[Arthur75]

On Schlesinger's last ASPO keynote, politics, witty sayings, and the US gas tax level

Hello everybody

So having read and viewed Schlesinger's keynote "the peak oil debate is over" at last ASPO conference, below a few thoughts or remarks about it, access to the text and video :
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2 ... ebate-over

My first reaction was "hey, this was a rather good talk, clear, concise, and to the point !". After all on this forum, not so long ago you could read things like "do you think Obama knows about peak oil ?" "not sure but for sure Chu knows about it", and things like that. Seems to me that at this point in time, it is rather clear that anybody looking at energy issues knows about it.

But then you have in this talk :
"Can the political order face up to the challenge? There is no reason for optimism."
And here, and in a way as a second reaction, my thoughts were "oh yeah, he managed to stick his "witty saying" in there". To provide some background, I'm French, and there is to me clearly an "Anglo saxon" tradition that you should stick a few "witty sayings" or "humor lines" in your presentations. Not saying it doesn't exist in France (or that it is "bad") but it for sure is less stereotyped in French. And then I asked myself, what would an equivalent person would have said in a French context ?
Because there is a lot in the above sentence, "political order" sounds like a seperate class of people "the politicians" "TPTB", etc, the fact that there is no reason for optimism could be understood as "they are incapable anyway, won't do anything", in the end you sense the usual "disgust for politics" in general, or something like that.
But then who is Schlesinger ? Ok he is probably more of a bureaucrat than a politician, but has been a minister, and has clearly been part of the "political world".
Moreover, whenever you speak or express an opinion, you ARE doing politics and are taking a politician stance.
So isn't it a bit easy to say "politicians won't do anything" without suggesting any economical/political measure that could be taken ? Without talking considering that you are de facto in the "political game" ? For sure politicians aren't technicians, and a political solution or decision won't be the invention of a new energy source, you have to do with what you have.
And when lookiing at the related figures, what do you see ?

Basically you see this :


And you also see this :


Now don't you think that there is quite a bit of fat in the US conumption that could be easily taken away ? And that a few percent in US consumption decrease quickly translate to something noticable due to its current level ?

And how to achieve this ? Raising fuel taxation appears like an esay way to do it, no ? Maybe with part of it directly redistributed as proposed by James Hansen .

A tax doesn't change a country GDP
A tax should be seen as an accelerator of change : if there is a "stable" solution not based on so much fossile fuel as today, a tax on fossile fuel will push towards it.
We don't need to know the solution for the tax to push towards it, this is a key aspect !
Basically it just pushes investment decisions in the right direction (by changing the cost curves as an economist such as Jeff Rubin would be saying)

So who would be in favor of a $1 or $2 a gallon tax on gas starting right now here ? In general your view about this aspect ?
(and I can also sense a time when many people in the world could start saying : Hey what are you doing ? Don't you think 20 or 25% of world consumption is a bit much for you, can't you do something about it ?)

[Tanada]

And how to achieve this ? Raising fuel taxation appears like an easy way to do it, no ? Maybe with part of it directly redistributed as proposed by James Hansen .

A tax doesn't change a country GDP
A tax should be seen as an accelerator of change : if there is a "stable" solution not based on so much fossil fuel as today, a tax on fossil fuel will push towards it.
We don't need to know the solution for the tax to push towards it, this is a key aspect !
Basically it just pushes investment decisions in the right direction (by changing the cost curves as an economist such as Jeff Rubin would be saying)

So who would be in favor of a $1 or $2 a gallon tax on gas starting right now here ? In general your view about this aspect ?

A tax doesn't change a countries GDP? So you believe the idiots, sorry the misinformed corrupt politicians will do a better job with money taken as a tax and squandered than the average citizen? The same people in charge decade after decade who can't balance a budget to save their souls can spend money in a way that makes more sense? Is that really what you believe or are you just saying it to get attention?

As for a gasoline tax, a very gradual onset tax where the price increases a penny per gallon every month for a decade would be a good thing, it would slowly ramp up costs and decrease demand so that average people get a strong steady price signal to conserve and buy more efficient vehicles. A sudden onset tax on the other hand would shoot the economy straight in the head with a howitzer. The problem is the gradual increase needed to be enacted in 1993 when President Clinton took office, we would be living in a very different world today if they had done that. You can't make up for lost time and I think it is likely peak is behind us now.

