying bureaucracies have no incentive to "win the war" they are fighting. It's two sides of the same coin.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the inevitable corruption that arises from government regulation of private industries as competitors lobby to have the regulations written and interpreted in their favor and against the interests of their competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

The private lobbying function is merely an extention of the democratic process. It is the way in which legislatures (and rulemakers) are influenced. I much prefer this approach than a tyrranical government that cannot be influenced by its constituency.

[/ QUOTE ]

False dicotomy. Come on.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A "low emission vehicle" still has emissions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, chemistry is a bitch, isn't it. This is called combustion. There are byproducts. One byproduct is heat. Another byproduct is water. Another is CO2. Another are volatile organic compounds that turn into smog after they get hit by sunlight. What's your point? We should all walk? But walking creates byproducts. CO2 from increased respiration. Energy consumption in the form of food, which is turned into sewage, which is a pollutant? I dont understand your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we shouldn't all walk. You're implicitly making an assumption that IF we could perfectly determine damages from small-scale polluters and issue judgements with little or no overhead, such that anyone damged from car pollution could and would pursue damages, that people would decide that internal combustion engines are not economically feasable (which is certainly possible) and, once that became evident, would simply give up and not use mechanical transportation, and never devise any other method.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A road owner could not provide a road without admitting liability for pollution usless the vehicles were actually zero-emission.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not sure you have a good idea of what zero-emissions is. No such car exists. When you have an electric car, you use batteries. Batteries get charged off the power grid. The majority of the power in this country is generated from coal and natural gas plants, which in turn create emissions. Just because you cant see tailpipe emissions, doesnt mean these cars are zero emissions. This is called the "mobile source" vs. "stationary source" problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the *car* is not generating emissions, but emissions are generated elsewhere (burning coal or whatever), what difference does this make to the road owner? Any damages claims would be directed against the producer of the emissions.

Additionally, we know there *are* zero emission power sources (solar, hydroelectric, geothermal). The fact that they aren't developed enough to provide all power we need *right now* is merely an artifact of the regulatory environment that encourages (or doesn't discourage) pollution-generating energy sources.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
I've typed this stuff out a million times so I've lost all will to do it again.

[/ QUOTE ]
Another reason I'm not very optimistic. The people who know about the real problems get shouted out by ignorance enough to make sure they can't be bothered to try and explain.
We will cut down all the trees, we will catch all the fish, we will use up everything we can get our hands on, and then, in the end, we won't be able to understand what went wrong.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
You're doing the same thing Beer and Pizza did earlier - if I choose to fight one environmental battle, I must fight them all, otherwise I'm a hypocrite.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you say this? There are plenty of environmental battles I choose not to fight. And to be honest, you don't have to be an environmentalist to be concerned about energy. For instance, I tend to only really argue environmental battles where our actions are significantly reducing our quality of life. Long term effects or C02, shale oil, and high energy prices is just one example. Also, even an environmentalist can choose to simply get rid of the worst case scenerios. No need to be a fanatic.

[ QUOTE ]

You go ahead and lobby your congressperson. I'm going to keep driving my hybrid and show that there is a market for creative energy vehicles & low emissions vehicles like electric vehicles, hybrids, hydrogen, corn oil...whatever...


[/ QUOTE ]

That is the only reason I support people buying hybrids right now. You need to realize that hybrids simply allow us to sweep a problem under the rug. Sweeping problems under the rug tends to bite us in the rear later on.

http://cohesion.rice.edu/NaturalScie...S%20Boston.pdf
http://smalley.rice.edu/

[Borodog]

I was going to post a long rebuttal, but I think pvn did an admirable job.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem here is that the people doing the analysis (the regulators) are not the ones that bear the costs or reap the benefits (or suffer the downsides) of their regulations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor should they be. The regulator's goal should not be to decide private disputes. The regulator's goal should be to account for society's broadest interests, which include everything from the specific rights at issue, to collateral consequences like economic efficiency, economic growth, implications for employment, prices to consumers, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't see how bureaucracy is more efficient than litigation - even litigation in state-run courts (of course, the efficiency of litigation can be further increased by moving out of state-run courts into true private arbitration). I'm interested in hearing more, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you dont understand why litigation is more expensive than bureaucracy, it is because you have never been involved in a lawsuit. Hiring a competent lawyer costs a minimum of $300 per hour, and in some cities like NYC, probably $800 per hour. Add in associate & paralegal time, expenses, etc., and it is easy to hit an even higher blended rate. It doesnt get more expensive than litigation. Bureaucrats are much cheaper.

[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't the threat of "very very expensive" private enforcement of rights have the same deterrent effect of encouraging "voluntary compliance"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the plaintiff must spend lots of money to enforce his rights. Most plaintiffs will not/cannot do this. Therefore, the pricing on litigation favors the status quo.

