Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Inspired (as I often am) by either the insights or the foolishness of a guest post at Judith Curry’s always-provocative blog, I decided to take a look at the relationship between fuel price and miles driven. My inspiration came from my amusement at the guest author’s use of the following graph to establish a relationship between fuel cost and how much people use their cars. I think a relationship exists, but the graph used by the author doesn’t show it. Figure 1 shows that graph:
Figure 1. Per capita fuel use, compared to the fuel price, for the OECD countries. SOURCE
Now, it certainly looks like there’s a clear relationship there, but that’s an illusion. My objection to the graph was, the countries divide into two groups. On the bottom right you have the European OECD countries, plus Japan. Plus one fish.
On the top left, you have the US, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. What’s not to like?
Well, ignoring fuel price for the moment, who would you think would drive more miles—a citizen of the US, or a citizen of Japan? An Aussie, or a Belgian? A Canadian, or an Italian? So all the guest author has shown in that graph is that the folks in large countries, with miles and miles between cities, drive more than Europeans and Japanese.
But of course, I couldn’t leave it there, so I linked to the following lovely graph of automobile use in the US that I ran across during my research. It shows, year by year since 1956, how many miles Americans have driven, and what the gas price was during that year.
Figure 2. Miles driven compared to the fuel price. Click to embiggen. SOURCE
Now that shows some very interesting patterns. The main oddity I noticed is that there is what might be termed a price shock effect—in the year of a big jump in prices, for example 1974, the mileage driven drops compared to the previous year. But then look what happens from 1974 to 1978 … the price stays stable, but the number of miles driven each year goes up steadily, without reversal.
But of course, I couldn’t leave it there. I digitized the data, to see what kind of relationships I could understand and reveal through further analysis. And as usual, I was surprised by what I found.
First, taking the data as it is given, there is no statistically significant relationship between the two variables, pump price and miles driven. The R2 is only 0.03. (“R2” is a measure of the relationship between two datasets, where an R2 of 1.0 indicates a perfectly linear relationship between the two, and an R2 of 0.00 indicates no relationship. So an R2 of 0.03 is … well … pathetic. So as far as a direct relationship between prices and miles driven, not happening.
Once I saw that, I wondered, well, what if I include a temporal trend in the linear regression? The way that I usually do that is simply to include the date as a variable. And to my surprise, the R2 went from 0.03 up to 0.98 … Figure 3 shows an emulation (multiple linear regression result) of the number of miles that Americans drive, versus the value estimated based on year and pump price.
Figure 3. The emulation is a multiple linear regression, using the year and the pump price as independent variables, and the actual average miles driven by Americans as the dependent variable. R2 = 0.98
Dang, sez I … that’s pretty impressive.
But of course, I couldn’t leave it there. A fixed annual increment, a simple trend like I used, is just a way to understand the data. It’s not an explanation involving some plausible mechanism. And more to the point, I also didn’t like those two years up at the top right of Figure 3, which are 2009 and 2010. In those years, Americans drove about a thousand miles less than expected. So I though about why that might be, and even a bear of little brain would go “global financial meltdown, duh”. And that made sense overall as well, because how far I drive doesn’t just depend on the pump price. It also depends in part on how much money I have in my jeans. When I’m flush I drive more, and when times get hard, I drive less regardless of the price of gas.
So I thought that instead of using the year, I’d try using the per-capita GDP as the second independent variable. Figure 4 shows those results.
Figure 4. The emulation is a multiple linear regression, using the real per capita GDP and the pump price as independent variables, and the actual average miles driven by Americans as the dependent variable. R^2 = 0.98 GDP SOURCE
Yowzah! Now that’s what I call shaving with Occam’s razor. It turns out that pump price and per capita GDP do an excellent job of estimating the number of miles driven, with very little error.
So, what does the magic equation that gives us the excellent results shown in Figure 4 say about the relationship between miles driven on the one hand, and gas price and per capita GDP on the other?
Well, it says that for every twenty-five-cent increase in the pump price of gas, Americans drive about a hundred miles less. Gas price goes up, miles driven go down. Makes sense.
And it says that for every $430 increase in per capita GDP, Americans drive about a hundred miles more. Wealth goes up, miles driven goes up. Also makes sense.