[Arthur75]

A tax doesn't change a countries GDP? So you believe the idiots, sorry the misinformed corrupt politicians will do a better job with money taken as a tax and squandered than the average citizen? The same people in charge decade after decade who can't balance a budget to save their souls can spend money in a way that makes more sense? Is that really what you believe or are you just saying it to get attention?

As for a gasoline tax, a very gradual onset tax where the price increases a penny per gallon every month for a decade would be a good thing, it would slowly ramp up costs and decrease demand so that average people get a strong steady price signal to conserve and buy more efficient vehicles. A sudden onset tax on the other hand would shoot the economy straight in the head with a howitzer. The problem is the gradual increase needed to be enacted in 1993 when President Clinton took office, we would be living in a very different world today if they had done that. You can't make up for lost time and I think it is likely peak is behind us now.

Yes, strictly speaking, a tax indeed doesn't change a country GDP, the efficiency of the government money spending is a totally different subject. But let's suppose you replace some current tax revenues by some gas tax revenues : you don't change the government budget (and spending efficiency), and you don't change either the overall citizens revenue, but you put some pressure on vehicules investment decisions (for instance).

As to the "it is to late" aspect, it is a false argument, even after the peak, accelerating change in investments decisons makes perfect sense. Saying the contrary would just point to the fact that the US has "given up", is it what you think ?

And once again, at 20 millions barrels a day, and comparing per capita consumption to western Europe, it is totally clear that there is quite a big amount of "fat" that can easily be taken away from current US consumption without affecting living standards in a major way.
In fact from your message, we just go back to the "politics is rotten in any case" viewpoint , but aren't we all "political animal" as Aristotle was saying ?
Why this disdain on principle ?

I'm always suprised to hear "communities this" "communities that" on this forum or others, but then at the same time "stupid and corrupt politicians", "me I'm not a politician(god forbid)", etc , isn't politics the basis of any "community" ?

[mos6507]

A big reason why we have career politicians is that those who are upset about the status quo would never think of running for elected office. They look at politicians as a separate class of people, let alone a separate species (due to the dehumanization that we engage in).

It's the kind of job that somebody's got to do, but few have the wherewithal to do it, because of the immense damage it does to your ego to be under the microscope 24/7.

Yet if there is anything that the tea party candidates are showing is that the barrier of entry into politics isn't quite so high as you think. It's possible to be a complete moron or fruitcake and ride a wave of guns, God, and populism into office.

Indeed, the fact that morons and fruitcakes can make it into office tells us that politics is NOT solely driven by some illuminaughties, but that in many cases we get the government we deserve.

For instance, we can't even seem to get rid of the tax breaks for the wealthy, and you have ads like this related to cap & trade. (I wonder what that guy from France thinks of that ad.) So what are the odds we would ever use the tax system to wean ourselves off of oil? It's not going to happen because Big Oil won't let it happen. It won't happen because the voting base won't let it happen.

[Arthur75]

Yet if there is anything that the tea party candidates are showing is that the barrier of entry into politics isn't quite so high as you think. It's possible to be a complete moron or fruitcake and ride a wave of guns, God, and populism into office.

Indeed, the fact that morons and fruitcakes can make it into office tells us that politics is NOT solely driven by some illuminaughties, but that in many cases we get the government we deserve.

Fully agree on this, and populist politicians exist (and have existed) everywhere (for instance in France, the name of one of them, Pierre Poujade, is now used as a synonym for populism, as Poujadism : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Poujade , and his main line was also tax protest)

you have ads like this related to cap & trade[/url]. (I wonder what that guy from France thinks of that ad.) So what are the odds we would ever use the tax system to wean ourselves off of oil? It's not going to happen because Big Oil won't let it happen. It won't happen because the voting base won't let it happen.

Not sure who you are refering to , but as for me looking at this ad, first there is the ritual aspect of the "I am such and such and I approve this message" sentence thing, which sounds a bit strange , then of course some kind of violent and indeed populist aspect, however in the end about cap and trade, I think I'm fully in line with James Hansen and think it is really a bad system compared to a simple plain tax :

The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public's near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising. The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts.

No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public.

http://www.grist.org/article/Dear-Barack-and-Michelle/

cap and trade is very "CO2" oriented compared to resource shortages oriented (and in fact BAU oriented "ok today the machine is a bit dirty, let's just clean it a bit and everything will be fine"), for instance stuff like CCS (which I think is totally stupid considering 30% at least loss in efficiency) make sense for cap and trade, but not at all with a straight tax, and cap and trade is very prone to all kind of cheating and other kick backs.

