[Arthur75]

On Schlesinger's last ASPO keynote, politics, witty sayings, and the US gas tax level

Hello everybody

So having read and viewed Schlesinger's keynote "the peak oil debate is over" at last ASPO conference, below a few thoughts or remarks about it, access to the text and video :
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2 ... ebate-over

My first reaction was "hey, this was a rather good talk, clear, concise, and to the point !". After all on this forum, not so long ago you could read things like "do you think Obama knows about peak oil ?" "not sure but for sure Chu knows about it", and things like that. Seems to me that at this point in time, it is rather clear that anybody looking at energy issues knows about it.

But then you have in this talk :
"Can the political order face up to the challenge? There is no reason for optimism."
And here, and in a way as a second reaction, my thoughts were "oh yeah, he managed to stick his "witty saying" in there". To provide some background, I'm French, and there is to me clearly an "Anglo saxon" tradition that you should stick a few "witty sayings" or "humor lines" in your presentations. Not saying it doesn't exist in France (or that it is "bad") but it for sure is less stereotyped in French. And then I asked myself, what would an equivalent person would have said in a French context ?
Because there is a lot in the above sentence, "political order" sounds like a seperate class of people "the politicians" "TPTB", etc, the fact that there is no reason for optimism could be understood as "they are incapable anyway, won't do anything", in the end you sense the usual "disgust for politics" in general, or something like that.
But then who is Schlesinger ? Ok he is probably more of a bureaucrat than a politician, but has been a minister, and has clearly been part of the "political world".
Moreover, whenever you speak or express an opinion, you ARE doing politics and are taking a politician stance.
So isn't it a bit easy to say "politicians won't do anything" without suggesting any economical/political measure that could be taken ? Without talking considering that you are de facto in the "political game" ? For sure politicians aren't technicians, and a political solution or decision won't be the invention of a new energy source, you have to do with what you have.
And when lookiing at the related figures, what do you see ?

Basically you see this :


And you also see this :


Now don't you think that there is quite a bit of fat in the US conumption that could be easily taken away ? And that a few percent in US consumption decrease quickly translate to something noticable due to its current level ?

And how to achieve this ? Raising fuel taxation appears like an esay way to do it, no ? Maybe with part of it directly redistributed as proposed by James Hansen .

A tax doesn't change a country GDP
A tax should be seen as an accelerator of change : if there is a "stable" solution not based on so much fossile fuel as today, a tax on fossile fuel will push towards it.
We don't need to know the solution for the tax to push towards it, this is a key aspect !
Basically it just pushes investment decisions in the right direction (by changing the cost curves as an economist such as Jeff Rubin would be saying)

So who would be in favor of a $1 or $2 a gallon tax on gas starting right now here ? In general your view about this aspect ?
(and I can also sense a time when many people in the world could start saying : Hey what are you doing ? Don't you think 20 or 25% of world consumption is a bit much for you, can't you do something about it ?)

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Arthur75', '
')And how to achieve this ? Raising fuel taxation appears like an easy way to do it, no ? Maybe with part of it directly redistributed as proposed by James Hansen .

A tax doesn't change a country GDP
A tax should be seen as an accelerator of change : if there is a "stable" solution not based on so much fossil fuel as today, a tax on fossil fuel will push towards it.
We don't need to know the solution for the tax to push towards it, this is a key aspect !
Basically it just pushes investment decisions in the right direction (by changing the cost curves as an economist such as Jeff Rubin would be saying)

So who would be in favor of a $1 or $2 a gallon tax on gas starting right now here ? In general your view about this aspect ?

[Arthur75]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')A tax doesn't change a countries GDP? So you believe the idiots, sorry the misinformed corrupt politicians will do a better job with money taken as a tax and squandered than the average citizen? The same people in charge decade after decade who can't balance a budget to save their souls can spend money in a way that makes more sense? Is that really what you believe or are you just saying it to get attention?

As for a gasoline tax, a very gradual onset tax where the price increases a penny per gallon every month for a decade would be a good thing, it would slowly ramp up costs and decrease demand so that average people get a strong steady price signal to conserve and buy more efficient vehicles. A sudden onset tax on the other hand would shoot the economy straight in the head with a howitzer. The problem is the gradual increase needed to be enacted in 1993 when President Clinton took office, we would be living in a very different world today if they had done that. You can't make up for lost time and I think it is likely peak is behind us now.

[mos6507]

A big reason why we have career politicians is that those who are upset about the status quo would never think of running for elected office. They look at politicians as a separate class of people, let alone a separate species (due to the dehumanization that we engage in).

It's the kind of job that somebody's got to do, but few have the wherewithal to do it, because of the immense damage it does to your ego to be under the microscope 24/7.

Yet if there is anything that the tea party candidates are showing is that the barrier of entry into politics isn't quite so high as you think. It's possible to be a complete moron or fruitcake and ride a wave of guns, God, and populism into office.

Indeed, the fact that morons and fruitcakes can make it into office tells us that politics is NOT solely driven by some illuminaughties, but that in many cases we get the government we deserve.

For instance, we can't even seem to get rid of the tax breaks for the wealthy, and you have ads like this related to cap & trade. (I wonder what that guy from France thinks of that ad.) So what are the odds we would ever use the tax system to wean ourselves off of oil? It's not going to happen because Big Oil won't let it happen. It won't happen because the voting base won't let it happen.