Now, the “carbon taxes” I’ve seen discussed are on the order of $20-$30 per tonne of CO2. And by coincidence, $28 per tonne of CO2 emitted is equal to twenty-five cents per gallon of gasoline. So if a $28/tonne carbon tax is imposed on gasoline, how much less might Americans drive?
Well … a hundred miles less … wow, such a stupendous gain, be still, my beating heart …
And how much actual change in our driving habits is a hundred miles less per year?
Well … since Americans drive about 10,000 miles per year, it’s a gigantic, massive reduction in miles driven of one percent.
And that, dear friends, is all the bang you get for your twenty-five-cent per gallon carbon based energy tax. A one percent reduction in miles driven. One freaking percent, and they want to impoverish the poor for that? Grrrr ….
So … what does this mean for the debate on carbon-based energy taxes?
First, it means that in the American situation, there is no way that the benefits of energy taxes are worth the cost. Why? Because the effect of a typical CO2-based energy tax on miles driven is minuscule, only a 1% reduction for a $28 per tonne of CO2 energy tax.
Next, a very slight increase in per capita GDP will nullify the energy tax entirely. Also by coincidence, it turns out that if the current per capita GDP goes up by about 1% (~$430), that will increase the mileage driven by 100 miles … so a 1% increase in per capita GDP will completely nullify a $28 per tonne of CO2 energy tax. And the GDP goes up by one percent all the time …
Next, it means that in order to have more than a one-year effect, the tax will have to continually rise.
The problem with a carbon based energy tax can be seen by thinking back to Figure 2, where I noted the “shock effect”, and how after the slight reduction in miles driven as a result of the 1974 big jump in pump price, after that one-year reduction the miles driven went right back to increasing year after year, with no change in the gas price.
So a one-time jump in the price will make little difference, just a one-year reduction in the miles driven. But by the next year or two, assuming that the per-capita GDP continues to rise as it has in the past, the miles driven will be rising again.
Next, it means that a carbon-based gasoline tax is wildly regressive. To see why, let me start with a slight digression, by bringing in a concept from accounting, that of “fixed”, “variable”, and “semi-variable” costs.
Fixed costs are those costs you can’t do anything about. The amounts are fixed, you can’t reduce them, you just have to pay them.. Maybe rent. Taxes.
Variable costs are costs that are entirely optional. Think maybe eating at restaurants. You don’t have to spend a penny on that if you don’t want to.
Semi-variable costs are costs that you can change, but you can’t eliminate entirely. These would be things like food costs. You can run them up or down, but you can’t eliminate them.
Now, think about the corresponding concepts as applied to the subject at hand—fixed, variable, and semi-variable miles driven.
Fixed miles are things like a commute to work. Short of changing your job or your residence, you can’t change that. You just rack up those miles every year.
Variable miles are things on the order of visiting Grandma in Arizona. You love to do it, but you don’t have to go.
Semi-variable miles are things like going to the post office to get your mail. You can cut the trips down, but not to zero.
What this graph shows me is that any energy tax on gasoline will hit the hardest on the poorest, the people who mostly use their car to get to work. The problem is not just that more of the wages of the poor go to energy, although that is also a problem.
But in addition to the higher percentage of their wages going to energy, the majority of their miles are fixed miles, so they can’t cut back on them. They have to drive them, so they have to pay the tax.
For the wealthy, on the other hand, lots of their miles driven are variable or semi-variable, so they can just scale down a bit. The energy tax means nothing to them. But for the poor, it can be a budget-buster.
This is one of the many reason why energy taxes are so regressive—because for the poor, fixed costs for everything squeeze them all the time, not just fixed fuel costs but also the other bills they have to pay every month. So when energy prices go up, Al Gore and James Hansen just cut back on visiting the grandchildren they love to talk about, no problem for them.
But the single mom whose gas budget barely covers getting to work, she can’t cut back on her gas use, it’s already cut to the bone. So when she pays the energy tax, she is forced to cut back on something for either the kids or herself.
And all of that for a pathetic 1% reduction in miles driven. That’s criminal.
