Thomas writes
Quote:Yes, I do think they should -- and the gasoline tax I suggest does factor it in, while the CAFE standards you now have don't.
Okay, a higher gas tax means the government gets more of our money and the theory is that we would drive less, so perhaps we would use 5 gallons of gasoline a week instead of the ten we use now. But that means we travel only half as far which might considerably diminish the quality of life for many.
So far as greenhouse gas emissions are concerned, how is that different than CAFE standards that reduce the amount of fuel necessary to travel from point A to point B so that we are perhaps still using 5 gallons a week instead of 10 gallons a week to travel the same distance as before?
I prefer the second way thank you, rather than hand over more to the government and have far less for the use of the people.
August 29, 2005
Gas Tax vs. Cafe Standards
There's been a lot of CAFE bashing lately, and much of it, I fear, is a bit misguided. Brad Plumer (who I don't mean to single out, he's just the most recent) joins in with a post blasting CAFE in favor of a gas tax, maybe with some means-tested rebates to ease up on the regressivity of it. A few things:
First, gas taxes are a very direct way of influencing fuel consumption, but it's not clear that, at attainable rates, they actually do influence fuel consumption. Raising the tax by the small, incremental amounts that could (and by could, I mean in a hypothetical world where this was somehow a viable policy option) pass would likely do little to stem consumption. That's because, as it turns out, gas hasn't even been near the top price folks are willing to pay. Most simply bear the burden, preferring to pay more rather than disrupt their lifestyle. The place gas taxes make a difference is, in the end, among the poor, but if we put in rebates like Brad is suggesting, it won't affect them all. I'd like to have a gas tax because I'm all for the added revenue, but it's not going to do much against consumption. If you can afford an Expedition, you can nearly always afford more at the pump.
Gas taxes, unlike CAFE increases, are basically impossible to pass. Particularly now. It's one thing to sneak in a gas tax when fuel is cheap, but convincing Americans of it when they're demanding a drop in gas prices is not, I think, a sound recipe for political survival. It just won't happen.
On the other hand, 93% of Americans support an increase in CAFE standards. That doesn't make it easy -- the auto industry is a powerful lobby. But they're going to fight a gas tax too, so I'd rather our politicians be battling back with an overwhelmingly popular proposal rather than running into industry opposition while carrying a bill Americans will stone them for passing.
The beauty of CAFE increases is that they're an action-neutral fix. Gas taxes requires a high enough price that Americans start driving less in order to conserve. So you need to jack up the price till filling up becomes so economically painful it actually changes the behavior of Americans. Demand an increase in CAFE standards and, no matter what happens, the country will use less gas. It's highly unlikely that everyone will decide their newer, more efficient car requires them to take a road trip.And it's not as if this is a serious hardship on the auto industry -- the technology is there, they've just been pushing it into more powerful cares rather than more efficient ones. We can change that, and it's be good for the country if we did.
Brad uses an analogy to make his point: the Smiths have a little, efficient wiener car they drive everywhere and the Browns have a wasteful SUV but they conserve fuel and bike to work. Brad argues that we want to penalize the Smiths, not the Browns. Why? Why should we penalize anyone? If we force a serious increase in CAFE standards, neither the Smiths nor the Browns feel the hurt, but both end up using less gas. And if, later, peak oil comes quick enough that we need a gas tax, we can implement one. But for now, why not achieve the goal -- lower total oil consumption -- through a non-punitive, broadly popular measure? Why isn't this a no-brainer?
SOURCE
