7 ms·
Lets raise the gas prices to EU levels and see what happens.
by scragg 13y ago
Lets raise the gas prices to EU levels and see what happens.
- malyk 13y agoWe can start with the federal fuel tax which hasn't been raised in 20 years.
- cobrausn 13y agoGot any other great ideas that tax the working poor?
- antr 13y agoThe impact car emissions have on the working poor is far more costly and dangerous.
- cobrausn 13y agoAnd I doubt raising the tax rate on fuel would do much at all, in America at least. Gas prices have gone up significantly over the last few decades and we drive more and more. EDIT: Can't reply because of HN time restrictions on long threads, but I think the reduction on driving is more due to cities and housing centers within cities getting denser - even Houston is doing that, and we've traditionally been very spread out. We still are, but it's improving.
- jamesaguilar 13y agoThat's not really true. During the gas price spike a couple years ago I do remember several articles that showed that we drove a lot less when the prices were higher.
- paddy_m 13y agoActually we drive less and less per person since ~2004. And the total Vehicular Miles Travelled has been the same since 2004, even though population is growing. This is a significant trend. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/07/yet-more-evidence-peak-car/6299/ http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/07/yet-more-ev...
- cowbellemoo 13y agoIt's possible to point out that a tax is regressive without being snarky.
- cobrausn 13y agoYou are correct, I just get annoyed at flippant comments about changing government policy that just happens to affect billions without thinking through the consequences.
- hawkharris 13y agoThe tax could have a negative impact on the working poor, at least initially, but it's important to distinguish between short-term and long-term. A historical example comes to mind: the collapse of the slave industry in the American South in the 1800s. (Please note that I'm referring to very specific aspects of the trade; I'm not by any means equating slavery with the energy sector, morally or otherwise.) If you were to consider abolition from a short-term point of view, as many Americans did, it seemed like a terrible idea. It had catastrophic effects on millions of working, poor Americans. After all, it meant crippling the nation's single largest industry. And yet, when we reflect on the American slave trade and its eventual decline, those hardships are trumped by greater moral and economic imperatives. The moral imperatives go without saying. The economic ones had to do with recognizing the true cost of labor and finding new opportunities, some of which were outside of agriculture. Some moral and economic imperatives exist in our current conversation about restructuring the energy industry, which are only visible from a long-term perspective. For example, we're morally bound to address the long-term environmental impact and dangerousness of car travel (although, again, I'm not suggesting this moral imperative is equal to that of abolishing slavery). From an economic standpoint, we're also bound to recognize that our current methods of producing and consuming energy are unsustainable. TL;DR: Sometimes radically restructuring an industry is the smart - and right - thing to do, despite the relatively short-term economic hardships that it causes.
- cmsmith 13y agoSpend the fuel tax on a rebate given equally to every American. People can use it for gas money or, if they take the bus, to buy a sandwich.
- malandrew 13y agoThis. Especially in cities, where car usage is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons. I personally would love to see the entirety of public transportation in major cities paid for by those who want to drive. Muni, BART, CalTrain, NYC Subway, etc. should all be funded via a tax on those who prefer to drive in a region where public transportation exists.
- sejje 13y agoWhy wouldn't you want to see it paid for by people who want to use public transportation? I think people should pay for whatever they want to use.
- victorhooi 13y agoReplying to the comment from sejje: It's called negative externalities - the free-market unfortunately doesn't account for all costs. If I smoke a cigarette - I only pay for the cigarette - but it's those around me that also get sick from the second-hand smoke. That's why the government taxes them. Likewise, if I buy a gas-guzzling SUV, which churns out black smoke to all my neighbours around - I only pay for the gas - but it's those around me that also suffer. Basically, if we apply your logic, then we would live in a every-man-for-himself society, where we'd do whatever we could to get ahead, and not care about the impact on those around us.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- sejje 13y agoVictor: that's not what he's suggesting. He's suggesting that an entirely separate party (drivers) pay for what others use (public trans). Paying for what you use and a little extra to offset the negatives is still just paying for what you use. Further, who pays for the roads the public transportation uses? I have a guess: drivers.