Now please, folks, don’t insult my intelligence by claiming that it’s OK to harm the poor because of that well-worn fantasy, the fabulous claim that wealth redistribution will make it all OK. It won’t. Anyone who believes it will make it all OK has not spent enough time around government programs.
To start with, even the best-intentioned programs only reach a percentage of those most affected. Next, the poorer that people are, the less likely they are to hear about such programs. Think people living in apartments versus people living in their cars. Next, the paperwork required is all too often complex, confusing, and intrusive. Next, many of the poorest people are mistrustful of government. Also, immigrants are often equally fearful of government, and many don’t speak the language. Next, the people who end up getting the most benefits are often not those who suffered the most losses. Next, administering such a program requires a large expensive workforce of bureaucrats and paper pushers to make it function. And of course, they’re all Union, can’t be fired, plus we’ll be stuck paying these pluted bloatocrats their megabucks in retirement money ’til they shuffle off to a warmer place … and I’m not thinking Florida. Next, as with any government program, waste will consume more than you imagine. Think IRS conferences in Las Vegas and thousand dollar hammers. Next, parasitic rent-seekers like lawyers and consultants will be circling the honey-pot and making off with some of that good honey. And finally, there’s never been a government program that people didn’t scam, game, and cheat, so somewhere between a little and a lot of money will simply be stolen.
So no, wealth distribution will only make things worse, or on the best day with a following wind it might “break even” by taking from one bunch of the poor and giving to another bunch … and meanwhile the people at the bottom of the economic pile are hit the hardest. And whether you are a conservative or a liberal, that should appall you.
And finally … we’re going to create all that pain and create a giant bureaucracy and waste piles of money for a crappy 1% reduction in miles driven, a temporary reduction that will be wiped out by the next 1% increase in per capita GDP?
Really? That’s the brilliant plan? Screw the poor and the economy for a 1% reduction in miles driven?
Spare me. That’s more than foolish, that’s a crime against the indigent and everyone else in the country. Almost any other conceivable response to the imagined horrors of CO2 would be preferable. Taxes on energy are destructive and damaging to individuals, to businesses, to the environment, to the economy, and more than anything to the poor, and to turn it from mindless idiocy to criminal tragedy, there is nothing to show for it at the end of the day but a temporary 1% reduction in miles driven—from an energy tax, there’s no lasting gain, only lasting pain.
w.
DATA: The spreadsheet with the data and graphs is here.
[UPDATE] I just wondered, how much will the $28 per tonne of CO2 gasoline tax cost per year? Average fuel economy of the US fleet, cars and trucks, is about twenty mpg. Average person drives ten thousand miles, at twenty mpg that’s five hundred gallons. The tax at twenty-five cents per gallon on five hundred gallons is $125 per year.
In response to that tax, we can expect people to cut fuel use by 1%, or 5 gallons per year. Gas is around four bucks a gallon, so that’s $20 worth.
So the plan is to charge the average driver $125 per year in gas tax, and in response to that he’ll use $20 less gas, reducing his bill at the pump from $2,000 per year to $1,980 per year and cutting his CO2 emissions by a whacking great 1% … who thinks these plans up, and how can we catch them and stop them?
[UPDATE 2] I also got to wondering, just how much CO2 would a $28 per tonne of CO2 applied to gasoline consumption actually save? There’s 8.9 kg (19.6 pounds) of CO2 in a gallon of gasoline. Crazy but true, it’s the extra weight of the oxygen. So we’d be saving one whole percent of that, or .089 kg per gallon. Multiply that by the number of gallons of gasoline burned in the US, about 134E+9 gallons, and we end up with 0.01 gigatonnes (billion metric tonnes, E+9 tonnes) of CO2 saved.
And compared to a hundredth of a gigatonne, how large are the global CO2 emissions? Well, it’s about 9 gigatonnes of carbon C emitted per year, so as CO2 the mass is (16 + 16 + 12) / 12 of that to allow for the extra weight of the oxygen, or 33 gigatonnes of CO2 per year.
And the $28 carbon based energy tax would reduce that by 0.01 gigatonnes of CO2, which is a reduction of three hundredths of one percent (0.03%) … folks, have we truly gone so mad that such a trivial gain, three hundredth of one percent reduction in CO2 emissions, so small as to be absolutely unmeasurable, is used to justify this crazy tax?