[ QUOTE ]
The private lobbying function is merely an extention of the democratic process. It is the way in which legislatures (and rulemakers) are influenced. I much prefer this approach than a tyrranical government that cannot be influenced by its constituency.

False dicotomy. Come on

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. You are the one who complained about the corruptibility of government. All I am saying is that those with money necessarily have a greater ability to exercise influence--they can hire lawyers, file lawsuits, gain access, make campaign donations, etc. Money necessarily equals power, always has, always will. As I said, lobbying is just an extension of democracy, and there is no way to get rid of it. The best we can do is to put reasonable limitations on it--such as prohibitions on giving "things of value" to government agents and decisionsmakers. Despite what most people think, lobbying is an inherently helpful activity. Lobbyists are advocates--they frame the issue, and marshal the facts for the decisionmakers. Granted, that process is always self-serving for the lobbyist, but stuff like "white papers" etc are very helpful to decisionmakers. They help the decisionmaker precisely understand the arguments and trade-offs they are being asked to make.

[ QUOTE ]
No, we shouldn't all walk. You're implicitly making an assumption that IF we could perfectly determine damages from small-scale polluters and issue judgements with little or no overhead, such that anyone damged from car pollution could and would pursue damages, that people would decide that internal combustion engines are not economically feasable (which is certainly possible) and, once that became evident, would simply give up and not use mechanical transportation, and never devise any other method.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not assuming anything. You were the one taking issue with cars because they have emissions. Im saying something else--pollution is not bad per se. It should not always be "minimized." Pollution is simply the byproduct of the post-industrial society we live in.

Everything you and I take for granted--the food we eat, the water we drink, the electricity that runs the air conditioning in summer, and the natural gas that heats our homes in winter, the fact that society has time for arts and humanities instead of hunting & gathering--everything we do do requires that natural resources be consumed and pollution be created.

The United States is the wealthiest country on earth. I like this. I am willing to despoil the environment (within limits) to achieve this. Most people agree with me.

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, we know there *are* zero emission power sources (solar, hydroelectric, geothermal). The fact that they aren't developed enough to provide all power we need *right now* is merely an artifact of the regulatory environment that encourages (or doesn't discourage) pollution-generating energy sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're talking about something different. You're talking about technology development, not whether gasoline cars are bad.

Im all for market-based technology development. I even support limited subsidies for the most promising technologies. Energy independence would be a wonderful thing for this country, if for no other reason than it would allow us to get of the Saudi/OPEC tit.

I noted that you neglected one of the provably cleanest fuels of all--nuclear power. Since the 3MI incident, not a single nuke has been built in this country. All development on reactor design is being done in other countries.

Properly designed reactors are safe. They create hazardous byproducts, however even those byproducts can be safely disposed of (either by sinking them in the sea bed, or in seismologically quiet areas).

The greens in this country dont like the idea of nukes, because--well, Im not really sure why, probably just a general suspicion that the radioactive fuel is highly hazardous. Of all the power sources out there, nuclear power is the most readily available, cleanest, power source available. We should be investing in nuclear power well before we look into stuff like geothermal, wind, or solar.
(Hydro is pretty good, but most rivers that can be dammed for hydro already have been. There are almost no "wild" rivers left in this country, and frankly, the EPA/Sierra Club process for damming rivers is very very difficult to overcome.)

[ QUOTE ]
You need to realize that hybrids simply allow us to sweep a problem under the rug. Sweeping problems under the rug tends to bite us in the rear later on.


[/ QUOTE ]

You need to realize that people have many motivations for buying hybrids, not just reducing our oil consumption and promoting the use of other energy resources.

If you read the forums at http://www.insightcentral.com/ you'll realize some people buy my car to modify into a race care, since it's one of the most (affordable) aerodynamic cars on the market. People have even taken the Insight and turned it into a rally racer with roll bars. Some people put chrome on their Insights. Some people just plain like messing with the electronics and adding an auto-stop switch. Take a look at the Insight and you'll see the car is about MUCH MORE THAN REDUCING OIL CONSUMPTION.

It's a cool, little car that has ultra low emissions and reminds me of high school. I could have gotten a Vespa if I really want to reduce my oil consumption but I thought the Insight was a better choice for me.

The whole point of the OP was that in the US, because gas prices are still fairly low, people who buy hybrids have motives other than financial ones. What is SO hard to comprehend about that?

Wacki, if you want to talk about other energy sources, why not start a thread about that instead of attacking me for my personal choice in cars.

