Do you agree that President Obama should significantly raise US gasoline taxes during his term in office?

Yes, I agree.
82% (2631 votes)
No, I do not agree.
18% (567 votes)
Total votes: 3198

An equally relevant question is what to do with the tax proceeds? Do they go towards alternative energy or towards more drilling for oil and gas domestically? Is the purpose of the tax to reduce consumption or move away from fossil fuels or both? I favor a gasoline tax - but would more strongly favor a consumption tax.

Please. With an accumulated public debt of ten trillion and a daily deficit averaging three-point-four billion, you are seriously contemplating how you'd like to spend small increases in tax revenue? (A dollar per gallon in taxes gives you much less than a billion per day.)

At least for now my Swedish friend, perception is reality....

A $billion a day is more than 1/3 of a $trillion per year. That's not chump change, and its a start.

As far as I know every president has said they would reduce imported oil but done very little. I would increase the tax to European levels steadily over the next 4/5 years and to a stated plan whilst at the same time providing a credit of say 80% of the proceeds to all adults. Thus those who use less (e.g. by not driving or driving less or having an economical car) would "profit" and those who use more would pay for the pleasure of their gas guzzlers. The remaining 20% should be used to improve the infrastructure, e.g. rail and/or a national electric grid that would allow electricity produced by renewables to be used anywhere.

Let's say this would eventually raise USD 200 per barrel x 20m per day = USD 4 billion per day. A fairly powerful incentive to decrease oil consumption.

Something would have to be done for essential users like farmers, a reduced cost diesel, aka red diesel in the UK, but maybe this already exists in the US?

Yes, farm use of diesel is already tax exempt here.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/industries/article/0,,id=98980,00.html

That's really easy: it has to be rebated on a per capita basis, both to defuse anti-tax objections; to eliminate drag on the economy; and most importantly, to make it politically possible to pass it!

As it is, Obama has said it's not politically possible right now, what with the credit crunch and the upcoming taxcut stimulus. It has to be rebated to have any chance at all...

That's how those socialists in Alaska do it. The Alaska Permanent Fund gives a flat per capita dividend to every state resident. That's pretty good political cover for a tax and dividend plan.

deleted by author as inappropriately silly

Yes, but
only where decent mass transit is available.

Gas tax will hurt the most from the bottom up.

Give gas credits to the poor, lots of them on an on going basis. The wealthy will have to buy them from the poor, tax THIS transaction. This will reverse the GINI and generate revenue.

I know, Kumbaya right.

Honestly, presidents don't raise or cut taxes. Only Congress can do that.

@ capslock:

You are indeed correct. I think that Euan was referring to the potential power of the President's 'bully pulpit' to lead/shame/antagonize/coerce/convince through logic Congress to pass laws.

I voted yes: Invest the revenue into energy efficiency (homes, lighting, heating, appliances, electric/hybrid cars, more trains, etc.) and fossil-alternative energy production technologies. Yes, this is a regressive tax, meaning that it proportionally hurts the poor, but this can be mitigated with tax credits or some similar policy finagle.

The President proposes and the Congress disposes.

The Presidency is of a single party while Congress has internal opposition. If there is no leadership from the President, it is more difficult for Congress to act since it is always divided internally.

It is up to Obama to lead. It is his job. If he does not, he is a failure.

I voted to increase gas taxes. The money should mostly go for tax relief for those with low income, but some should be used for mass transit and renewable energy IMO. Highway infrastructure can wait or get by on the current tax revenue.

Wasn't Obama elected for change?? If so then he has to lead from the front.

Re: X and tonyw
Yes - spot on. In the UK we had Tony B and New Labour voted in with a massive mandate for change after successive Conservative governments. They completey squandered it. We have an economy which is based on little of substance and we have no tools at our disposal to change it - everything is outsourced to "plc" (and not UK plc as New Labour call it!) in the name of efficiency. The current gov. can do nothing but try to prop up the house of cards with big money subsidies to banks and deciding to build a new runway at Heathrow! It is panic stations!! If Obama is half what he is cracked up to be he'll take the US forward through the tough times with a vision of a different future instead of more of the same. The time to do that is NOW early in the term and with the mandate of public support. If he doesn't it will be a shambles - yes, he'll probably get two terms based on the record of the outgoing administration but if he does n't get on with the job now the end of the second is going to be one big mess...

Ok - having had my rant! - back to gas prices. Yes they need to go up but in line with mandatory reform of the US car fleet. There should be no excuse for the type of fuel performance the US manufacturers ship. Without going into detail it could be doubled tomorrow just by buying european cars - check out some of the stats. As D.Benton_Smith posts below the whole flow of capital is skewed disproportionately to the non productive. So there needs to be a buy back program - get those guzzlers off the road and get some proper 21C kit out there. 55mph is still the limit? - man that should be 100mpg territory even without hybrid etc etc. If you are getting 20mpg at the moment you could put the TOTAL price of gas up 4X and still have 20% reduction in fuel bills. Up to smarter people than me to work out what to do with the 300% revenue gain but I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man to find ways of protecting those like JCS below. How about essential user tariff or allowance? Again related to the kit you drive? Maybe some of it even goes to the oil companies as margin to keep them at work as volumes fall? And how about new max. salary law? No one earns more than 10times the lowest wage in the company?! Ahem - I thought I'd had my rant....I'll leave it there before I start on the acres of cars taking up good real estate!

Best wishes to all

I have always believed that a phased in gas tax has the maximum effect for minimum pain.

Such as:

No gas tax increase for 9 months, then a 0.75 cent/gallon increase every week for 25 years (quarterly inflation adjustments).

This gives both certainty (some risk of political reversal) and "time to adjust" to the tax, if not the underlying price of oil.

I would suggest using much (not all) of the proceeds from last fiscal years gas tax collections to 1) stabilize Social Security & Medicare 2) reduce payroll taxes and Medicare premiums.

Some would be used to finance electrification of railroads, urban rail, bicycling (few $ needed), renewable energy. Whta my linked paper suggests as the optimum economic, environmental and energy policy.

http://www.millenniuminstitute.net/

Best Hopes,

Alan

I am not sure I agree with the idea that a tax should be phased in really slowly. Or perhaps rather, I suspect that the lack of pain will cause people to not change... even when the fuel prices are painfully high. The frog and boiling water story comes to mind. I think UK fuel taxes are a good example of this.

I really do agree that we would better off with more fuel tax, as compared to less payroll or income tax.

I also think that price stability from a price floor is a lot more beneficial than highly volatile prices which are occasionally low.

Price elasticity of demand (PEOD) is a medium and long term effect, short term PEOD is small (unless prices are tripled, then a small PEOD has -6% or so effect).

Phasing in specifically targets those medium and long term PEODs. What car to buy, what home & job ? Should a city build a light rail line or expand a subway ?

Aviation fuel should be included with gasoline & diesel BTW.

Best Hopes for Medium Term Impacts,

Alan

As far as I understand, aviation fuel is not taxed at all through a series of multilateral treaties established long ago that would be hard to undo.

Alan,

Thanks, in case you check back.

I'm very curious re: the institute, do they consider questions such as this one:

Expensive oil means end of roads - why include them in stimulus?
Robert Burton, Energy Bulletin
PROBLEM: The Highway Department in Los Angeles concluded that once the price of oil passed $50 per barrel, the roads could no longer be maintained, even if all government money was diverted to maintain existing roads.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/47777

This seems like such a simple way to analyze the effects of "peak."

Is anyone doing this? Or, anything like it?

It took almost a $500,000 worth of analyst time (donated when they were not busy on paid work for China, Dubai, Mauritius or Tanzania) to do my case. LOTS of detail !

And we did not include the positive impact of bicycles or inter-city rail passenger service. A lot of integrity (> work) in getting semi-realistic #s.

LOTS of scenarios to evaluate, pro bono publico resources few. The effort to get this far ...

Best Hopes,

Alan

Hi Alan,

Thanks for your reply. I know (assume and believe) you and your colleagues are making supreme effort. I'm just trying to understand it.

I wonder what possibilities there might be for different orgs to combine their efforts. I get really curious about this, because (for one thing) it seems like a lot of orgs (academic ones included) are working on things like efficiency, or RE technologies, and yet without really taking into account the overall peak oil (and other peaks) idea and implications.

I had a brief (very) conversation w. someone who is doing some part-time consulting for the national renewable energy labs (I'd use the acronym but don't want to get it wrong), and doing "transportation modeling." This made me very curious...like...

Who is doing what?

Who knows what each other (group) is doing?

