I just wanted to put myself on record as STRONGLY agreeing with Robert Samuelson's colum in today's Washington Post, "A Full Tank of Hypocrisy."Basically, what Samuelson points out is the wild disconnect between rhetoric and action on this issue:
Americans want to stop global warming. They want to cut oil imports. They want cheaper energy. Who will tell them that they can't have it all? Not our "leaders."
Samuelson notes that "Congressional Democrats especially have targeted global warming," making dramatic proclamations like "We hold our children's future in our hands." But when it comes down to it, our children's long-term future is a lot less important to most politicians than their own short-term political future, and to preserve that apparently requires pandering to the parents of those children. Simply stated, that's idiocy, about as idiotic as corn-based ethanol (I'm trying to decide which is stupider, but I can't...they're both so moronic!).
OK, everyone, let's go back to Econ 101: demand for a product is determined in large part by the price of the product, which is why there's something called a "price elasticity of demand." Unless we assume that the price elasticity of demand for gasoline is zero, we know that raising prices will eventually reduce demand. However, as Samuelson points out, despite higher prices, "Gasoline demand is up almost 2 percent from 2006 levels." In other words, prices aren't nearly high enough to persuade Americans to cut back on their gas guzzling. How high would prices have to go? According to a recent survey, Americans on average say that at $4.38 per gallon, they'll start to cut back. Well, right now we're more than $1 per gallon below that. Thus, gasoline demand keeps increasing.
The bottom line is this: if our "leadership" is serious about cutting oil imports and dealing with global warming, they will have to bite the bullet (and possibly commit political suicide) by actually RAISING the price of gasoline. Either that, or they can impose steep increases in fuel economy standards that so far have been resisted by the big U.S. automakers. Stalemate? Sure looks like it, as long as we have politicians without the courage to risk their jobs for "moral imperatives" and their "childrens' futures."
P.S. Here in Virginia, we have one of the lowest gas taxes in the country, yet instead of raising it to pay for needed transportation investments, we come up with "plans" that don't simultaneously fail to solve the problem and lead to cutbacks in important state services. More profiles in political courage, no doubt about it. And politicians wonder why people are cynical?
*Cut other taxes (this could even be "revenue neutral" for those below a certain income level)
*Provide superb mass transit alternatives to the car
*Build a bike network second to none
*Make walking easy, convenient, and the preferred option by building "smart," mixed-use, liveable communities. Coordinate these carefully with affordable, convenient transportation options.
Also, I would sell any tax increase - as Tom Friedman has suggested - as both a "war tax" as well as a "save the planet" tax. In other words, it's "geo-green" - protect U.S. national security ("geopolltics") while preventing the polar ice caps from melting ("green").
The only question is, where's the political courage to do this? OK, one more question: where's the public on this issue? Are they willing to bite the bullet, or are they going to continue to nibble around the edges with silliness like corn-based ethanol, "don't buy gas on one day" gimmicks and other foolishness, etc? How serious are people about not sending money to OPEC and to terrorist groups? How serious are people about the polar bears not going extinct? I think it's time to find out, by following Al Gore's lead and setting this nation on a path to cutting carbon emissions 90% by 2050. We can do it, we just have to set our minds to it and show some courage.
The whole mass/transit smart growth no-car required environment is only possible and cost-effective in a small area of the country
I would classify this area as real urban. Now, historically urban areas generally vote less in elections and also have less capitol to influence politics
The suburbs on the other hand have people who vote at a higher percentage anbd with higher income to influence poltical situations. Additionally in the suburbs the car is king and gas taxes are political suicide.
Net result in general policy that benefits suburbanites will always happen before policy that benefits urbanites.
One could argue the solution is to bring mass transit out to the subrubs and have more "smart growth" communities but the reality is this is not cost-effective and many people love their suburban lifestyle and don't want to live in a "smart growth" community (for much more on this see Bacons Rebellion)
If people were serious about this issue MPG would be a much bigger factor in car purchases
And finally one clarification. There are different levels of environmentalisim. Some people advocate reduction in energy which is easily turned around as against progress.