There are three main ways to influence fossile fuels consumptions :

1) straight taxes on resources (raw material) as defined above
2) regulations (such as on buildings quality, appliances efficiency, etc)
3) subsidies on solutions defined as "good" (through feed in tariff for PV or wind for instance)

And then of course a fourth one should be added regarding the government (or common good) spending and investment strategy (building trains vs roads and things like that)

But amongst the 3 ones above, affecting citizens directly, seems to me 1 and 2 should have the priority, and 1 above 2.

As to :

It's not going to happen because Big Oil won't let it happen. It won't happen because the voting base won't let it happen.

About big oil, I think it is primarily companies (people) and that they are as scared as anybody about the system crashing, some of them are already clearly hinting at the need to reduce consumption (the stuff they are selling is clearly valuable in any case, don't see why they would be overly against it). As to the voting base, first, again consider the current situation :
(from : http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_g ... ine-prices )

country gallon price in $
UK $7.25
NL $6.38
FR $6.12
DE $5.63
JP $6.57
US $2.91

Also consider the increase in tax that for instance Turkey went through from above pic (tried to find stuff on how it happened, didn't find anything)
But seems to me that considering that there are still quite a few sensible people in the US (I hope !), why couldn't a politician or a politicial movement or mix of some convey the message in a clear way, and manage to have it go through ? Really don't see why ?! And again, please realize that even a $2 tax a gallon would still make the US having the cheapest fuel of above countries.

[Ludi]

Fully agree on this, and populist politicians exist (and have existed) everywhere (for instance in France, the name of one of them, Pierre Poujade, is now used as a synonym for populism, as Poujadism : , and his main line was also tax protest)

In the US, this kind of "populism" doesn't make a lick of sense, because the Tea Party are protesting taxes for the wealthy, when the vast majority of Tea Party are not wealthy and will never be wealthy, and probably don't pay substantial taxes! It's idiotic!

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/04/1 ... tea-party/

[Arthur75]

But isn't the Tea party movement somehow also based on the defense of the "mom and pop" type of business ?
Otherwise interesting link and inversion indeed !

[mos6507]

about cap and trade, I think I'm fully in line with James Hansen and think it is really a bad system compared to a simple plain tax

The guy shot a hole through cap and trade not because he thought it was the wrong tool to attack global warming.

He shot a hole through cap and trade because HE'S A GLOBAL WARMING DENIER (which makes sense, living in a coal state) who would not support any legislation to attack AGW.

Indeed the republicans have now vowed to attack the environmental regulations as soon they seize power.

This is our democracy at work. We are getting the government we deserve.

Looking at the political landscape as an environmentalist is to look at things as a minority. You can't make any proposals without facing the fact that the voting public is against you at every turn. Instead, what we get are endless doctor's prescriptions for what to do which have a snowball's chance of hell of making it to implementation. No illuminaughties necessary to sabotage these plans. Just an unwilling voting public who to date continue to not be swayed by the preponderance of evidence that BAU is unsustainable.

The public will support the tax...

They will not support anything with the word "tax" in it.

A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend.

The american way of life is not negotiable.

The american people don't want to be punished for consumption, especially not to address problems they don't even believe.

And again, please realize that even a $2 tax a gallon would still make the US having the cheapest fuel of above countries.

The US has to have the cheapest fuel in order to maintain a way of life that is built upon the assumption of the fuel being cheap. If that fuel were as expensive as it is in Europe, there would be a major crisis here, as we saw just a glimmer of in the summer of 2008.

The only politically feasible way to significantly reduce fossil fuel use is to let peak oil run its course.

[Arthur75]

Ok mos, think I understand your point of view, however wouldn't be as pessimistic as yourself, not necessarily regarding the future, but regarding the US citizens in general. For instance on the Oil drum, there are several people who present themselves as Republicans and that would indeed be in favor of a gas tax (forgot the login names right now but could find it back, oldfarmermac for instance is one of them I think).
And I am not an AGW denier at all, but I think the tremendous deficit in communication with repesct to CO2/AGW compared to peak oil/ ressource shortages really had very detrimental effects. It is easier to communicate on CO2 AGW : "today's our ways are a bit dirty, so we have to add up some cleaning measures and everything will be fine", communicating on peak oil/ resource shortages is much more difficult as it always points to the finite aspect of things and irreversible aspects of consumption. But at the same time it is also much more directly understandable and intuitive, no complicated expertise required on climatology, respective radiative forcing characteristics of different gases, CO2 sources and sinks, or things like that. Just basic reason and logic are required.
Moreover once you get it, you also get the criticality and survival aspect of it, so it seems to me that anybody, independantly of their political orientation, can grasp the urgency of it, and the fact that a tax on gas for instance is a good way to push the cars being bought in the US in the right direction. That is to push the USA itself in the right direction.

