Analysis of the Hon. John Dingell's carbon-tax proposal

Rep. John Dingell has a long history of opposing fuel-economy increases and other "green" initiatives.  His position as defender of Detroit's remaining auto industry more or less forces him to support the production of whatever vehicles are still profitable there, regardless of what they do to US energy security, balance of trade or global climate.  For the last 20 years or more, this has meant large cars and personal trucks:  the "guzzler" segment.  Because of this, I was surprised and pleased to learn of a proposal from him for a carbon tax and a petroleum tax, to help move the US away from both fossil fuels in general and petroleum in particular.

Both emotions lasted about as long as it took to read the summary.  It does not appear to be a serious basis for initiatives to move away from fossil energy.  Instead, it looks like a straw-man proposal designed to fail, while appearing to promote the interests of union labor in the process.  My final appraisal is "disappointingly cynical".

(begin insert of unattributed material)

Representative John Dingell (D-Michigan) is not the person most people would be expect to introduce carbon tax legislation. He is often seen as the congressman representing the automobile industry. In the past, he has opposed any legislation that might harm the automakers, from tailpipe emissions legislation to air bags to gas mileage.

Dingell is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, so he is in a position where he can have considerable influence over energy legislation passed. This summer, he surprised people by starting to talk about the possibility of carbon tax legislation. He has now taken the process a step further. On Thursday. September 27, he posted a summary of his proposed carbon tax legislation to his website, and invited public comment on it. The actual legislation may vary from the initial summary, based on public comment.

What does the proposal include?

The major parts are

1. A $50 / ton tax on carbon

• Phased in over 5 years and then adjusted for inflation
• Applies to coal, including lignite and peat
• Applies to petroleum and any petroleum product
• Applies to natural gas

2. A tax on gasoline in addition to the carbon tax

• .50/ gallon of gas, jet fuel, kerosene, etc…
• Added to current gas tax
• Phased in over 5 years and then adjusted for inflation
• Exemption for diesel
• Biofuels that do not contain petroleum are exempt. Biofuels blended with petroleum are only taxed on the petroleum portion of the fuel.

3. Phases out the mortgage tax forgiveness on houses over 3,000 square feet

• Exemptions for pre-1900 homes and farm houses
• Exemption if owner purchases carbon offsets
• Exemption if LEED certified
• Phases in based on size (0% credit over 4,200 square feet; partial credit 3,000 to 4,199)

4. Attempts to be revenue neutral. Tax funds would be used for the following:

• Expansion of the earned-income tax credit, to help lower-income families pay for fuel
• Gas tax goes 40% to mass transit and 60% to roads
• Jet fuel tax goes to airport and airway trust fund
• Carbon tax goes to medicare and social security; universal healthcare (if passed); state children's health insurance; conservation; renewable energy R&D; and low income home energy assistance program

(end insert of unattributed material)

Where the money goes

The bill would raise taxes on fossil fuels based on their carbon content, and on most petroleum fuels specifically.  It would not raise taxes on diesel fuel, ostensibly to promote more efficient vehicles (but more likely to gain the support of the trucking industry and Teamsters).  It would also phase out mortgage tax deductions on very expensive homes.  This would take a lot of money out of the economy.

The money wouldn't come back to most individuals.  Here is Dingell's proposal for the expenditures of all this tax money:

Where will the revenue go? 
First and foremost, the Earned Income Tax Credit will be expanded.  This helps lower income families compensate for the increased taxes on fuels.

  • Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit
    • Zero Children:    
      • max earned income level from $5,590 to $7000
      • Phase-out from $7000 to $9000
    • One Child:       
      • Max earned income level from $8390 to $10,000
      • Phase-out from $15,390 to $17,000
    • Two or More:   
      • Max earned income level from $11,790 to $15,000
      • Phase-out from $15,390 to $18,000

The revenue from the gas tax goes into the high way trust fund, with 40 % going to the mass transit and 60 % going to roads.  The revenue from the tax on jet fuel goes into the airport and airway trust fund.
Finally, the revenue from the fee on carbon emissions will go into the following accounts:

  • Medicare and Social Security
  • Universal Healthcare (upon passage)
  • State Children’s Health Insurance Program
  • Conservation
  • Renewable Energy Research and Development
  • Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program

Everyone would pay more for motor fuel.  A fair number of people would pay more taxes because of less deductible mortgage interest.  About the only people who would see increases in their monthly income would be the working poor.  The rest of the money would go to union-related interests (highway and airport construction, mass-transit construction workers and operators) and various government programs.  More construction of systems which will be used less as we have less fuel, but less incentive to e.g. move freight from trucks to rail.  More big labor, more socialism.

This is a country which is sick of cronyism, but it lost its patience with welfare-statism some time ago and hasn't regained it.  This bill looks like a scheme designed to fail, so that its author can claim that the public really doesn't want to do anything about oil dependence or the climate.  It has "cynic" written all over it.

Gail also took some time looking at the bill, and here are her comments:

It would be great if this legislation, or something like it, can be passed.

This approach is relatively simple. Using a combination of a gas tax and a carbon tax makes it more effective in reducing transportation used of fuel than a straight carbon tax would be.

The proposed combination of taxes would be much easier to administer, and probably more effective than a cap and trade program. The automakers might find the proposed program easier to live with than an increase in CAFE (mileage) standards.

According to the Carbon Tax Center, the tax after phase-in equates to 63 cents per gallon of gas and 90 cents per 100 kilowatt hours of electricity, for the national fuel mix. The amount of revenue from the taxes would be about $180 billion a year, after the phase in. The Carbon Tax Center would prefer a higher, more steeply ramped up tax. Their overall comment, however, is that is that the proposed legislation is "terrific".

TOD members can comment on Dingell's reply form. Dingell seems to be willing to take comments from anyone. (The site accepted mine, and I am not in Michigan). Take some time, and make your comments known on his site.


http://politics.reddit.com/info/2ug44/comments

if you are so inclined...we always appreciate your help in spreading our work around the web!

This actually doesn't seem too bad to me. There are a few things I'd tweak, naturally:

*Don't put the money towards the earned-income tax credit. That just encourages more population growth, which we certainly don't need. Put it towards something else, or just use it to pay down our debts.
*Why are we giving more money to road construction? Don't we have enough roads already? Mass transit should get 100% of this portion, not 40%.
*Until we figure out a liquid fuel alternative for air transport, we need to devote maybe 10% of the jet fuel tax to R&D and 90% to yet more mass transit. Let's build a rail system that's actually competitive with the airline industry in terms of speed, cost, and level of service, as they have in much of Europe.
*The final list of things is fine, except I wouldn't give low-income people money SPECIFICALLY to ease their energy bills. I'd just give it to them in a lump sum, keep the incentives for less energy dependency, and enable them to purchase other stuff, such as home infrastructure or bicycles that will have long-lasting structural economic benefits to them.

As for cronyism, that's going to happen no matter where the money goes, whether it goes into state-run programs or private companies like Halliburton or Enron or whatever. That's just how our current political/economic system functions.

A few major tweaks could make this more appealing;
* Allocate 50% of the gas/jet fuel tax towards mass transit, the rest to offset income tax
* Allocate 25% of the carbon tax to lower income citizens to offset the regressive nature of the tax, allocate the rest to offset income tax
* Ditch the mortgage annulment for existing homes or institute 'penalty'. However, implement it for large houses constructed after 2007.
* Exemption for agricultural diesel fuel only (phase in for all others)

(NOTE:  The article text had considerable additions from an unattributed source or sources without any consultation with me.  I have tried to label these additions to distinguish them properly, though I do not know how they should be attributed.  Perhaps the editors will fix that detail; in the mean time, please re-scan the article proper to see which material is properly mine and which is not.)

