[Daryl]

Charles Krauthammer published an editorial in the Washington Post today. It is being printed in newspapers across the US this morning. Here is a link for people that don't want to bother registering for the Washington Post

http://www.theday.com/eng/web/news/re.a ... EC2B55EFAF


Krauthammer is a central neo-con Republican insider. For this guy to advocate a gas tax? Stunning. Absolutely stunning. I consider this a major political watershed event in the US.

[OneLoneClone]

I was a little shocked by that, too. He doesn't mention 'peak oil', but he does raise the specter of an 'energy noose' coming in 10 years or so.

[Starvid]

And this guy is not a neocon as in "conserative you don't like", but he is neocon as in "neocon"!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer

I think this is a very good thing. For a very long time I have thought we should get energy issues more linked to national security issues in the mind of the politicians and the public. Then good things will start happening.

[bobcousins]

Of course, it's a start, but doesn't go very far. I have seen several of these articles which recognise there is a current bottleneck in supply, but they seem to be saying it is a temporary blip which needs addressing. So the logic of a gas tax is fine, but building more refineries is a waste of money.

I've yet to see many people telling the public to prepare for world without oil, but I guess you have to lead the people wth baby steps.

[WisJim]

I think that a gas tax or fuel tax is a great idea, even 30 years late.

As to price gouging (hope this is an okay thread to mention it in):
I look at the gasoline "price gouging" as similar to the Christmas gift/toy/decorations "price gouging" that always occurs between Halloween and Christmas. It must be "price gouging" because once Christmas is here and past, the price of decorations, lights, cards, and the toys that are left suddenly drop a lot.

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', ' ')So the logic of a gas tax is fine, but building more refineries is a waste of money.

[aahala]

Here's the only way we can get a large gasoline tax in the US.

Somebody like Pat Robertson must go on the tube, claiming
God had sent him a missle, saying the US should have a $1/gal
gas tax and the money should be spent on wind farms, solar cells
and to help built homes at the thermas bottle level of energy consumption.
Then Pat could have Howard Dean join him and the two could get
into verbal fistacuffs over who had the stronger case for the tax.

[Daryl]

Iraq has been a real eye opener for the neo-cons, I think. It's pretty clear that "resource wars" will have the opposite effect intended. Waste alot of money and political capital, and actually decrease the oil supply because infrastructure sabotage. They thought they could handle Iraq because there was no jungle canopy for rebels hide in. Wrong. The Islamists have their own "H" bombs - human bombs. Hard to fight.

Within 3 years, issues in the US that were considered only the province of left wing environmentalists will be mainstream. Things change very quickly in times of a national crisis. Today's editorial is a good reminder of that.

[DoctorDoom]

Doesn't have a chance politically, but yeah, a European-style gas tax is just what we need to get people to reduce their consumption, get into more fuel-efficient vehicles, use public transport, etc. We should also put a tax on coal-generated electricity, this would tip the balance versus wind and possibly nuclear power (no need to subsidize those, just make coal pay it's fair share for CO2 emissions).

[eastbay]

I'm not sure if a $1.00/gallon increase in gas tax will result in very much demand reduction. I'm writing this from Singapore where gas is now down to a bit over $1.00 US/liter (around $4.00/gallon) and in spite of this (article in Straits Times 111105) the average fuel economy for personal vehicles nationwide has decreased from about 10 liters/100 km in 2000 to about 8.5 liters/100 km now, which is about the same as in the USA.

At $4.00 US/ gallon the roads in Singapore are jam-packed with increasingly larger cars crawling through the city at seemingly ever-slower speeds. In the US the urban roads will be just as jam-packed at $4.00 or $5.00/ gallon as they are now at $2.25 or $3.25/ gallon.

I believe for any government sponsored demand destruction to be effective there'll have to be a truly significant increase in the gas tax. I'm talking about something on the order of a $5.00/ gallon hike in the tax phased in over a few years. This talk of a $1.00 increase is silly IMO.

[dooberheim]

If we had implemented such a tax in the US 30 years ago I think this would a be a really different country, in a good way. No political will, however. Every candidate who has advocated anything like that has lost elections.

That said, I think that a really effective gas tax (raising prices to $7-8.00/gal) would impact poor people so much more than the rich that we'd have rampant fuel theft and rioting at gas stations. It woud make anyone that drove a target. If we went that route, the government would have to also implement a rationing plan, with some sort of sliding income based rebate plan. That way. everyone would have to cut back, while those least able to pay the increased price would be able to get some relief.

Of course, something like that would never pass a legislature, so it's all hypothetical anyway.

DK