Americans support a gas tax if revenues go toward energy independence

Posted by David Roberts at 10:53 PM on 27 Feb 2006

A new New York Times/CBS poll contains extremely interesting results with regard to a gas tax.

Unfortunately, the write-up in the NYT is rather garbled. Best to go look at the poll itself (PDF).

If you ask people straight out, "do you favor a gas tax," the answers is overwhelmingly (85%) No. Even if you promise to reduce other taxes --payroll and income -- by the same amount, the answer is still (63%) No.

But if the question is, "would you support a gas tax if it reduced U.S. dependence on foreign oil" or "would you support a gas tax if it cut down on energy consumption and reduced global warming," the results reverse pretty dramatically. The "foreign oil" question gets 55% in favor and the "energy consumption and global warming" question gets 59% in favor.

(Even more intriguing: When the question is, "would you support a gas tax if the proceeds were used to fight the war on terror," 71% still oppose.)

Take-home message: U.S. citizens want to reduce oil use, energy consumption, and global warming. And they're willing to pay for it.

For chrissake, if we have any politicians left with a pair and the sense God gave a turkey, they would jump on this. Americans crave it. They want to be asked to sacrifice. They want to be involved. They just need an opportunity.

Update [2006-2-27 23:56:31 by David Roberts]: In other poll news, President Bush's approval rating just hit 34%.

For story: Americans support a gas tax if revenues go toward energy independence
7 Comments | Post a Comment

framing

I greatly enjoyed this summary of findings in the (relatively) new field of Behavioral Economics.

It seems that these questions are a classic example of the "framing issues" discussed in that article.

FWIW, I favor a gas tax (for whatever good my support will do), even if it is used to pay down the debt/deficit. It kind of boggles my mind that issues of fiscal responsibility (and yes, environmental responsibility) are ignored by the bulk of people, until they are "framed" just right.

The difficulty in getting final action is in making the "if it reduced U.S. dependence on foreign oil" or "if it cut down on energy consumption and reduced global warming," stick.

by odograph at 9:22 AM on 28 Feb 2006

oh

That article also has some stuff about "discounting the future" which definitely applies to energy/environment issues.

by odograph at 10:10 AM on 28 Feb 2006

Hopefully,

we do have one or two "politicians left with a pair and the sense God gave a turkey."

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 11:05 AM on 28 Feb 2006

Conserve, NOW!

Yes, and here's your opportunity:

If Government offers the public the billions of dollars that would be collected from the higher fuel taxes back to the public in the form of annual "rebates" for DRIVING LESS miles (as recorded on their registered motor vehicles' odometers over the year), then JQ American Public just might abandon his SUV out in the suburbs and come back into the city to live, or at least choose his resident location to be closer to his job, so he doesn't have to drive so much. That we he would not only save money by burning less fuel, but he would also earn the monetary rebates for driving significantly less than the average.