John
Trolls should be made of sterner stuff. My wife and I (both 71 years old) are on vacation in St. Louis, and are seeing many of the sights via our rental bicycles. When we’re at home in Northern California we have to drive over an hour over steep, narrow, winding roads to get to the more civilized and refined area where Willis lives, then it’s still almost an hour of driving to the “big” cities of our area. I haven’t tried it, but I doubt my bicycle will pull the trailer I fill with ice chests to contain a month’s worth of frozen foods, plus other groceries and shopping items (like a 30-foot extension ladder). Our almost non-existent public transportation won’t tow my trailer either.
When we shop locally it’s a hilly five-mile trip to get groceries, mail, newspaper, and hardware, and even though we walk/jog/bike/swim five miles or more daily, we need our car to do the heavy hauling.
The good old days where I live were not any better. Les than 100 years ago, a ship came every Wednesday from San Francisco to carry supplies and passengers. Families living in the area would leave their homes in their wagons drawn by horses on Tuesday on a 20-mile journey to meet the ship on Wednesday, then immediately begin their homeward journey as soon as their business was complete.
John, all of your comments display an either natural or willful ignorance of the variety of life circumstances that are well known to most Americans, and to informed citizens of the world. To reduce your ignorance, take your bicycle to the Oregon-California border and peddle south on Highway 1. When you finally arrive at San Francisco, you should be ready for the real America you will find starting at Fargo, North Dakota and traveling any direction thence. Happy commuting!
Rod Everson says:
July 10, 2013 at 7:24 am
You seem to be confusing two things. The first one is whether fuel prices are inversely correlated to fuel use.
The other is whether Figure 1 reveals that relationship.
The first is true.
The second one, not true, because they have not controlled for a huge variable, which is the population density. The denser the population, the less you have to drive. As a result, all that graph 1 has shown is that it’s farther between things in the US and similar countries, so people drive more.
w.
interesting how some still try to rationalize taxing carbon …gas and diesel.
HOW has the government taking money from productive initiatives ever created a positive equal result for society. Taxes are never good, at best a necessary evil.
Boiled down it is just taking from one person to give to another …by force. How people can rationalize that is why we are in the mess we are in.
Willis says:
…Now please, folks, don’t insult my intelligence by claiming that it’s OK to harm the poor because of that well-worn fantasy, the fabulous claim that wealth redistribution will make it all OK. It won’t. Anyone who believes it will make it all OK has not spent enough time around government programs….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Amen to that Laws and regulations nowadays are longer than ever because length is needed to specify how people will be treated unequally…. By making economic rules dependent on discretion, our bipartisan ruling class teaches that prosperity is to be bought with the coin of political support. Any wonder why Academia is now sitting eagerly at the govenment’s feet waiting for another tidbit?
Don’t believe that? Then just ask Archer Daniels Midland Co., one of the all time biggest campaign contributors to both the republicans and democrats..
This corporate/politician old boys club has increasingly diverted the money from the wallets of the poor and middle class into that of the wealthy/ well-connected. GRAPH: Federal receipts by source One of the nasty little bait-n-switch tactics is telling workers that the employer “Pays Half” the payroll tax. From the point of view of the employer it is part of your wages (along with unemployment insurance) If he fires you or better yet replaces you with a ‘contract’ worker most of that cost goes away so it is all considered part of the cost of labor and the higher the taxes and other benefits the less take home pay you get to keep.
For more independent confirmation of how voters are bamboozled and then ripped off, there is the IMF Report
A carbon tax has never ever been about CO2 or global warming. It is an alternate method of collecting taxes and gaining more control over people. The problem big corporations/big government has is controlling the underground economy. millions of Americans exist in an underground economy that has ballooned to $2 trillion annually…. Americans who are increasingly taking jobs that pay “under the table” either because nothing else is available or they need a second source of income to make ends meet….
The Obamacare law had a provision aimed at the underground economy The provision calls for all businesses to file 1099 forms with the IRS for all transactions with other businesses over $600. This new requirement will force businesses to divert scarce resources to complying with additional bureaucratic red tape. It was finally killed no doubt because big businesses like Walmart/Sam’s club, Loews/Home Depot and the oil companies who sell to small businesses screamed about the additional red tape.