About "They will not support anything with the word "tax" in it." can believe that (and in any case a tax never sounds as a "dreamy" measure that's for sure), but still hope you are wrong, and somehow wouldn't be surprised if a Republican could manage to put the tax more easily than a democrat !

But as to yourself ? You didn't answer the initial question, would you be a in favor aof such a tax ?

[dinopello]

I don't know the best specifics, but taxing energy and consumption and using the money to fund programs related to low-energy infrastructure and alternative energy technologies and related stuff would be a great idea. I can't see it happening in any major or sustained way in the US.

If anything, the populist idea that will be put forth when energy and food prices go into their next orbital launch phase is to repeal all energy taxation.

[Pops]

I hate to sound defeatist but I agree there is little hope of preemptively raising the gasoline tax in the US - even while I think it would be the best preparation for PO on the macro basis.


But never fear, the OPEC/Russian Stupid tax on the other hand will only continue to increase and wean us of our dependence! Their governments won't spend our tax dollars with our best interest in mind but that's OK at least those thieving US politicians won't have a hand in it!

The whole tax thing amazes me, the US ranks 26 of 30 OECD countries in taxes per GDP and all we ever hear is whining about how the evil government is taking our money and actually spending it on someone else! So the politicians now say "read my lips" out of one side of their necks and "I promise you dis, dat, and the other ting" out of the other.

Leave energy policy to OPEC.

[gollum]

Rather than a flat amount per gallon, or a percentage I'd like to have seen a floor on fuel prices in the form of a tax when fuel got down to a predetermined price. The funds could have been used to blunt the impacts of peak oil. Unfortunately such a thing is not possible under republicans, and democrats while perhaps willing to pass such a tax would have promptly pissed the money away on things like teaching people in Africa how to wash their genitals.

[Arthur75]

Such taxes, and it is the way they are in most countries I think, must for sure be "volume based", and not "percentage on price based" and this has the added benefit of lowering the impact of the raw material price variation on the final product price variation.

As to how the money is spent by the government, don't really grasp the argument, not saying that it shouldn't be well spent of course, but don't see why the issue should be adressed specificllay for a given tax, the government needs a budget no ? From there there are incomes and spending ...
Part of it can also be resdistributed (on an equal share of the revenue and per capita basis as proposed by James Hansen, was also planned for part of the "carbon tax" in France that finally never got set up)

[Ludi]

But isn't the Tea party movement somehow also based on the defense of the "mom and pop" type of business ?

Where's any evidence of that? "Mom and Pop" businesses are not threatened by any Democratic income tax plan. Most Mom and Pop businesses earn far below the level that would experience an increase in personal income taxes under the Democratic plan. This is another area where Tea Party are completely confused. They think most small businesses earn enough to be in the top tax bracket, which is false. Most earn less, even much less than that. Most Mom and Pop businesses would have gotten a tax break this past year with the "Making Work Pay" initiative. Obama's administration gives these people hundreds of dollars in tax refunds and they bitch about him raising their taxes.

<<<< owns a Mom and Pop business

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blo ... arty-crowd

[mos6507]

But as to yourself ? You didn't answer the initial question, would you be a in favor of such a tax ?

Sure.

[Pops]

Really good P.

Let me emphasize your two key points:
The Globe is Specialized
We are the Typing Pool

The best outcome is that works for everyone.

[Pops]

Oh yea, I forgot the part about the 32.8 miles the average American stenographer drives per day....

[dinopello]

Check out the full blueprint from the T4 folks

I went to many of the early meetings of this group. They are an impressive bunch that know how to form coalitions, work legistlation and generally push an agenda. And, their agenda, IMO would be good for America. On the last page of the blueprint, it has some funding sources. Several include taxes on motor fuels. I think if/when an agenda like this gets to a vote, all someone has to do to torpedo it is raise the idea of increased taxes on gas. That's why its so hard to do anything.