April 20, 2004
TAXING CONSUMPTION:
Americans would pay more for cleaner air (Russell Totten, April 19, 2004, UPI)
A strong majority of voters will consider the presidential candidates' environmental protection policies when going to the polls in November, and most voters are willing to pay more for programs to protect the country's air and water supplies, according to a survey released Monday by The Trust for Public Land and The Nature Conservancy, two of the United States' largest conservation organizations.The poll, coordinated to coincide with the 34th anniversary of Earth Day on Thursday, found that 65 percent of likely U.S. voters support a "small increase in taxes" to fund the government purchase of land in order to protect water quality, natural areas, neighborhood parks and wildlife habitat. Seventy-nine percent said that water quality issues will be "very" or "somewhat" important in choosing a presidential candidate -- and in the 17 "battleground" states most likely to determine the outcome of the presidential election, that figure remains high at 77 percent.
The poll also noted a growing concern among Americans that their communities are growing too quickly. In 1999, when economic growth was at its peak, 35 percent said their neighborhoods, towns and cities were growing too fast, and 25 percent said they were growing too slowly. But in the poll, 39 percent of respondents were worried about the fast pace of development, while 12 percent said growth was sluggish.
The national poll of 1,500 likely voters was conducted April 3-12 by Republican research firm Public Opinion Strategies and Democratic firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates. It has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.
A revenue neutral tax on fuels makes all kinds of sense.
MORE:
Natural Gas-Powered Limos Are Hollywood Hit (Stefan Lovgren, April 19, 2004, National Geographic News)
The newest addition to the limousine fleet of Los Angeles-based Evo Limo is a tricked-out Chevy Suburban monster ride that gets about 15 miles (24 kilometers) a gallon in gas mileage.Your basic environmental nightmare, right?
Think again. This beast doesn't guzzle gasoline. Like the company's two other SUV limousines, it runs on natural gas, emitting 80 percent less smog-forming emissions than its gasoline-powered counterparts.
Is Hydrogen the Gasoline of the Future? (Nicole Davis, September 9, 2003, National Geographic News)
At Ford's Sustainable Mobility Technologies Lab in Dearborn, Michigan, where engineers are at work on the latest buzz-phrase in driving—hydrogen fuel cell cars—Mugeeb Ijaz runs down the vital stats on the Ford Focus above him. Suspended on a hydraulic lift, the underbelly of the popular sedan seems no different from the average car, except for the black metal box fastened to its middle.Posted by Orrin Judd at April 20, 2004 8:45 AMIn place of the gas tank, explains Ijaz, a supervisor for the fuel cells program at Ford, there is a stack of fuel cells. Instead of gas, this prototype, like dozens of others in development around Detroit, runs on hydrogen. Yet the most salient fact about this Focus is what it doesn't do: While the average car releases roughly six tons (5.4 metric tons) of carbon dioxide into the air each year, a hydrogen-fuel cell car emits zero pollutants.
Hydrogen can be used in an internal combustion engine. But a fuel cell car—essentially an electric car that uses the cells as a catalyst to convert hydrogen and oxygen into electricity—emits only heat and water vapor. For the environmentally conscious and those anxious over energy security, such benign byproducts could either be a red herring, or a real breakthrough.
There's a long list of things that people tell pollsters they'd be happy to pay more for in order to do good. As soon as people actually happily pay more for something in order to do good, we'll let you know. Walmart, for example, had grown to be the largest company in the US by assuming correctly that people are lying about this.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 20, 2004 9:03 AM"the worst knock [against a fuel tax] is that it’s inflationary. Everything I have in this room was brought here by truck. A gas tax would have increased the price of everything I see. Everything."
Posted by: Mike Morley at April 20, 2004 9:17 AMMike:
That's the point. To decrease consumption you make the product more expensive.
Posted by: oj at April 20, 2004 9:29 AMPhooey. The "results" of this poll have to be be bogus.
#1: Taxpayers weren't born yesterday. Every one of them/us has quite good memories of an unending string of "small tax increase to improve ...". Somehow, that new tax level becomes the given and another "small tax increase" is needed yet again.
#2: Most people are satisfied with their water, etc.
#3: The claim of "77%-79% rate water quality an important issue" in choosing who to vote for doesn't even come close to passing the laugh test.
#4: "concern that their communities are growing too quickly" is also bogus. EVERYBODY wants to cose the gates of their community as soon as they move in. "Growing too fast" means "Somebody built a house and blocked my view of that open field over there---and never mind about the guy whose view got blocked when I build *my* house."
The point is to decrease the consumption of all products shipped in vehicles that use fuel?