As I see it, the problems with Dingell's proposal are much, much worse:

  1. The vast majority of citizens would just see less disposable income.
  2. The programs "helped" by this initiative would see a declining income stream even under the best outcome, as efficiency and conversion reduced the taxable fuel use.
  3. At worst, the costs could result in a recession or (if assisted by e.g. the collapse of mortgage lending and the construction industry) a depression.
  4. The refusal to tax diesel aggravates the perverse incentive to convert petroleum into subsidized biofuels even at negative efficiency.

This appears designed to be D.O.A. on the House floor.

It would be much simpler and better to tax the fuels (without exemptions for any fuel) and use the full amount to give every legal worker, pensioner, etc. a zero-bracket amount on their employment taxes (or the equivalent for retirees):

  • The net effect on government revenue would be zero; there would be no criticisms about creeping socialism or tax-and-spend liberalism.
  • Individuals could actually improve their net income by being more efficient.
  • Individuals would have additional income to spend on efficiency measures.
  • There would be no fiscal impact on government programs as the fuel-tax revenue declined.
  • There would be no problem of the government picking winners; any effort which reduced the consumption of fossil fuel would "win", regardless of how it was accomplished.
  • The restriction of rebates to legal workers would tax under-the-table and illegal alien labor while benefitting the taxpaying public.

These ideas have been out there for a while.  I find it hard to believe that Dingell could not know about them.  For him to produce a proposal at such great variance from it says that his objectives are very different, and I doubt very much that I would ever endorse them.  We need to close the Hummer dealership on Telegraph, not promote it.

(before you ask "why a zero-bracket amount and not a flat per-capita rebate":  I think people who only work a trivial amount should only receive a trivial fuel allowance, and proportionality up to a point is a good thing.)

and that's my fault EP. Sorry about that...not sure what I did, but apparently I did something. :)

It sounds to me like your main concern is that this program really comes out to provide additional taxes, rather than taxes which get rebated back to consumers in a different form. To the extent to which this is the case, the program will have a difficult time getting public support.

You're absolutely correct about that.  I think people would respond to a program which allowed them to do well by doing good.  Dingell's scheme does not benefit the people paying the additional taxes, or give them any opportunity to do so.  This may play well with class-warriors, but the general public hasn't been in that kind of mood for a long time and repudiated that view in 1994.

From what I see it looks like it could be a European tax strategy. You raise taxes on fuel, and spend the proceeds on programs like health care and infrastructure. Say what you will about Europe but our energy usage is way below that of the US, and our tax policies have something to do with it, even if we don't drive the same distances as in the US, nor have the American weather extremes. I don't quite understand why EP is so negative about it. I'd say it would probably work and achieve its goal of reducing fossil fuel use. But whether the American public would accept a larger role of the state in their daily lives (which it indeed implies) is another matter.

I've got to agree with EP about this proposal, it looks to me to be designed to please no one, that its designed so he canclaim to have supported a free market solution but those pesky environmentalists opposed it for not being perfect. It gives new depth and meaning to the term "dingleberry".

*note to our foreign readers. A dingleberry is a ball of fecal material clinging to the hair around the anus. Bob Ebersole

A flat carbon tax is utterly immoral. And if you're considering it, you should be ashamed whoever you are. Who suffers from more expensive energy? The poor people. Who can afford to pay an extra $1 for their gasoline? The rich people. There are only two morally acceptable ways to cap carbon emissions that I see: 1. Tax luxury activities (flying for example), or 2. institute a carbon ration as George Monbiot and others have suggested. Sorry, but that needed to be said.

The intent of Dingall is to use the funds from the gas tax to disproportionately help the poor, so they are less affected (Expand the earned income tax credit and fund a low income home energy assistance program). I'm not sure how successful this strategy will be.

Of course, if this strategy works, the decline in usage will be much less.

I don't think there is any morality or immorality involved. A carbon molecule in the air is a carbon molecule in the air, and physically it doesn't matter whether it comes from the tailpipe of a 2007 Porsche Cayenne S or that of a 1991 Toyota. If you want to reduce overall energy usage (and thereby emissions) fast, then taxing is the way to go. That Porsche Cayenne owner will indeed be able to pay 1$ extra for his gallon of gas, but he will also be able to pay 3$ extra. Even after implementing a non-linear carbon tax scheme, the rich will still be rich, and the poor will still be poor.

The poor should get to sell carbon credits to the rich on ebay. Until that happens we will live in a fascist state.

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

So exactly what about a carbon tax == fascism. Or are you just spouting nonsense?

Sadly no matter how you try to finagle it, there will always be poor. Humans breed until they stew in their own wastes. We are no smarter than yeast. Except, maybe yeast know the definition of fascist.

The truly wealthy in this country get that way because they game the system. Some day the sheep will wake up and drag the maggots down into the sewer. Until then I will complain about the imperial capitalist pig printing press mofos. You are a pig.

Communist trolls make baby jesus cry.

The Bush administration have achieved nine of the ten required steps towards fascism here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/21/15474/3677

Carbon credit trading? Tell me with a straight face that isn't a feel good gambit that will accomplish nothing at the end of the day except shifting the unsustainable CO2 emission location from one place to another.

Humans are going to zero carbon emissions. We can do it ourselves or mother nature can take us out of the picture. Pretty simple, eh?

I agree, rationing. First three gallons, no tax, the next three some tax, the next, more. Same way with electricity, the first 500 KwH, the next, the next. A fair carbon law is impossible with the criminal gubbermint we have. Viva la revolucion!

Rationing is a very inefficient means of helping the poor. Instead, just give everyone a lump-sum $500 at the beginning of the year and then let them pay for as much fuel as they want. If gasoline had a $2/gallon tax on it that means that your $500 pays for the tax on the first 250 gallons you buy. Obviously, the numbers I used were merely an example.

My problem with the proposed bill is that the tax should be more and there should be no exemptions or special double-taxes. For example, why should farmers get an exemption; instead, let them try to produce food efficiently and give everyone who eats food a $500 bonus at the beginning of the year to make up the difference. On the flip side, removing the home mortgage deduction on large houses seems pointless, as the carbon tax on heating and electricity should be penalty enough. If the tax isn't penalty enough, then raise the taxes to a higher level.

Well, if you give them money then you in essence give gubbermint money to the oil companies. If you give them rationing coupons they can sell them to the rich, or the rich can by god cut back on consumption. There should be a payoff for riding a bike or taking the bus.

Transferrable, fixed issue rationing coupons are far different from the type of rationing you proposed, and they're subject to market mechanisms in a similar way to other proposals we make. The net effect is the same: different sectors of the consumer sphere compete with each other to lower their energy usage. The one who changes their life enough that they're self sufficient, gets a significant portion of a welfare-level income simply by virtue of having a small energy footprint.

If prices are not raised artificially by the government and redistributed to the middle class and the poor... the middle class and poor will be priced out of driving anyway eventually, and the oil companies will be the sole beneficiaries. The supply/demand curve is going to raise the price, one way or another.

Increase the gas tax $0.25 a month ... and the minimum wage $0.25/hour on the same date. Do that for a year and it fixes all sorts of problems. We have to have inflation with the conditions we face and some wage inflation benefiting everyone else would be nice after so many years of asset inflation benefiting the wealthy.

Despite the possibility that this will be a short-lived bill, I think it's a relatively good bill. Disclaimer: I haven't yet read the details, just the summary, and often implementation details can turn a good bill into a bad one.

That said, here are some counter-points to Engineer-Poet's analysis:

  1. It's true we don't need to expand the road system, but the bridges do need to be repaired and quickly. The DOT says that one in ten bridges are structurally deficient (http://tinyurl.com/2lfddy) while the American Society of Civil Engineers says it's one in four (http://tinyurl.com/6v6gg; click on "Report card" on the lower left). So, we can either have more bridges collapse or we can repair them. To me that seems independent of whether we expand the public transit system. Let's do both.
  2. It's true that expanding the earned-income tax credit may have the unintended side effect of encouraging more children but, in my view, that is small counter-balance to the generally beneficial effect of easing the situation for low income earners — they are also the group that doesn't have the room in their budget to purchase newer, energy efficient vehicles.
  3. Generally, compared to cap and trade, I think a carbon tax is: a) faster to implement b) much less open to being rigged by industry (see Europe's failed carbon market for an example of that) and c) easier and administratively less costly to implement because the tax collection infrastructure is already in place (unlike a cap and trade system which would spawn an entirely new, largely unproductive industry just to regulate carbon).
  4. I think it's courageous for Rep. Dingell to introduce this legislation and I acknowledge that. He is taking on the auto industry and the rich (see the mortgage tax exemption reduction) at the same time. This seems to me rather progressive for him and might be political suicide. He must certainly know the risk and he's doing it anyway.
  5. I have to think about the diesel exemption. That may be smart especially since industry uses more diesel than consumers and it might be easier for consumers to reduce their gasoline consumption (by carpooling, reducing extraneous trips, etc.). To my knowledge, there aren't yet good alternatives to diesel for running a D9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterpillar_D9).
  6. I'm not sure the 50 cent tax on kerosene (aka jet fuel) will be able to stay in the bill. Apparently there are 4,000 bilateral trade agreements that have the side effect of preventing any one country from taxing jet fuel on international flights. (This comes from Monbiot.com but I could not find a good reference, sorry.)

Considering all the above, and especially considering that a revenue-raising bill has a better chance of passing when the revenues go back to the people paying (i.e. gasoline tax revenue going back to transportation and repairing bridges and not some other worthy cause), at first blush I think it's a good bill. I would support it pending a thorough reading of the whole bill and not just the summary.

Andre' Angelantoni
Six-Month Carbon Diet for Business
www.InspiringGreenLeadership.com

If you look at the post carefully, you will discover that my view a quite a bit more favorable toward the bill than Engineer-Poet's. We need to start somewhere. I don't know that it will get past the discussion stage this year.

If the gas tax equates to 63 cents per gallon tax after five years, it presumably equates to a 12 cents per gallon tax the first year. With the volatility in prices, this is hardly noticeable. Even at the scale up level, it isn't very high. The big issue I see is that it really doesn't go far enough--but it still may be way more than can be passed today.

The diesel exemption according to Dingell's site reflects the fact the diesel fuel is much more efficient. I suppose, too, that this way there is less of an indirect impact on food prices.

I think the diesel exemption is bogus. Part of the miles/gallon benefit of diesel is that it packs more energy (i.e.: more carbon) into every gallon; so, it isn't much more efficient on a carbon basis. Second, if it were truly so much more efficient, then the users of diesel wouldn't be paying as much tax as the users of the inefficient gasoline, so their taxes would automatically be less for diesel.

If anything, the amount of proposed tax is way too little to make much difference. We've already seen gasoline prices increase more than $1.50/gallon in the last five years. How is an extra $0.63/gallon increase in the next five years going to make much difference?

ag diesel is a pretty red and already exempt ... I don't get that part. Oh, wait, they're assuming a minor adjustment to the deck chairs will correct the ship's list before the next rogue wave. Sadly, no ...

I think that the proposed carbon and transport fuel taxes are not large enough by themselves to actually accomplish the stated result, "reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60-80 percent by 2050". I think we need a tax the equivalent of $2/gallon NOW, not 5 years hence.

Furthermore, this plan ignores the impact of inflation over the 5 years, which would be expected to diminish the impact of the tax, as everybody who can will "pass the buck" and push market prices and their income to higher levels in dollar terms. This process was clearly evident as a result of the 1973 OPEC Oil Embargo and the 1979-80 Iranian Crisis. That was what we experienced as "Stagflation", i.e., recession and inflation at the same time, which mystified the economists of the day. The tax would be inflation adjusted only after the 5 year phase in period, which would continue to push prices ever upwards with no end in sight.

Of course, this scheme also ignores Peak Oil, which will also lead to ever higher prices as demand exceeds supply. Those increased prices will act as a "tax" on the consumer, but the proceeds will go to the oil companies, especially the national companies which now dominate world oil supply. The resulting transfer of wealth from the poorer peoples and nations to the rich will only serve to increase the disparity between the haves and the rest of us.

Again, I wish to point out that a direct rationing system may be the only hope, once Peak Oil hits home. Rationing won't be any less difficult to pass into law than a stiff fuel tax, but, once in place, the economic disruption would be minimal.

Again today, we are seeing a jump in futures price for oil, said to be driven by Asian demand. Our politicians in Washington are living in a fantasy world of their own creation, the necessary result of the political process where the truth is well hidden. It's long past time to raise fuel taxes, as that should have been done when oil was selling for $10 per barrel. Senator Dingell knows that his proposed tax is not likely to be passed into law under present market conditions, thus I think his proposal is very cynical.

E. Swanson

It should be pointed out that the goal of reducing greenhouse emissions by 60-80% (which indeed might not even be sufficient, since a climate change threshhold may have already been crossed), if it also pertains specifically to carbon dioxide, implies a much greater reduction in end-use of fossil fuels - since as resource quality declines, more gross energy will be required to produce a given level of net energy.

For example gas-fired power plants that burn LNG are more nearly as carbon-intensive as coal-fired plants, if one includes the gas used in creating and transporting it. In the US it is possible that net energy from coal is already a fact (having so far peaked in 1998), though coal extraction on a tonnage basis (and emissions) continues to increase.

True, in principle it might be possible to introduce carbon-sequestration - but this would only come at an energy cost - back to the scale of energy use problem.

Any way you cut it, the scale of the challenges are enormous.

Obvious rule 1 in any greening campaign is that you ban construction of new coal powerplants. They release more carbon dioxide, more radioactive material, more mercury, more particulates, more sulfur, more methane, and cause more environmental damage than anything else out there.

Even if we found out that global warming was a plot by George Soros, Al Gore, The StoneCutters, and the Martians, this would be true.

Agreed. My point was simply that the recently much discussed 80% emission reduction target implies a much greater reduction in end-use (and energy use) - due to declining energy resource quality over time - for all the finite fuels. I don't think this is acknowledged by most of the climate change campaigner's promoting the figure, and I think we should be pointing this out.

I imagine that a sustainable level of energy use might be something on the order of 5% of present levels, from the point of view of inherent resource limits. If the climate goal is also in the ballpark for what is necessary, then it presents a need for an equally monumental reduction. Either way, we face a monumental challenge.

I imagine that a sustainable level of energy use might be something on the order of 5% of present levels, from the point of view of inherent resource limits.

You're way, way off the mark.  Wind energy is inherently sustainable, and there is an estimated 72 TW average (over 2000 quads/year) of it potentially available.  This would allow a 5-fold increase in total human energy consumption with nothing from fossil fuels or nuclear.

If the climate goal is also in the ballpark for what is necessary, then it presents a need for an equally monumental reduction.

You're off the mark again.  We are probably at the point of needing, not zero carbon emissions, but negative emissions (purposeful sequestration).  The only way we are going to do this is by building systems which take carbon out of the atmosphere and put it in the ground... at an energy profit.  We can get 20% or so of today's US energy consumption from biomass, and remediation is going to force us to do so.

Then there's solar energy.  Humanity could multiply its energy consumption more than 30-fold and still use only 1 day's worth of sunshine per year.  Sustainability is not limited by energy.

No, it's limited by _useable_ energy. What you propose seems to be little more than the large resource fallacy - the amount of bitumen in Alberta, the amount of uranium in seawater, the amount of energy in sunlight that hits the earth every day, the amount of energy in wind, etc. Problem is the energy is too difuse to be appropriately scaled up - at an energy profit. And even if that weren't so, they are unlikely to happen given the economic impacts of peak oil discussed by Gail in her new series of posts.

PV produces energy as electricity, of which approximately 100% is usable.

Your criticism is again off-target, because we are already intercepting a great deal of this energy with roofs, pavement and other artificial surfaces (completely different from the situation with bitumen or oceanic uranium).  We are just not capturing it.  These points of interception also happen to correspond more or less to our desired points of use.  Integrating PV into these other materials will allow use to be scaled up radically with little other than cosmetic impacts.

As for Gail's projections, it's a question of which trend gets big momentum first.

You can't do that in a day ... ratchet it up $0.25/month and put the proceeds into rail electrification. A sudden $2.00 increase is not the same as bringing a $2.00 increase on over a year or so. All of this revenue should go to rail electrification.

We used to go 55 miles per hour. Bring it back.

Start with the largest displacement vehicles and add a $5,000/liter displacement tax - say anything above 4.0 liters. Then next year its 3.0 liters. Then 2.0 liters. Any money raised goes to rail electrification.

Most of this stuff is academic - the ARM disaster is going to so redraw the landscape here that a lot of our assumptions are wrong. I'd like to see some moves made now, but I think we're really at a planning stage, trying to project what life is like when the dollar is no longer king. And the ARM scam will be largely done unwinding next summer ... just in time for a frightful election season.

We really are stuck in this awful intermediate state for another fifteen months :-(

Perhaps I did not make my point clearly. I think that the tax of approximately $2/gallon for all transportation fuels should already be in force. Now that the price of oil has skyrocketed, it's too late to expect the political process to add a further increase in the burden on Joe SixPack and his main squeeze. As we've seen, there are presently many that think that the price of gasoline in the U.S. is too high and there have been proposals for cutting the gasoline taxes at the state level.

However, as we are in a "war" over oil, I do think a case could be made for shifting the finance burden for this "war" directly onto the oil consumer who is benefiting from it. If the Democrats had any balls (sorry Nancy), they should boost the tax in the same bill that is in the works to pay for the military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such a move would be wildly unpopular, but doing so would certainly bring home the cost of this insane situation we've been led into. I think the tax could be offset by increasing the so-called Standard Deduction on the income tax, with the result being no net increase in government income. I think it's criminal that anyone who earns less than the poverty level should pay income tax on their wages.

That said, I still would rather have a proper rationing system implemented. Rationing by Price is a top down approach, hitting the poorest the hardest, while handing out tradeable "coupons" gives everybody an initial equal shot at the declining resource. Those who used more oil would need to pay a higher price for the privilege, which would be like a progressive tax. The extra burden on the higher income fraction of the population would ensure the most rapid conversion of the economy away from oil. Assuming that such is at all possible at this late stage in the Peak Oil problem, of course.

E. Swanson

The problem with a change in the zero-bracket amount is that it has no effect until your income hits the old bracket threshold; if you are trying to help the very poor, that won't do it.  I proposed a zero-bracket amount on employment taxes (SS, FICA, Medicare) with the difference paid by the carbon rebate because it has an effect starting at the first dollar earned.  (It would also max out at a level proportionate to income up to a point, which means that people who have low-earning jobs won't get subsidized out of proportion and encouraged to e.g. commute 50 miles to flip burgers.  Eliminating perverse incentives is very important; just look at our fiasco with energy-negative biofuels.)

There is a fundamental assumption in all proposals that using taxation will influence public behavior. In some specific cases this is true. Make tobacco more expensive and smoking tends to go down.

Where this assumption fails is when the use of taxation is supposed to create incentives. Whatever the mechanism proposed to cut GHG emission (caps or taxes) the basic assumption is that making the activity more expensive will lead to innovation.

However, this only provides an incentive it does not guarantee innovation. It is a way for pols and business people to shift responsibility to the "marketplace". Most of the proposals floating around depend upon technology which doesn't exist, or is uneconomical. Much of it also depends upon people changing their lifestyles without any discussion of how this is to be accomplished.

Take the simple example of commuting from the exurbs. If fuel is more expensive what are the commuters supposed to do? There is no mass transit for them to shift to, there aren't even any plans for mass transit. Single family sprawl housing can never be made as efficient as compact housing. Asking people to better insulate their houses is inadequate.

If anything is to be done, then government and other people need to address the hard issues directly and stop pretending that the "marketplace" will come up with solutions though the magic of the invisible hand. The invisible hand is not only invisible, it doesn't exist at all. See today's NY Times story about how fast the water table is dropping in much of China. People can't alter their behavior to fix society. There needs to be a national framework and it involves more than tweaking the tax code.

Glad to see someone question the supposition that higher taxes would result in appropriate levels of behavioral change - the minimal criteria have to be whether the measure could be expected to decrease absolute consumption to levels allowed by nature, not whether it provides a vague disincentive for the targetted bad behavior - and whether it in some way helps people navigate the required change.

David Strahan points out in his recent interview on Electric Politics, that despite taxes constituting 80% of the price of a gallon of gasoline in Britain, consumption continues to rise. Just how high would taxes need to go to result in appropriately decreasing levels of consumption?

I think the fundamental problems we need to think about involve giving people something to do, and ways to have some kind of an income, so that they will be able to be able to undertake the required leaps - such as losing or quitting their present jobs.

Under present circumstances, it's probably good that someone is advocating a carbon tax with the goal of reducing emissions. But I think that we need to get people to understand that we're going to have to make definite decisions about what activities are essential to the transition effort and which are not, and the remedies to the gathering crisis will not be found in taxes or other macroeconomic policiy measures - though some of these will help.

You're fudging the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions.  Greater taxes on fuel may not be sufficient to create the changes we need, but they are necessary.  We also need better building codes (not just insulation and better appliances, but also much better acoustic standards for multi-family dwellings).  You can't leave out too many pieces of the puzzle before it becomes incoherent, and every piece contributes.

David Strahan points out in his recent interview on Electric Politics, that despite taxes constituting 80% of the price of a gallon of gasoline in Britain, consumption continues to rise. Just how high would taxes need to go to result in appropriately decreasing levels of consumption?

Other things matter too.  If the fuel trend is being driven by the middle class moving to transit-poor exurbs because the urban council housing is being filled with culturally hostile immigrants on the dole, the solution is to reverse the immigration policy.

Thanks for the response. Sorry if my feelings led me to overstatement. By all means every piece counts, and a carbon tax may well be desirable.

It's just that its hard for me to imagine a situation of orderly continuity in the future, and I have a feeling that the carbon tax proposal, or at least the way it is commonly discussed and promoted, sort of presupposes that. Of course that's my reaction to all sorts of other expectations about the future that I run up against every day.

My reference to "other macroeconomic policy measures" may have understandably sounded over-broad, maybe leaning toward incoherence, but what I particularly had in mind were proposals that I personally find more attractive that the carbon tax idea, such as those associated with FEASTA.

But I wanted to express my general feeling, that the most important policies that have a chance of getting us through the situation that I think we face, will involve authoritative decisions, not just incentives, though the latter should also play a role, I hope.

And when I referred to giving people something to do, I was not thinking of urban people on the dole, but the problem that most of the jobs that exist don't seem to be sustainable. I think we need - or will need - a massive program of sustainable job creation - for pretty much everyone. That could create a context in which people feel excited and positively challenged about adapting to a new way of life. Otherwise the transition is apt to be very disorderly and violent, at least it seems to me.

I can understand why this dingelberry would like such a tax proposal. Like most politicians, he wants more taxes but also wants to be reelected, so any way he can make it sound good to people to plunder more of their wealth, and get away with it sounds good to him.

So then the average person is less able to spends his own wealth on ways to reduce his own energy consumption. Forget solar panels, insulation and windmills that empty pockets cannot buy. Shift money out of the more efficient private economy into the $500 toilet seat government mentality; subsidize boondoggles like ethanol; throw away huge amounts of energy on a war to capture Iraq's oil reserves; research a path to fusion that even the researchers privately say is not going to work.

Government solutions will never work because all government is is force guided by minds that are focused first and foremost on their own financial and sick power needs.

But then maybe helping to wipe out those at the bottom of the social ladder with regressive taxation is a start to population reduction, so there is at least one benefit to this proposal.

Excuse me if I am amused at the surprise of posters here that a politician would deliberately use a serious issue as a platform for personal gain. Of course, if you understood what we are, then you would not have been surprised. Am I being too cynical for some of you? Or am I just being a realist?

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone

Although I can understand how this bill might be part of Machiavellian machinations designed to kill the whole thing. However that doesn't detract from it being basically in the directions need, however cynically felt.

Instead of just badmouthing it for its mother, instead support it and get someone else to present a more 'acceptable' alternative at the same time. Politics is the art of compromise, so if it looks like this bill were getting popular support, there would be a move to pass the lesser bill as a more acceptable alternative.

End result is a backfire on John Dingell (Mr Unfortunate Name)

Diesel exemption means all vehicles sold become diesel, business continues as usual.

Whenever petroleum is refined, part of it is made into gasoline; part into diesel. What happens now is that Europe uses diesel; US uses mostly gasoline, plus diesel for shipping. Some of the gasoline we import is the left-over gasoline from Europe, that is not used there because so much diesel is used.

I think that there is a little flexibility on the proportion of gasoline vs diesel from a given type of crude oil. Beyond a certain point, it would seem like it would become quite expensive to switch the mix to mostly diesel. I am definitely not an expert on this. It may be with all the heavy oil that is now being refined, the situation is different.

If it is not easy to increase the proportion of diesel significantly, and we all want diesel, the price of diesel will go through the roof. The price of gasoline will drop. This may be the limiting factor on the switch to diesel.

Perhaps one of the oil people can comment on this.

Currently refineries are producing more gasoline than is optimal. Evidence for this is that gasoline sells for about 20% more per unit of energy than diesel. A Diesel engine is slightly more efficient than an Otto engine, but the big motivation for truckers to use diesel is that it sells for a substantial discount.

If there were any substantial switch from gasoline to diesel in cars, it would have substantial and permanent effects on the price of the two.

Engineer-Poet:

I didn't see any discussion of what makes you think Dingle proposal is cynical. It's as if you feel a mere statement of its provisions make it glaringly apparent. But its not apparent to me. I have my own problems with it: We have no idea as to the elasticity of demand for FF and therefore have no idea whether the proposed taxes are sufficient to achieve a sufficient reduction in demand. Furthermore, we really don't know what amount or demand reduction would be sufficient. (and sufficient to achieve what?) So what are your reasons for seeing cynicism in the proposal?

I was in a hurry.  Please see above, where I've expanded somewhat.

Phasing out the mortgage tax exemption on more expensive houses is code for raising taxes on city and suburban people in the coastal states.

What upsets me is the boatload of ill-conceived exemptions writting into his proposal.

"3. Phases out the mortgage tax forgiveness on houses over 3,000 square feet
• Exemptions for pre-1900 homes and farm houses
• Exemption if owner purchases carbon offsets
• Exemption if LEED certified"

3,000 is palatial. Making such a high limit excludes the majority of new housing construction, no less existing housing. For those building over 3,000 square feet, you can still get the exemption by shelling out a few bucks for some [probably bogus] carbon offsets [aka indulgences].

"Exemption for diesel
• Biofuels that do not contain petroleum are exempt. Biofuels blended with petroleum are only taxed on the petroleum portion of the fuel."

Diesel is only slightly (~10%) more efficient than gasoline once you take into account the higher energy content of diesel (which means it takes more crude to make a gallon of diesel and there are more CO2 emissions/gallon). There is no good reason to exempt it.

Today's biofuels are far worse for the environment than crude oil, and some biofuels such as palm oil, soy oil, and corn ethanol are worse than crude oil just in terms of global warming (no less other environmental concerns, where crude is actually quite clean). If anything, they should be taxed double (once for the CO2 they emit, and once for all the harm related to their farming).

"Gas tax goes 40% to mass transit and 60% to roads
• Jet fuel tax goes to airport and airway trust fund"
If the aim of the tax is to reduce car and plane usage, it would be stupid to build more road and airport capacity. A small amount of money will be needed to maintain a shrinking amount of existing capacity (let some fall to ruin, repair the stuff that is still actually used), but far less than in a scenario of expansion.

"1. A $50 / ton tax on carbon
• Phased in over 5 years and then adjusted for inflation
• Applies to coal, including lignite and peat
• Applies to petroleum and any petroleum product
• Applies to natural gas"

Why exempt logging, agriculture, and concrete? Any substantial human-induced source of CO2 should be covered or else perverse incentives can result. Agriculture is a very large source of CO2 (probably larger than cars on a worldwide basis if on includes CO2 from deforestation - most emissions coming from former rainforest land and former tropical peat bogs). The world's third largest CO2 emitter (Indonesia) emits almost all of its CO2 from agriculture and logging related deforestation and swamp draining.

In short, this bill panders to so many interests that it will be ineffective at causing anything but paperwork. Even if a 50 cent/gallon and $50/ton of carbon tax was levied with no exemptions, the cost is just too low to cause much substitution. Look at what is happening in the EU where they face far higher taxes on petrol. Usage is lower, but not by enough to get by in a post-peak oil world or one without massive global warming.

One concern I have is that I do not see how imports of goods would be taxed. It seems like things we import from China use lots of coal in their production, but there presumably would be no tax on them. Fertilizer would be a very high energy good that we import-perhaps no one would want to tax it.

Unless this loop-hole is closed (perhaps there is a plan I am not aware of), foreign-made goods will have an advantage over American-produced.