If you scrape away all the rhetoric and hand waving and screaming, Global Warming ===> Agenda21 ====> ‘Sustainability’ =====> Transit Villages. (The newest version of closed cities/company towns) It is and never has been about the environment. It is all about corralling people into small areas so they can be efficiently controlled and milked of their labor/wealth. If you can no longer afford to own property or travel if you can not own your own business then you are a serf.
You can see it at Transition Network: …whose role is to inspire, encourage, connect, support and train communities as they self-organise around the Transition model, creating initiatives that rebuild resilience and reduce CO2 emissions. TRAIN COMMUNITIES??? We now have to be trained to be good little serfs?
Mortgage foreclosures, a carbon tax and sky-rocketing energy costs is the easiest way to force people out of the uncontrollable rural and suburban areas into cities. Straight from the US government:
And the US is busy implementing the infrastructure:
ICLEI: Sustainability Accelerated – Connect with ICLEI and our network of cities, towns & counties to reach your sustainability goals. “45 top mayors and county leaders pledge action on extreme weather and climate, as the Resilient Communities of America campaign is formally launched in Washington”
NMHC: Green Practices/Sustainability “Apartments are the core of any sustainability strategy. They are more resource- and energy-efficient than other types of residential development because their concentrated infrastructure conserves materials and community services. As part of an infill or mixed-use development, apartments create communities where people live, work, and play with less dependence on cars. This reduces the consumption of fossil fuels and their carbon emissions”
The “micro-unit” mini-apartment is coming to New York City
San Francisco considers allowing nation’s tiniest micro-apartments: At a minimum 150 square feet of living space — 220 when you add the bathroom, kitchen and closet — the proposed residences are being hailed as a pivotal option for singles.
California Declares War on Suburbia – Wall Street Journal
L.A. County’s Private Property War
Willis, your research just adds to the mounting evidence that this has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or climate and everything to do with raping the little guy.
Gary Pearse says:
July 10, 2013 at 8:01 am
Thanks, Gary. It’s an analysis I’m very proud of, as I’ve never seen any like it, and because the two variables (GDP and fuel cost) work so clearly and intuitively to explain the miles driven.
So I’ve been a bit surprised to see folks concentrating on side issues, like the first graph. The meat, as you point out, is in the later analysis, not the first graph, but in the analysis of how many miles Americans drive.
w.
Steve Reynolds says:
July 10, 2013 at 8:57 am
Oh, right, the mythical payroll tax reduction … as an advocate of that, I’m sure you can explain how that helps the unemployed guy sleeping in his car and looking for work?
What’s that? It doesn’t help him?
Then how in the hell can you call it “revenue neutral” with a straight face?
Re-read the section I wrote above about your “revenue neutral” nonsense. I said:
Come back when you’ve solved those problems, and then we can discuss “revenue neutral” solutions. Until then, you’re just waving your hands and painting pretty word pictures.
w.
Thank you for a very informative article, Willis, but I miss one point. I would assume that higher gas prices do not only affect how much we drive but I would also expect that it affect what kind of cars we buy.
I would expect that people buy smaller and more energy efficient cars when gas prices go up. At least I do that. If you take that into account we may save considerably more than 1% for every 25 cent per gallon.
I’m not saying that a carbon tax is good; I only say that you do not have the whole picture.
Willis,
All extrapolations break down at some point. Obviously if GDP increased by a factor of 10 we wouldn’t expect people to drive 100,000 miles per year (273 miles or ~5 hours per day). However, miles traveled (including plane trips) might jump into that range. So I have two questions:
1) Have you considered adding miles traveled by means other than automobile? A mediocre first approximation for air travel cost could be jet fuel price
2) How far out do you think the results from the current analysis might apply? 15k miles, 20k?
“John says:
July 10, 2013 at 8:22 am
For example woman in Africa often spend much time collecting firewood, but solar panels would do the same trick, but they just don’t have money to buy it. It is question of luck of capital, because if they had it, they wouldn’t walk at all.”
