Cap and Trade on gasoline - no better time for it!

[kubel]

Just to remind you (seeing as how you'll be re-acquainting yourself with it next year), it's the fuel that allows me to drive 350-400 miles non-stop and still have at least a 30 mile reserve, at freeway speeds in winter with my ski gear while using the heater and defroster freely, in a car that cost me $24k and change new and which will turn 12 on Monday, with fueling infrastructure spaced every 30 miles or less that only require 5 minutes to give me another 350+ miles range

400 miles non stop? What is this powerful liquid? Some sort of black magic potion? You will speak no more of this witchcraft, heretic! As far as me being re-acquanted with it next year- yes that may happen. But for the time being, I'll stick with my incredibly fast 8 hour recharges and amazing 45 mile range in the winter, while you speak of this magical "gasoline" vaporware! 400 miles non-stop.... pffff. Someone has been reading too much science fiction. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to being in denial.

IMO political discussions are more interesting when they are based on debate of ideas rather than labels, name calling and stereotypes.

They are not only more interesting, but they actually can lead to a better understanding of opposing views when people aren't all screaming, "you are a poo-poo head!". I may disagree with someone, but I find I can respect their position much better if I simply understand it.

I'm with abasile. The left/right paradigm is unfortunately impacting our ability to form independent thought on things. When you get to the point where conservatives attack you because they think you're a liberal, and liberals attack you because they think you're a conservative, you're probably making progress! Let the two sides fight with each other, and follow your own free thought on a topic.

Fundamentally, my position for opposing such a cap and trade system is it's not voluntary. I wouldn't oppose it if it was voluntary, but since the state ultimately enforces such regulation (all laws) with violence and some sort of claim to your life and fruit of your labor, I don't view it as being particularly legitimate.

So I'm not opposed to the idea at all, I just don't like ideas that are forced upon people with the barrel of a gun.

 

[RonDawg]

As for no thanks for more taxes, somebody has to pay for all the EV tax credits and rebates, and I'm willing to pony up $0.10/gal until affordable EVs arrive with the capabilities I need. Just provides a little more incentive to bike/use transit instead of using the car for local errands.

The problem is that until someone shows me otherwise, there's no sign that 10 cents/gallon extra that this tax is going to impose will be used for anything towards alternative transportation/fuels. If it did, or used towards some other worthy cause like infrastructure upgrade, I would be in full support of it.

As a deterrent to increased fuel consumption (and the negative ecological impacts associated with that), 10 cents/gallon simply isn't enough. The Ford F-150 and Chevy Silverado for example were America's best selling and second-best selling cars in 2008, when fuel prices rocketed upward and some parts of California saw prices in excess of $5/gallon. In fact none of the top selling cars that year were tops in fuel economy (if you exclude optional hybrid sub-models like with the Camry and Civic). Of the remaining 8 cars, there were 4 midsize-large cars (Camry, Accord, Altima, Impala) with optional if not standard V6's, a small SUV (Honda CR-V), and the Dodge Ram pickup. Only 2 cars (Civic and Corolla) were the kind of cars one would expect to be popular when gas is expensive, and only the Corolla cracked the top 5.

Source: http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2008-top-ten-best-selling/#image-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[kubel]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am), but cap and trade needs not necessarily collect a "tax" for the permits/credits, it only needs to artificially limit their availability.

 

[Nubo]

Fundamentally, my position for opposing such a cap and trade system is it's not voluntary. I wouldn't oppose it if it was voluntary, but since the state ultimately enforces such regulation (all laws) with violence and some sort of claim to your life and fruit of your labor, I don't view it as being particularly legitimate.

So I'm not opposed to the idea at all, I just don't like ideas that are forced upon people with the barrel of a gun.

All laws are ultimately backed by force. That doesn't make them all wrong. In order to protect our rights justly, government must find a balance.