[Arthur75]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '
')Yet if there is anything that the tea party candidates are showing is that the barrier of entry into politics isn't quite so high as you think. It's possible to be a complete moron or fruitcake and ride a wave of guns, God, and populism into office.

Indeed, the fact that morons and fruitcakes can make it into office tells us that politics is NOT solely driven by some illuminaughties, but that in many cases we get the government we deserve.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Arthur75', '
')Fully agree on this, and populist politicians exist (and have existed) everywhere (for instance in France, the name of one of them, Pierre Poujade, is now used as a synonym for populism, as Poujadism : , and his main line was also tax protest)

[Arthur75]

But isn't the Tea party movement somehow also based on the defense of the "mom and pop" type of business ?
Otherwise interesting link and inversion indeed !

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Arthur75', 'a')bout cap and trade, I think I'm fully in line with James Hansen and think it is really a bad system compared to a simple plain tax

[Arthur75]

Ok mos, think I understand your point of view, however wouldn't be as pessimistic as yourself, not necessarily regarding the future, but regarding the US citizens in general. For instance on the Oil drum, there are several people who present themselves as Republicans and that would indeed be in favor of a gas tax (forgot the login names right now but could find it back, oldfarmermac for instance is one of them I think).
And I am not an AGW denier at all, but I think the tremendous deficit in communication with repesct to CO2/AGW compared to peak oil/ ressource shortages really had very detrimental effects. It is easier to communicate on CO2 AGW : "today's our ways are a bit dirty, so we have to add up some cleaning measures and everything will be fine", communicating on peak oil/ resource shortages is much more difficult as it always points to the finite aspect of things and irreversible aspects of consumption. But at the same time it is also much more directly understandable and intuitive, no complicated expertise required on climatology, respective radiative forcing characteristics of different gases, CO2 sources and sinks, or things like that. Just basic reason and logic are required.
Moreover once you get it, you also get the criticality and survival aspect of it, so it seems to me that anybody, independantly of their political orientation, can grasp the urgency of it, and the fact that a tax on gas for instance is a good way to push the cars being bought in the US in the right direction. That is to push the USA itself in the right direction.

About "They will not support anything with the word "tax" in it." can believe that (and in any case a tax never sounds as a "dreamy" measure that's for sure), but still hope you are wrong, and somehow wouldn't be surprised if a Republican could manage to put the tax more easily than a democrat !

But as to yourself ? You didn't answer the initial question, would you be a in favor aof such a tax ?

[dinopello]

I don't know the best specifics, but taxing energy and consumption and using the money to fund programs related to low-energy infrastructure and alternative energy technologies and related stuff would be a great idea. I can't see it happening in any major or sustained way in the US.

If anything, the populist idea that will be put forth when energy and food prices go into their next orbital launch phase is to repeal all energy taxation.

[Pops]

I hate to sound defeatist but I agree there is little hope of preemptively raising the gasoline tax in the US - even while I think it would be the best preparation for PO on the macro basis.


But never fear, the OPEC/Russian Stupid tax on the other hand will only continue to increase and wean us of our dependence! Their governments won't spend our tax dollars with our best interest in mind but that's OK at least those thieving US politicians won't have a hand in it!

The whole tax thing amazes me, the US ranks 26 of 30 OECD countries in taxes per GDP and all we ever hear is whining about how the evil government is taking our money and actually spending it on someone else! So the politicians now say "read my lips" out of one side of their necks and "I promise you dis, dat, and the other ting" out of the other.

Leave energy policy to OPEC.

[gollum]

Rather than a flat amount per gallon, or a percentage I'd like to have seen a floor on fuel prices in the form of a tax when fuel got down to a predetermined price. The funds could have been used to blunt the impacts of peak oil. Unfortunately such a thing is not possible under republicans, and democrats while perhaps willing to pass such a tax would have promptly pissed the money away on things like teaching people in Africa how to wash their genitals.

[Arthur75]

Such taxes, and it is the way they are in most countries I think, must for sure be "volume based", and not "percentage on price based" and this has the added benefit of lowering the impact of the raw material price variation on the final product price variation.

As to how the money is spent by the government, don't really grasp the argument, not saying that it shouldn't be well spent of course, but don't see why the issue should be adressed specificllay for a given tax, the government needs a budget no ? From there there are incomes and spending ...
Part of it can also be resdistributed (on an equal share of the revenue and per capita basis as proposed by James Hansen, was also planned for part of the "carbon tax" in France that finally never got set up)

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Arthur75', 'B')ut isn't the Tea party movement somehow also based on the defense of the "mom and pop" type of business ?

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Arthur75', '
')But as to yourself ? You didn't answer the initial question, would you be a in favor of such a tax ?

[Pops]

Really good P.

Let me emphasize your two key points:
The Globe is Specialized
We are the Typing Pool

The best outcome is that works for everyone.

[Pops]

Oh yea, I forgot the part about the 32.8 miles the average American stenographer drives per day....

[dinopello]

Check out the full blueprint from the T4 folks

I went to many of the early meetings of this group. They are an impressive bunch that know how to form coalitions, work legistlation and generally push an agenda. And, their agenda, IMO would be good for America. On the last page of the blueprint, it has some funding sources. Several include taxes on motor fuels. I think if/when an agenda like this gets to a vote, all someone has to do to torpedo it is raise the idea of increased taxes on gas. That's why its so hard to do anything.