http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050915/ap_on_re_us/energy_poll;_ylt=AoeoIjwUHDUfWtQsQJD8MbVvzwcF;_ylu =X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

WASHINGTON - Eight in 10 people say it's important for Americans now driving sport utility vehicles to switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles to reduce the nation's dependence on oil, a poll found.


With gas prices hovering around $3 a gallon nationally and the price of natural gas rising sharply, six in 10 said they are not confident President Bush is taking the right approach to solving the nation's energy problems, according to the survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

Given several choices for dealing with energy problems, the public has some clear preferences:

_Almost seven in 10 want the government to establish price controls on gasoline and want more spending on subway, rail and bus systems.

_Just over seven in 10 want to give tax cuts to companies to develop wind, solar and hydrogen energy.

_Just over eight in 10 want higher fuel efficiency required for cars, trucks and SUVs.

_Slightly more than half, 52 percent, favor giving tax cuts to energy companies to explore for more oil.

The rising anxiety over high gas prices has caused a shift in public priorities about the importance of exploring for new energy.

Almost six in 10 now say exploring for new sources of energy is more important than protecting the environment. People were evenly split on that question in 2002. Half now support drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska — up from 42 percent who felt that way in March.

Only four in 10 wanted to promote the increased use of nuclear power, while slightly more than half opposed that step....

LOL. Are they going to BUY us evil SUV drivers a new vehicle? I'm sorry, I know this is a serious topic, but I couldn't help it. We are going the way of Europe, $6 a gallon is in our future! Considering we used to pay $1 a gallon and it's steadily climbed every year -- that is no real suprise.

Bah, I think you guys need to keep them. If you didn't, I wouldn't get to keep bitching about them. :p

I was surprised the Poll showed that hgh of numbers though, weren't you?

_Slightly more than half, 52 percent, favor giving tax cuts to energy companies to explore for more oil.


Almost six in 10 now say exploring for new sources of energy is more important than protecting the environment.

LOL if anyone needed proof that Americans are incredibly, incredibly stupid- look no further. God forbid we actually start using less energy- why do that when we can just turn the earth into a wasteland to maintain our great way of life? After all- we'll never run out of resources. The number-one priority is maintaining our high standard of living:

http://genesis.sannet.gov/infospc/templates/cd1/images/traffic.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39379000/jpg/_39379063_smog2300.jpg

http://www.nomdundieu.com/12.2.smog.jpg

I was surprised the Poll showed that hgh of numbers though, weren't you?

Sort of. Polls bug me sometimes, it seems they're representative of what people want done, but won't take the initiative to do themselves? It reminds me of celebrities or high profile types who rant and rave about these matters and then go to home to a well lit and well air conditioned 7000 square foot house with a 3000 square foot pool.

I'm not a fool either way... once I travel more than a certain amount of mileage a day, I'll pony up for something safe and fuel efficient. I'm afraid my 12 mile commute to work (school is between home and work) doesn't warrant a change.

LOL if anyone needed proof that Americans are incredibly, incredibly stupid- look no further. God forbid we actually start using less energy- why do that when we can just turn the earth into a wasteland to maintain our great way of life? After all- we'll never run out of resources. The number-one priority is maintaining our high standard of living:


What steps have you taken to use less energy? Just curious!

sort of ashame this gas "crisis" turned out to be a dud. down with SUV's... :not:

What steps have you taken to use less energy? Just curious!

None- I drive a V8 Cadillac and am as wasteful as possible at every turn. Why should I limit myself when the world is hopelessly jam-packed with morons like the respondents to this poll? I'm not naive.

Check this out:

Using Taxes to Keep Gasoline Prices High Makes Sense to Some

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB112648762814437625-CQUqdIgrUSaJbV4rjhoJIUkVKFQ_20060912,00.html?mod=t ff_main_tff_top

With gasoline prices topping $3 a gallon and consumers searching for relief, what's the smartest thing the government could do? Make sure the prices stay at least that high, say some economists.

That answer may seem crazy. Higher pump prices reduce what consumers can buy elsewhere, undercut economic growth and force people to think twice before driving.

But the last is precisely the point. High prices could boost conservation and diminish the country's oil thirst. The last time that happened was from 1978 to 1981, when average gasoline prices rose about 90 cents to $2.86 a gallon in today's dollars, and gasoline consumption fell 11%, while imports slumped 28%. Tighter fuel-efficiency standards also played a role.


But those gains were ephemeral; when gasoline prices declined, consumption and imports soared. The same pattern is bound to occur today unless the government intervenes, through higher taxes, to assure that pump prices will continue to pinch....

Higher prices have an immediate effect on consumption by prompting multicar families to use the most fuel-efficient car in their garage and encouraging city dwellers to commute by bus or train rather than car. The larger effect, though, comes from changing car-buying habits and encouraging the development of new-technology vehicles.

Walter McManus, a University of Michigan automotive economist, estimates that if prices jumped to $2.86 a gallon and stayed at that level, sport-utility vehicle sales would fall 18% in five years. If gasoline rose to $3.37 a gallon, SUV sales would fall 28%. Sales of pickups and vans would plunge. "If you want people to economize fuel, increasing the cost through taxes would be effective," Mr. McManus says.