Are they basing their respective studies on anything like the same assumptions I have? (Such as: peak was in '08; Hirsch report, etc.

This is kind of what I was trying to get a sense of.

Also, the Q as posed by Burton looks sensible for particular, critical sectors.

Discordant efforts with minimal if any contact between them.

The Millennium Institute T21 model (downloadable) is designed to provide a common base to work with, but so far, only I have used it.

Best Hopes for Multiple Efforts,

Alan

Your question is rather impossible to answer. For example, what did you intend when you wrote "significantly raise U.S. gasoline taxes"? The common usage of "significant" is much different from the statistical meaning.

Do you think that a doubling of the U.S. Federal gas tax should be considered "significant"? Such a change would increase the tax from 18 cents/gallon to 36 cents/gallon. To me, that represents less than the increase in the pump price of gasoline since Christmas, which would hardly have much impact on consumption. Do you suggest that doubling the state tax for Georgia (which has been stuck at about 7 cents/gallon for decades), would make a difference?

Or, are you suggesting a serious attempt to reduce gasoline consumption with a tax of as much as $2 per gallon to be APPLIED IMMEDIATELY, which would need to be increased with inflation to maintain the desired impact? Now, there's a tax I would call "significant" as far as the general meaning of the term would be. And, your question ignores the other possible alternatives to allocate gasoline, such as rationing with a white market to trade allowances...

E. Swanson

tough to do all that in a poll.

'significant', to most, would imply more than 10 or 20 cents a gallon, and having meaningful behavioral impacts (and costs). Euan has a letter to Obama in queue that will address specifics but wanted to see what TOD readers thought about the issue. The poll is to generate discussion on pros/cons, what would work/what wouldn't, timeline, where would money go, what impacts it would have and on whom, would the further hurt on the economy be of long term beneft, and what the definition of significant was, etc.

;-)

I think that the question is rather loaded. Why not present a poll including several different tax amounts? It might look like this:
============================================================
From your understanding of the world energy situation, including Peak Oil, which option would you recommend to President Obama?

1. No intervention, let the markets decide, or:

2. A small increase in gasoline tax, (between 25 and 50 cents per gallon), or:

3. A larger increase in gasoline tax (between $.50 and $1.00 per gallon), or:

4. A relatively stiff increase in gasoline tax (between $1 and 2 per gallon), or:

5. A tax on gasoline at European levels ($2 to $4 per gallon?), or:

6. Gasoline rationing with a white market, or:

7. A cap-and-trade system of allowances for carbon emissions to be placed on all fossil fuels?
============================================================

See what I mean? Lets get down and dirty, we don't have time to quibble, according to Dr. Hansen...

E. Swanson

sigh. you are correct - your survey options would have been better. but none of us has time to create such at this juncture. maybe on another day or when Euan gets back from snowshoveling. thanks.

I am not sure I like any of those choices. A tax based on the daily market price simply adds to volatility. Surely a price floor based on a floating average would be better. So say a price floor set at $1.00 dollar per gallon more than the average of daily price of the last 4 months. Set to increase by some percentage in every quarter with growth in GNP or stay constant in quarters with negative GNP.

In my letter to Obama, now live over on TOD Europe, I suggest aiming to raise US gas taxes to be on par with European taxes in the course of his presidency, which I hope lasts 8 years - assuming he proves to be the great leader that the world needs right now.

Politics is a game of compromise - so its just not possible to be too harsh in one go, but phased increases over a reasonable time period give people and industry time to prepare and adapt. Gas taxes need only be one strand of a broader energy and transportation policy that needs to have clearly defined goals, a means of achieving these and a reasonable chance of succeeding.

You forgot:
0. Remove existing tax. The government repeatedly demonstrated, it can't be trusted to administer people's money.

Sorry, I did miss that option. I guess I've become accustomed to driving on paved roads, especially freeways...

E. Swanson

And you are not accustomed to raving libertarian ... I'll stop there.

How about raising taxes beyond the European levels AND rationing?

After seeing how high the price had to go before we saw a drop in consumption I doubt a tax would have any effect other than to increase revenue. Therefore a tariff of $42 bbl on imports is the way I would do it. The reason for the small drop in use occurred was due to the recession which preceded the dramatic rise in price in 2008. By the time the price peaked the country had been in recession for at least six months. As the price dramatically dropped the recession has deepened and consumption rates continue to fall.

Another chance for me to say, "That's why I voted for John B. Anderson in 1980."

I support the concept (or should I say, intended consequences?) of increased gas taxes, yet oppose the deed. How's that for equivocation?

The reason I oppose the deed is based entirely upon purely pragmatic cynicism: namely, that the government absolutely cannot be trusted to do anything beneficial with the money. It would be viewed as an irresistible windfall and used to bail out fat cats in the financial sector, or pumped into the dying auto companies on the asinine pretext that they will use it to produce fuel efficient vehicles (which they can't and won't.)

Moreover, sales taxes are regressive, meaning they impact the working poor far more heavily than the nonproductive rich... and that 'caboose end' of the economic train wreck is already being beaten to death by job cutbacks, falling pay, foreclosures, business closures, gutted retirement accounts, and death of the credit card.

I'll wager that nearly all Oil Drum readers are NOT in the economic class that will be decimated by increased fuel costs.

Think for a moment!

If that class of working poor stops working (because the cost of transport exceeds their pitiful paycheck), the chain reaction of collapse will soon take YOU out, too.

It is happening all around us at this moment for Christ's sake! $4 gas and defaulted sub-prime home mortgages is what kicked the economic snowball down the hill in the first place... and you are considering to RAISE the bills of the working poor?

Please think directly.

American bailouts (already spent + formally committed + promised by the incoming Obama adminstration) stand at about $3 trillion.

The 3 TRILLION dollar bailout , spent directly, could purchase ALL of the following list:

1. A spanking new Toyota Prius for every household in America. ($20,000@ X 100 million = $2 trillion) (10% dealers' discount, hey?)
2. A mile of high speed electric rail for every mile of the existing Interstate Highway system. (40,000 miles X $5 million per mile = $200 billion)
3. A residential size (3 KW) photovoltaic system on every roof of every house in every suburb between San Francisco and Bangor, Maine ($8,000@ X 40 Million = $320 Billion)
4. A $10 Million tax free cash bribe to each member of the US House and Senate to pass the necessary legislation... we've already established what kind of service they provide, now we're just haggling over price. ($10 Million @ X 535 = $535 Billion

So let's stop sloughing our problems off on the folks with the smallest political voice and least able to defend themselves, OK?

I don't think anyone is proposing to raise fuel taxes in a way that is not revenue neutral. Surely there are other ways to more directly benefit the poorest that would be affected by an marked increase in fuel tax... like the clunker buy back and decreases in payroll taxes.

Excellent post D.Benton. Thank you. Please send that in a letter to Mr. O.
I am a small time rancher/other things in a rural area. The $4 gas this summer is still killing us. Feed, fuel, fertilizer and food.

Feed lots had to buy feed during that time (futures) for use now and to recapture that cost they are paying less (far less) for our animals. We still have to buy feed to produce stock. But the low prices for our animals may force many of us small timers out of business. And there will go much of the notion of "localized, sustainable" production.

I do agree that current oil prices are too low to encourage, or even maintain, reasonable production. But high gas prices for any length of time will mean the end of small time agriculture producers. And there are likely enough of us that our failure will likely be noticed in the grocery stores in the big cities.

Good luck to us all.
JCS

@ D. Benton Smith:

I like your thinking here!

I would hold out for a mix of Plug-in Prius cars, Chevy Volts (if GM is still an option), Honda PHEVs and EVs. etc. How about some Apteras for sunny SW climes w/o snow and ice?

Bump the residential PV to at 6 KV, I agree.

Build out land and sea-based wind turbine farms and attendant transmissions lines, and control/load management hardware and software sufficient to provide 40% of our current national electricity demand (meaning build ~ 3x that load in faceplate capacity. Smart meters and outlets for all users.

Provide every household where practical a home in-ground heat pump. Conduct an energy efficiency assessment for all homes and businesses and pay to retrofit better windows, weatherstrip, paint all the roofs white in the South/SouthWest....

So my bill might be $7B? Who cares?

As long as we have been printing money w/o backing for idiotic military waste and giving to high financiers so they can disapear the booty into their Swiss bank accounts, why not do this for a tangible return that benefits the greatest number of citizens and society as a whole?

Hell, cut the US 'Defense' (War) budgets by 1/3 per year, and we could pay that $7B back in ~20 years (not counting interest...but darn, we are loaning the money to ourselves, so make it a freebie!).