Oh dear! LACK (Luck) of capitol isn’t a problem. The COST of solar (Not that you would actually be able to cook doro wat, in Ethiopia, for instance) is prohibitive, and does not work well at night or if you saw a “kitchen” there. THAT IS WHY trees are cut down for wood burning and cooking!
[…] This is one of the many reason why energy taxes are so regressive—because for the poor, fixed costs for everything squeeze them all the time, not just fixed fuel costs but also the other bills they have to pay every month. […]
Not so Willis. Here in the UK, the number of households living in ‘Fuel Poverty’ has decreased quite dramatically
Patrick,
Women in Africa use wood for burning and cooking because of a lack of infrastructure. The lack of infrastructure is directly tied to corruption and violence. If I have $1B I want to invest in building an oil refinery would I build it in Nigeria? Not only are there attacks against infrastructure investments there, there is also the stark possibility that one day in the not too distant future the entire facility can be confiscated by the government.
These differences mean the $1B would generate a better return on investment building expensive low return (or possibly even negative depending on future electricity prices) solar in the US than for potentially high return in a violent corrupt country.
Willis,
Who cares if the carbon tax hurts the poor? They will just need more government programs to help them. See, this has nothing to do with carbon or the environment. It’s about a political agenda.
…“revenue neutral” solutions.
I always hated this term. The government never asked if a tax increase would be revenue neutral to my net household income. It also seems to suggest that the money belongs to the government and they can trade this revenue for that revenue as they see fit.
Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
July 10, 2013 at 10:06 am
I would expect that people buy smaller and more energy efficient cars when gas prices go up. At least I do that. If you take that into account we may save considerably more than 1% for every 25 cent per gallon.
People base their car-buying decisions on many factors, fuel-economy being just one. There are issues of how many vehicle occupants you expect to have, and how much stuff you may need to carry, even if just on occasion. An additional consideration is safety.
The type of car one buys even seems to be indicative of the personality type of the buyer. I think the Magliozzi brothers came up with that.
John says, “I didn’t know that anybody needs a car to survive. I wonder how people survived 100 years ago. ”
100 years ago things were different. Not long ago I lived about 20 miles from a grocery. Could I survive by riding a bicycle to the store? I suppose. But I’d probably need to take a day off work to do it, but that’s a moot point, since my job was 35 miles from home. Could I have gotten a job closer? Maybe, but it wouldn’t have paid half. My next door neighbors, who were in their 60’s and 70s probably would not be able to obtain enough food to eat, so they probably would not have survived, except for the kindness of others (e.g., me) who would have helped them.
For work, I /need/ a car. My job doesn’t happen without one. 100 years ago my job didn’t exist. Things change.
Interesting note on fixed costs that I learned in graduate accounting: “In the long term, all costs are variable.” We sold the house and moved and now there is a grocery a mile away. But work is still 20. If the price of gas doubles I’m not going to drive appreciably less. That 100 miles per 25 cents thing makes sense intuitively. We combine trips more than we used to.
Chad B. says:
July 10, 2013 at 7:28 am
Watchman is right about the population density issue. If you have a big country but everyone lives in a few small spots the population density of the country will be low, but the average person will live in a high density area.
———————————————–
Fair point, but the thing is that even in sparsely populated countries like Australia, people (especially those with kids) want a house and backyard space of their own. That means that Australia’s biggest city (Sydney) continues to grow and join up to satellite towns and villages. You can see it when you fly in.
Most people are still out of walking range of shops, medical services, their job etc.But a car puts them within easy range of all of the above.
None of this is remotely ‘high density.’
Excellent, Willis, but I would add one thing regarding the poor mother scratching by with no optional miles driven – not only will her commute costs go up, but so will the cost of everything else that moves by motor fuel. So she will get screwed on not only her gasoline bill, but her electric bill, her food bill and the cost of everything else she needs to provide for her kids.
Der Fuehrer speaks so glibly and smarmily about “saving the planet for our grandchildren,” but there are a lot of grandmothers – especially black grandmothers – trying to raise their grandkids on low incomes here, today, right now who are in exactly the same fix as the mother you mention.
Let’s also not forget the thousands of poor people MURDERED by carbon taxes in Europe, because they couldn’t afford to heat their homes during several of the most severe winters since 1850.