- angersock 13y agoOnly were that money guaranteed--guaranteed!--to go into public transportation projects (light rail, trolleys, etc.).
- at-fates-hands 13y agoIt would probably reduce the number of SUV's on the road, but not by a great number. In the Midwest, your SUV is your lifeline during Winter. Also, the distances between cities in the US is far greater than what it is in EU nations like Germany or Italy. Plus the scenery is much better. Ever ridden across North Dakota?
- jellicle 13y agoAs people will surely pile on to tell you, the vast majority of trips taken are no more than a few miles. If U.S. cities had proper cycling infrastructure, I would expect many more adults would use bikes for local travel. But as it is, driving is certainly more reasonable for many people when the alternative is biking on a shoulderless road with deadly vehicles passing inches away from you.
- at-fates-hands 13y agoCompletely agree and most cities are built with cars in mind first. Lucky for me, I live near the most bike friendly city in the country - and it's not on the left hand coast. ;) http://www.bicycling.com/news/featured-stories/1-bike-city-minneapolis http://www.bicycling.com/news/featured-stories/1-bike-city-m... If it was feasible and I lived within 10 miles of where I work, I would for sure bike. Right now, I commute almost 20 minutes in my car, so biking to and from work just isn't a great idea. If I lived and worked in the city, I would for sure bike every day. Even if I worked in the city, I would utilize the light rail for the majority of my commute. It sucks I would still have to drive 10-15 minutes to get to the light rail though.
- Aloisius 13y agoAn SUV is not necessary in the winter. There are winters in Europe. It isn't like they are all driving around in Dodge Durangos.
- derleth 13y ago> An SUV is not necessary in the winter. Assuming you live in Europe. It's different in the US.
- krylonkid 13y agoThe surest way to kill a proposal in the US is to say "This is how they do it in Europe".
- ssharp 13y agoIt would have little effect on bicycle use. Raising gas taxes is going to cost people who have longer commutes substantially more than people who live within reasonable biking distance. The average U.S. commute is around 32 miles round-trip, which would take close to 2 hours without traffic or traffic controls. The response to higher gas taxes would have nothing to do with bikes. We'd buy cars with better fuel efficiency, explore alternative engines with lower costs-per-mile, and continue to pay the tax. Until the efficiency gains match the costs of the tax, the rest of the economy would suffer as most people would have less discretionary spending. You HAVE to get to work, so you're going to eat the tax. And it's regressive, to boot. Urban people in the U.S. complain a lot about the suburban nature of most of the country, but there is little that can be reasonably done eliminate the suburbs. Most people in this country simply prefer it, and will pay more for their transportation costs to get it. Raising taxes on these people is not going to change their behavior in any meaningful way. A few extra cents, or even an extra half dollar is gas taxes is going to be a lower cost to them than uprooting their life and moving within biking distance.
- asperous 13y agoThere's also public transportation, I've lived in Portland and LA and on average it takes 2x-10x longer to get to where you want. I've always wondered, especially on light rail, why can't they just go faster?
- shanac 13y agobecause of stopping. It takes more force to stop. Plus you would throw everyone and their stuff on the train around the process (they have no breaks for their forward acceleration). You already feel a mild version of this in rush-hour on NYC subways. Your body will move slightly as the train breaks, often causing people to lose balance (particularly if they never experienced this previously)
- eli_gottlieb 13y agoThus leading to the well-known sport of Subway Surfing.
- return0 13y agoIs the notoriously sprawling America cyclable? Distances in the centers of old european cities are small.
- sejje 13y agoIn most cities I've lived, not really. I grew up in Florida and cities were not made accessible to those without cars. Cape Coral, for instance, is just a huge, sprawling (mostly-vacant) city. You could probably manage to situate yourself with most of the things you need nearby, but you would still find the vast majority of the city inaccessible without a long ride.
- meerita 13y agoIt would probably terrible for all kind of prices. Since transportation, delivery and many things depends of oil :D