The only problema: We would have to gather TPTB into a giant rocket and send it into the Sun...

I'll wager that nearly all Oil Drum readers are NOT in the economic class that will be decimated by increased fuel costs.

Many will certainly fall into that category.

I think you'll find that the 3 trillion $ bailout is in some way connected to the gigantic trade deficit run up importing energy the US cannot afford. So you are in effect caught between a rock and a hard place. The US will at some point be forced to balance its books and that will mean using less imported energy / oil. So you need a strategy to bring this about. It is bound to be painful.

First you said:
" It would be viewed as an irresistible windfall and used to bail out fat cats in the financial sector, or pumped into the dying auto companies on the asinine pretext that they will use it to produce fuel efficient vehicles (which they can't and won't)"

Then you said:
"American bailouts (already spent + formally committed + promised by the incoming Obama adminstration) stand at about $3 trillion.

The 3 TRILLION dollar bailout , spent directly, could purchase ALL of the following list:

1. A spanking new Toyota Prius for every household in America. ($20,000@ X 100 million = $2 trillion) (10% dealers' discount, hey?)
2. A mile of high speed electric rail for every mile of the existing Interstate Highway system. (40,000 miles X $5 million per mile = $200 billion)"

So for all that wasted bandwidth you propose to take our money and send it directly overseas to a foreign car company?
Surely that will right the boat!
In the mean time, American workers will be shown the door to their careers.
How much money actually makes its way back to the USA when one of those are sold?

This is the prime example of the flaw of logic so many on this site have who "think directly".
Whether it be the selling of foreign autos or the foolhardiness of high speed electric rail, they are both economic deadends.
Foreign car co.s are just that, FOREIGN and electric rail won't create ANY JOBS after they're built.

Why do we need to create jobs after things are built?  You might as well pay people to go around throwing rocks through windows, so other people can get paid to fix them.

If we build e.g. electric rail systems which eliminate 95-100% of oil consumption and need only a fraction of the maintenance of roads, we can spend the money on something other than imported energy and construction jobs out in the weather.  I don't view a society based on stoop-labor cultivation to be desirable, and massive road rebuilding every year isn't all that much better as far as working conditions go.

"Why do we need to create jobs after things are built?"

Lets just say this magic rail system gets built, then what?
We use it to visit Grandma?
Or do you think we'll use it to continue the Service Economy?

Sorry pal, without profit, things won't be built.
If things aren't built, there won't be any jobs.
And if there aren't any jobs, nobody gets paid.
See if you can ride any "public" transportation anywhere for free.

I know its blasphemous to say but here goes:
Domestic auto companies, Americas last, great industry, creates JOBS. Millions of 'em.
Whether they go about making solar powered gokarts or hybrid tractors WE NEED THEM.
If the Gov. decides to divert the fantastic sums of money and resources needed to enable most Americans to go car-free, what kinds of jobs will they be employed in after the fact?

And if you think the Government should absorb the burden of rider fees, please google Amtrak.

Divert 10% or so of the economy from consumption (see cars & SUVs) to building long lived infrastructure that either produces clean energy (renewable & nuke, HV DC transmission & pumped storage) or energy efficient infrastructure (electrified railroads, Urban rail, bicycles, energy efficient housing & offices in walkable neighborhoods).

New (and revived old) industries, new types of jobs as auto production shrinks year after year.

It is the ONLY path to keep the USA from becoming a 3rd World nation.

See first paper at

http://www.millenniuminstitute.net/

Best Hopes for MANY fewer cars, NO new SUVs and 20 million high quality bicycles/year,

Alan

Lets just say this magic rail system gets built, then what?
We use it to visit Grandma?
Or do you think we'll use it to continue the Service Economy?

And if we rebuild and expand our crumbling road network, what will we use it for (besides sending ever-more economic power to OPEC)?  Your question makes no sense whatsoever.

Check the gauges on your EVA pack there, I think you're running low on oxygen.

Domestic auto companies, Americas last, great industry, creates JOBS. Millions of 'em.

Where are their profits?  Let me quote you:  "Sorry pal, without profit, things won't be built."  Notice where the profits and the jobs are going?  Massive construction in Dubai.

Cars cost lots of money in depreciation and insurance; fuel is relatively cheap, but the USA is still spending more than half a billion dollars a day to buy oil, most of which goes to feed Detroit's products.  Detroit's losses are huge, but they are dwarfed by the oil import bill.  Then there are the national security issues of being dependent upon hostile nations for necessities (a lesson being re-learned by Europe at the moment).

Guess what?  If we build stuff that replaces oil with electricity, we profit!

If we slap down rails in freeway medians and major roads and run wires overhead, we accomplish a lot:

  1. We have the boost from infrastructure spending.
  2. We can switch from diesel-powered trucks and buses to electric streetcars and dual-mode semis.
  3. We can put dual-mode electric delivery vehicles on the streetcar rails and recharge their batteries while on them.
  4. We get cleaner, quieter roads and cities, lower oil import bills, and a system that continues to run even if our oil imports are cut off.  That's a goal that the SPR cannot get us close to.

Both you and Alan fail to grasp or appreciate the issue here.
One reason our economy is failing because most of us don't produce anything of value.
While many on this site view the personal automobile as something akin to the devils brood, its manufacture, repair, accessorizing, care, etc., etc. have provided a real, living wage for millions of people.
So as I asked before "Lets just say this magic rail system gets built, then what?"
What kind of jobs will people be using it to travel to?
Because without meaningful and good paying work, why travel at all?
For us to get our economy on a solid footing, we need to manufacture goods, improving and refining the auto is one proven way to do that.

Another issue I have is if this massive system is built it will only be a snapshot in time, assuming it has the longevity Alan speaks of.

Then we are stuck with it.

The constant turn over, restyling and release of new vehicles and products has an invaluable driver, innovation!
With the main focus of keeping folks employed as I believe the fast-crash will be a given should employment fall too far.
As long as we accept the modern expression of technology in our lives we must acknowledge innovation as its primary evolutionary shaper.

This is why I view Al's electrified light rail scheme as a dead end.

the USA is still spending more than half a billion dollars a day to buy oil, most of which goes to feed Detroit's products.

Unless I've been reading your posts wrong with all your whizbang techno talk, I would've thought you happy with with the imminent release of the Volt and the EREV's (Extended Range Electric Vehicles).
Cuz Detroit has got the message alright, it's all we are working on.
Although my involvement with the Volt has been the highlight of my career, IMO the big efficiency win has been the ICE driving the electric powered wheels.
The Tesla article Leanan posted last week illustrates the real limitations current(pun?) battery tech imposes.

As far as "our crumbling road network" yeah it sucks. But a road resurfacing project grinds up the old road with minimal waste so its not like they have create it from all new material.
Hard work, certainly but work with solid value.

We can switch from diesel-powered trucks and buses to electric streetcars and dual-mode semis.

This is about the only suggestion you make that is not totally dependent on a massive government spending program, since it could be mandated.
Or haven't you considered massive government spending a problem?

Check the gauges on your EVA pack there, I think you're running low on oxygen.

Nope, the EVA pack is fine, thanks for asking!

As I age, the fast-crash scenario becomes more terrifying to me in its implications and I find myself looking for ways we can use existing technology and resources to slow it down.
BAU? Maybe. All I know is powerdown is not an option, but we can take our time getting there.

One reason our economy is failing because most of us don't produce anything of value.

So we'll build LFTRs and IFRs, container-mounted CAES systems (you provide the cavern) and wind turbines and sell those.  The USA still does quite a bit of manufacturing, including for export (e.g. Caterpillar); we've fallen behind because we've been attacked in trade wars for 30 years and refused to shoot back (and had our own domestic issues like the UAW which destroyed sympathy for labor).  If we stop importing oil, a lot of the trade deficit goes away.  If we start manufacturing energy stuff for ourselves, more of it goes away and people actually make useful things; if we export energy stuff, less deficit and more employment is the result.

Another issue I have is if this massive system is built it will only be a snapshot in time, assuming it has the longevity Alan speaks of.

Then we are stuck with it.

You mean, like the snapshot in time which saw the Interstate system built?

Or the snapshot in time which saw the Internet built?

These things are constantly being built up, torn down and remodeled.  A road needs a right-of-way the same as a set of rails.  Today's semi-trucks meet the same height, width and length criteria set down decades ago, but they're very different beasts.  Putting a Bladerunner on a set of rails for a cross-state trip is little different from pulling a semi onto the expressway; the difference is that the Bladerunner will use a lot less energy and powering it from an overhead wire is a relatively small step.

As I age, the fast-crash scenario becomes more terrifying to me in its implications and I find myself looking for ways we can use existing technology and resources to slow it down.

Why do you think I tout stuff as low-tech as rails?  I know they'll work.  I also know that we're smart enough to get innovative and do a whole lot more with them than has historically been the case; a great deal of this is just unlocking the capabilities that were always there, but we didn't have the sophistication in controls or communications to use effectively.  Well, we do now.

I also know that we're smart enough to get innovative and do a whole lot more with them than has historically been the case; a great deal of this is just unlocking the capabilities that were always there, but we didn't have the sophistication in controls or communications to use effectively

I have not made this "part of my message", but I secretly agree. We did this in the past. One example (with 1800s technology).

Moving trains picked up and delivered mail without stopping. Trackside hooks transferred mail in canvas bags to & from moving trains. The mail car had men sorting mail they picked up as they moved along and preparing the bags for the next town.

Now, with the technology of today, what could we do ?

I do NOT know ! But would very much like to find out.

Best Hopes for Innovation on the Rails,

Alan

"You mean, like the snapshot in time which saw the Interstate system built?"

The Interstate allows for a huge variety of vehicles to travel it and can also be used as landing strips for aircraft should the need arise.
The rail system you propose won't have such flexibility and the turnover rate of the vehicles it supports won't employ a scant percentage of the workers the auto companies do.
Today Amtrak, despite service to 46 states, employs less than 19,000.
Electrified rail with overhead lines has been tried before and has failed.
Near Southgate MI, there still exists an abandoned overhead powered rail line, with its bizarre concrete arches every few hundred yards it must have been a pretty expensive failure too.

One thing you studiously avoid is the acknowledgement of the cost.
No company could hope to tackle such a venture and break even so that leaves the Government, the same one that is already or very soon to be broke.
Have you traveled by Amtrak recently?
A recent return trip from from Chicago cost some acquaintances 12 hours! Outbound it was 4!
How people expect the Government to run things smoothly hurts my mind.
I know the rails themselves are relatively low tech, expanding this system will be anything but.
I'm for getting the most from what we have not try to bring a disproven, archaic, enormously expensive system into being.
That means lower road speed limits, higher efficiency autos, taxing the living hell out of gas guzzlers and "pleasurecraft" of any sort, and yes, expanded use of rail for freight and cross country passenger travel, abolishment of Just in Time manufacturing, etc.
Don't try to supplant the auto w/rail.
Depletion is already being felt and we'll do well just to avoid a hard crash.

I cannot imagine how you can consider the ongoing development of the Internet a snapshot in time.

So many falsities for a dying thread. But one in particular

Electrified rail with overhead lines has been tried before and has failed.

ALL of Swiss rail (except one tourist line with steam locos) is electrified, with overhead wires,

The French TGV is electrified, with overhead wires.

The Trans-Siberian, from Moscow to the Pacific, is electrified with overhead wires.

Etc, etc.

Alan

know the rails themselves are relatively low tech, expanding this system will be anything but.

Put back double tracks removed in the 1960s and 1970s is not "technically challenging". Single > double track increases capacity by x3 to x4 and virtually eliminates delays caused by waiting for the tracks to clear, allowing much faster transit times.

Better signals are a proven technology.

The issues of super elevation are very well understood.

and so forth.

Amtrak today (outside the NEC) is just a place holder. Service levels are minimal.

But the REAL savings are from Urban Rail, letting people live carless, or with their car parked 5 days/week. Safer, better public health as well.

They failed here and with good reason: the auto is a superior form of transportation.
Overhead lines are the biggest joke of all, I note with unbound sarcasm the Trans Siberian only took 100 yrs to electrify.
Better try harder.

Hello there Spaceman,

You wrote : "So for all that wasted bandwidth you propose to take our money and send it directly overseas to a foreign car company?"

In my haste to make a generic point I simply used the first example of a market-ready and moderately fuel efficient mode of private transportation that was directly related to gasoline consumption.

It doesn't have to be a Toyota Prius specifically, but what if it did? Surely you are aware that Globalization has virtually erased the distinction between "foreign" and "domestic" when it comes to most automobiles. Answer me this: when all is said and done, which places more money into circulation in the United States, US purchases of $1 Million in Toyota Prius's or $1 Million in Chevrolet Aveo's?

Along with noting the country-of-origin on every part that goes into the car, be sure to include vehicle sales and registration taxes, dealership property tax, sales force compensations, assembly plant wages, various income taxes, benefits, and other overheads. Oh, and let's not forget parts and product shipment (ships, trucks, fuel, road tax, driver's wages and benefits, etc.) and better not leave out the dividends paid to stock holders. They also pay taxes, borrow money at interest, hire accountants, pay fees, etc ad infinitum.

This complex of financial exchanges is extremely convoluted, but I hope you're beginning to get the general idea here that you really don't have the foggiest notion of how it all settles out to two precise figures.

In fairness, neither do I, except that in the end there can be very little difference, because if there were then the loser would be screaming to high heaven for protection.

High speed electric rail is no more foolish than the act of traveling in itself. Given only that there is a legitimate reason for travel in the first place, then electric rail is the far superior choice both economically, energetically and environmentally, in comparison to individual automobile.

As for operational rail not creating jobs, well you're just talking through your hat. Maintaining and operating the infrastructure, and servicing clientele would provide a myriad of jobs, as clearly evidenced in places where the industry is mature, such as France and Japan.

I believe you are operating on an outdated and xenophobic world view, an example of the flaw of logic by those who don't think much at all.

"Answer me this: when all is said and done, which places more money into circulation in the United States, US purchases of $1 Million in Toyota Prius's or $1 Million in Chevrolet Aveo's?"

The Aveo's country of assembly is Korea, the people that designed it and its bretheren sit down the hallway from me.
And the profit, lets not forget that mystifying element, comes right back here to the good ol' USA where it ends up in my bank account.
Whereas that crapbox Prius everyone touts is 100% designed, assembled and is profitted from, overseas.

So as convuluted as you may want to make this, facts speak otherwise.

"Maintaining and operating the infrastructure, and servicing clientele would provide a myriad of jobs, as clearly evidenced in places where the industry is mature, such as France and Japan."

Compared to the 7 million related jobs the domestic autos provide?
Fat chance, even if the government were to operate it.

As far as my world view goes I am operating in a bubble that is full of wishful thinking, half processed rationales and unsubstantiated perceptions excreted from my fellow men that I try to pierce with a little commonsense.
Sorry it hasn't worked in your case.

The Prius, unlike ANY General Motors vehicle, is a superbly designed and built car. Assembly scheduled for the USA, currently on hold (sell 2 million/year in the USA and they will be built here).

And the profit, lets not forget that mystifying element, comes right back here to the good ol' USA

"Profit" ? at GM ??? LMAOROTF !!

Best Hopes for GM bankruptcy and dissolution (lets save Ford & Chrysler), GM engineering is uniformly a bad joke, as bad as the management,

Alan

I do like my 1982 Mercedes Benz 240D (manual transmission), a superbly engineered and built car that will last me decades more.

"GM engineering is uniformly a bad joke"

Could you provide more detail? I'm curious.

A friend in the QA end of the auto industry says that GM quality has improved greatly, though still not quite up to Japanese standards. They also say that German quality has fallen quite a bit lately, especially Daimler/Mercedes. Consumer Reports says the same thing.

"Quality" is typically measured in just the first 5 years by the consumers (I wish they would survey mechanics & body shops as well!) Even GM cars will last 15 or so years before being junked (absent collisions).

There are two main factors in quality; design and actual production & assembly.

In part due to the demands of the new Japanese manufacturers, suppliers are doing much better today (quality control on one side filters over to the other side). GM assembly quality is significantly better as well.

BUT a story I heard from Mechanical Engineering students (perhaps apocryphal, but explains with GM is often the last choice for MEs)

Newly hired MEs at GM are going through orientation, and are gathered for a very senior GM VP to address them.

Question by VP "What is your primary goal at General Motors ?"

One young engineer raises his hand and answers "To design and build the best quality cars and trucks that we can for the price charged".

The VP thunders back "HELL NO !! A THOUSAND TIMES NO, NO , NO !!"

"Your are here to maximize shareholder value#, nothing more, nothing less".

# currently 3.50 on hopes of a taxpayer bailout.

Thus the gimmicks to "enhance consumer value" and saving every last 2.3 cents/unit they can on assembly and enhance later spare parts sales.

GM engineering DID come up with one good innovation, they introduced a clearly superior electrical fuse. But other than that (? about side post batteries) I cannot think of a good, useful innovation in the last 50 years from GM. (Not counting cupholders).

GM has quite sophisticated value engineering to make sure parts last 5 years & 100,000 miles (limit of surveys, etc.) For those that buy new and "drive the wheels off of their cars", that point seems to come sooner with GM (I looked for scrap data by make and could not find it).

GM has produced such uber lemons as Vega (their import fighter, no wonder they lost that fight), GM diesel cars, V4-6-8's well as a long series of just badly mediocre cars.
After a lifetime of GM cars (one Dodge in 1952), my father last bought a Toyota. Very pleasantly surprised with it.

I agree with M-B cars (unsure about their trucks, they are a major truck maker in Europe and for exports). According to M-B mechanics, my series (W123 1981-1984) and model (240D with manual transmission) was the most durable and reliable car Mercedes EVER built. IMHO, they were sliding downhill till they bought Chrysler and then they went into a catastrophic downward spiral on quality. I would NOT buy a new M-B.

Best Hopes for Quality,

Alan

Toyota outsells GM

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Toyota-outsells-GM-apf-14113854.html

Your "story" is just that Alan.
I heard the same about Apple.
Make believe, just like your "magic train" story.

As far as Toyota outselling GM, GM still leads in the USA, proof that not all Americans have been drinking your koolaid.

The Prius, unlike ANY General Motors vehicle, is a superbly designed and built car.

Too bad your perceptions are as outdated as your train set.
The latest J.D.Power numbers show most G.M. vehicles stack favorably against foreign competitors.

More on your flawed perception.

And, Oh how quickly they forget, the prius' overstated mileage claims, the stalling, Consumer Affairs doesn't agree with your statements.

I do like my 1982 Mercedes Benz 240D (manual transmission), a superbly engineered and built car that will last me decades more.

I'll bet you do.
I'll bet that you typed this out on your old Apple Macintosh too.
Guess what? The world has changed considerably since then.
As a matter of fact, your beloved Daimler Benz bought Chrysler and proceeded to dismantle it after trying unsuccessfully to merge its low production, luxury car mindset into a modernized, high production company, all the while stripping it of cash.

"Profit" ? at GM ??? LMAOROTF !!

Best Hopes for GM bankruptcy and dissolution

It takes a real concerned citizen and patriot to cheer the demise of ones own economy.
No other country in the world allows and encourages foreign companies to operate on their shores unchecked as we do in this country.
As the Southern senators, the Senators from Toyota, Honda and Mercedes so clearly demonstrated their animosity for Americans who demand a fair wage.
Instead of championing the American standard of living these bastards would have us working for third world wages.
I wonder how successful these invaders would have been had we insisted they pay their workers, here and abroad, commensurate with UAW wages and benefits before allowing them to sell a single vehicle here.
But that would have required a Government foresighted and dedicated to its people, instead we have what we have ... and wannabes like you.

(Edit)
Considering all the above, it is a tribute to the management that any are still in business.

GM ? Innovation ?? LMAO !!

Corvair, Vega, GM diesels, V4-6-8 engines, etc.

GM did crush every EV-1 they could get their hands on. Public Relations was in the very first concept session for the Volt, and it has all been run for maximum PR exposure since then. Thus my suspicion that the Volt is being run as a PR exercise to get US Gov't bailout money.

I'll bet that you typed this out on your old Apple Macintosh too.

A three year old Apple MacMini ($599) with recycled LCD screen and trackball. New keyboard (could have recycled that as well). 34 watts for the Apple.

I have a preference for well built, well engineered, durable products that do not waste resources. All concepts quite unfamiliar to GM.

(And Daimler Benz did go downhill when they bought Chrysler, the influence of Detroit engineering ? I would NOT buy a modern M-B).

Best Hopes for at least a much smaller GM,

Alan

Well you just keep proving my point about being out of touch.
Each product you mention is at least 25yrs old. Even so they were bold moves for their time.
You probably don't even recognise GM cars as they pass your Mercedes.
IMO GM was smart enough to limit their liability with the EV-1, an experiment they conducted under duress.
Today GM leads in innovation worldwide:
http://www.gm.com/experience/technology/news/2008/ieee_121108.jsp

"tunnels carved by Chinese coolies",Daimler/Mercedes Benz.
It seems that you have a fondness for products built with slave labor.

Daimler-Benz...avidly supported Nazism and in return received arms contracts and tax breaks that enabled it to become one of the world's leading industrial concerns. (Between 1932 and 1940 production grew by 830 percent.) During the war the company used thousands of slaves and forced laborers including Jews, foreigners, and POWs. According to historian Bernard Bellon (Mercedes in Peace and War, 1990), at least eight Jews were murdered by DB managers or SS men at a plant in occupied Poland.

In direct contrast, it is funny how GM and other AMERICAN auto companies have conspired to raise the living standard of minorities who now stand to lose the most, partly because of your misguided efforts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/30detroit.html?_r=2&scp=6&sq=...

"GM did crush every EV-1 they could get their hands on."

True. Wagoner now says that they recognize that this was an enormous mistake, both from a strategic and PR point of view.

"Public Relations was in the very first concept session for the Volt, and it has all been run for maximum PR exposure since then."

Sure. They'd be idiots to do otherwise. OTOH, they've heavily involved such people as the director of "who killed the electric car", someone who isn't going to let them repeat the mistakes of the EV-1.

"Thus my suspicion that the Volt is being run as a PR exercise to get US Gov't bailout money."

It doesn't follow that PR is the only goal. 1st, Toyota has done the same PR-wise with the Prius: it's their corporate symbol in the US (which drives GM nuts, given that Toyota is perfectly happy to sell Tundra's). 2nd, GM's plans for the Volt in particular, and the underlying platform in general, are consistent with a sincere plan. GM has said in many ways that the Volt's platform is their future. No doubt there are anachronistic holdouts in the company, but in the main I believe them.

The EV-1's were not viable.
When the battery ran down, that was it, only a lengthy recharge would get 'er going again.
A very uncanny feeling that made the development team pause.
Try pushing one off the road.
That is why they were never for sale, only leased.
Plus the folks that did lease them needed special instruction on how to use them.
I know Rick thinks it was handled badly but it was the only responsible thing to do.
BTW there are still some around, I saw one a few months back.

Talk about a lousy business model!
Toyotas entry into the full size truck segment has been an umitigated disaster.
Easily offsetting any gains the prius garners.

"The EV-1's were not viable."

Sure they were. They just didn't have a big market.

"When the battery ran down, that was it, only a lengthy recharge would get 'er going again."

True. That's why the Volt and other plugins are superior. OTOH, EV's have their place, and the EV-1 was a good one.

"That is why they were never for sale, only leased."

Not really. It's more because GM considered it experimental, and didn't really want to produce it.

"the folks that did lease them needed special instruction on how to use them."

Really? That's the first I've heard of that. What did it involve?

"I know Rick thinks it was handled badly"

Rick thinks it was handled disastrously.

"it was the only responsible thing to do"

I think you're referring to the crushing. Rick is referring to the decision to discontinue the EV-1.

"BTW there are still some around, I saw one a few months back."

Where? Neither GM or anyone else knows about it.

electric rail won't create ANY JOBS after they're built

it is true that the tunnels carved by Chinese coolies for the first Trans-Continental railroad are still in service, not much planned obsolescence (one of GM's contributions to modern culture).

It also true that the Swiss are spending 31 billion Swiss francs improving an already superb rail system, including a flat, straight electrified rail line from Zurich and Milan (58 km tunnel + 20 & 10 km tunnels) under the Alps to replace trucks hauling freight OVER the Alps.

The moral is that an improving railroads will create DOMESTIC infrastructure jobs for well over a century. Unlike the dying GM.

And rail rolling stock typically lasts about 40 years, so there is a replacement cycle (just longer than trashy cars).

Best Hopes for EMD (the locomotive division GM sold to Warren Buffet)

Alan

"it is true that the tunnels carved by Chinese coolies for the first Trans-Continental railroad are still in service, not much planned obsolescence (one of GM's contributions to modern culture)."

Amazing what one can do with slave labor!
Is that in your proposals too?

As it stands your notion of planned obsolescence has no merit.
For things to grow and improve, change must be embraced, something I think you are loath to do.

"The moral is that an improving railroads will create DOMESTIC infrastructure jobs for well over a century. Unlike the dying GM."

How many Al?
Enough to replace the jobs lost by the "dying GM"? Bull.
If GM dies it is because people in this country became victims of the flawed common perceptions that are so prevalent these days.
Perceptions championed by folks like you.

