I couldn't agree more with PEBO on Meet the Press Sunday: New gasoline taxes aren't the way to boost energy efficiency.
Remember, European gas taxes have long been more than $2 a gallon higher than ours, and as of 2002, the average fuel economy of European Union vehicles was 37 miles per gallon, which is just a tad more than what the 2007 Energy Bill requires of new U.S. cars in 2020.
Of course, it would be politically impossible to raise gas taxes even $1 in this deep recession, even if you promised to give all the money back to taxpayers. A smart politician will instead focus his or her efforts on jumpstarting the transition to high fuel economy and plug-in hybrids, while leaving higher gasoline prices to the inevitability of peak oil.
Obama's answer to Tom Brokaw's question is here:
MR. BROKAW: Let's talk for a moment about consumer responsibility when it comes to the auto industry. As soon as gas prices began to drop, consumers moved back to the larger cars once again, to SUVs and the big gas consumers.
PRES.-ELECT OBAMA: Right.
MR. BROKAW: Why not take this opportunity to put a tax on gasoline, bump it back up to $4 a gallon where people were prepared to pay for that, and use that revenue for alternative energy and as a signal to the consumers those days are gone.
PRES.-ELECT OBAMA: Well ...
MR. BROKAW: We're not going to have gasoline that you can just fill up your tank for 20 bucks anymore.
PRES.-ELECT OBAMA: Well, keep, keep in mind what's happening in -- to families all across America. Yes, gas prices have gone down. But, in the meantime, maybe somebody in the family's lost their job. In the meantime, their housing values have plummeted. In the meantime, maybe their hours have been cut back. Or if they're a small-business owner, their sales have gone down 50, 60, 70 percent. So putting additional burdens on American families right now, I think, is a mistake. What we have to do long term is make sure that we have an energy strategy that focuses on fuel-efficient cars, that focuses on providing incentives for fuel-efficient cars. Same applies to buildings. We have a enormously inefficient building stock, and we can save huge amounts of energy costs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil by simple things like weatherization and changing the lighting in, in major buildings. That's going to be part of our economic recovery plan. It actually allows us to spend some money, put some people to work right away, but it also creates a long-term, sustainable energy future. And I think making some of those investments in ensuring that we change our auto fleet over the next several years, that's going to be important as well.
Yes, I know that many readers think a higher gas tax would be a good idea. Readers know I am not against proposing things that are politically impossible today -- like, say, stabilizing at 450 ppm.
It is, however, one thing to tilt at advanced windmills. It is another to squander huge amounts of political capital pursuing policies that won't pass through Congress and that would make exceedingly little difference even if they did.
If Obama is going to pursue politically difficult policies, at least they should be ones that have very high impact. And again, peak oil is probably going to drive a gasoline prices back above $4 during Obama's first term -- unless this recession morphs into a genuine depression.
The only thing they can stave off peak oil is massive demand destruction. Only two things cause massive demand destruction:
- A severe global economic downturn
- A major global transition toward using oil more efficiently and replacing it with electricity
Assuming Obama can get us out of the first, the second is simply going to take too long to avoid $200 oil. But in any case, Obama will need all of the political capital he can to jumpstart that transition.
So I think his answer to Brokaw was spot on.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Flat
KenG Posted 8:27 am
08 Dec 2008
The slightly higher European mileage isn't the whole story. Europeans drive less, even considering the density differences. They acccommodated higher taxes with a limited set of compensating measures (smaller cars, public transport, diesels). We may have more and better options (hybrids, electric cars, super lightweight materials). This could alter the response to higher taxes.
I wouldn't go out on a limb and say higher taxes are great/doable, but I think the situation is complex enough that an increase deserves a serious consideration.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 10:24 am
08 Dec 2008
And your counter-argument is: U.S. cars may get the same gas mileage as European cars -- in 12 more years??
Please. This article makes little sense to me. I don't see gas taxes as a panacea, but I am struggling to understand why a gas tax that funnels revenue into projects like, oh, public transit improvements isn't one small but important piece of the big puzzle. This article, by contrast, simply puzzles me.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:43 am
08 Dec 2008
You can tweak, trim and finagle the elements of the Old System all you want.
This is 21st Century.
A time of Imagination.
The only way out is up.
We need a new vision and a new infrastructure -- not patches and repair work -- a new Hydrogen Infrastructure is the best place to put our funds.
We need Wizards with Brains, not guys with caulk guns and band-aids.
Texeme.Construct.Questioner
Permalink
human power Posted 1:25 pm
08 Dec 2008
Also, back here in the reality based world, it looks like we have maybe fifteen years to decrease our GHG emissions by 80-90% or face the "tipping points" (according to James Hansen). There is really no way there that includes cars, whether 50 mpg or electric. Do you really love driving more than your children or grandchildren?
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:45 pm
08 Dec 2008
You destroy any credibility that you might have had.
Electric cars use 0.35 kWh or less per mile driven. We're really close to having batteries that will make BEVs affordable and practical.
We can make the power we need during off-peak hours using surplus power from peak-designed wind farms.
We can change out our ICE fleet for BEVs in a decade.
Permalink
Chris McMasters Posted 2:00 pm
08 Dec 2008
In the short-term, however, we can do the most good with the least amount of dollars in maximizing the efficiency of our buildings. This means guys (and gals) with caulk guns, insulation, windows, radiant barriers, high efficiency bulbs, weather stripping, smart metering and band-aids. It will create work and save loads of money over time. It will be good for the economy immediately. You are not going to make the 'Old System' disappear overnight.
We need lots of people working on lots of solutions simultaneously, not just hydrogen. You suggested the very idea with your 50 billion dollar direct infusion to people with $50,000 ideas.
I, too, want to drive a hydrogen powered car. But the people with caulk guns are just as important.
Chris McMasters
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:00 pm
08 Dec 2008
It's a gradual incremental plan that can stimulate while it reduces oil and coal use year after year. This could cover the time period, maybe three years, that it will take to get really efficient devices, like smart grid, solar cogeneration, and plugin hybrids mass produced. So they will be affordable for mass introduction.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 12:48 am
09 Dec 2008
David McKay: Sustainable Energy - without the hot air. Version 3.5.2, November 2008
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink