New Need for Gas Tax Increase

[Lumpenproletariat]

The Supreme Court has just made it much more difficult for the EPA to deal with climate change. It has just voted 6-3 to reduce the EPA's authority to address climate change.

There's still a way to force reduction in greenhouse gases, without the EPA:

Increase the Gas Tax ! !

For the Congress or agencies to micromanage energy production has never been the best approach. The right approach all along has been to impose a CARBON TAX, which the Supreme Court cannot overrule.

This means not only higher gas tax (all fossil fuels), but higher tax on coal, or new tax on coal-produced energy. This is a "sin tax" or an "externalities" tax imposed onto something which is recognized as causing damage.

Taxing all fossil fuels would cover all the carbon emissions due to transportation, not just the gas you put in your car, but also the jet airliners and corporate jets and the private jets of the rich, and their yachts which also use fossil fuels. It would increase all transportation costs other than that produced by alternative energy sources. Plus also it means higher cost for all electricity use, so everyone's utility bills would increase significantly. Which is what candidate Barack Obama promised to do back in 2008 when he said:

“Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Uttered in 2008, still haunting Obama

“Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Obama said in 2008.

www.politico.com

When will we finally stop being crybabies and admit that Obama was right when he said that? maybe his best and most heroic campaign statement? maybe even a "Profile in Courage"?

Why shouldn't we make this sacrifice? Failure to make sacrifice today to reduce carbon emissions means greatly increased damage from climate change in coming decades. This damage will be into millions of lives lost, not just a few million, but tens and hundreds of millions. I.e., deaths from mass starvation and from natural disasters which will happen. The only hope is not to prevent these deaths but reduce the number by many millions. Which cannot happen without major sacrifice by us today.

Any chance of the EPA solving it has just been greatly decreased.

 

[Jarhyn]

The issue being, the money from collecting a gas tax has to go in large part to those most harmed by the need to buy gas at higher tax rates, or to subsidize pricing on shipped goods.

And in part, it has to go to developing shipping solutions that are more fuel efficient, or independent of fossil fuel availability.

 

[Jayjay]

The issue being, the money from collecting a gas tax has to go in large part to those most harmed by the need to buy gas at higher tax rates, or to subsidize pricing on shipped goods.

And in part, it has to go to developing shipping solutions that are more fuel efficient, or independent of fossil fuel availability.

Wouldn't the markets take care of that?

I think morally the carbon tax should not be higher than the externalities it's trying to cover. That is, the tax on one ton of CO2 should match what it takes to pump one ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Taxing more than that is unfair to the taxpayer. But determining the right level is not trivial, because there aren't yet global markets for CO2 removal.

 

[Jarhyn]

The issue being, the money from collecting a gas tax has to go in large part to those most harmed by the need to buy gas at higher tax rates, or to subsidize pricing on shipped goods.

And in part, it has to go to developing shipping solutions that are more fuel efficient, or independent of fossil fuel availability.

Wouldn't the markets take care of that?

I think morally the carbon tax should not be higher than the externalities it's trying to cover. That is, the tax on one ton of CO2 should match what it takes to pump one ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Taxing more than that is unfair to the taxpayer. But determining the right level is not trivial, because there aren't yet global markets for CO2 removal.

It's not just that, though. It's more than just the atmospheric impact, it also goes to the negative impacts of the international oil markets as well.

If you want to match the externalities, we better throw in the fact that the oil is propping a number of really awful states.

 

[TomC]

I have, for many years(starting in the 70s, I think. Maybe 80s) believed in a massive petroleum tax, domestic or imported. At least $100/bbl.

Something comparable on other forms of fossil fuels.
We'd all be better off now.
Tom

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The issue being, the money from collecting a gas tax has to go in large part to those most harmed by the need to buy gas at higher tax rates, or to subsidize pricing on shipped goods.

And in part, it has to go to developing shipping solutions that are more fuel efficient, or independent of fossil fuel availability.

Wouldn't the markets take care of that?

How the revenue is spent needn't be a major point of dispute.

But on the side I suggest it would be fine for it to go into deficit reduction.

 

[Jarhyn]

The issue being, the money from collecting a gas tax has to go in large part to those most harmed by the need to buy gas at higher tax rates, or to subsidize pricing on shipped goods.

And in part, it has to go to developing shipping solutions that are more fuel efficient, or independent of fossil fuel availability.

Wouldn't the markets take care of that?

How the revenue is spent needn't be a major point of dispute.