You conveniently forget railroads as public transportation DIED in the not so distant past yet Big Easy Al wants to bankrupt the country further to resurrect THAT dino.
Maybe if we live long enough we'll hear you wanting to bring back GM too.

GM was convicted in a court of law of restraint of trade for buying up to destroy streetcar lines around the nation. Fined $5,000. Ed Tennyson, my co-author, is likely the last living member of the prosecution team (Technical support staff).

After WW II, when railroads were moving away from steam, GM threatened to blackball any railroad that electrified. So they went diesel.

"Engine Charlie" Wilson, Eisenhower's Sect'y of Defense argued and changed Ike's mind on the Interstate Defense Highway system to not make it toll, and not to stop at the urban boundaries (toll roads that did not slice, dice and kill inner cities would have resulted in a far better America today).

We do need to save Ford and Chrysler (losing all 3 at once would be too much of a shock, and the other two are better companies), but we will be better off as a nation without GM and their philosophy

GM is the dinosaur, running on old dinosaurs.

Any demand for new automobiles will be meet by Toyota, Honda, perhaps Ford & Chrysler, etc. No significant loss in auto employment. Camry's are assembled in Georgetown KY a few miles from my parents, with supplier plants scattered around. Employment there.

And yes, expanded railroads and Urban rail can employ several millions.

The Chinese volunteered to come over and they were paid. Not slaves (neither were the Irish on the other end).

Over the decades (since two good high school friends bought Chevy Vegas) I have steered quite a few people away from GM products :-)

My 1982 M-B 240D does not suffer from GM engineering and has decades left in it. The moving assembly line was Ford's contribution, planned obsolescence (and parts designed to fail when they get too old) is GM's.

Best Hopes for am America free at last from GM,

Alan

You overlooked one MAJOR contribution from our motorized culture. 40,000+ deaths each and every year and (IMHO even worse) hundreds of thousands of life altering injuries every year. Auto jobs come at a VERY high price !

At last the twisted rationale of your hate for GM comes to light.
Of course the fact Toyota, Ford, Honda, Chrysler, Mercedes and all the others have benefited from GM's unilateral act to rid the US of streetcars, those anachronisms of a time happily past, doesn't penetrate the fog that separates you from reality.
As for your statement that Ford and Chrysler are both better companies again shows your stunning ignorance in these matters as I have worked for both of them prior to my time here at the General. And I feel blessed in comparison.
As an employer GM is a leader in equal opportunity, diversity initiatives and corporate responsibility and citizenship.
GM's charitable contributions in 2005 alone were $61 million, $3.8 million going to Katrina/Rita response and myself and many of my coworkers volunteered our time, money and gifts in Disaster Relief for Katrina.
Your thanks were never asked for.
http://origin.gm.prod.gmgssm.com/corporate/responsibility/reports/06/500...

The holdover from Nazi Germany you own is nothing to brag about, several of my neighbors own older GM cars that they drive everyday, cars that were built in GM's supposedly "dark" days and experience road salt in the Winter too.

Two beautiful women I have known have been killed by trains, attempting crossings at rural, unmarked RR crossings, leaving behind their devastated families.
Where's the RR's corporate responsibility in failing to properly mark their crossings?

Maybe GM's past has been less than perfect, but the "dinosaur" you refer to has shown itself remarkably resilient to its own hostile government and indifferent public, a public trapped in a self sustaining bubble of flawed perception and prejudices, just as you display .
Perhaps GM won't survive this present financial, global meltdown.
But if it doesn't you can count on this nation and others to be much poorer as a result.
No amount of train building or other forms of wishful thinking will bring it back.

Where's the RR's corporate responsibility in failing to properly mark their crossings?

If the railroad was there first (true 99% of the time), marking the crossing is the highway departments responsibility, NOT the railroads. Raise gas taxes and license tag fees and properly mark ALL RR crossings !

But the deaths from railroads are a VERY small fractionof THE MILLIONS KILLED AND INJURED BY GM CARS & TRUCKS !1

Yes, millions have been killed and seriously injured in and by GM products,

Alan

The RR failed in their responsibility because they are the operators.
When a person buys an auto THEY are the operators.
Although the leeches of society, lawyers, have persuaded a gullible public that GM vehicles should protect the occupants even in high impact frontal crashes.
GM has spent millions upon millions in occupant safety.
Whereas the rairoads cannot even spend the few dollars it would take to properly mark their own road crossings, a bit of a double standard, eh?

Ration gas, penalize speeders with high fines(tax), tax all non essential, non multi-purpose transport ICE's, lawn mowers, generators, motorcycles(all), boats inboard and outboard, chainsaws, etc.
Not one penny going to the absurdity of electric light rail.

**The 3 TRILLION dollar bailout , spent directly, could purchase ALL of the following list:

John Law where are you now!?

And where will this $3T come from? Print it? Then why not 30T or 300T? Borrow it? From whom? Even the dullest creditor is beginning to see the writing on the wall.

Change in economic output--mix, higher productivity or higher level--requires investment. Sustainable investment requires consuming less than current income. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT POLS OF BOTH PARTIES ARE TRYING TO AVOID. They should be applauding the demise of Circuit City and lower house prices. God forbid--Americans may start saving.

there is no limit to human greed and folly(tm).
the man enslaved to wealth can never be honest.
i have a 3 KW solar PV system. it is a decoration.
6 KW on every roof is much more useful.
i agree that any tax hike on fossil fuel will be used by the elite
criminal class. we should cut social security instead. oh, wait a minute, the elite criminal class will get that money also. let us give multi trillion dollar bail outs. nope, criminal elites got that also.
i got it. let's have a destructive world war numbered 3. of course the criminal elite will profit from that also. well, you know, OK, let's
jack up the price of fuel with taxes. transfer more wealth from the public to the elite criminals. it is a done deal just as soc sec is cut and WWIII starts. stick a fork in uhmerika's buttocks, turn it over.
we is done.

What's wrong with the idea of carbon tax with 100% dividend that Hansen has been promoting?

Lottery gas tax system.
3 Reels with 1 - 5 on them. Pump your gas and pull the big lever, you could pay anything from $1.11 to $5.55 a gallon!

Nice, but the House always wins.

America is basically a huge leveraged gamble on low cost transport energy: everything from the organisation of work<>home to the just-in-time food delivery system. Imagine what inefficiency would exist if fuel where given away for free.

Its just a shame that the price signal is going to have to be the thing that changes peoples usage because American Society -as it exists today- is going to be devastated.

Nick.

1/2 of us didn't like Obama before the election. Raising gas taxes at the start of a depression would just about guarantee that he'll be a one term president, if the country holds together that long, big IF. Raising gas taxes should have been done during one of Clinton's terms. Its too late for anything but hanging on and enjoying the ride. Of course, it doesn't mean he won't try it but to do so when its "free money" time for the financials would be an invitation to real change.... at gun point first and then by short rope, tall tree.

Clinton proposed increasing the gas tax after his election in '92, but all he could get was a 4.3 cent boost. After the Republicans took over the House in 1994, Clinton had no hope of further increases.

History of the Gasoline Tax

http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/

The problem is, as you so colorfully note, 'Mericans don't cotton to high taxes. When reality finally stikes home, it will be a bitter pill to swallow indeed.

E. Swanson

Yep thats why Clinton saw a second term.
Another inconvenient truth is Clinton/Gore presided over the huge boom in SUV sales, inspite of their professed green leanings.

A better plan is a floor price on gasoline (Tom Friedman has written about this too). Use an adjustable tax to establish a floor price that everyone can count on and plan for. But this is still only a minor part of the whole problem. We need to use less energy overall and much less fossil fuel in particular.

I just can't help thinking outside any box. Implementation details and politics aside (for the moment) what I would really love to see is a national progressive sales tax (somewhat similar to the Fair Tax plan making its way through Congress). There are ways to make a sales tax progressive with modern IT.

But on top of that I would like to see a luxury tax for categories of items that society really would be better off with fewer. And I would love to see a carbon surcharge attached. The problem with the latter is how to measure embodied carbon in products and services. So a source-point tax is probably more efficient. I'm sure producers will pass the tax on to consumers so it should have the same effect without the cost of measuring. What we would miss is the informational aspects of letting consumers know what they are spending on carbon content. Presumably consumers would begin to be more particular about products they buy if they knew the carbon content (like reading the fat content on a nutrition label!) Companies might actually compete to reduce carbon content if consumers showed preferences for such.

As to revenue-neutral ideas, I think they stink. (I have nothing but respect for James Hansen, but let's remember his primary objective is to stop coal and he is trying to garner political support - or not trigger political attacks - in suggesting dividends be paid out from a coal/carbon tax. It is unclear to me what earnings would generate a dividend anyway.) It's nuts to talk about needing to fund energy infrastructure projects and research & development to fix a problem for all of us when you are going to give the revenue back to the over-consuming public that is the cause of the problem in the first place. The whole point is you are trying to get consumers to consume less in order to conserve energy and reduce pollution. It's nuts to go further into national debt just so you make the voters happy with no effective new taxes. Look folks, we have to pay as we go from now on. Collecting a specific purpose tax and then giving it back to the people while borrowing more to pay for what those revenues could be doing is just plain stupid.

Money doesn't grow on trees - it comes out of the ground. And peak oil (soon to be followed by peak everything) will curtail that flow. We should all be happy to pay a tax if it is going to pay for fixing the problems caused by our short-sighted foolishness. Of course, that assumes the Obama administration and Congress are smart enough to know how to wisely spend our contributions.

Question Everything

George

It is unclear to me what earnings would generate a dividend anyway.

Earnings from the tax, of course.  It's a feebate, writ large.

The whole point is you are trying to get consumers to consume less in order to conserve energy and reduce pollution. It's nuts to go further into national debt just so you make the voters happy with no effective new taxes.

I think you're confused here.  What consumer is going to drive the country further into debt if they have no more money in toto than they had before, but a big incentive to stop spending so much on petroleum?  Oil is ~65% imported, but oil-saving measures are either free (slow down, eco-driving) or substantially manufactured in the USA (even if by foreign companies).

This really does look like a no-lose proposition to me (except politically), and I can't follow your reasoning to the contrary in the slightest.

Don't sugar coat it EP. Tell us what you really think. And maybe expand the explanation so I can understand it better.

You think that if we as a nation are going to build up a sustainable energy infrastructure it isn't going to have to be paid for by us? And since 'us' are unwilling to pay (through a tax) it will happen anyway?

Now you're conflating two different things:  a petroleum tax (with a rebate to make it revenue-neutral) and an infrastructure initiative.  I was only talking about the first, and there's no point in trying to explain further until you can separate them in your mind.

I believe the shock treament is by far the most effective option, something like $4/gallon right off the bat. This would cause sharp, immediate pain, and lead to prompt, radical action by a significant fraction of the population. People would get used to the higher prices in a hurry (they always do), and a few years later wonder what the initial outcry was all about.

I fear I’m going to sound like a broken record: But, what is the problem we are trying to solve? What objectives are we advocating? I really appreciate TOD and have learned a lot from it since I started following many of the threads. But, when it comes to giving advice to the rest of the world, we seem to jump very quickly to offering solutions. In this case we are talking about a specific solution called a gasoline tax. Which I personally think should be raised about a buck every year until we have funded a successful transition away from FFs and mitigated GW. However, my opinion (for such a radical suggestion) is worthless in the public arena unless I’m able to back it up with a very convincing argument loaded with indisputable facts.

Why would a politician or noted media person support any kind of “significant” gas tax increase? The media provides daily assurances that the problems are both overblown and solvable. I suspect that the views of many TOD posters would be viewed by the general public as just plain stupid – and the feeling might be mutual. I’m not a person who would take comfort if civilization collapsed – just because I predicted it would. I want to do whatever I can to help prevent a collapse. As I fully realize my limitations, I’ve focused on one tactic – writing to my elected representatives and speaking to them in person when I get a chance. To date, I’ve not been very successful in getting them to recognize the problem. I just don’t seem to be able to present a convincing argument. My argument always seems to come down to: Trust me, I’ve done a lot of research and here are my conclusions. Sounds like a used car salesman’s pitch. I need a much better pitch.

I think TOD has lots of really smart folks running it and posting comments (otherwise, why would I be here:-). But, I also think that we are failing to perform the two tasks, which TOD is capable of doing, that would be its most significant contribution – to define the problem and to set objectives. If those two things are accomplished, solutions like gas taxes will be vastly easier to talk about. What is needed is something like a one or two page summary that clearly lays out both the evidence of the problem’s severity and a set of quantifiably measurable objectives against which to assess and monitor any solutions. I would urge someone to get the ball rolling and then let the debate rage. Hopefully, the result will be a document that those of us who are politically active can use time and again to advance our position.

In this document, the problem not only needs to be stated in clear and simple language but also with enough technical detail to provide for real substance. Not an easy job. Somehow, the credentials for scientists who provide expert testimony must be impressive enough to counter any doubts about credibility. It needs to be heavy on facts and findings from well established parties – the recent statement from the IEA is an example. And, the people who deny the problem need a solid counterpunch.

Objectives need to be quantifiable – for example, oil consumption and carbon emissions targets should be spelled out annually for many years. Notice that these targets are not solutions. Reducing global oil consumption to 20 mbd in 15 years is an objective, not a solution. Getting the atmosphere to 350 ppm of GHS is an objective, not a solution. Gas taxes and carbon credits are solutions with which we can monitor against those targets. And, obviously, no one is going to agree with these objectives unless they believe there is a problem and these targets are relevant.

In my former work experience, I found that it is extremely difficult for most people to understand the difference between problems, objectives and solutions. I also found that effective solutions are rare without this understanding.

Bike Dave,

I think this has been covered.

The PROBLEM has been most effectively summarized, IMO, by Westexas via his ELM. The Problem (for the US) is that we will soon have about 20% of current oil usage available to our economy.

The OBJECTIVE is to limit the poverty and starvation that this could result in if not prepared for in a thought out manner.

The SOLUTIONS are what we are trying to hash out here.

Hi Consumer,

Thanks for your comment. I searched Westexas and found some good material - but, not the kind of document I would send to my Wisconsin Senator. I've read a dozen books on PO, GW, and environmental issues related to both - but I've not found the kind of compact problem analysis I'd hoped for. Telling my Senator that we'll soon have 80% less oil is useless. Suggesting he read some books and start following websites like TOD - ditto. Perhaps Westexas is the right person to start the ball rolling on what I actually proposed.

Your objective is fine as a broad statement - but nothing like my the kind of measurable objectives that people can really sink thier teeth into.

As I said, solutions abound. But, they fall on deaf ears unless the problem is understood and there is agreement on concrete objectives.

So, I can't agree that "this has been covered" in the manner I'm looking for. If you really think it has, then please direct me to the kind of document I can send to my Senator - and really expect some buy-in. I do agree that "this has been covered" by the basic scientific research and that the facts are out there - I'm just hoping some bright person on TOD can put together a document that is really helpful in the political arena.

You can surely do something with

http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/overview
http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/update
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer
http://www.peakoil.net/about-peak-oil

Or from the books there are. Paste some stuff together in a doc and send!

Thanks, those are all good links. Some I've read before and the others I'll read carefully.

Apparently, I have failed to make my point. I was hoping that someone on TOD that is more knowledgeable than me about PO would start the ball rolling and "Paste some stuff together" specifically in a format suitable for persuading legislators. I was hoping to see some debate regarding such a document.

Today's post by Mr Mearns regarding advice to Mr Obama seems to follow the same pattern: light on proving the severity of the problem and heavy on solutions. I find it hard to believe that his advice could cause many politicians to take the risk of advancing his recommendations.

I think I'm beating a dead horse.

The "severity of the problem" varies with the perspective. I personally think the USA > 3rd World nation understates the problems, but it is "on the edge" for generally acceptable doom.

I have dome several elements of what you want. Not enough ? Surely, but there are limits.

Alan

Hi BD,

I just sent you an email. Please write back (if you want).

Your point is well taken. It may be hard for people here to respond the way you might most enjoy, because they are (like Alan) already working hard in the directions they hope will have some positive effect.

I believe what you want is important and doable. Very important.

Suicidal stupidity...The sheep asks to get fleeced, begs to get fleeced! The sheep wants to pay more taxes... cuz' taxes are gooood...and the government is gooood and trustworthy...with the money from sheep's taxes the trustworthy government could do lots of good things...pay Halliburton's contractors in Iraq $1000/hour to do nothing...or bomb countries left and right... or give a few more trillion $ to the banks, so the bank could give their CEO's a few hundred billion in bonuses... or give a few more billion to GM and Chrysler...send a few tens of billion to needy countries...like... Israel...sheep deserves the worst...and they're about to get what they're asking for.
I’ve never quite understood this…and I have some sort of admiration for the government, if I could call it admiration… how to you get sheep to beg to get fleeced?...how to you make them lose their minds?...line up to get fleeced…and say thank you at the end?
Amazing….

