Friday, June 22, 2007

Gasoline taxes

Over at the Washington Monthly, there is a discussion of gas taxes and other means of trying to help reduce carbon emissions to save the environment.

Having grown up over in the UK, it has always seemed that gas prices are ridiculously cheap here. Even in Canada, much more similar to the US in terms of the distances people drive, by choice or necessity, gas is more like $5 a gallon than the current $3+change here. And as a result, in Canada, cars are, in general smaller than in the US. And more fuel efficient.

Let's have a gas tax increase: a modest one, like $1 or so a gallon. It will reduce usage modestly. Modestly is good. It can be used to do other good things: for example, an increase in research into more efficient engines, or into developing mass transit. Let's tie the gas tax to better use of resources, not more use of resources.

Let's give a tax credit to the poor to compensate: not to make the tax completely neutral, but to eliminate the effect on the poor. This gives the poor an incentive to use, for example, mass transit where available, which we will be developing with the revenue from the gas tax.

Let's also have vehicle taxes that reflect the damage done on the environment, on the roads, on people, by vehicles. And lets encourage the use of more efficient modes of transportation of goods than trucking across the country, by making those who use the roads pay the cost of upkeep. If we put as much federal funds into, say, rail, as we put into roads, the country would be much better off. And we'd have a great railway system.

On the issue of production of electricity, there are methods which are environmentally more friendly: for example, converting wind or solar power into electricity is much more friendly than coal, oil or nuclear energy.

And lastly, on the environment, let's get better crops grown to produce the appropriate goods: hemp, for example is outlawed even in its tlc-free form: yet it makes great paper and fabrics, and is less corrosive to the landscape than cotton, and faster growing than timber (and hence we can stop logging for paper, which would save hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon release).

Oh, and for those who object that a sudden increase in gas prices would be a disaster for the country, let's have the sudden increase in a manner that would help the country out, rather than a manner which goes to increase the goitre of oil company executives.


N.

4 comments:

Cornish Dreamer said...

Although I'm in the UK, I agree with your comments. And it was a good read.

The change in climate is becoming more noticeable as time goes on. The choices are: believe those who say that this is a normal fluctuation, or worry that there's more on the way. As an ex-geologist, I know which one I'm betting on (I've reduced my carbon footprint and I won't be buying a house close to the water!)

BreadBox said...

I worry that the trends at the moment, which might possibly be just normal fluctuations, might possibly not. And to my naked eye, the trends over the past few decades look like the beginnings of a period of growth rather than a random jiggle. And if we have two possibilities, even if both are reasonably likely, if one is cataclysmic we ought to be trying like hell to avoid the cataclysm. And to me, it looks far more likely that we are facing the cataclysm than a random jiggle.

And then there are the extra things to worry about: especially the methane deposits which are likely to be released if the temperature increases a little bit more: this suggests that there is a risk of a sudden shift (for the worse) in the rate of temperature increase.

Reducing ones carbon footprint can be done, even by individuals, but it could really use some encouragement from governments.

N.

Cornish Dreamer said...

I agree N. It could do with a huge political shift, but the problem is that it involves money. Apparently money is more important in the present than the climate in the future. Isn't it typical of governments to think "not in my life time"?

When I was reading geology, we had a long discussion and came to the conclusion that the next world war would be over resources (soil, water and land), which is directly linked to climate change. The other reason suggested was the dwindling supplies of oil (for which the conditions are already ripening & creating wars). I hope to goodness that those idle theories don't become prophecies.

BreadBox said...

The issue of money I guess will always be a difficult one (though as prosperity increases, it always seems that it ought to the case that easy times are just around the corner. They never are.

The problem on this topic, of course, is that there isn't time for us to wait for the opportune moment. If only a few more thousand votes in Florida had gone to Gore it would have been clear that he had won in 2000: he might not have had an easy time addressing this issue, but at least he was focussed in the right direction. And he wouldn't have squandered the deficit on tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy.

N.