Do you agree that carbon fuels should be heavily taxed like in Europe?

Question

I know. If you're one of those people with their heads buried in the sand regarding climate change, you'll say no. This question is more for the people who are smart enough to recognize good science and are able to recognize climate change as a real big danger for humanity's future viability. Most economists agree that the best way to make people drive more fuel efficient cars, to decrease oil dependency, to make manufacturers more efficient and to make alternative energies more viable is to increase the gas tax (also to stop subsidizing oil corporations). If you oppose, what do propose instead?

Answer 1

I agree that we need to do something about carbon fuels. While I agree that heavily taxing the stuff is the fastest way to do something about it (and I would surely agree, I drive an Insight :P), there is a huge problem.

That problem is that a huge portion of our energy is derived from carbon based fuels at this moment.
The United States derives 20% of it's power from nuclear plants and a much much smaller percentage from non-carbon, non-nuclear fuels. This means that nearly 80% of our energy is carbon based.

Currently, our economy is strained through many things. Much of which is market forces, many the result of the actions of a certain leader. Nevertheless, we are in a crunch right now.

Alternative power sources (other than nuclear) are still relatively new and expensive, although we are making strides. We have not had growth in the number of nuclear powerplant orders in a very long time. Either way, setting up these infrastructures will take decades to even account for the projected rise in demand on top of current generation.

Trucks still provide a very large component of our transportation network as well as aircraft. Remember, unlike Europe we do not have a developed rail system and we are also much larger area-wise.

My proposal would be to slowly raise taxes on gasoline but not on diesel. This will force consumers to buy more efficient cars. Although we will have to think about diesel demand.. hmm.. something to think about.


I find the market approach to be quite reasonable however there are a few caveats with that.

1. Peak oil is approaching, and if we don't drive innovation and infrastructure change there will be large problems when prices jump. Current market conditions do not force the infrastructure changes we need.

2. The market can always be swayed one way or other as long as there is plenty of supply. So in the time period between now and peak oil, we probably won't see anything change.


Very tough question. We certainly need to concern ourselves with global warming. However, we've built a lot on the pillars of fossil fuels and it's going to be a very hard transition.

Answer 2

Yes remove subsidies from oil companies. But rather than heavily tax all oil products, heavily tax individuals who waste them. I choose to drive a 34 mpg energy efficient vehicle so $2.30 a gallon is fair. But those who drive a 12 mpg huge truck for no reason other than ego, should pay a hefty tax. Base it on the miles they drive a year, to be paid when they renew there registration. The same could be done for energy use in housing. Directly rewarding energy efficiency and conservation, on top of the savings from the efficiency itself. We also exempt large diesel trucks from environmental standards, citing burdens on the trucking industry. Even though they spew incredible amounts of pollutants. Small diesel powered cars may not quite be able to meet current EPA car standards, but they are still very clean and getting better. Why not exempt them? They have better performance than hybrids, are much more affordable, and have the same or better mpg. And about the trucking industry, lets start transporting more goods by train. Trains are cleaner and more energy efficient, while taking traffic off our overburdened highway system.
And someone mentioned about China's pollution. One of the reasons they grew so fast was Corporate Greed. They closed US plants to get away from many regulations, environmental being major considerations. Bring the jobs home, where they will be done in a manner that meets standards. The same could be done wherever jobs have been out-sourced for "environmental concerns".
Just some opinions, but heck, what do I know?

Answer 3

While I agree that taxes need to be increased, it has nothing to do with global warming. It should be used for highway improvement. The key phrase here is "GLOBAL" warming. Auto's are not the real problem. We have no control over the biggest problem. Developing third world economies are using nearly as much fuel as the US with about 100 times more pollution. They are on the up side of the curve and are concentrating on economic improvement. China, for example, produces more pollutants than the US and is increasing daily where we are decreasing daily.

Answer 4

May be, but oil companies here have such tight grip of congress through lobbyists that will be hard to do unless some sort of lobbying reform (or way money flow into law makers) take place to distance oil companies from congress.

Answer 5

Gasoline is heavily taxed in Italy where you pay as much on tax as you do for the gas.

Answer 6

No. Let the market set the price.

Answer 7

Coal should be done away with.