On the other hand...a gas tax is an incredibly regressive tax which will make lots of regular folks hopping mad, thereby creating undying enmity for the environmental movement among all sorts of people.  It's a big political loser that could kill public support for all kinds of other important environmental measures, like renewable energy.

Carbon tax, yes, for all the reasons you say.  Or carbon-trading with auctioned permits, if that's more politically realistic.

I mentioned here before that I think one idea (I don't know about political possibility here) would be a C&T scheme for the electric industry (we could expand it later) and a gas tax to address transportation.

I haven't given it much thought since then, but there might be some reasons not to totally throw away the gas tax.  Maybe, Jason Scorse could give some input?

• It levies the prices directly on the consumable goods, and could potentially have a greater behavior change effect among motorists than an upstream carbon tax would.

• relatively hidden costs might not be what we want when talking about transportation

• a gas tax would not only affect emissions levels, but might also address other issues like congestion.

1. European countries enacted high gas taxes years ago. Why can't we?  Are we as dysfunctional as all that?

2. Permanently higher gas prices are coming soon. We'd better get used to it.  Much better to get the warning signals early, rather than all at once (e.g. if Iran is attacked). Much better to have the added portion of the price of gas going to government coffers, rather than to foreign producers.
   
   If the peak oil theory is correct (and lately the National Petroleum Council and International Energy Agency are moving in that direction), then the question will be decided for us. As author Richard Heinberg describes peak oil: "Sustainability with teeth."

3. Cars have multiple deleterious side effects - congestion, pollution, sprawl. Is it not fair that car drivers pay for them?  Who is it that suffers most from the side effects? The lower income brackets.

4. Higher gas taxes can be regressive. But there are ways to correct that. (With carbon taxes, Gore suggests combatting their regressive nature by using them to replace payroll taxes.)
   
   The fact is that U.S. society has been moving in a regressive direction for 30 years. This is a much bigger problem than gas taxes. If we are concerned about regressivity, let's have a deeper analysis about that problem - rather than kneejerk rejection of a gas tax. A much bigger issue is what's happened to income and inheritance taxes.

5. There is no point in trying to wish away the inevitable conflict about personal transportation. It's coming and it's going to be fierce -- the addict does not give up the addiction willingly. Gas taxes are one aspect. Fuel subsidies and congestion pricing are others.

A couple of points.

1. A "pure" carbon tax will hit very visible consumer products like gasoline, natural gas and home heating oil.

Prices will rise, be attributed to the new tax (presumably passed a Democratic congress), be highly unpopular and the difference the "pure" carbon tax would have on reducing gasoline consumption and thus greenhouse gas emission reduction is hard to estimate.

A modified carbon tax could make allowances for some consumer commodoties like gasoline and exempt them. Problem is that is a slippery slope. There are thousands of well-connected lobbyists in Washington, DC that have clients who have products they would like exempted too.

The simplicity advantage that a pure carbon tax has is lost. The simplicity advantage of a tax to a "cap & trade" approach begins to erode.

2. Now a few questions. Under a carbon tax, what will be the annual reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 10 years from the enactment of the tax? 20 years? 30 years?

If a tax does not have the desired effect in terms of reducing emissions, will the congress have to go back and pass a new tax increase every few years? That would be fun.

I guess you could say I am very skeptical of the political viability of a carbon tax.

I am very skeptical of the political viability of a carbon tax.

In the present political environment, you are absolutely right. Both a carbon tax and gasoline tax seem to be political poison.

But... things change. And it is very possible that things will change faster than most of us realize. What would take? A few more Hurricane Katrinas? Famines and droughts? 20,000 people dying in a heat wave? The outbreak of more wars for oil?

Judging by what climate scientist Joe Hansen sees ahead of us, it would be unwise to plan for a business-as-usual future. Change is coming.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

That means, when it comes to a well-crafted carbon tax:

• the costs are (relatively) hidden from voters, and
  
• the benefits are immediately tangible.

One of the reasons why the USA tends to use a sales tax rather than a value-added tax (VAT), the kind of consumption tax used in most other countries, is that U.S. politicians say that they want people to see how much tax they are paying when they pay for their purchases at the till. (Personally, I think this argument has little merit in an educated society: people here in Europe are well aware that 20% of the purchase price of anything they buy is VAT.) Hiding a tax burden should not necessarily be an objective.

In any case, coal and petroleum producers will certainly remind people how much they are paying in tax, especially every time that prices rise -- whether due to the tax or not.

I agree with Patrick Kennedy, also, that it would be naive to think that a carbon tax would be so simple to implement. There would probably be provisions, like with VAT, to credit carbon that is immobilized (e.g., turned into plastic) or captured. And once the principle is established that carbon must be taxed for climate-protection reasons, the fossil-fuels industry will legitimately raise questions as to why other industries that generate non-carbon greenhouse gases (e.g., nitrous oxides, sulfur hexafluoride) are not also taxed.

Finally, it is not clear which benefits of a carbon tax you see would be immediately tangible that are different from what you claim would be the (relatively) hidden benefits of higher gasoline (and presumably diesel) taxes. Surely you are not suggesting -- given the lag between changes in GHG levels in the atmosphere and changes in climate -- that the benefits of a more stable atmosphere would be evident immediately. If a carbon tax were applied in a revenue-neutral way, and taxpayers immediately saw a reduction in income taxes ... well, couldn't they also see such a shift if gasoline (and diesel) taxes were raised?

All that is not to disagree with basic argument -- that a carbon tax would be superior to a gasoline tax. It is just to say that the issues are not so black and white as you present them here.

These are only my personal opinions.

Would consumers demand higher gas mileage cars so they would not have to pay so much at the pump even though it would neither cost nor save them a penny on average or would people use more gas so they would get a bigger refund check? With social engineering, there should always be a fall back plan should the original hypothesis fail to pan out.


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

Over the last 7 years, Californians have consumed nearly 16 billion gallons of gas a year. At $3.25/gallon, all taxes amount to approximately $0.66. If we were to assess an additional $0.25/gallon as a gas tax for the carbon produced (assumes that carbon costs $25/ton), we would have an additional $4 billion annually to fund:

1. Better and cheaper public transportation that would benefit low and middle income earners;
   
2. Increase state subsidies for energy efficiency programs and renewable energy;
   
3. Provide incentives for more fuel efficient and lower emission vehicles including those used in agriculture.