"A gasoline tax will reduce global warming, reduce depletion of petroleum reserves and cause the price of petroleum to fall"

A good point made on Robert's Stochastic Thoughts:

"Major category error...

((( I SHOULD ADMIT THAT I RARELY USE THIS PHRASE SINCE I ASSOCIATE WITH RYLE, A PHILOSOPHER I CAN'T ABIDE.

A category mistake, or category error, is a semantic or ontological error by which a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property. All (propositional) mistakes involve some sort of misascription of properties, so in a sense any mistake is a "category mistake": putting a thing into a class to which it does not belong. But a "category mistake" in colloquial philosophical usage seems to be the most severe form of misascription, involving the endorsement of what is in fact logically impossible. Thus the mistaken claim that "Most Americans are atheists" is not a category mistake, since it is merely contingently true that most Americans are theists. On the other hand, "Most bananas are atheists" is a category error. To show that a category mistake has been committed one must typically show that once the phenomenon in question is properly understood, it becomes clear that the claim being made about it could not possibly be true.)))

... from Harvard Philosophy concentrator.

Matthew Yglesias writes

"Given what we’ve learned about the risks of catastrophic climate change, it [] seems like a concept that’s been somewhat overtaken by events. A carbon tax, or a cap on greenhouse gas emissions with auctioned permits, would constitute a tax on gasoline among other things. And there’s no particular( SPECIFIC ) reason that burning fuel in a car should be disfavored versus other carbon-intensive activities."

via Kevin Drum
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/index.html?welcome=true

The fact that there is a reason to tax both coal and petroleum consumption does not mean that "there is no patricular reason that burning fuel in a car should be disfavored compared to other carbon-intensive activities."( I DON'T SEE THE CATEGORY ERROR. HE SIMPLY IS WRONG ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE PARTICULAR OR OTHER REASONS. ) A newly understood problem with petroleum consumption doesn't eliminate that many excellent longer understood reasons to limit petroleum consumption. It can't. A newly discovered problem with burning gasoline and other things can't eliminate the case that burning gasoline is worse. A positive number plus a constant is greater than 0 plus a constant. ( GOOD POINTS )


Those of us who are roughly twice Yglesias's age remember the original logic of a gasoline tax, which was designed to reduce dependence on foreign oil. That argument is, for some reason, out of fashion, but it is much more compelling now than it was then.( TRUE )

The fact that we have a new concern -- global warming -- which will be partially addressed by a gasoline tax isn't and can't be a reason why burning fossile fuels in cars isn't particularly bad( TRUE ). The case for a carbon tax as opposed to a carbon tax plus a gasoline tax is that there is no problem with gasoline consumption except for global warming( NOT TRUE ).

It is odd that criticism of this nonsensical position from the author of dozens of "peak oil" posts is so measured.

A gasoline tax will reduce global warming, reduce depletion of petroleum reserves and cause the price of petroleum to fall. It is fairly likely that the cost will be entirely born by oil exporting countries and not at all by -- well us.

If one opposes a gasoline tax, one should logically advocate aid for Kuwait Saudi Arabia and Russia. If that sounds crazy then so is the current minimal US gasoline tax."

We should add the tax now while the price of gas is low.

Can I Join The Pigou Club? And The Drones As Well?

From the WSJ:

"Members of the Journal’s CEO Council tasked with discussing priorities for the U.S. economy and finance offered several fairly uncontroversial suggestions to the incoming administration: implement a fiscal stimulus plan without worsening the long-term deficit, appoint a panel to address financial regulation, create an economic vision.

Tucked away in the proposal, in the category of long-term tax policy, was this political grenade: “consider raising taxes on gasoline.”

“We decided not to self-censor,” Time Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes said in presenting the proposal. He acknowledged that members of the group believed neither party would support the prospect.

“It’s been talked about but not done for years,” he said. “We thought that maybe this was a time when this could be raised.”

Raising the gas tax has been seen for years as one solution to discourage gasoline consumption, a move that could benefit the nation through lower imports, a cleaner environment and a stronger push toward fuel efficiency. Some economists have even suggested offering rebates to lower-income consumers so they’re not disproportionately hit by the tax hike.

Mr. Bewkes said the group’s members, who focused on the U.S. economy and finance, generally agreed that carbon taxes are likely to be more effective than a cap-and-trade approach to dealing with carbon emissions.

Members raised the issue along with a call to lower corporate income taxes while making it more broadly based. At the same time, they acknowledged that “somewhat higher personal tax rates” would be necessary given the economic troubles, Mr. Bewkes said.

The only comment from assembled CEOs came from UPS chief executive Scott Davis. And he didn’t even oppose the idea of a gas tax. “The principle is fine,” he said, but the concern is where the revenue goes. “We’d like to see it reinvested in the infrastructure, the highways, the airports.” The revenue from the current gas goes largely toward infrastructure.

Joining the CEOs in a larger group to comment on the proposals was Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat. Her response was fairly limited, indicating her recognition of the political peril around the prospect of the government raising gasoline prices: “I applaud you for your boldness.” – Sudeep Reddy

Here's my comment:

“consider raising taxes on gasoline.”

This seems like a good time to try it with gas being so low, except that would negate the stimulus effect of the decrease in the price of gas. Was that problem or issue discussed? I suppose not since everyone agrees it’s going nowhere.

Comment by Don the libertarian Democrat - November 18, 2008 at 5:43 pm"

Now from Greg Mankiw:

Allan Sloan joins the Pigou Club:

Having permanently high gas prices would let the market, rather than incomprehensible, loophole-ridden Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations, make the decisions on what kind of vehicles Americans get to drive. As part of my plan, I'd scrap these CAFÉ standards, abandon the current attempts to force automakers to spend tens of billions of dollars to meet higher fuel-economy standards. Instead, the market, guided by a high gas tax, would rule.

And so do many CEOs:

Members of the Journal’s CEO Council tasked with discussing priorities for the U.S. economy and finance offered several fairly uncontroversial suggestions to the incoming administration: implement a fiscal stimulus plan without worsening the long-term deficit, appoint a panel to address financial regulation, create an economic vision.

Tucked away in the proposal, in the category of long-term tax policy, was this political grenade: “consider raising taxes on gasoline.”

Can I join the Pigou Club? And can you get me into the Drones Club?