I advocate energy efficiency first and then commonsense reduction. You aren't going to convince people to turn off the AC or get a car with 105 HP but you can convince people to buy appliances that save people money long-term combine trips and maybe get a vehicle that has 160 HP instead of 260. (It boggles my mind where you would actually use 260 HP :-p)
My 50mpg turbodiesel is rated at about 90 I think. You wouldn't think it is that low if you drove it though...
And the poor will get the brunt of the price hike as higher prices become higher food prices and the cost of every needed product and service goes up. No tax credit or break will be able to shelter the inflationary push of higher gas prices.
And let's not forget that there are other market forces that encourage sprawl.
For example, in the DC metro area, the high housing prices pushes people out of the city.
We need to find gentle ways to encourage people to use less gas. Price is efficient, but a stern and cruel disciplinarian.
2. People are doing fine in Canada, Japan, and Europe, where gasoline costs a lot more than it does here. Compensate the poor in the ways I said (tax credits for energy efficiency, the best mass transit in the world,, plus give them affordable housing options, universal health care, and education. My guess is that they'll do just fine under that scenario; in fact, far better than they're doing now with cheap gas and crappy services.
2. Japan and Europe live at a much higher density rate than Americans, if I remember correctly. This allows public transportation to be be economically feasible. They also have the infrastructure built, and we must build it. I don't know anything about Canada on this regard. How suburban is Canada?
3. Okay, here is a tweak of your policy that addresses one of my concerns, which is that housing prices encourages people to move far away:
how about using part of the money from the tax increase to fund housing subsidies, for buyers or renters, for people living in denser areas, such as cities?
So there are two incentives: save money from the higher price of gas, and lower housing costs in cities.
Would this make moving to cities attractive enough?
2. This is a chicken/egg issue. Part of the reason why Japan, Europe and Canada live at higher densities than the United States is that they have higher gasoline prices. Also, they never put in place the kind of pro-sprawl policies we've got. At the least, we should stop subsidizing sprawl and start subsidizing transit-oriented "smart growth" and vibrant urban areas.
3. Agreed. Also, make cities extremely attractive places to live by making their school systems second to none and investing heavily in community services and amenities. What we've done over the past few decades is really to tilt the playing field heavily against the cities (and also against rural areas like Appalachia) while heavily favoring suburbia. That means sprawl, and that needs to turn around.
Two hands clap and there is a sound. What is the sound of one hand?
For more info,
http://en.wikipedia....
1. Have less of a gasoline tax increase on the transportation of goods. This would help to keep consumer prices in check yet encourage the industry to begin the move away from energy/environmentally inefficient transportation.
2. Offset the sales tax with revenues from the gasoline tax especially on staple goods.
3. Government investment in better modes of transportation - especially the neglected railroad system. Trains can't deliver to the retailer's door, but they can move great quantities of goods over long distances better and cost effectively than a fleet of trucks (especially if gasoline prices go up).
No doubt change is difficult and some people will suffer more than others. But with mounting scientific evidence our "choice" is rapidly coming down to: change voluntarily now or hold off a few years and be forced to change by Mother Nature. Either way change is going to happen and we'll be better off if it is on our terms than those dictated by the planet.
How high would the price need to go to drive down consumption significantly?
And, as well, need to provide certainty that the prices will not fall ... certainty to businesses and all consumers that, tomorrow, the price will be higher to help drive energy efficiency as a more prominent part of purchase/planning decisions.
Besides being a daily grind that takes time away from family, a long commute can be harmful to your health. Researchers have found that hours spent behind the wheel raise blood pressure and cause workers to get sick and stay home more often. Commuters have lower thresholds for frustration at work, suffer more headaches and chest pains, and more often display negative moods at home in the evenings.
Caryn Hutson works for a property firm in the District but lives in her "dream home" in Haymarket, some 40 miles away. She leaves the house at 5:30 in the morning and gets back at 6:30 p.m. -- if traffic on Interstate 66 cooperates.
The longest commute I have ever had was 45 minutes or so, and that was an agony for me. Fortunately it didn't last long - now I am at about 15 minutes or so, and I can telecommute when I feel like it. Bikable, even..
Part of the solution is ending these marathon commutes. Building and widening roads simply enables this behavior in much the same way as buying alcohol for an alcoholic.