What we've had until now is fossil fuel producers gaining wealth in part by depriving the rest of us of clean air and water. We now have reason to believe that CO2 emissions are an equal or greater threat than unburned hydrocarbons particulates and NOx. How do we balance the rights of human beings to a healthy, viable planet vs. the rights of fossil fuel industry to earn profit? The Invisible Hand does not react with sufficient speed nor sometimes at all to protect the rights of the individual. If we recognize that everyone's prosperity is tied to the health of the planet's ecosystem then we've recognized everyone's right to have that prosperity protected. It is a form of property. And if that right to property is infringed, shouldn't we authorize government to enforce our rights?

 

[TimLee]

... cap and trade needs not necessarily collect a "tax" for the permits/credits, it only needs to artificially limit their availability.

Overall that is correct.
They are required to reinvest $ from selling credits in CA.
And they likely will sell them.

But even then it technically isn't a tax.

The $0.10 per gallon is only someone's guess of what the price change will be due to the cap and trade program.

Does point to an alternative to problems with under funding of the Highway Trust Fund, and the immense angst to raising the gasoline tax.
Just eliminate the tax.
Issue mileage permits for use of the roads based on vehicle weight and associated wear and tear on the infrastructure.
That would put the cost where most of it should be, on truck transportation.
The railroads have to pay to maintain their privately owned rail lines.
But the trucks do not pay 10% of the real cost for the use of the public highways.

 

[GRA]

As for no thanks for more taxes, somebody has to pay for all the EV tax credits and rebates, and I'm willing to pony up $0.10/gal until affordable EVs arrive with the capabilities I need. Just provides a little more incentive to bike/use transit instead of using the car for local errands.

The problem is that until someone shows me otherwise, there's no sign that 10 cents/gallon extra that this tax is going to impose will be used for anything towards alternative transportation/fuels. If it did, or used towards some other worthy cause like infrastructure upgrade, I would be in full support of it.

As a deterrent to increased fuel consumption (and the negative ecological impacts associated with that), 10 cents/gallon simply isn't enough. The Ford F-150 and Chevy Silverado for example were America's best selling and second-best selling cars in 2008, when fuel prices rocketed upward and some parts of California saw prices in excess of $5/gallon. In fact none of the top selling cars that year were tops in fuel economy (if you exclude optional hybrid sub-models like with the Camry and Civic). Of the remaining 8 cars, there were 4 midsize-large cars (Camry, Accord, Altima, Impala) with optional if not standard V6's, a small SUV (Honda CR-V), and the Dodge Ram pickup. Only 2 cars (Civic and Corolla) were the kind of cars one would expect to be popular when gas is expensive, and only the Corolla cracked the top 5.

Source: http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2008-top-ten-best-selling/#image-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apparently at least some of it is going to fund HSR here. To say I'm ambivalent about that is an almost British level of understatement. While I'm a fan of HSR (and even voted for the bond measure back in 2008 or whenever it was, as more details appeared I found myself agreeing with one of the people who was in charge, who said (don't remember his exact words, but this is the gist) that 'it shouldn't be built in this way, financed in this fashion, on this route, in this time frame.'

 

[GRA]

^^ wow $24k for a new car, you must be a 1%er... the Sentra only set me back $14k and change.

I wasn't aware that the Sentra was available as a small AWD station wagon/CUV with enough room that my 6' tall self could stretch out full length and sleep in it, but do tell.

 

[GRA]

On the positive side, I see that Sen. Thune, the incoming chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, has said that raising the gas tax isn't off the table. He even said it on Fox. There's been a few senators from both parties who've been suggesting this for a while, but of course it would require that there be enough adults in the room to pass both houses, and that remains as unlikely now as it has been for the past two years (or longer).

 

[GRA]

Just to remind you (seeing as how you'll be re-acquainting yourself with it next year), it's the fuel that allows me to drive 350-400 miles non-stop and still have at least a 30 mile reserve, at freeway speeds in winter with my ski gear while using the heater and defroster freely, in a car that cost me $24k and change new and which will turn 12 on Monday, with fueling infrastructure spaced every 30 miles or less that only require 5 minutes to give me another 350+ miles range

400 miles non stop? What is this powerful liquid? Some sort of black magic potion? You will speak no more of this witchcraft, heretic!