Carbon taxes, and the advocacy thereof, are CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, and the institutors of and advocates for them should be punished accordingly.
@mkelly –
There is no such thing as a “revenue neutral” tax. Even if the tax is fully refundable to its payers, there is still the cost of administering it – which, given the usual propensities of bureaucracies to fatten themselves, will likely run to a substantial fraction of the tax collected – and this excess has to come out of the taxpayers’ hide somewhere else.
@more soylent green –
Yes, the object is to force poor people into complete government dependency – when the poor are starving, they must then go to the government for handouts in return for voting again for the scum that screwed them over in the first place. A dirty business to be sure.
Johanna,
I completely agree with you. What I was suggesting is that the population density of Maine, which is the least urban state in the US, should be treated differently than New York where almost half the population lives in a single city. The average density of New York state is far far different than the population density where the average New Yorker lives, and that difference will be much bigger than for Maine. Australia (which I believe is mostly uninhabited – correct me if I am wrong) will have an even more pronounced effect. That was why I suggested something like the average population density around each citizen (within some given radius – I suggested 5 miles).
This would treat Sydney more like Houston than the Outback, and neither would be treated like Manhattan. New York state and Florida have similar population density over the full state, but Miami is far different from Manhattan.
[…] Now, the “carbon taxes” I’ve seen discussed are on the order of $20-$30 per tonne of CO2. And by coincidence, $28 per tonne of CO2 emitted is equal to twenty-five cents per gallon of gasoline. So if a $28/tonne carbon tax is imposed on gasoline, how much less might Americans drive?[…]
And by coincidence, £16 ($25) is the carbon floor price set in the UK. The problem, outside the realm of motor fuel, is the tax applies to pretty much every activity. I’m struggling to think of anything that will be exempt from such a tax.
I Always have a good laugh at those ‘polluter must pay’ comments. No, the end consumer will pay. And, as you have pointed out frequently, those living ‘hand to mouth’ will shoulder the largest burden (often those who buy the ‘polluter must pay’ line).
My view is that our (Western) politicians realised a long time ago that any talk of increased income tax would result in electoral failure but one can always make up the revenue shortfall by getting a bunch of idiots to support ‘evil must pay’ type taxes. Carbon being the latest. Water next and before you know it we will be taxing sunlight and hence the whole planetary food chain.
@Chad B –
You make an interesting point that ties in with the whole misconcept of wealth redistribution. The only redistribution that ever really occurs is from poorer to richer. If Americans are subject to a wealth transfer tax (for lack of a better name for it) and those monies are then paid over to poor countries’ governments, they will wind up in the hands of a very few kleptocrats infinitely richer than the American taxpayers paying that wealth transfer tax.
This is little different from the sort of wealth redistribution effected by subsidies for wind power and electric cars – der Fuehrer’s crony capitalists make big bucks at the expense of low- and middle-income people, and rich celebrities get to buy their toys (electric cars) at prices which are reduced by taxpayer subsidies but still too high for average people – and the price reduction comes out of the nhides of those low- and middle-income taxpayers. Thus, Ms. Janeelia Thomas, black, 46, earning $31,200 a year as a grocery clerk, raising three grandkids in a tough southside Chicago neighborhood, helps very white Justin Beaver and Leonardo di Caprio buy their $100,000 electric cars (which actually probably cost $250,000 to make). (Ms. Thomas may not be paying any income tax, but her other taxes still help support this injustice. Almost any tax effectively redistributes wealth upwards.)
Corruption is a hellacious problem in third world countries that will inevitably defeat the advertised (not necessarily the real!) purposes of such wealth redistribution schemes. These countries will only be lifted out of poverty by self-initiated development of their cheap, i.e., fossil fuel, energy resources – exactly what der Fuehrer is telling them NOT to do. (Do you believe the man’s effrontery telling poor people in Soweto that they should never aspire to driving an SUV?)
Willis Eschenbach says:
July 10, 2013 at 9:38 am
John says:
July 10, 2013 at 6:53 am
I just can’t see how it relates to those who drive a car, because they can’t be poor when they can afford to have a car even a 20 year’s old one.
John, that’s either absolutely hilarious or destructively clueless, I can’t figure out which.