Posted by: TCB at April 20, 2004 9:47 AMTCB:
No, to force people to find alternatives ways of shipping it.
Posted by: oj at April 20, 2004 9:58 AMOne dollar a gallon wouldn't come close to making alternative fuels economical.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 20, 2004 10:21 AMA "revenue-neutral" fuel tax might have some merits.
Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny have merits too.
And revenue-neutrality for the endeavor you propose is about as realistic. :)
Besides, Americans ARE paying more for cleaner air at the moment, and they are complaining about gas prices. We haven't built a refinery in decades largely because of environmental reasons, we mandate all sorts of different refining formulas for emissions control, and we complain about our still-relatively low gas prices.
There's no big support for more artificial price boosts. People lie because it's politically correct to be for clean air at any cost.
Posted by: kevin whited at April 20, 2004 10:32 AMOJ: if you can come up with a system of transportation which uses no fuel, I'll be damned impressed.
Posted by: Mike Morley at April 20, 2004 11:13 AMOJ's right. So is Kevin. The key is a revenue neutral tax and it could be done with intelligent implimentation. The "invisible hand" works here and in Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: genecis at April 20, 2004 11:39 AMSo my spelling isn't so intelligent.
Posted by: genecis at April 20, 2004 11:41 AMKevin:
Couch it as what all Americans can do to help in the war on terror and a measure to screw the Arabs, plus the reduction in other taxes and pollutants and it will be as popular as any tax can be.
Posted by: oj at April 20, 2004 12:32 PMBull. Americans already know what could be done to help the WOT and to screw the Arabs. And it ain't giving more tax money to the fine folks in Washington to roll in. Hint: it involves lead, copper jackets, and explosives.
Posted by: fred at April 20, 2004 1:13 PMWhy does it make political sense for Republicans to accelerate the emptying of the Plains states and assist in herding people into cities where they can all ride the bus and vote for the Democratic machine? If it's for the sake of strong communities with lots of little Burkean platoons allowing men to lead a good life as good citizens, I'll take Manhattan, Kansas, over anywhere in or within 100 miles of that other Manhattan.
Posted by: Random Lawyer at April 20, 2004 1:38 PMfred:
Yeah, look at the lines forming at induction stations....
Posted by: oj at April 20, 2004 1:48 PMRandom:
Yeah, remember how empty the rural areas were until we all got cars?
Posted by: oj at April 20, 2004 1:49 PMWhich would have happened anyway.
OJ's gripe is against the car. If someone figured out a way to power a car solely on pollutants, for free, he would want a freedom of movement tax.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at April 20, 2004 5:45 PMWhy would we want to reduce the consumption of everything?
There is not any alternative to gasoline. Nil, none, nada, nothing. Not at any price.
You're talking quads (that's quadrillions of BTUs) you'd need to replace. All the various alternatives don't amount to a trillion now, I bet. (I haven't added it up, but alternative fuels are a myth. There aren't any.)
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 20, 2004 6:55 PMIn the short term (next 20-50 years), Harry is spot on. Smart we are, but miracles take time. From the oil discoveries in PA in 1859 to a full oil-based economy took probably 40-50 years.
And the news isn't much better with respect to solar power (to generate electricity). Energy from the sun strikes the earth (on a cloudless day) at about 1100 watts per square meter. To replace a 1100 megawatt electrical generating plant would require covering approximately 10 million square meters (assuming 100% efficiency). Double that for a 50% conversion rate (the average thermal station is about 32-35% efficient, although natural gas is higher). Good luck with that environmental impact statement.
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 20, 2004 10:41 PMExcept we didn't "need" that conversion.
Posted by: oj at April 20, 2004 10:45 PM> Yeah, look at the lines forming at induction stations....
Actually, retention rates in the military are currently doing just fine.
Way to step on your own argument! :-)
Posted by: Kirk Parker at April 21, 2004 2:35 AMDidn't or don't? The tense is everything.
I do not doubt that new energy sources will be found. In fact, in 30 years, we could be running all our transportation on fuel cells and magnetics. The grid will run on nuclear power and fossil fuels will suffice for aviation (and NASCAR).
But some difficult decisions will be needed to get us there. They probably won't get made until we are forced to really spill blood for oil.
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 21, 2004 10:33 PM"To replace a 1100 megawatt electrical generating plant would require covering approximately 10 million square meters (assuming 100% efficiency)."
Jim, don't you mean 1 million square meters? That is equal to a square kilometer, or about the size of a suburban mall, including the parking area. Doesn't sound so large.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at April 22, 2004 1:01 AM