You're right, WTO rules effectively rule out any country moving alone on carbon emissions without taking a hit.  However, WTO may soon be so unpopular that a pol may be able to run on a platform to withdraw from it.

I heard an interview with Dingell where he talked about this proposal. He was upfront - this is designed to fail. Or basically to prove that most congresscritters are unwilling to treat climate change sufficiently serious manner as to make a difference.

And for that matter it is unclear what level of sacrifice the general public is currently willing to make to deal with climate change. I guess the alternative is either doing nothing and living with it, or hoping for some technological miracle.

I think you nailed it...

While I think the only reason Dingell is putting this forward is some attempt to poison the well...

It's not such a bad start. I wouldn't call it good legislation, but it's got the right idea. It's something that might be appropriate if we had foreknowledge that a peak would occur in 2030, or if we had vague fears that one day OPEC wouldn't be there for us. What we actually have are predictions that the peak will happen in the next 5 to 10 years, and an administration that is attempting to figure out how it could bomb Iran without losing control of the Strait of Hormuz, being impeached, or suffering an outright military revolt.

What amuses me is how complicated revenue neutrality has to be to fit the anti-socialist, anti-communist idealogies that even the most liberal of US politicans have suffered under for sixty years. It's a simple concept. You takes de money in, you gives de money out. Every adult citizen gets a check from the government annually for an equal fraction of the total revenue brought in last year. In a society with publicly financed elections, this should be a no-brainer for the politicans who pass the legislation and give hundreds of millions of poor and middle class people a leg up on the economy over the backs of the Hummer drivers, while lessening the economic case for illegal immigrants to come here.

What we have here (on the Oil Drum) is the claim, supported by analysis, that we've already past peak production. Of course, there may be a period of time while we are sitting on a plateau looking back and hoping that the next few reports will show an increase in production. Or, if the reports continue to indicate a negative trend, we'll be shouting ever louder "It's Over, Fools! Ha, Ha, Ha ---!". As the old saying goes, the curse of the scientist is to be able to say "I told you so (but, you wouldn't listen)".

I'm glad that the end of civilization as we know it amuses you. Here's another funny idea. After TSHTF, ration transportation fuels, giving the allotments to holders of driver's licenses (or some other form of ID) given only to U.S. citizens and legal resident aliens. Guess what? No more illegals would be driving around. I suppose that the Mexicans wouldn't be willing to sell us any more oil, but they appear to be on the slippery downhill slope anyway.

Sorry if I'm starting to sound like a mentally challenged Kunstler clone. Sort of like Neil Boortz, the Limbaugh Like radio talk show from Atlanta that Newt is using in his new national "Workshop" campaign.

http://www.americansolutions.com/General/?Page=f57be05e-5b03-4fb7-b238-f...

Old Newt's working on another "Contract on America". Here's the link to the home page:

http://www.americansolutions.com/

I notice they also plan to quickly "Rediscover God in America". That ought to make the Fundamentalist Newcons in the Red States right happy.

E. Swanson

Let's go retro: Gore vs Gingrich '08. It could happen. Wait for the Nobels a week into October.

I sense a little bit of hostility here... "MOST" analysts believe that the peak WILL OCCUR BY 2020. There is a consensus among everybody who's not being paid by the oil industry to think otherwise (and some who are) that we'll be in decline by 2025. Whether it's already happened, or will happen next year, or will happen in 2015... I see a pretty even spread of forecasts around here.

The bias towards the alarmist is because TOD represents a bit of a religious belief for some people. There is a strong human urge to be able to say "I told you so..." to the point that apocalyptic prophecy consumes certain religions - they are so invested in the belief that even after the prophecy is disproved, they cling to the belief with greater faith than ever, and a gotcha. "Okay, Jehovah didn't come in 1866, 1871, or 1925. Those preachers were wrong. Jehovah hasn't giving us the Kingdom of God yet... but he will come in our lifetime, any second now." That's the core belief of those smartly dressed young men at your doorstep. With discussions on TOD, you have to be able to separate that core human urge to be the last 'right' person in civilization from serious discussion. Admittedly, that's how many people see all of us - but the fact that they are wrong does not make the most pessimistic credible predictions automatically right.

I didn't say that it amused me, I said that the inability of our political class to think about revenue neutrality without pavlovian voices of "income redistribution - socialist! danger danger will robinson" popping into their heads amused me.

I also don't believe that it's the end of civilization as we know it. I think there's a low probability that it will result in serious reduction in the population of the earth (leading cause: resource wars), but a serious probability that it will have similar effects to the Great Depression, for several decades, and a probability approaching 1 that given the technology we have today, it will cause much suffering in the world. Such possibilities are horrific enough for me without suggesting that it's the end of the world.

Squalish wrote:

I sense a little bit of hostility here..

Yeah, there might be some from me. I've been involved in the politics for a couple of decades. I gave up in 1992 after Clinton and his clique appealed to the old Southern Democrats. Well, in 1994, the Yellow Dog Democrats finally admitted they were Red State Republicans.

The bias towards the alarmist is because TOD represents a bit of a religious belief for some people. There is a strong human urge to be able to say "I told you so..." to the point that apocalyptic prophecy consumes certain religions - they are so invested in the belief that even after the prophecy is disproved, they cling to the belief with greater faith than ever, and a gotcha.

My reference was to the scientific curse, not some religious delusion. In science, the "I told you so..." is possible because the predictions have actually proven true. No cult think required. The exact date of Peak Oil is not really the message. The important message is that there is a Peak and it's likely to be here very soon, if not already so. If that message can't be heard by the politicians and the business class, we are likely to run the train over a cliff before we can move the tracks toward a more hopeful future.

I also don't believe that it's the end of civilization as we know it.

Then I suggest that you are blind. The American Way of Life, i.e., civilization as we know it, depends on the consumption of massive quantities of highly concentrated energy, much of that from oil. Lacking any known replacement sources of highly concentrated energy which does not also produce serious environmental impacts, it would appear that civilization as we know it will not continue for much longer. Demand destruction can be accomplished by people destruction as well as by building an alternative society which uses much less energy provided by renewable sources and which agrees to limit population by applying the least painful methods already available. I agree that one likely response would be much more direct pain and suffering, as the world fights over table scraps left over after the oil party is finished. The End???

E. Swanson

The American Way of Life, i.e., civilization as we know it

Those two are hardly synonymous.

Replace the American Way of Life with the European Way of Life and we have 15% spare capacity.

(Plus another 300 million person-years of life expectancy, apparently.)

Do you honestly think that we couldn't survive in a civilized manner on half the oil our country currently uses? That's probably the upper limit of our national oil consumption if North America was cut off entirely from imports.

It would be a hell of a different way of living, and it would immediately result in the biggest recession we've ever seen, but it wouldn't be the end of civilization. It would not immediately turn us into a failed state - the negative effect would be something closer to what the rest of the world went through after WW2: most infrastructure useless, the human geography of the nation needing to change to survive.

Introduce the tax as soon as possible but combine it with a smart ration card that gives a lower tax on say the first 5 gallons/20L per week. That gives people a chance to downsize their ride. The fuel has to go into the car tank not a jerry can, making it less likely that people will sell their allocation.

Get an elected committee to oversee the disbursement of the tax revenue. No matter if crazies get elected, the Mayor of London was so-labelled but brought in some good ideas.

