A couple of paragraphs I found very interesting:

Seems to me that the highway fund is used exclusively for pork-barrel projects like the infamous $200 million Alaskan bridge to nowhere while all around us existing infrastructure is crumbling. Why isn't this money being used for basic maintenance and repair first????

I think they mean on a larger scale, in states where the representation isn't as dissproprtionate compared to the population. No that spending millions on a bridge for 50 people on an island is a good idea, it's just that the states with the greatest number of people and most wear and tear on the roads probably won't be the ones that the two parties target when it comes down to fighting for an election. Cash and pork barrel projects are forms of compensation.

Ideally, they should have drivers pay for the actual costs of motoring, as opposed to hiding it in taxes and deficits that everyone who works is forced to pay for.

Thomas Freidman spoke about this a couple of months ago. He called it a "Patriot tax" and said that it should have been instituted right after 911.

Jon

As the article stated, the money will end up building more highways thus increasing exactly what it was not intended to do which is get more motorists out of their vehicles.

If I were ruler of the known world...

I would enact a broader carbon tax that would decrease emission of greenhouse gasses and support research of alternatives. I'm not sure of the amount of the tax but possibly $30 to $100 per ton of carbon emitted. This would be paid by utility companies and at the gas pump by motorists.

I also support a gas guzzler tax on automobiles and light trucks. I think this is fairer to low-income people than a direct tax on gasoline. I would base the tax on mpg for the vehicle, and it would be paid by the purchaser of a new vehicle. Maybe $200 for each mpg lower than 40 mpg. Thus a new car that got 20 mpg would be taxed $4000. (Each year the base mpg value would be raised incrementally.) The revenue would be used to pay purchasers a $200 subsidy for each mpg over 40 that their new vehicle attains. Additional revenues would pay for a marketing campaign to educate people on the horrors of greenhouse emissions.

Of course, you'll also find a way to reduce the cost for just about EVERYTHING for us consumers, seeing that most goods move from major port cities to the innards of this country by truck or train...which, of course, run on diesel and would be subjected to that tax resulting in inflated costs for food, durable goods, etc. I can't wait to hear the solution for that one. Perhaps by eliminating the sales tax? /pipedream Or maybe we'll all have to be "resettled" in LA/Seattle/Miami/New York?

Don't worry...if you become ruler of the world...make sure you send me a PM to hire me on as one of your economic advisors. We'll take care of it.

Your sarcasm is appreciated.




Umm, but anyway, to respond to your point, the fact that a tax is imposed on carbon emissions does not mean that overall taxes go up. It could be coupled with an equal reduction in tax revenue from income taxes, or, yes, sales taxes.

Will it happen? Very doubtful. Whether it should happen is another question.

But this sort of change in tax structures would arguably be an elimination of "free lunch" externalities and a corresponding drop in costs to folks that don't impose those negative externalities on others.

In other words, prices of locally produced goods would be cheaper to reflect their internal and external (air pollution) costs, while faraway-produced goods would become more expensive-- again reflecting (ideally) their internal and external costs.

But people that understand the economic argument here aren't exactly a giant voting block politicians fear to dissatisfy.

Well when we had 3 dollar gas.
Bio gas was the same price with Gov. subsides.
Less people were out driving on the streets.
And the economy almost tanked.


I think a better and more painful approach is simple. Let the people spend their money elsewhere in the economy, rather than tank the economy with high energy taxes.
Make driving a motor inconvenient and all other transportation convenient.
Here is an example I got a ride home from the hospital so I could receive an operation. I was able to use the city bus to get there.

Take out whole lanes or close the whole road for Peds, bicycles, busses, etc. , slower speed limits with speed tables and bumps, remove half of the ramps to a freeway, More speed tickets with unmanned vans, higher penalties for infractions and motor crimes, more round abouts, higher parking fees, impact zones no motors allowed, better MVD tests, 18yrs to drive, tax credit for those who don't own a motor or bussiness who deliver or provide transportation for patrons, motor driving rations, and of course limit how many people can drive a motor. See nothing on raising taxes.

So something’s are off the wall. However look at what we do to illegal drug users. The motor is a tool not to be misused, and we should teach people this not reward their abusive behavior. Certainly motors are more harmful than any drug users choice to ingest.

