Pasted: As I detail in a forthcoming journal article, over the course of several generations lawmakers rewrote the rules of American life to conform to the interests of Big Oil, the auto barons, and the car-loving 1 percenters of the Roaring Twenties.
Right. Why take individual responsibility when you can finger-point BIG, EVIL interests?
See what was missing in the article? There was no mention of the fact that US citizens enjoy the lowest excise taxes on polluting, deadly automobile fossil fuel among the all the rich OECD countries. Just like Al Gore could go on and on and on for hours at a time about climate warming and never mention imposing higher taxes on automobile fossil fuel.
Rather than pay higher excise/green/Pigouvian/carbon taxes, American voters would rather invade and occupy a country killing large numbers of innocent civilians in the process. Naturally this process by deeply ingrained racism.
Americans are 'exceptional'. Ordinary American voters ignore academics, scientists and experts and they ignore what other countries do. Most Canadians are just as 'exceptional' as their American brothers and sisters. And almost as obese.
Elsewhere, the road system is falling into disrepair but Americans have spoken. Taxes are evil. The will of the people has been made known.
Pasted: As I detail in a forthcoming journal article, over the course of several generations lawmakers rewrote the rules of American life to conform to the interests of Big Oil, the auto barons, and the car-loving 1 percenters of the Roaring Twenties.
Right. Why take individual responsibility when you can finger-point BIG, EVIL interests?
See what was missing in the article? There was no mention of the fact that US citizens enjoy the lowest excise taxes on polluting, deadly automobile fossil fuel among the all the rich OECD countries. Just like Al Gore could go on and on and on for hours at a time about climate warming and never mention imposing higher taxes on automobile fossil fuel.
Rather than pay higher excise/green/Pigouvian/carbon taxes, American voters would rather invade and occupy a country killing large numbers of innocent civilians in the process. Naturally this process is abetted by deeply ingrained racism.
Americans are 'exceptional'. Ordinary American voters ignore academics, scientists and experts and they ignore what other countries do. Most Canadians are just as 'exceptional' as their American brothers and sisters. And almost as obese.
Elsewhere, the road system is falling into disrepair but Americans have spoken. Taxes are evil. The will of the people has been made known.
an International Monetary Fund study released last month shows that USD$5.2 trillion was spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017. The United States has spent more subsidizing fossil fuels in recent years than it has on defense or education.
Pasted: The study includes the negative externalities caused by fossil fuels that society has to pay for, not reflected in their actual costs. In addition to direct transfers of government money to fossil fuel companies, this includes the indirect costs of pollution, such as healthcare costs and climate change adaptation. By including these numbers, the true cost of fossil fuel use to society is reflected.
Conceptually sound. Nevertheless, the solution calls for increasing green taxes on consumers. Americans do not want that. Americans of all partisan inclinations.
how convenient that the article mixes both real numbers paid out by the .gov and indirect costs but does not break down what these two numbers are. That is a major omission of relevant data.
The study includes the negative externalities caused by fossil fuels that society has to pay for, not reflected in their actual costs. In addition to direct transfers of government money to fossil fuel companies, this includes the indirect costs of pollution, such as healthcare costs and climate change adaptation.
By including these numbers, the true cost of fossil fuel use to society is reflected.
an International Monetary Fund study released last month shows that USD$5.2 trillion was spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017. The United States has spent more subsidizing fossil fuels in recent years than it has on defense or education.
how convenient that the article mixes both real numbers paid out by the .gov and indirect costs but does not break down what these two numbers are. That is a major omission of relevant data.
The study includes the negative externalities caused by fossil fuels that society has to pay for, not reflected in their actual costs. In addition to direct transfers of government money to fossil fuel companies, this includes the indirect costs of pollution, such as healthcare costs and climate change adaptation.
By including these numbers, the true cost of fossil fuel use to society is reflected.
an International Monetary Fund study released last month shows that USD$5.2 trillion was spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017. The United States has spent more subsidizing fossil fuels in recent years than it has on defense or education.
an International Monetary Fund study released last month shows that USD$5.2 trillion was spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017. The United States has spent more subsidizing fossil fuels in recent years than it has on defense or education.
That is it in a nutshell. Perceptions. Not reality.
A $2 a gallon price increase is a $2 gallon price increase, with or without excise and other taxes on top.
How does the fuel consumer directly benefit back from the increased taxes ? Fuel taxes already go for infrastructure development and maintenance with plenty getting siphoned off to pay for things like bike trails and to subsidize public transportation.
