Against a gas tax
Why taxes can’t get us where we need to go on transportation 17
-
Posted 9:39 AM on 12 Nov 2008
by David Roberts -
Posted in
-
Read More About
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/david_h_roberts.
Related Stories
EPA affirms California’s right to set tougher automobile emissions standards
Nigeria’s oil pollution is stark example of resource curse, says Amnesty International
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments View as Flat
JMG Posted 2:55 am
12 Nov 2008
True, but
Here in Oregon, the Gov's big transportation package is all about increasing the fixed cost of car ownership (hiking the titling fees, fees for tags, etc.) and includes only a laughable hike in the gas tax -- 2 cents ... on an 8 cent tax!
The point is not that you increase gas taxes enough to make people quake at the thought of having to drive somewhere. You increase gas taxes enough to pay for all that new infrastructure, which takes a while to build and costs a lot of money. You increase gas taxes enough that people start thinking in terms of "Gee, that's only a mile, no need to fire up the flivver for that;" not that they think they can never fire up the flivver necessarily.
The 5% Project Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
jimbeyer Posted 4:32 am
12 Nov 2008
This post is mixed up in at least two ways....
First, a gas tax is not needed to address climate change. A gas tax is needed to address PEAK OIL. A gas tax would provide extra impetus to tell the consumer that OIL IS RUNNING OUT; NOMINAL PRICES ARE NOT STABLE.
Second, you say we need a new infrastructure, and all the ways that you can't get one, but no ways that you can. If gas is more expensive, then alternative strategies (PHEVs, etc.) become more affordable in a relative sense. That would seem to motivate new infrastructure as much as anything.
As to what to do with the revenue, I'm not sure. Maybe use it to add to the SPR.
Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 6:17 am
12 Nov 2008
More Capital for Advances
We must move on to hydrogen and the lower gas costs free even more capital to develop those projects.
Permalink
odograph Posted 7:32 am
12 Nov 2008
pffft
A gas tax, as part of a carbon tax system, is certainly (absolutely) the most direct and least distorting way to reduce emissions.
You mix economics and politics though when you claim "It costs enormous political capital and pays insufficient returns."
That is argument from a naked assertion. It can't be attacked because .. hey, you just asserted the ground-rules. You didn't make that case.
And so the argument will only really be accepted by those who start from the same place, sharing the same claim.
Permalink
ret0dd Posted 8:41 am
12 Nov 2008
For a gas tax
For no other reason then the fact that Americans will continue to buy gas-guzzling SUVs as long as the fuel is cheap.
If high fuel prices spur energy innovation and conservation, then keep the prices high through taxes. We can't trust the auto manufacturers and oil companies to do it themselves.
The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face. -Jack Handey
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:31 am
12 Nov 2008
Odo,
Do you disagree that a substantial tax would be politically difficult to pass? Or do you disagree about the substantive effects it would have? I'm confused.
And you assert in turn that a gas tax is the "most efficient" way to reduce emissions, without addressing, um, any of the stuff in the post.
Agreeing, as I assume we do, that the lack of a robust grid with clear interconnect standards limits the spread of PHVs; that the lack of hydrogen stations limits the spread of hydrogen vehicles; that the lack biofuel stations limits the spread of biofuel vehicles; that the lack of public transit limits the spread of not-driving ... then why should raising the price of gas be the "most efficient" way to reduce emissions, rather than removing the aforementioned barriers? You think if you make driving standard ICE cars economically painful enough for consumers, GM will eventually bite the bullet and start manufacturing PHVs while simultaneously building out the grids of their customers?
I'm not sure what argument you're making, if you're making one.
grist.org
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:45 am
12 Nov 2008
I should clarify
I have no problem with an economy-wide carbon tax, which would apply to transportation. I'll push for that alongside everyone else. I just don't think it will have a large effect on the transpo sector.
A freestanding gas tax, or raising the existing gas tax substantially, is what I'm arguing against.
grist.org
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:20 am
12 Nov 2008
economics
I've been reading the "economic efficiency" arguments for a carbon tax for years, I thought it was more a reference than a novel assertion.