If you forbid the use of jerry cans, you're likely to increase the amount of siphoning done not only be people looking for resale, but by people who want to use the fuel for off-road use (boats, lawn mowers, etc) and those who want to horde their allocation for another week when they have more need for it. Siphoning is cheap and easy to do, albeit not particularly safe. Home gasoline storage is likewise cheap and easy to do, albeit very unsafe.

You're making the same mistake as the ridiculous Clinton fuel-tax proposal of 1993.  Petroleum is petroleum and carbon is carbon; it doesn't matter if somebody puts it into a a lawnmower, a boat, a 2CV or a Hummer, a gallon is a gallon.  Tax it all the same (it's really cheap and easy to do) and work the problems out some other way.

Not sure I agree. Getting to work if you live in the exurbs is more important than water skiing on Saturday afternoon.

Some kind of rationing or tiered pricing seems inevitable. Is it the Long Island electricity utility that switches off your aircon by remote control? The aim is to reduce frivolous use of a finite resource.

Erroneous comparison.  The AC controls (and water-heater controls) are a way to limit demand peaks, not total consumption.

Driving to work in a Hummer is a frivolity at best.  Digging out with a snowblower or surveying a farm with a 4-wheeler can be a necessity.  Aside from taxing e.g. powerboats, I am completely opposed to any attempt to micromanage how people use fuel.  The expense to the country is the same regardless of what it goes into; give people assistance where necessary, and let them find their own solutions.

EP thanks for this post.
We have butted heads on the tax issue before, I suspect this time no different.

.....I am not in Michigan

I AM in Michigan and have been all my life.
What folks from elsewhere may not know is that Monday, Oct 1st, the Michigan State government may shut down due to the inability of our elected leaders to agree on a new budget. Our constitution forbids them to conduct business without one.
The sticking point? An increase in TAXES.
Our second term Democrat governor refuses to negotiate on a plan she introduced in February, thinking it a work of art that must pass as is.
In it is a 4.9% income tax increase.
The Republicans and members of her own party, some fearing voter backlash, have urged her to show fiscal restraint and cut, among other things, the number of entitlements enjoyed by state employees. (e.g. The powerful teachers union does not have co-pay on health benefits, one teacher stated on TV "Why should WE have to co-pay?".
This is not lost on the constituency who, if lucky to have medical benis at all, most certainly burden some of the cost.)
In the past year alone, Pfizer, Volkswagen and Comerica have joined other major companies that either suspended operations or announced such due to Michigans "poor Business climate" (read high taxes).
A poll taken this week show that when given a choice, 70% of Michiganders prefer cuts in state spending over increases in taxes.
Our pig-headed govenor wants to inflict all this on the state with the nations highest unemployment and that seen some of the worst of the housing bubble collapse.
If Dingell wrote and introduced this bill just to see it fail, it only highlights the utter contempt our leaders have for us.
I am totally 100% against the feeding, by means of more taxes, the gluttinous monster our government has become.
Especially since NOT ONE argument here has conclusively shown raising fuel taxes will cut consumption.
Raising taxes is for raising revenue, naught else.
The only discussion worth having in regards to reducing consumption has to center on conservation.
Only when our leaders acknowledge this will you know them to be serious and worthy of your vote.

NOT ONE argument here has conclusively shown raising fuel taxes will cut consumption.

Economics 101 argues that a higher price reduces demand.
Economics 102 argues that Detroit must react to higher fuel prices with better efficiency to survive.

Of course, economics needs to factor in the external cost of CO2 emissions, and its ignorance has gotten us this sprawl.

I believe Dingell has provided a good basis for salvaging some of our economy/lifestyle.

While I'm all for discussing conservation, I think Joe Q. Nascar needs more than a public service message to behave differently.

Economics 101 argues that a higher price reduces demand.

Then why has demand been UP during this period of record high prices?
As sources as varied as the N.Y.Times to Kenneth Deffeyes have noted, people will continue to buy gasoline until they are physically unable to.

Economics 102 argues that Detroit must react to higher fuel prices with better efficiency to survive.

If that were true Detroit(and the importers) wouldn't have fought so concertedly against higher CAFE standards.
Auto companies make big profits from the sale of large vehicles that a common quote in the business is "mini cars make mini profits".
Detroits reaction to higher CAFE is the real reason you see MPG statements at all.

I believe Dingell has provided a good basis for salvaging some of our economy/lifestyle.

A more accurate statement would be that Dingell has provided a good basis for keeping up Business As Usual.
Dingells track record at voting against higher CAFE speaks for itself.
He was the major factor in shitcanning the latest round of fuel economy standards.
As long as he remains in the House getting auto companies to react to the real threat to their survival will be impossible.

While I'm all for discussing conservation, I think Joe Q. Nascar needs more than a public service message to behave differently.

You're right that more is needed but how about starting with that?
Most people today have forgot the lessons of the 1970's, if they were alive then.

This is main reason I post here at all.
Despite the demonstrated intelligence of most posters on this site, they keep willing to make the same dumb mistakes that led us to our present predicament!
They simply cannot see that additional revenue, in the form of higher fuel taxes, given to the government, as it exists now, will simply aid BAU.
Until our leaders display a cognitive understanding of Peak Oil and produce viable action plans for its mitigation NOT ONE PENNY of additional tax should be applied to fuel sales.

Then why has demand been UP during this period of record high prices?

Duration of time (at higher prices) must be considered. People don't change/compromise overnight, all the SUVs in sprawl-land won't be dumped after their first $100 fill-up.

Auto companies make big profits from the sale of large vehicles that a common quote in the business is "mini cars make mini profits".

Oh, that's right GM, Ford, and Chrysler are up to their eyeballs in earning$ these days, your common quote is circa 1990-2004... until carmakers display a cognitive understanding of Peak Oil/Climate change, additional taxes must be incrementally added to fuel sales.

A more accurate statement would be that Dingell has provided a good basis for keeping up Business As Usual.

Last time I checked, there aren't too many politicians proposing a carbon tax plan in Washington.

Until our leaders display a cognitive understanding of Peak Oil and produce viable action plans for its mitigation NOT ONE PENNY of additional tax should be applied to fuel sales.

Just let the entropy continue without any additional tax. Wait a minute, that's BAU.

Duration of time (at higher prices) must be considered. People don't change/compromise overnight, all the SUVs in sprawl-land won't be dumped after their first $100 fill-up.

Right. Slap a $2 or $3 gas tax on them and you'll see people change real quick.
They'll drain the gas stations just to make bonfires of the various legislatures.

Oh, that's right GM, Ford, and Chrysler are up to their eyeballs in earning$ these days, your common quote is circa 1990-2004... until carmakers display a cognitive understanding of Peak Oil/Climate change, additional taxes must be incrementally added to fuel sales.

That is right. Without those SUV and truck sales our domestics would be toast right now. Why do you think Toyota introduced the Tundra?
Actually the quote comes from the auto industrys infancy maybe even Henry Ford himself. I don't have the reference handy.
Car makers responded to CAFE standards not to Peak Oil loonies and their crazy theories.
So far your line of reasoning perfectly underscores your wish for a fuel tax.
You need to get a handle on the facts.

Last time I checked, there aren't too many politicians proposing a carbon tax plan in Washington.

They're much too cunning. But some members DID try to raise CAFE, only to be tripped up by the Honorable John Dingell.
Most blather about higher CAFE centers around how many jobs it would "cost" the domestics. Don't believe it!
EVERY vehicle would have to be redesigned. Talk about work! You should have seen the big shooters scurry.