Maybe these pro-taxers have a point.
Raise the gas tax by $5 or maybe $10 a gallon.
Then the proverbial SWHTF and all our investments in survival goods will finally make sense.

My thinking exactly. If you want to ruin the country quickly raise fuel taxes and kill industry as quick as you can.
Remove all gas taxes and see if it stimulates the economy, either way the eventual outcome would probably be the same.

How will higher gas taxes ruin industry ?

BTW, I suggested a 9 month delay and then a $.0075/gallon/week for 25 years gas tax increase. Slow acting, with PLENTY of forewarning to prepare, gas tax increase.

Alan

How do you "prepare" for higher taxes.

You must be assuming industry is inefficient and in nine months they become efficient enough to negate the higher taxes. You could just as easily promote efficiency with rationing, the result would be the same.

Just start at the bottom, no industry is an island, they are all interdependent.
From simply the consumer not be able to afford products which have higher costs passed on, to commuters and businesses supplying industry. Passed on costs will start at the bottom (resource base) and feed up the line.

Just higher prices for fuel is enough to ruin industry (and has)let alone higher prices and higher taxes. Lets see what happens to the airline industry and tourism with higher taxes, though I guess they are toast already.

Yeah, the airline and tourist industries will be sorely missed. And they are doing so good right now.

Taxing one thing rather than another makes people and businesses use less of it. I still haven't heard a good defense of the income tax.

The tax the first couple of years will be trivial (zero for 3/4 year, then 49 cents/gallon for the next 1.25 years).

If 2/3rds or 3/4 of taxes are rebated by other reduced taxes, I and other low oil users# will be money ahead :-) and we will spend more.

The other 1/3rd or 1/4th will help industry in other ways.

Best Hopes for Fuel Guzzlers Suffering and Car-Less People benefiting,

Alan

# I burned 74 gallons last year in my car and I live in a low energy environment.

Not gasoline taxes, import taxes. We should encourage domestic producers.

WE NEED NO TAXES AT ALL. It is stupid to tax fuel. That will make everything go up. Taxes do NOTHING for an economy. NEVER HAVE....NEVER WILL.

I have to strongly disagree. Nobody enjoys paying taxes, but we would not exist as a nation without them, and that includes our economy. Increasing taxes on motor fuels should targeted to achieving desired objectives; reduced oil consumption, less dependence on foreign suppliers, development of alternative sources of energy, transition to a more sustainable economy, etc. The days of economic laissez-faire are over, hopefully. Unrestrained commercialism and the need to constantly increase consumption of finite resources are patently unsustainable. Either we control ourselves, or we will destroy ourselves.

Control yourself and I promise I will do likewise, leave the government out of it.

Unfortunately the government is necessary to make sure you keep your promise.

Taxes have huge influence on the economy. They create and destroy incentives across the board. For example, we have relatively low gasoline and retail taxes and high consumption. Conversely taxes on investments are relatively high in comparison to consumption taxes, thus we have negative or near zero savings rates. Think that all happens by accident? Ever heard of our "consumer economy?"

While I do have libertarian leanings and think gov't is often the worst vehicle for getting something done I'm not sure your lassiez-fair idea would work...similar to how communism doesn't work.

Taxes. Meh. What do I know? Ban cars from cities. Ban cars, period. Voila. Ha ha ha.

Make automobile traffic self-supporting. How about the European scheme of tracking mileage via GPS?

Alternatively tax engine displacement. A 2 liter engine could be set as the index, smaller gets a discount: larger gets a progressively steeper surcharge.

While we are talking government regulation, require all cars to be fitted with tow hitch provision. That should eliminate the, perceived and real, need to drive pickup trucks 100% of the time, versus plugging in the tow hitch ball. A small trailer should satisfy most bulky hauling.

Finally how about a fade proof standardized glass headlight lens and mandatory proven headlight bulb installation that does not cost skin and blood 8-((.

In the UK we have an a high tax on fuel, over 60% of the pump price as present. We also have an annual license tax on each vehicle. This tax is also progressive with official fuel consumption of the vehicle, as measured by CO2 production per mile. In practice this means that the 'average' tax of about $200/year is paid by cars that do about 40 -45 mpg (imperial) More than this, the tax rises steeply, upto 3-4 times for the gas guzzlers, and falls steeply, being free above about 60 mpg. Various alternative fuels and technologies like CNG and hybrids get a free pass. This is a bit silly as a hybrid SUV is still a gas guzzler by comparison with most cars in the UK.

My seven seat 'MPV' has a 1.6 litre engine and gets 39 mpg (petrol, official). I haven't had it long enough to measure realistic figure. I was hoping to get a more efficient petrol engined one, but there are none on the market. The most efficient engines by far are diesel, but are so popular in Europe, that come peak oil shortages, diesel will be unavailable before petrol.

I agree that gasoline taxes should be raised, even though I realize it would be political suicide to raise them at this time. The amount of political capital Obama would have to spend would preclude accomplishing his other initiatives. And the timing couldn't be worse. Although gas prices are relatively low, our economy is in the tank, and a lot of unemployed/underemployed people couldn't withstand another hit to their family budgets.

As I read much of the info presented on TOD, I have to conclude that the price of gas will go up very significantly without a tax in the not too distant future. Why should I trust government to use the money for anything worthwhile, they never have in the past? Frankly, I would trust the oil companies with the money before I would trust the government. At least I understand their objective, to make money which means they will look for alternatives to stay in business.

Why should I trust government to use the money for anything worthwhile, they never have in the past?

Eisenhower enacted a nickel a gallon gas tax (when a nickel bought a good sized candy bar) to build the Interstate & Defense Highway system.

Alan

If you really hate Obama and want him to lose next election, just give him myopic advice like this. Americans will vote for cheap gas and low taxes, not some future benefit that few of them will live to see.

The only reason there is money for alt energy projects in EU nations is because America foots your defense bill. Americans have the same high taxes, but no socialized health care, college, public transportation, or alt energy. Would you be willing to increase YOUR taxes to pay for the military you do not have, in order for America to divert investment internally? I thought not!

Please be a little more serious and realistic, and I hope my President doesn't hear of your silly writing.

He should raise the tax, he should eliminate the Ethanol Blender Credit, and offer tax incentives for people using other fueling options. Money talks right now, and might be the best motivation for people to break their habits.

Here's to Wednesday...

BD

This is the biggest bunch of BIG GOVERNMENT bullshit I have ever heard. TAXES NEVER SOLVE A THING!!! If you want socialism there is a nice little island just off the coast of florida you might enjoy. I suggest all you tax lovers go there.

In this case if you don't want to pay the tax simply stop driving. Pretty simple.

Personally I prefer a rationing system. If you don't use your allotment you can sell the excess at market value. If you go over you're going to pay. You could have an incentive plan to increase your individual allotment. You get extra for graduating High School, College, etc. Increases for dependents, decreases for to many dependents. I'm sure this has been discussed, the only drawback I can see right off is how to implement the whole thing.

I hate to be a wet blanket, but we are already too far down the path of economic disintegration to do an easy turnaround regardless of whatever programs the Obama administration puts into action. If the new president told the public the real truth about our situation, they would probably impeach him. We have reached a watershed insofar as our consumer-based lifestyle is concerned. The real estate and financial market bubbles burst, because they were unsustainable. Energy prices have ben whipsawed from one extreme to the other, because we are confronting the fact that global oil production either has already peaked or soon will. We are finally beginning to realize that non-renewable resources are actually finite. The more you use the less there is. There really are limits, and we have used up the easiest and best reserves of natural resources - including oil. Increasing taxes on motor fuels could dampen some demand and possibly help to fund advancements in more fuel efficient vehicles, but it would only slightly delay the inevitable. The U.S. Dept. of Energy sponsored a study of oil production and likely impacts of reduced supplies. The study concluded that we are at a tipping point in regards to oil. Regardless of price, supplies will decline. The report also stated that it will take at least a decade to prepare for reduced energy supplies - assuming that the government would put its full support behind the effort. We don't have a decade, and we are far from ready to be told that we have to learn to get by with less.

Raising the gas tax will discourage consumption and encourage alternatives - if they exist.
However, until those alternatives are in place, such a tax boost will hurt those whose budget can't stand it.

Instead of "Robbing Petro to pay Sprawl", grant a ZERO TAX LIABILITY to stimulate private mass transit. Then once the alternative transportation systems are on line, should such a tax increase be considered.

I think the tax should be raised, and since this is paid by people driving on the roads, the tax should be used for road repairs.