The logjam has broken. The past six years in America have been characterized by intransigent politics, negation of science, and short term satisfactions over long term survival. A brief two year period lies before us in which it will be impossible for either political pole to impose its will on the whole. Divided government will insure that nobody will get all of what they want, but also that compromise will be possible because without it nothing will happen. And logically if nothing good happens, public blame will fall most heavily upon the most intransigent.
For several years now a majority of scientists have concluded that rapidly rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere are responsible for a rise in global termperatures of over 1 degree. Recently, this majority has become a supermajority of over 90%, and they have also concluded that human burning of fossil fuels is the root cause of the CO2 increase. Public opinion has failed to mirror the scientific viewpoint, but has begun to move in that direction. While some politicians in both parties have preferred to seek election campaign funds from Exxon and GM and pursue a "drain America first" policy of oil drilling, those more receptive to science such as John McCain have argued for pulic policies to discourage fossil fuel use and encourage public use of conservation, efficiency, and alternative fuels. It is apparent that a tipping point is approaching, in which the USA will no longer resist involvement in domestic or international efforts to replace fossil fuel economy with something else before the fossil fuel is gone.
If this is going to happen, then I say, why not start now? The marketplace will not drag us away from gasoline and coal as long as those are the cheapest and most convenient fuels available. But if we actively strive to find a new road, instead of just talking about it, we will find that road and our grandchildren will have better lives. The first step upon that road is to make oil and coal less attractive now, so that the marketplace will become an ally instead of an enemy of change. The only way to do that is to tax their use. Oh, the dreaded "t" word! But consider that we could start small and work our way up. Perhaps a tax of 20 cents per gallon on gasoline this year, rising to 25 cents next year, etc. Wouldn't that make it clear to vehicle shoppers that the Hummer is a bad idea and the hybrid or the biodiesel is a good idea? One problem we face at this time is that vehicle shoppers fool themselves with false hope. Gas prices go up and down, right, so why worry about picking the Yukon? Introducing an artificial steadying factor of a rising tax would clarify the fact that long term price trends are inevitably going to be up. Doing the same for coal fired electricity would make it clear to utilities that they do not want ot build new coal plants, but rather need to get serious about solar, wind, nuclear. Hard on the poor you say. Yes it will be, and I will entertain ideas on lessening that impact, but still we need the marketplace to be our ally. Solar, nuclear, and wind are inadequate, you reply. In return I say- you will not know that until you try, and current fossil fuel trends are not sustainable.
I understand that some of you reading this will be outraged at my folly. Why throw something at an imaginary problem like global warming when we could all waste that money in some other way? Conservatives may wish to focus on the goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. You don't get people to use less gasoline by keeping it cheaper than bottled water. Those who actually agree with the scientists about global warming may wish to focus on the fact that voluntary efforts will not cut it. You may be willing to buy a Prius. Good for you. But if everybody else in your neighborhood buys a Suburban or Navigator, you have accomplished nothing. Shared problems require shared solutions, and slow motion train wrecks require serious measures. We did not fight World War II without a draft.
I await your civil and well reasoned responses.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 10
Why would there be any more justification to raise the price of oil to protect us from trade with the middle east, than to artificially increase the price of goods coming in from China? We need to be getting our government to lower the taxes on gas, and not increase them. More than 40% of the price of gas is taxes... can you imagine where our economy would be if we only had to pay $1.25 for gas again? American auto companies would dominate!!! Plastic products could be produced competatively in the US... the overall trade deficit would not be the problem that it is now.
we pay the cheapest price for oil compared to other countries. and we have a low tax.
The first U.S. state tax on fuel was introduced in February 1919 in Oregon. It was a 1 cent per U.S. gallon (0.3¢/L) tax. In the following decade, all 48 U.S. states and the District of Columbia introduced a gasoline tax, and by 1939 an average tax of 3.8¢/gal (1¢/L) of fuel was levied by the individual states.