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin calculates that a $1 increase in gasoline taxes would cut consumption 20% within 14 years. Other economists believe the savings may be inflated, because owners of SUVs and other large vehicles tend to be wealthier and more able to afford higher gasoline prices. Former Bush administration economist Phillip Swagel warns that a heavy tax could batter consumers, especially post-Hurricane Katrina. "It could muck things up," he says.

Economy.com economist Mark Zandi says a gasoline-tax increase now would be well-timed. The economy still is expanding, and consumers already have confronted the shock of $3-a-gallon gasoline. The consequences will be clear in the next six to 12 months, the time needed to pass a gasoline tax. Fifty-six economists polled by The Wall Street Journal online edition said, on average, it would take sustained gasoline prices of $4.06 a gallon to threaten the economic expansion.

Mr. Zandi urges a flexible tax, aimed at keeping gasoline prices at roughly $3 a gallon; the tax would fluctuate with gasoline prices. A simpler way is to increase gasoline taxes by $1 a gallon. The idea is the same: make gasoline prices high and predictable.

A $1 increase in gasoline taxes would raise about $100 billion, which could finance a big part of the hurricane recovery. As with any sales tax, lower-income consumers pay a proportionately higher amount. To ease the burden, other taxes that low-income Americans pay could be reduced or tax credits aimed at the poor could be bolstered.

Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, a top candidate to succeed Alan Greenspan as Fed chairman, long has pushed an alternative to reduce gasoline consumption. He would distribute gasoline vouchers equal to about 75% of total U.S. gasoline use. Drivers who want more than their allotment would have to buy vouchers from gas savers and would bid up prices. The system wouldn't pump up government revenue, but it would be a far more complicated system than a tax.

"The real purpose is to make the U.S. economy less dependent on energy and therefore less sensitive to spikes in energy prices," Mr. Feldstein said in an interview when gasoline prices were about $1.70 a gallon.

Gasoline-tax increases have been considered politically suicidal since 1994, when Democrats lost control of Congress, in part because of wrath over a 4.3-cent increase in gasoline taxes. But times change. After two wars in the Persian Gulf, fought in part over access to foreign oil, and a disaster in the U.S. Gulf, where oil refining is concentrated, the public may be looking for a way out. Politicians talk of "shared sacrifice." Taxes are an economic embodiment of that idea.


******************************

Personally, I'm inclined to agree with Swagel. Whatever gains the U.S. might make as a nation from lowered consumption can't even compare to what it's going to cost the U.S. as a result. Higher gas prices and the related higher consumption costs are going to knock out a large number of working poor families that are barely making it as it is on substandard wages. That's going to tangent out in a lot of ways - partly in unemployment, partly in increased welfare expenditures, partly in increased crime and related criminal justice costs and more.

I suppose the upside would be that if they did tax the hell out of the lower and middle classes through gasoline taxes, they could probably go ahead and pass those estate tax repeals to protect the assets of rich dead guyz. :hmm:

I drive a V8 Cadillac...
don't bitch about gas prices then, you can find a more efficient vehicle.. :p

don't bitch about gas prices then, you can find a more efficient vehicle.. :p


or I can just steal my gas from numbskulls who support "giving tax cuts to energy companies to explore for more oil" :nice:

don't steal my gas then. :nice:

Are you kidding? i wouldn't steal a grape from a supermarket in Jersey- I'm not that hard.

Poll: 8 in 10 Want Drivers to Drop SUVs Reply to Thread

the other 2 in 10 drive SUV's :D



Almost six in 10 now say exploring for new sources of energy is more important than protecting the environment.

actuall ireland's state owned bus service Bus Eireann are doing as such because of the high cost of fuel here (about double what it is in the US)

None- I drive a V8 Cadillac and am as wasteful as possible at every turn. Why should I limit myself when the world is hopelessly jam-packed with morons like the respondents to this poll? I'm not naive.

Nothing like setting a good example, or living by the values you want others to is there ;) Hows thing in hypocriteville? :D

hmm, just so you know, this is supposed to be said in a light hearted, friendly joking way. Sounds a bit harsh just written on here ;)

huggles

lilnymph

Ras Bizarre High, have you organized your company yet that will steal gasoline using New Orleans refugees? How much do you pay them? I might want to come to work for your new company. :) Have you named your company yet? You could call it Ras-Gas. That has a nice ring to it. :)

Just over eight in 10 want higher fuel efficiency required for cars, trucks and SUVs.

I bet 8 in 10 drivers in America either drive SUVs or drive vehicles that are just as inefficient regarding fuel consumption. (My calloused wife ain’t giving up her SUV. She is obviously an evil human. :devil: I drive a VW Jetta, which if, of course, is additional prove that I am a wonderful human :)).

Almost seven in 10 want the government to establish price controls on gasoline...

I find the above absolutely incredible. Nixon's price controls proved to be an utter disaster. People, it seems, do not learn from history. :( :( :(

Almost six in 10 now say exploring for new sources of energy is more important than protecting the environment. People were evenly split on that question in 2002. Half now support drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska—up from 42 percent who felt that way in March.