That's what I'm suggesting. Economic efficiency means that you minimize payments to people who are doing the right thing anyway, and only burden those who insist on continuing a bad practice.
A carbon tax does that. We hope that more elaborate schemes will add up to the same result ... but it's will always be a "check in the mail." Designers of a cap & trade or whatever scheme only promise that it will add up "economy-wide" to more savers than emitters.
Would it be hard? It's a new world. Give a science-based administration a couple years to sink in. Let the flat-earthers retreat a bit.
And then yeah, I think it's possible. I don't think you should set your compass by what was mainstream in the Bush years.
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:22 am
12 Nov 2008
BTW
I can't believe you say "hydrogen."
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:44 am
12 Nov 2008
Shifts
The Mess That Greenspan Made has a post on the IEA's (International Energy Agency's) 2008 World Energy Outlook.
Here's the opening paragraph of the Executive Summary:
They are probably largely just responding to the recent unpleasantness with prices ... but it does also seem a bit of a cultural shift.
Permalink
Jkaehny Posted 2:12 am
13 Nov 2008
Gas Tax
Yes we do need high gas taxes --- to pay for transit and help internalize the cost of car use. Societies with the most advanced sustainable transportation systems also have high gas taxes.(See W. Europe and Japan.) Unfortunately, a complete transit, cycling and walking infrastructure is not nearly enough to get motorists to leave the car at home. Here in New York City, 90% of the people driving to work have a good transit option within a ten minute walk. They choose to drive because driving is typically faster and more pleasant for them. The reason people do not drive is because parking is too expensive or scarce, not because transit is such an attractive option.
Permalink
Charles Komanoff Posted 3:10 am
13 Nov 2008
Against a Gas Tax? You must be joking?
Whoa, David, did someone hack your Grist ID? That couldn't have been you arguing "against a gas tax" yesterday, could it?
Arthur Pigou (progenitor of cost-internalizing Pigovian taxes must be turning over in his grave). Ditto his buddy John Maynard Keynes, who famously (and correctly) urged, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
Did you really say, in effect, that because a healthy (note my double entendre) gas tax can't wipe out practically all GHG's from ground transportation by itself, it shouldn't be part of the toolkit?
And on that crucial point you're way more wrong than right, David. The National Hybrid Carbon Tax Model I developed for the Carbon Tax Center suggests that a combined $10/ton-of-CO2 carbon tax and 10-cent-a-gallon petrol tax incremented annually (that's around 20 cents a gallon a year) for a few decades would, by 2028, knock CO2 from motor vehicles down by 20% from current levels and 40% from business-as-usual levels. And that's without directly counting the high-speed rail, light rail, biking and walking, livable communities, etc. that would get a huge push from the rising (and less confoundingly volatile) gas price. (It's also with a long-run gasoline price-elasticity of only 0.4, the lowest for any major energy form.)
I wish I had time to take on the rest of your post, David, or write my own in rebuttal. Even Koufax got shelled off the mound from time to time, so I guess you're entitled, but next time you're having an off-day, please don't pick on something as essential as fuel taxes.
Charles www.komanoff.net
Permalink
RossBleakney Posted 4:04 am
13 Nov 2008
World View
Society's biggest problems are:
- The difference in income between rich and poor countries.
- If poor countries catch up to rich ones by emulating them, we will have catastrophic environmental problems, including global warming.
- Even if poor countries don't catch up, global warming is a huge problem.
The author makes a good point but the key here is how the rest of the world changes. The U.S. needs to reduce its production of CO2 (and reduce its consumption of other resources). But it won't matter that much, if other countries increase theirs. If China, or the Indian subcontinent (now bigger than China) double or quadruple their emissions in twenty or thirty years (which is quite possible given their rapid increase in wealth) then we will be in terrible shape.If the cost of oil (in other countries) drops because we tax it, then we might not see much benefit. Infrastructure improvements might, on the other hand, be transferable. This is a complex issue, as you could make arguments both ways (if we tax gasoline, companies make more electric cars and bikes, as the cost of making those vehicles goes down, other countries buy more of those). The only way out of the problems listed at the top are (as I see it):
- Lower CO2 production in the rich countries.