And, sorry to be so ad hominem, but, what do you drive?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem here is that the people doing the analysis (the regulators) are not the ones that bear the costs or reap the benefits (or suffer the downsides) of their regulations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor should they be. The regulator's goal should not be to decide private disputes. The regulator's goal should be to account for society's broadest interests, which include everything from the specific rights at issue, to collateral consequences like economic efficiency, economic growth, implications for employment, prices to consumers, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Society doesn't have interests. Individuals have interests. Bureaucrats are unable to determine those interests effectively, and are even less effective at implementing policies to achieve those interests, when compared to letting the individuals in question determine and pursue their own interests. Government bureaucracy *hurts* efficiency, growt, prices, and employment (overall - of course, there are some individual winners in this process (mainly the bureaucrats and those that feed off of their wake)).

[ QUOTE ]
If you dont understand why litigation is more expensive than bureaucracy, it is because you have never been involved in a lawsuit. Hiring a competent lawyer costs a minimum of $300 per hour, and in some cities like NYC, probably $800 per hour. Add in associate & paralegal time, expenses, etc., and it is easy to hit an even higher blended rate. It doesnt get more expensive than litigation. Bureaucrats are much cheaper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cheaper? The direct cost of litigation is not the only cost. The direct cost of the bureaucracy is not the only cost, either. There are the additional costs associated with regulatory compliance, cost of opportunities lost due to regulations, etc. Bureaucracy looks cheaper because lots of its costs are hidden and those that aren't are spread over a huge population.

If bureaucracy is so cheap, why do so many companies (and individuals) strive for deregulation? Why are telephone service and air travel so much cheaper now since they've been deregulated?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't the threat of "very very expensive" private enforcement of rights have the same deterrent effect of encouraging "voluntary compliance"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the plaintiff must spend lots of money to enforce his rights. Most plaintiffs will not/cannot do this. Therefore, the pricing on litigation favors the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that cost can't be recovered as part of damages? The cost doesn't even have to come out of the plantiff's pocket up front; contingency is pretty common.

[ QUOTE ]
You are the one who complained about the corruptibility of government. All I am saying is that those with money necessarily have a greater ability to exercise influence--they can hire lawyers, file lawsuits, gain access, make campaign donations, etc. Money necessarily equals power, always has, always will. As I said, lobbying is just an extension of democracy, and there is no way to get rid of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I complained about corruptability of government. Are you suggesting that the answer to this problem is "more government"???

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, we shouldn't all walk. You're implicitly making an assumption that IF we could perfectly determine damages from small-scale polluters and issue judgements with little or no overhead, such that anyone damged from car pollution could and would pursue damages, that people would decide that internal combustion engines are not economically feasable (which is certainly possible) and, once that became evident, would simply give up and not use mechanical transportation, and never devise any other method.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not assuming anything. You were the one taking issue with cars because they have emissions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I wasn't. You made a comment with a huge implied logical leap (if non-zero-emmission cars are found to be huge liabilities, we have no alternative other than to walk), I just pointed it out. I didn't bring it up.

[ QUOTE ]
Im saying something else--pollution is not bad per se. It should not always be "minimized." Pollution is simply the byproduct of the post-industrial society we live in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with this. If someone wants to pollute his own property, it's fine with me. If his pollution starts spreading to my property, then we'll see if it's damaging and if claims should be pursued. Your suggested remedy (regulation) doesn't make such distinctions - it's just a big hammer striking at anything that anyone might label "pollution".

[ QUOTE ]
The United States is the wealthiest country on earth. I like this. I am willing to despoil the environment (within limits) to achieve this. Most people agree with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, fine with me - as long as you're despoiling your own property and not mine.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, we know there *are* zero emission power sources (solar, hydroelectric, geothermal). The fact that they aren't developed enough to provide all power we need *right now* is merely an artifact of the regulatory environment that encourages (or doesn't discourage) pollution-generating energy sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're talking about something different. You're talking about technology development, not whether gasoline cars are bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

You conflated them. Another poster was talking hypothetically about zero emission vehicles, and you said they don't exist. I'm trying to resperate the two issues by pointing out that they aren't theoretically impossible, they just haven't been developed because there are incentives (both regulatory and market) to stick with what we have now.

Zero emissions vehicles do exist. They are electric vehicles or EV for short [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] They are not currently available at reasonable prices in the US, but they're in Canada, Australia, Germany...

Check green car forums for more info.

Zero emissions power sources exist, too. Windmills and solar. Go to Palm Springs to see the windmills. They're awesome looking.

No one said they didn't exist. It's just they're not efficient and available yet.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Zero emissions vehicles do exist. They are electric vehicles or EV for short [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The other poster was arguing that even these vehicles are not truly zero-emission because the power used to charge their batteries *usually* comes from polluting sources, which I think is valid in one context (the big picture) but invalid in another (whether a private road owner that only allows zero-emission vehichles is liable for pollution).

[Six_of_One]

Since nobody mentioned this, I have to chime in...there's another advantage to buying a hybrid that has nothing to do saving gas. You can drive in the carpool lane! I know several people who are considering buying hybrids for only that reason.

Outside of Los Angeles, of course, this may not be such a big deal.