Just let the entropy continue without any additional tax. Wait a minute, that's BAU.

You totally miss the point.
You really think funnelling more $ into our government, as it stands today, will fix ANYTHING?
Wake up.

FYI:  As of a couple of weeks ago, I'm back in Michigan.

I just signed a lease on a new place.  I have probably made a mistake; the acoustic isolation is grossly inadequate (I can clearly hear people talking outdoors when I'm in the bathroom, and in the next living room over when I'm in mine) and the heat loss is probably no better.  This is the sort of construction which should have been prohibited by law ten years or more ago, before the building boom; now we're stuck with it going into this slump.

The irony is that this is a condominium development, and they're going to get a hell of a lot of bad press from me.  If that makes it hard to sell the remaining units, the developers are only getting what they deserve.

NOT ONE argument here has conclusively shown raising fuel taxes will cut consumption.

Europe's experience is proof positive that higher fuel taxes reduce consumption, and the US slump in gasoline use after the oil-price shocks is a good indication that they'd do the same here.  The big thing we're missing is an ethos which looks down upon profligate use as somewhere between tasteless and treasonous, but we can get there a lot faster than we can replace vehicles and housing.

And now I have to quit typing, because there's a temporarily homeless kitten camped out on my chest and purring.

As of a couple of weeks ago, I'm back in Michigan.

Well at least you came back at an interesting time.

Europe's experience is proof positive that higher fuel taxes reduce consumption, and the US slump in gasoline use after the oil-price shocks is a good indication that they'd do the same here.

Europe had viable transportation alternatives at the ready and many drivers purchased diesel vehicles to get around the tax.
Everyone who compares the US to Europe overlooks significant geographical differences and the autocentric nature of our infrastructure.
While I admire some posters ideas WRT Transit Oriented Development, I believe such efforts are too late as we are no longer on an available energy and materials upslope.
We are pretty much going to have to make do with what we've got; rideshares, rationing, hybrid busses and of course, higher CAFE.
The US slump can also be attributed to the recession and resulting high unemployment, if your talking late 70's early 80's. Don't forget the effect CAFE and the 55mph speed limit had as well.

Europe had viable transportation alternatives at the ready and many drivers purchased diesel vehicles to get around the tax.

They didn't "get around the tax".  Policy pushed diesel over spark-ignition (but taxed all fuel heavily compared to the US); people responded to the incentives of the policy.  Even Europe's diesels are small compared to most US vehicles.

We are pretty much going to have to make do with what we've got; rideshares, rationing, hybrid busses and of course, higher CAFE.

If there are vehicles being built to accomodate higher CAFE, there will be PHEVs soon.  One of today's PHEVs can double or triple the number of vehicle-miles from a unit of fuel; future improvements will make this more like 5:1.  These will evolve into EV's where the multiplier is infinity.

Don't forget the effect CAFE and the 55mph speed limit had as well.

I remember well the effect of the double-nickle; it got people to invest in CB radios, radar detectors and other means of driving at 70-75 MPH because gas was cheap and the dictates of Washington be damned.

This time it's different.

No need to tax anything, unless we plan to use 100% of the money to fund a massive Manhattan type project to get us off of fossil fuels (highly recommended but getting kinda late at this point - need to get on that).

The problem should take care of itself. As prices start to skyrocket (gas is still cheap right now), alternative energy becomes more attractive, providing market growth and innovation - solar, wind, nuclear, biofuels, energy storage. Who knows what else? See the latest issue of Wired.

My only concern is that these folks seem hell bent on finding ways to keep all the cars running. Maybe someone will, which keeps our way of live going, but kinda sucks because this country is becoming one giant ugly parking lot. Well, sucks for me anyway since I like to ride my bike places.

And I just read in the WSJ that the number of people riding bikes has been declining for years.

The proposal looks very consensual to me, there’s a bit of everything to please everyone. As some kind of socialist, or worse (!) I should like it, as it is quite sharply re-distributive to the poor. (I only read the summary posted here.)

But I don’t. There’s not much point in taxing gas and then giving ‘energy’ subsidies to the poor. - That’s the job of income tax in general, and ‘energy’ subsidies should not be given. Or taxing carbon and then spending the money on roads. - That’s the role of a general energy policy. Or returning jet-fuel tax to airports. - That just leads to fiddles and creative accounting practices, “they” get the money back. Housing and mortgages is another matter altogether.

I’m with engineer poet, tax *all* fuels. The money goes into the Gvmt. pot and is used according to its general rules / principles, eg. so much for Medicare, free lunches for school children, whatever.

Petroleo argues that the proposal is 'European’ in flavor. But it isn’t really - now this is a generalization from slimmish knowledge, and countries do vary - but on the whole the EU taxes on gas (etc.) are used to keep the transport/energy infrastructure going. Ie. the motorist pays for roads, street lighting, and pipelines as well. (User-payer philosophy.) Or it goes into the general pot, is not traceable. Affecting this income to social works (the health of the elderly poor for ex.) ..well I can’t think of an example. Maybe someone will contradict me. I haven’t examined this in any detail, that might be interesting to do.

dtbks makes the point that a flat carbon tax is utterly immoral, and that it is the poor who suffer the most from high energy prices. I agree, and within the proposal one should be very wary of that aspect. But it all depends on the rest of the tax structure. Steeply progressive income tax for the rich (which is not a US bent, to say the least, therefore these odd piece meal proposals), quality health care for the poor, etc. would mean it is not an issue.

Other considerations above question ‘flat tax’ on the grounds, interpreting a little here, that it is best to tax *excessive* use - the rich will stay rich and consume and that is one thing that to be curbed. That is an important point, but very hard to discuss without specific numbers, and once again, outside of general tax structures.

I’m all for flat taxes because of their clarity and the implied equality, the idea that general principles might be seen as ‘good’. They are also cheaper and easier to apply, leave less wiggle room for cheaters, and that does count. The ethics and fairness issues kick in - elsewhere.

Lastly, it is simpler, and psychologically more pertinent, and thus more effective, to tax consumption or use (eg. gas/petrol, propane, electricity, parking space, SUVs, swimming pools) rather than the effects of consumption (eg. carbon emissions, pollution, garbage?, litter? waste of water?) But that is a whole other can of worms, as raises the question of individuals vs. businesses.

I’m with engineer poet, tax *all* fuels. The money goes into the Gvmt. pot and is used according to its general rules / principles, eg. so much for Medicare, free lunches for school children, whatever.

That is not repeat not my proposal, nor anything I would support.  My proposal is that the full amount of fuel/carbon taxes be returned to individuals, so that the government keeps none of it and has no fiscal interest in how they are set.  Individuals pay for energy/carbon (or the products made from it) and can either buy more than the average (making them net tax payers) or less than the average (making them net tax beneficiaries).  And as people responded to the incentive structure, the benefit would fall every year; even the net beneficiary would have to keep getting more and more efficient to keep up, or become a net payer at some point.

The main thing is to make it simple, cheap to administer, without loopholes (which create perverse incentives) and absolutely fair.

If I could trade my old gas guzzler for a hybrid getting double the mileage then the net fuel cost to me is zero or even less. The trouble is no one will give me $30,000+ for a 1990 Plymouth Voyager. Poor folks like me are stuck with these old guzzlers because we can't afford the new high mileage cars. $180 billion would buy 6 million high mileage new cars that could be built profitably by the Big 3 if they are assured that many sales of identical vehicles.