While state fuel taxes had been around for more than a decade, the first federal gasoline tax in the United States was created on June 6, 1932 with the enactment of the Revenue Act of 1932 with a tax of 1 cent/gal (0.3¢/L). The U.S. federal gasoline tax as of 2005 was 18.4¢/gal (4.86¢/L), and the gasoline taxes in the various states range from 10 cents to 33 cents, with an average about 22 cents per U.S. gallon (5.8¢/L). Unlike most goods in the U.S., the price displayed includes all taxes, rather than being calculated at the point of purchase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_tax
lower gas prices would lead to more dependence on foreign sources of oil. no thank you.
All kidding aside, taxing isn't the solution to any problem, but assuming you and the new majorities in the House and Senate are hell bent on raising taxes, what about doing it at the point of sale? Set a base MPG and for every percent below that rate, you are taxed accordingly. If I can afford a "Hummer", and choose to buy one, charge me your "green" tax at the time of sale. If I buy a "Prius", not so much. If that isn't an incentive to auto manufacturer's, then I don't know what is. Then a working family who purchases the minimum, and most likely, most efficient transportation is less affected.
All you have to do to make this work is get rid of special interest lobbyists. Of course that would include those who are lobbying for stem cell research, etc. Gosh Chris, I guess life is never as simple as a new tax.
Great Debate!
And YEA on taxing high usage vehicles. Free market, my ass, look where the free market has put the health of the planet. Protection comes in here somewhere.
I do not claim that a carbon tax is simple and fun. The details are contentious. If you want results, you make the tax a flat tax: so many dimes per gallon. Everybody pays the same rate, and if you want to save money you drive less or get a smaller or more efficient vehicle. Energy wastage problem solved. Conservatives tolerate flat taxes better than other kinds, but liberals are suspicious that such taxes are much harder for the poor to pay than the rich. If you give a nod to the poor by some sort of tax break, you not only undermine your effort of getting the rich to accept the tax, but you also undermine the whole reason for the tax. The tax is not there to raise money, although it would in fact send a bit of badly needed revenue to the USA's treasury. The tax is there to discourage waste and encourage innovation to solve our energy woes and address the threat of global warming. The easier you make it to "get around" the tax, the less interested people will be actually changing their ways.
But bottom line, if we ignore this challenge our great-grandkids will blame us when they have to leave Louisiana and south Florida due to rising waters. That is the end result of global warming, the oceans filling up with meltwater from Greenland and Antarctica.
Start with a small gas tax (nickel per gallon) that goes up every year, like the frog in the pot, no one notices it because it is so small. A "gas guzzler" tax is in place now, so perhaps piling on some more taxes there may not fly as well. The market place has made this country the heaviest on the planet, contributing to greater fuel use, it takes energy to move all those extra pounds, recently on NPR, It has also contributed to global warming and our addiction to fossil fuels. Will technologies come on line to break that addiction before we reach "Peak Oil", time will tell. If we do not reduce consumption artificially now, we may not be ready for the day when it happens "naturally", that is the time when we reach "Peak Oil", which occurred Thanksgiving 2005. The lack of oil and gas will be a much bigger pain then Global Warming in the near future and efforts to reduce consumption should come from that perspective, since we (liberals and conservatives, rich and workers) will be hurt by the shortages that will ensue. Read the books about "Peak Oil", they are in the public library.
Obviously not very many people on GATHER are concerned about the debate of our environment, as evidenced by the minimal response to your post. Very sad.
It really boils down to viewpoint. Most humans look around them and say it's a big planet, i can't even see over the horizon. But if you are a scientist, or an astronaut who has see the earth from space, you realize that our resources are far from infinite and our hunger is growing. It is not written in stone that humans are incapable of exceeding the carrying capacity of our planet, and it is totally unrealistic at this point to discuss swarming like a cloud of locusts to the next planet. Global warming is the clearest threat at this time to our ability to maintain a survivable home for ourselves. There are others, but one thing at a time, please.