So you think that if a price increase is a lesser percentage because the price is already inflated to the point where the true cost of the commodity is lost, then we should ignore the actual price increase and feel better about it only because the percentage increase is less than if it would be if the existing taxes on it weren't so high ? Right.
.......
All wrong. But I understand your reaction as American policy elites and special interests are constantly misleading and manipulating American adult voters.
I would like to also apologize for using the term perceived the way economists use it when talking about the incidence of price or cost changes. The lovely thing about excise taxes (taxes on volumes) is that they can be very, very transparent.
To understand how high excise taxes would protect the US economy from oil price shocks, open up a spreadsheet and simulate what happens when a positive oil price shock drives up the price of gasoline by trying several different levels of excise taxes. It is rather straight forward math. If a big chunk of the retail price of gasoline/diesel is made of a fixed, constant excise tax the overall increase in retail prices following a spike in oil prices is muted.
In addition, a far higher excise tax on these deadly, polluting fuels would presumably lead to lower consumption of these fuels.
Ideally, the higher retail prices would induce Americans into spending less time in an automobile, car-pooling, using public transport and best of all self-propelling either by walking or using a bicycle. Hopefully that might arrest the obesity epidemic which is nothing but a big negative for social-economic outcomes.
Ideally, the higher retail prices would discourage Americans from living in low-density far flung suburbs. You know, the kind that has killed hundreds of your fellow citizens in the past few years due to wildfire in semi-arid forests.
The problem with dirty air is that what you cannot see can still sicken you and kill you. Given the the COPD epidemic, much higher excise taxes on dirty fuel should improve health outcomes and save American lives.
American economists have been advocating high excise taxes on gasoline and diesel for a very long time. Governments in other rich OECD countries have listened, but not American governments.
Energy independence in post-nuclear weapons era is highly over-rated if downright silly. Want to reduce the vulnerability of the US economy to external energy price shocks? Triple your excise taxes on gasoline and diesel. Expect major health benefits.
As it stands the USA 'enjoy's the lowest excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuels among the rich OECD countries. That leaves the US economy vulnerable to global oil price shocks. As excise taxes are levied according to volume and thus remain constant over time, the price perceived by the consumer is far less volatile. Easier to budget, easier to avoid recession.
That is it in a nutshell. Perceptions. Not reality.
A $2 a gallon price increase is a $2 gallon price increase, with or without excise and other taxes on top.
How does the fuel consumer directly benefit back from the increased taxes ? Fuel taxes already go for infrastructure development and maintenance with plenty getting siphoned off to pay for things like bike trails and to subsidize public transportation.
So you think that if a price increase is a lesser percentage because the price is already inflated to the point where the true cost of the commodity is lost, then we should ignore the actual price increase and feel better about it only because the percentage increase is less than if it would be if the existing taxes on it weren't so high ? Right.
The state with the highest gas taxes in the US is Pennsylvania @ 77.1¢ per gallon. The lowest is Alaska @ 33.05¢ per gallon. The current untaxed NY RBOB spot gas price is $1.4322 per gallon. In Ohio our tax is 46.41¢ I just filled up tonight for $1.869 per gallon. Hmmm, I got a good deal tonight when you add the spot price and our total state and federal tax together and get $1.8963.
You want me to pay another $2 per gallon or so just so I can feel better ?
Please explain to me how this works. I bet those in California and Pennsylvania and a couple other states might be even more interested in your answer.
Also do not forget that the total cost of the fuel gets added on to every other price we pay for everything. My food and clothing become more expensive for example with these higher transportation costs added in.
The key is energy independence. We are now a major player on the world oil market in the short time that we were told by the previous administration that it was impossible to ever happen. It is freeing us up as a country to change and reduce our involvement in foreign places and do less harm in compromising us and our standard of living by having to kowtow to foreign entities with the threat of cutting off our oil. We can start calling our own shots again (and are) without the threat of upsetting those that we used to be dependent on for our oil needs. We have so much oil that we can affect the world oil price.
I still have faith that we will move away from petro energy just because its the right thing to do. Alternatives will come on line and as their costs fall, we will shift to these new sources. It will happen naturally and without bankrupting ourselves in the process. Patience and faith is required. When you stop and think about it, we've been using petroleum as our major energy source for only a 100 years or so, mostly in internal combustion engines. These engines are being replaced slowly but surely with electric, which still are dependent on petro energy, but the shift is underway. OTOH, the batteries for these vehicles have their own problems and disposal of them can be a real mess we are not prepared to deal with. Nothing is easy. There will always be a mess somewhere. It's how we go about managing these messes is the real challenge. NIMBY ?