We live in a country where the president rides a bicycle on an approved secret service track. He talks about how freedoms need to taken for safety, but rarely ever never endorses bicycle safety or mandates better acess.

i think I'd favor a tax that is a percentage of the price of a gallon of gas. As prices rise revenue from the tax would rise as well and that would mean more money for whatever programs the tax money is supposed to go to. If prices decline, then there's less money. But in reality prices rise over time, and a percentage tax would automatically keep pace with inflation.

As to where the money is supposed to go...of course I support that revenues from the tax should fund alternative TRANSPORTATION, as well as alternative FUEL. bike, pedestrain access and facilities, public transportation these sorts of things. Of course money would still have to be spent on road maintence...but transit is sort of a chicken-or-the-egg problem. I would be interested to see if a gasoline tax to fund transit and other alternatives would reduce demand for gasoline by any significant amount.

...more round abouts...

It's interesting this is suggested as a way of making driving less convenient ... according to the National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration roundabouts increase traffic flow, are safter for motorists and pedestrians, and save municipalities approx. $5000/year in maintenance/electiricity costs when compared to a lighted intersection.

Well if you place them on streets where you would normally just go straight with out any stop sign or stop light, that would be inconvenant to have to navigate around them. I know about the positives in Phoenix they use mini roundabouts to slow motors down.

Not sure you could be minister of finance until you learn that we are already paying the cost of greenhouse emissions, and our children and grandchildren may well pay with their lives.

"Inflated"? I doubt it. Currently, gas is subsidized and imposes costs on many people that are not included in the price. Those who burn gas, or benefit from it, should pay the costs of that use.

You'll be first in line for the position of Minister of the Environment. I only deal with numbers and money.

Could you explain these "costs that are not included in the price"?

I breathe polluted air - that's a cost. There are large "protective" costs associated with protecting oil supplies. Those are costs that we all bear regardless of the amount of gas we burn. Driving has costs like these too (externalities), i.e. costs that are not borne by the consumer. Examples would include division of communities by roads, reducing ability of small businesses to compete, and unsustainable land use patterns.

Police, fire, EMT. Parking lot costruction, maintenance, and especially drainage. And what may turn out to be the biggest cost of all: Healthcare for the folks that don't get enough exercise.

Taxes burden The People and give more spending money to politicians.

keep that in mind.

There are many other ways to give incentives for behavior change.

No, you're wrong.

Behavior that protects the environment will never be rewarded by market forces. It's cheaper, and always will be, for a company to dump sewage in the river than to treat it properly. Market forces encourage companies to produce goods at the cheapest possible price, in order to beat the competition. Therefore, companies will never voluntarily treat their sewage. They must be forced by government or other non-market forces.

In the same way, it's cheaper for people to dump carbon into the atmosphere than it is for them to come up with alternatives. Until the actual costs of their pollution are charged to them, by government of international treaties, they will not be motivated to change their behavior.

This is serious stuff, and it's time to stop the ideological bickering. Our way of life is more threatened by global warming than by terrorism or any other dangers.

Im not talking about a non-government solution, just a non tax paying solution.
Tax credits, etc.. for more responsible corporate governance is more of what
Im talking about.

At least Senator Lugar admits that the Republican war in Iraqistan IS about oil.

And a good point that the war is becoming one of the bigger externalities related to oil use, at about $2 billion a week. Always interesting that the Republicans are ususally against taxing to recoup external costs of pollution, even though they claim to be big on "personal responsibility" and "ending government give-aways."

I would suggest thinking about a carrot-and-stick approach. Tax behavior you want to discourage, provide tax cuts for behavior you want to encourage.

Depends on what scientist you talk too. I think many "scientists" and "special" interests groups have made dollar signs of greater importance than their [perceived] "cause".

I don't know how old you are, but do you remember in the 1970's when the latest buzzword/"this will be the end us of all" thing was global COOLING? I know I do. Shorter growing seasons, starvation, mass depletion of natural gas, etc. etc. How quickly we forget.

Who decides what behaviors are to be "discouraged"? Our brilliant politicians who "represent" us?