- Find ways to sequester CO2.
- Work with poor countries to achieve more wealth without significantly increasing CO2 production.
All of these need to happen at the same time. While the third may seem the most difficult, it seems quite possible. There are examples of leap-frog development in the third world (cell phones before land lines) so it makes sense that it could happen again.Permalink
ssn139 Posted 2:42 pm
13 Nov 2008
Forgotten Reason for the Gas Tax
David,
I think that you are conflating the gas tax most people talk about with the carbon tax. For me, these are very different tools. The carbon tax has the greatest effect on coal-fired power plants, while not having much of an impact on the price of gasoline, as you point out. What people like Jeff Frankel are advocating is just a tax on gasoline alone. So you wouldn't need a $400/ton carbon tax to raise the price of gasoline a dollar if you just taxed gasoline by an extra $1 a gallon.
The political capital for this move would be great, but I don't think that's a reason not to advocate for any given policy. Advocate for the right thing, and then let the politicians sort out what they can actually accomplish.
I also think that you are correct in asserting that we need more infrastructure. This is the growing consensus. The problem is that, unless driving costs more or is more inconvenient, there is no guarantee that anyone is actually going to use any of the new transit infrastructure. It's not just personal preference that drives Europeans to bike and take the bus more. It's that in Western Europe gasoline costs the equivalent of $10-$12 a gallon, drivers licenses and the lessons to get them cost $1000+ (at least in the Netherlands), and cars are taxed heavily as well.
Learn. Discuss. Act. If you like what I have to say here, check out my website.
Permalink
brevity Posted 2:13 am
15 Nov 2008
isn't the problem with the gas tax...
...that it's not indexed to inflation, so we're really losing more and more revenue year after year? obviously the gas tax isn't going to solve energy problems, but it has a role. and it's currently broken. as the costs to build this infrastructure continue to rise (concrete, anyone?), we're getting less bang for our buck. i think a relatively easy solution is to raise the gas tax (quite a bit), spread over a few years, index it to inflation, and dedicate more of the revenue for mass transit infrastructure and better rail lines. beef up amtrak and encourage more freight traffic onto rail lines.
Permalink
Dave Ewoldt Posted 3:20 am
18 Nov 2008
Let's move beyond status quo thinking
Another argument to maintain the status quo, spoken like a true free-market fundamentalist (or pro-business Democrat, not that there's a significant difference). According to Roberts, in the choice of whether or not we pass on a habitable planet to future generations, saving political capital is the prime consideration.
If the choice is to continue supporting an economic system based primarily on financial incentives (which I would argue against), then we should at least demand full cost accounting that is spread amongst both producers and consumers. Consumers should pay for their choices in the marketplace through taxes, and producers should have subsidies removed as well as be required to pay reasonable costs for the resources removed from the commons, for other environmental and social damages, and for end of life cycle costs for their products.
The argument for infrastructure change to protect automobile induced sprawl is also little more than status quo thinking. As Hirsch, Hansen and so many others point out, we don't have the time for that even if it were a good idea.
If price at the pump reflected full costs, gasoline would be $12-$15/gal. Anything less than this is merely whistling past the graveyard.
At the very least, gas taxes and realistic resource rents to oil producers should be used to fund high-speed intercity rail and the redesign of walkable cities.
Peace _on_ Earth requires peace _with_ Earth.
Permalink
javaplace Posted 11:17 am
27 Nov 2008
I'd rather go with Martin Sloan
I'm puzzled that Mr. Roberts would actually oppose one of the most important tools in the war against global warming, auto dependency, and sprawl. The so-called infrastructure that Mr. Roberts advocates does nothing to reduce auto dependency or VMT. In fact, it could exacerbate sprawl as it would make driving cheaper, encouraging people to live further from job centers and downtowns.
Check out "Save Detroit - Raise The Gas Tax"
http://planetizen.com/node/36203
for a sounder alternative
25 November 2008
"Fortune Magazine's Martin Sloan is interviewed on Marketplace on why he thinks it would be good for Detroit, and America, to have a higher gas tax. At the same time, he has advice to Congress as to what they should do with fuel-efficiency standards"
Permalink