Energy independence in post-nuclear weapons era is highly over-rated if downright silly. Want to reduce the vulnerability of the US economy to external energy price shocks? Triple your excise taxes on gasoline and diesel. Expect major health benefits.
As it stands the USA 'enjoy's the lowest excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuels among the rich OECD countries. That leaves the US economy vulnerable to global oil price shocks. As excise taxes are levied according to volume and thus remain constant over time, the price perceived by the consumer is far less volatile. Easier to budget, easier to avoid recession.
Being born in Berkeley and living in Ca in general through the 50's and 60's gets me my poly sci degree by default and based upon unique life experiences there. I lived it. Didn't have to read about it in a book.
OTOH, if you find that nothing significant or unique was going in California back then you might disagree.
Uhuh, sure thing, Mr. Dunning-Kruger. You's real smart aight!
What ? For my Master's in Bidness ? I just got my Bachelor's in bidness in 2007. Are you buying ?
You're missing a degree in political science. Also, energy is but one important resource. Raw materials is another.
Being born in Berkeley and living in Ca in general through the 50's and 60's gets me my poly sci degree by default and based upon unique life experiences there. I lived it. Didn't have to read about it in a book.
OTOH, if you find that nothing significant or unique was going in California back then you might disagree.
It is freeing us up as a country to change and reduce our involvement in foreign places and do less harm in compromising us and our standard of living by having to kowtow to foreign entities with the threat of cutting off our oil. We can start calling our own shots again (and are) without the threat of upsetting those that we used to be dependent on for our oil needs. We have so much oil that we can affect the world oil price.
Dude. If it's a commodity we're killing ourselves and our environment to extract and refine, then shipping it overseas to countries whose environments aren't scarred by oil production, who really wins?
It's like the California farmers draining the aquifer to grow alfalfa that we then send to China. Who thought that one through?
That is the same as cutting down the old growth forest in NorCal and shipping that timber to Japan for their special built timber frame homes. That timber does not stay here. I agree with you on that.
The situation in the valley with the farmers draining the aquifer is bad. That is mostly the result of the diversion of water to protect the Delta Smelt up around Sacto. California's water situation is a downright mess for so many reasons. Too many for here.
The key is energy independence. We are now a major player on the world oil market in the short time that we were told by the previous administration that it was impossible to ever happen. It is freeing us up as a country to change and reduce our involvement in foreign places and do less harm in compromising us and our standard of living by having to kowtow to foreign entities with the threat of cutting off our oil. We can start calling our own shots again (and are) without the threat of upsetting those that we used to be dependent on for our oil needs. We have so much oil that we can affect the world oil price.
I still have faith that we will move away from petro energy just because its the right thing to do. Alternatives will come on line and as their costs fall, we will shift to these new sources. It will happen naturally and without bankrupting ourselves in the process. Patience and faith is required. When you stop and think about it, we've been using petroleum as our major energy source for only a 100 years or so, mostly in internal combustion engines. These engines are being replaced slowly but surely with electric, which still are dependent on petro energy, but the shift is underway. OTOH, the batteries for these vehicles have their own problems and disposal of them can be a real mess we are not prepared to deal with. Nothing is easy. There will always be a mess somewhere. It's how we go about managing these messes is the real challenge. NIMBY ?
Peak oil is an example of settled science that was wrong.
Ta'
Agreed that Peak Oil theorists have been wrong. I fully expect global oil production and consumption to continue to steadily grow for the next half a century.
Point of fact: The USA still imports more oil than it exports though could change in a few years time. The USA is making a good business of importing oil and exporting refined products.
Trump has made it easier for oil and gas exploration and production companies to flair natural gas so that measure alone will encourage oil production growth. Apparently the COPD epidemic and carbon emissions in the USA are not a concern. Neither are boom and bust resource economics.
Peak oil is an example of settled science that was wrong.
Ta'
Dude. If it's a commodity we're killing ourselves and our environment to extract and refine, then shipping it overseas to countries whose environments aren't scarred by oil production, who really wins? It's like the California farmers draining the aquifer to grow alfalfa that we then send to China. Who thought that one through?