Willis: I think that John is TOTALLY unfamiliar with Western economy & culture, mostly because things like cars in Europe are considered luxury items and so he can’t possibly imagine an economy/culture where almost everyone has at least one and usually several vehicles. The problem is that the progressives want to force us into living like Europeans (as pointed out in previous comments) as long as THEY don’t have to.
However I too have an 18 year old car that I consider (personal choice) worth keeping up as long as I can keep it running (I will call it quits if the engine or auto transmission has a hard failure). Since I know how, repairing/maintaining it is way cheaper than buying a newer one. However I do wish that I still had the now 43 year old 1970 Dodge Charger RT that I use to own!
Patrick says: @ur momisugly July 10, 2013 at 10:18 am
“John says: @ur momisugly July 10, 2013 at 8:22 am
For example woman in Africa often spend much time collecting firewood,….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Check out Chiefio’s comment on that problem at Leucaena leucocephala… a reasonable solution was found in the 1970’s but it doesn’t put $$$$ into the pockets of the ‘bloatocrats’ (love the word Willis) or into corporations.
Instead we get GMO seed and the following train of actions to make sure ALL farmers have to pay the big ag corporations a tithe.
Interesting then that a contributor to the FAO’s Forum, Professor El-Tayeb, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Industrial Biotechnology at Cairo University commented that: “..currently available (GMO’s) mostly contribute negatively to poverty alleviation and food security – and positively to the stock market.” http://www.warmwell.com/gm.html
1961 PVP is the Plant Variety Protection: The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants: Gave seed companies a monopoly on only the commercial multiplication and the marketing of seeds. Farmers remained free to save seed from their own harvest to plant in the following year, and other breeders could freely use any variety, protected or not, to develop a new one. click
1991 PVP monopoly has applied to seed multiplication and also to the harvest and sometimes the final product as well. Previously unlimited right of farmers to save seed for the following year’s planting has been changed into an optional exception. Only if national government allows, can farm-saved seed still be used, and a royalty has to be paid to the seed company even for seeds grown on-farm. click
December 2006 “In the EU, there is now a list of ‘official’ vegetable varieties. Seed that is not on the list cannot be ‘sold’ to the ‘public’ To keep something on the list costs thousands of pounds each year…Hundreds of thousands of old heirloom varieties (the results of about eleven thousand years of plant breeding by our ancestors) are being lost forever . click & click & click
THE UNITED NATIONS SUPPORTS THIS
FAO is supporting harmonization of seed rules and regulations in Africa and Central Asia in order to stimulate the development of a vibrant seed industry”…An effective seed regulation harmonization process involves dialogue amongst all relevant stakeholders from both private and public sectors. Seed quality assurance, variety release, plant variety protection, biosafety, plant quarantine and phytosanitary issues are among the major technical areas of a regional harmonized seed system. The key to a successful seed regulation harmonization is a strong political will of the governments involved…” click
(Links are several years old so may not work)
John says:
July 10, 2013 at 2:12 am
I’m sorry, but this article is even more misleading to ones which have the author refers in the beginning…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When I lived in the Boston MA area I used a bike and commuter rail to commute. The use of rail in high density areas like Boston, NYC, Washington DC makes sense.
However I now live 20 miles (32 km) from ANY type of village or store and my nearest neighbor is a 1/2 mile away.
What I said in my first comment is the only way an EU style rail system will work. Move everyone out of the country/suburbia into high population density Transit Villages and take away their transportation and right to own land.
Of course this is just a rehash of feudal fiefdoms and robber baron company towns but that won’t stop the herd of sheeple following pied pipers like Hansen and Al Gore.
“Chad B. says:
July 10, 2013 at 10:27 am”
Yes, I know this. My wife is African!
You make an interesting point that ties in with the whole misconcept of wealth redistribution. The only redistribution that ever really occurs is from poorer to richer.
Misconception in the sense that the whole ‘wealth redistribution’ outlook relies upon the view that ‘wealth’ is a constant. The whole history of the industrial revolution proves that ‘wealth’ is not a constant. You have time to spend at a keyboard responding to a WUWT post. Why are you not currently scrounging for food, shelter and fuel like a typical Ethiopian today (or an unemployed English Cotton worker in 1863)?