That won't please "eco-terrorists." (Cool term, huh?)

Only four in 10 wanted to promote the increased use of nuclear power, while slightly more than half opposed that step.

I think using nuclear power makes much sense. Yes, Chernobyl was a disaster, but the Soviets slung that plant together as cheaply as possible. Yes, there are risks, but they can and have been minimized. We simply must at explore alternatives to petroleum, and nuclear energy is an alternative. We should not let “scare-mongers” and “prophet of doom” shut the door on nuclear energy.

As far as increasing federal gasoline tax:
A $1 increase in gasoline taxes would raise about $100 billion, which could finance a big part of the hurricane recovery. As with any sales tax, lower-income consumers pay a proportionately higher amount. To ease the burden, other taxes that low-income Americans pay could be reduced or tax credits aimed at the poor could be bolstered.

Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, a top candidate to succeed Alan Greenspan as Fed chairman, long has pushed an alternative to reduce gasoline consumption. He would distribute gasoline vouchers equal to about 75% of total U.S. gasoline use. Drivers who want more than their allotment would have to buy vouchers from gas savers and would bid up prices. The system wouldn't pump up government revenue, but it would be a far more complicated system than a tax.

"The real purpose is to make the U.S. economy less dependent on energy and therefore less sensitive to spikes in energy prices," Mr. Feldstein said in an interview when gasoline prices were about $1.70 a gallon.

IMO, lunacy! The federal government—under both Democrat administrations and Republican administrations—have an insatiable desire to increase the revenue they collect. Then, they use it to fund the study of how flies breed or some bizarre study.

Conservation is obviously a huge factor, but I do not trust the federal government to be even remotely efficient in spending additional revenue, and I do not trust the concept of the federal government increasing tax on gasoline and giving low-income taxpayers relief.

Besides, low-income Americans also drive. It just makes no sense to me, for several reasons.

THE GOSPEL OF THE FREE-MARKET ECONOMY:
I shall continue to preach to gospel of the free-market economy. As prices have risen, members of my family have already started conserving energy. If prices reach a certain point without government interference, other people will conserve, and other energy source will be sought. The free-market economy is not perfect, but historically, it works. (India and other countries are historical examples that a free-market economy works.)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050915/ap_on_re_us/energy_poll;_ylt=AoeoIjwUHDUfWtQsQJD8MbVvzwcF;_ylu =X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

WASHINGTON - Eight in 10 people say it's important for Americans now driving sport utility vehicles to switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles to reduce the nation's dependence on oil, a poll found.


With gas prices hovering around $3 a gallon nationally and the price of natural gas rising sharply, six in 10 said they are not confident President Bush is taking the right approach to solving the nation's energy problems, according to the survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

Given several choices for dealing with energy problems, the public has some clear preferences:

_Almost seven in 10 want the government to establish price controls on gasoline and want more spending on subway, rail and bus systems.

_Just over seven in 10 want to give tax cuts to companies to develop wind, solar and hydrogen energy.

_Just over eight in 10 want higher fuel efficiency required for cars, trucks and SUVs.

_Slightly more than half, 52 percent, favor giving tax cuts to energy companies to explore for more oil.

The rising anxiety over high gas prices has caused a shift in public priorities about the importance of exploring for new energy.

Almost six in 10 now say exploring for new sources of energy is more important than protecting the environment. People were evenly split on that question in 2002. Half now support drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska — up from 42 percent who felt that way in March.

Only four in 10 wanted to promote the increased use of nuclear power, while slightly more than half opposed that step....

This is encouraging, SpabSFW.. Actually, on reflection, I was seriously wrong! Only a few points are encouraging - the first especially, and this one- "Just over seven in 10 want to give tax cuts to companies to develop wind, solar and hydrogen energy."...
Maybe people are getting a bit more realistic, some of them, somewhat..

Giving that the price of gas and other fuels have been historically increasing, I would say that many drivers won't have a choice. Either pay a large chunk of your income for transportation or hope for better gas mileage.
Rural areas would be hit hard in this situation. Slim to no mass transportation and larger fuel delivery costs. Personally, I am considering keeping my family at one car. Heck, my mother and father managed with one car. However, only one worked but they did have three children.
At least I live in an area with a decent mass transit that is only improving with the addition of more light rail lines.

Giving that the price of gas and other fuels have been historically increasing, I would say that many drivers won't have a choice. Either pay a large chunk of your income for transportation or hope for better gas mileage.
Rural areas would be hit hard in this situation. Slim to no mass transportation and larger fuel delivery costs. Personally, I am considering keeping my family at one car. Heck, my mother and father managed with one car. However, only one worked but they did have three children.
At least I live in an area with a decent mass transit that is only improving with the addition of more light rail lines.

Before this I was planning on getting another car for myself so we would have 2, but we have managed on one for so long, it can be inconvenient at times but we get by. I doubt we'll get a second car anytime soon if at all in the forseeable future.

Does seattle have a decent mass transit? I have never used it when I visit family.

We'd be screwed with one car in Houston (Technically Spring, suburb). Buslines don't even run through my neighborhood. I tried to take a taxi one day and no one would come get me!