But on the side I suggest it would be fine for it to go into deficit reduction.

It does though. A gas tax disproportionately impacts the poor, those least equipped to handle changing expenses in the economy.

Any new tax SHOULD be implemented with an original intent and model which offsets this burden.

 

[TSwizzle]

The Supreme Court has just made it much more difficult for the EPA to deal with climate change. It has just voted 6-3 to reduce the EPA's authority to address climate change.

The EPA has no influence on the weather.

A rapture like cult.

 

[TomC]

The EPA has no influence on the weather.

Of course it does. Saying differently is to ignore the obvious.

Our EPA doesn't have full control. It has no short term impact at all. But it does have a great deal of long term impact because we, the USA, is about the biggest impactor of climate(weather) on the planet. Climate is part of the Environment. EPA stands for Environmental Protection Agency.

This really isn't hard to understand.
Tom

 

[RVonse]

I agree with the OP. Since fuel is an inelastic demand consumable, and to address Jarhyn, use this tax to subsidize the poor.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Supreme Court has just made it much more difficult for the EPA to deal with climate change. It has just voted 6-3 to reduce the EPA's authority to address climate change.

The EPA has no influence on the weather.

A rapture like cult.

Basically anything the Republicans accuse others of doing they are actually doing themselves. Thus the Republicans are the real cultists.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The Court majority argued "Only Congress, not federal agencies, can set the rules on major questions."

Is this the same as "federal agencies" = "unelected bureaucrats"?

Justice Kagan dissented: "The Court appoints itself the decision-maker on climate policy."

Probably everyone agrees that the Supreme Court should not issue rules on climate or other major questions. But how is EPA the solution? Isn't EPA a partisan politically-appointed agency answerable to the Party in power at the time? Hasn't the EPA made major changes in policies when the Party in power changed? Don't the matters of climate and environment and pollution require solutions more long-term than partisan politics can decide?

So should Congress decide what to do about climate? which might mean the EPA would have to get all its decisions enacted by Congress in order to become official?

"Congress doesn't have the time or the expertise to be able to address all the major social or economic problems on its agenda, and in addition it's often incapable of reaching grand bargains." (legal expert on NBC news)

In addition to the above obstacles, a further requirement has to be that scientists must play a critical role in the decision-making. Or recognized experts/specialists on the issue in question.

The long-term solution to all the above is some new form of government -- some kind of direct democracy which does not exist yet, and may not exist in the future for centuries. Eventually it will evolve somehow, but it might require thousands of years, after many more catastrophes like climate change and billions of humans extinguished by nuclear wars or other threats which the Republicans and Democrats will never deal with.

At least one simple solution everyone can understand is increased taxes on the energy from fossil fuels. Even though the widespread sentiment is negative, at least such a tax is forthright and recognizable by everyone -- they all have to admit that a higher tax on fossil fuels will cause a reduction in fossil fuel emissions. I.e., it's a market-based solution, based on the facts of life, like supply-and-demand. We already have taxes of this kind, and other policies which recognize that the market does work -- competition, cost control, cost vs benefit, profit motive. Why not apply these facts of life to the need to reduce fossil fuel emissions?

Another immediate solution which most of us could recognize might be a council of scientists given extensive authority of some kind. I.e., an EMERGENCY council only, to address immediate threat which cannot be dealt with by the elected politicians pandering to their individual constituencies, or to their "base" like Trump obviously panders to a limited base. Maybe such a panel of scientists, not attached to a partisan political bias, could agree on some scientific solutions other than tax increases on fossil fuels. And also address other impending threats which partisan politics can't handle.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

my mistake: the topic title should have been

New Need for Utility Bill Increase

because the Supreme Court decision focused mainly on restricting the EPA authority to regulate power plants.



The correction for this is to now impose new penalties on all electricity deriving from coal, i.e., higher price for electric power, higher electric bills for all consumers. Our electric bills have to be increased enough so that every consumer in desperation will do anything possible to find an alternative form of electricity, or reduce their consumption of electricity.

The amount of the new tax (or increased tax) has to be determined by the degree of damage to the environment from each power plant.

Less regulation need not mean less effort to reduce carbon emissions, or less ability to address climate change. In this case it's not the greedy capitalists/corporations who are the culprits. The culprits are the average normal consumers, mass of the population, who need to grow up, stop being crybabies or whining about what's "fair" or "unfair," and reduce their consumption of fossil fuels, whatever it takes.