Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
My idea is that, because not all people can be forced into petroleum-independent forms of transportation, we live in a world in which encouraging the production of cars that are more fuel efficient makes sense for the drivers who are so dependent on petroleum-consuming transportation that they are price-insensitive to gasoline. They need to drive 40 miles a day, no matter what it costs.
|
Given a sufficient amount of time, however, cost incentives on private fuel consumption (whether in the form of a tax on gasoline or the cars that burn it) will have the effect of creating petroleum-independent forms of transportation.
American cities had a perfectly functioning network of cable cars, trolleys and light rail systems until cheap gas and cheap busses (and a significant amount of lobbying by the manufacturers of both) lead to their dismantling in the 30s and 40s. The reason people live 20 miles from work is because they can; because they can afford the cars and can afford the gas that runs them. Jack the cost of cars and gasoline up and not only will the average car on the street become more efficient, but the average commute will become shorter (and take less time), the average yard will become smaller, and the average price of a townhouse downtown will skyrocket. Public transportation will become a reasonable consideration even for people to the right of Nader. Especially if one exempts from energy taxation the forms of public transportation, further increasing the cost differential.
Hell, to make it really palatable to the powers that be, let's tax it not at the gas pump, but at the refinery head. And only tax foreign supplies.* Not only does total consumption go down, it puts Midland** back on the map.
* It almost goes with saying I didn't come up with this idea; it came from a Congressman trying to get a little protection for his local oil industry in the face of plumetting (at the time) oil prices.
**The Tikrit of the US.
Threaded Mode