Although I do sort of float, I would like to take this opportunity to publicly deny that I weigh the same as a duck. :lol:

 

[AndyH]

Just to remind you (seeing as how you'll be re-acquainting yourself with it next year), it's the fuel that allows me to drive 350-400 miles non-stop and still have at least a 30 mile reserve, at freeway speeds in winter with my ski gear while using the heater and defroster freely, in a car that cost me $24k and change new and which will turn 12 on Monday, with fueling infrastructure spaced every 30 miles or less that only require 5 minutes to give me another 350+ miles range

400 miles non stop? What is this powerful liquid? Some sort of black magic potion? You will speak no more of this witchcraft, heretic!

Although I do sort of float, I would like to take this opportunity to publicly deny that I weigh the same as a duck. :lol:

Or a very tiny stone? Hmmm?

 

[GRA]

Although I do sort of float, I would like to take this opportunity to publicly deny that I weigh the same as a duck. :lol:

Or a very tiny stone? Hmmm?

Who art you who are so wise in the ways of science? :lol:

 

[RonDawg]

Apparently at least some of it is going to fund HSR here. To say I'm ambivalent about that is an almost British level of understatement. While I'm a fan of HSR (and even voted for the bond measure back in 2008 or whenever it was, as more details appeared I found myself agreeing with one of the people who was in charge, who said (don't remember his exact words, but this is the gist) that 'it shouldn't be built in this way, financed in this fashion, on this route, in this time frame.'

I finally found this article that says where at least some of this tax is going: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/diaz/article/The-truth-about-that-hidden-gas-tax-5953730.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; 25% indeed is being earmarked for HSR. But where the rest is going is not all that clear.

State proceeds from the cap-and-trade auctions are projected to approach $1 billion a year. The money is supposed to be directed at programs that advance emissions-reduction goals. The high-speed rail project is set to receive 25 percent of the revenue.

BTW I agree with you about HSR; I agree with it in theory (I've used high speed rail systems in Europe, and Japan is next for me), but the way it is being built is ridiculous. Why do we need to upgrade a stretch in the Central Valley to high speed, when there is a very large missing link between LA and Bakersfield (currently spanned by Amtrak Thruway buses) that has not seen regular passenger rail service since the creation of Amtrak?

 

[GRA]

Apparently at least some of it is going to fund HSR here. To say I'm ambivalent about that is an almost British level of understatement. While I'm a fan of HSR (and even voted for the bond measure back in 2008 or whenever it was, as more details appeared I found myself agreeing with one of the people who was in charge, who said (don't remember his exact words, but this is the gist) that 'it shouldn't be built in this way, financed in this fashion, on this route, in this time frame.'

I finally found this article that says where at least some of this tax is going: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/diaz/article/The-truth-about-that-hidden-gas-tax-5953730.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; 25% indeed is being earmarked for HSR. But where the rest is going is not all that clear.

State proceeds from the cap-and-trade auctions are projected to approach $1 billion a year. The money is supposed to be directed at programs that advance emissions-reduction goals. The high-speed rail project is set to receive 25 percent of the revenue.

BTW I agree with you about HSR; I agree with it in theory (I've used high speed rail systems in Europe, and Japan is next for me), but the way it is being built is ridiculous. Why do we need to upgrade a stretch in the Central Valley to high speed, when there is a very large missing link between LA and Bakersfield (currently spanned by Amtrak Thruway buses) that has not seen regular passenger rail service since the creation of Amtrak?

Here's some more details about how they plan to spend the money: http://la.streetsblog.org/2014/06/12/breaking-news-deal-reached-on-cas-cap-and-trade-spending-plan/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Personally, I thought they should have started with LA-SD. While right of way acquisition would be very expensive and slow, we know there's demand there judging by the number of round-trip flights per day, so they'd have some revenue coming in once that section was completed. Merced to Bakersfield? Give me a break.