The Rants of Issachar

The Globe and Mail reported this weekend in their BC section that Vancouver's Translink had seen an 11% increase in usage since last year. This coincides with an average pump price of $1.27 per liter.

So it seems that David Suzuki was correct when he said that if you really want to "green up" the automotive sector, then one of the best policies is higher gas prices. (Time to think the unthinkable: Put a tax on gas - Globe and Mail April 20). I never got around to writing about it at the time, but if you think about it, it's almost glaringly obvious. If you want less emissions, then people have to drive less. If you want people to drive less, then make gas more expensive. It's not exactly rocket science.

I found the responding editorial written a couple of weeks later that argued that a gas tax wouldn't reduce greenhouse gases fairly unconvincing. (Full text online here). You can argue that human activity isn't causing global warming, or you could argue that it's actually a good thing, or you can argue that there are better ways to reduce global warming, but to argue that increased prices doesn't decrease usage is simply silly. Actually I'm a little surprised the Globe published such a poorly argued piece. To quote from the editorial: "Taxation doesn't stop people from doing things they need to do, such as heating their homes." Very true. Of course one can also turn down the thermostat a bit to save a couple of bucks.

Higher prices reduce demand. Arguing about that just makes you look foolish.

One good thing about an environmental gas tax would be that people just might figure out that if we want to reduce carbon emissions, then there will be a cost and it won't just be paid by "other people".

Posted by:  Major John

It won't be paid by "other people". However, it will hit those who can afford it least that much harder.

The millionaire in the gas guzzler could not care less what gas costs. The poor working schlub trying to get by gets bit in the a@@ - hard. I already know one independent trucker who has been put under by higher fuel prices. Less emmissions, and an unemployed person. Not a good trade off in my book...

Posted by:  issachar

You're right there Major John. Those with more money can always absorb rising prices more easily that those just getting by.

It doesn't make a difference how the cost is applied, the cost just gets passed on to consumers and then we're back to the poor working schlub getting bit. The independent trucker obviously needs to pass on his fuel costs to his customers, but I'm guessing he can't just rewrite all his contracts instantly.

Of course you could try to pay for it with a progressive tax system, but there's a limit as to how far you can go with that.

There isn't really an easy solution to this. People should honestly examine the cost of what they want to do.

Posted by:  Sarah

I agree all around (for once). We should be paying more for a lot of things, at least to get it through our thick skulls that there isn't an endless supply of fuel, food, or drinking water (lack of water is a very serious issue here in Melbourne right now - sitting below 30% of our dam capacity and still no legislation in place limiting its use by industries).
The main thing we need to understand is that we have to reduce emissions not for us, but for our kids (grandkids, great grandkids...). They won't have to worry about the price of petrol, because there won't be any. It drives me nuts to hear people whining about the price of petrol to fuel the BMW SUV that they drive to Starbucks and yoga in.

Posted by:  Jo

Hi there,

I read a nice quote the other day, written by 'anonymous' who said "we didn't inherit the earth from our ancestors...we borrowed it from our children". Perhaps more respect for our children's back yard would be nice, regardless of the cost.

Posted by:  issachar

Well I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day. But which one of us is the clock? :P

In all seriousness though we aren't going to run out of oil. It'll just gradually get more scarce & expensive until something else is cheaper and no one will use it anymore. We can pretty much make ethanol out of anything that decomposes. It's just a little too expensive with some plant materials.

Posted by:  caleb

As someone who would definitely be hurt by any increase in gas taxes, I'm curious as to what you would propose as a solution?

"Examine the cost of what I want to do." Hmmm. Ok what I want is to be able to afford to drive to work so I can feed my family. So let's look at my alternatives to driving.

Take the bus? That's a lovely idea...except that would turn my 90 minute commute into over 2hrs each way.

Live closer? You are obviously out of touch with the cost of housing in the Seattle area =)

Don't live in such an expensive area? Right...too bad that's where 99% of the work in my field is.

Increasing the tax on fossil fuel won't even slow down the 1,000's of gallons of fuel that someone like Al Gore pours into their private jet. But it would certainly kick the crap out of a working guy like me. So unless you want to pitch in and help pay my fuel bill (funny that none of my "tax it all" friends are willing to do that)then ixnay on increasing taxes.

Posted by:  issachar

Like I said, there isn't really an easy solution, and if we're looking to lower emissions without paying the cost then there isn't any solution.

Higher fuel prices are simply an obvious way that the cost of reducing emissions would be passed on to consumers. That's the virtue of high fuel prices. They make the cost obvious. Of course they also hit the "working schlub" harder than the jet-setter.

I should actually split this into a separate post in a way. In fact I'm going to...