Every so often a comment left in response to one of mine on another blog nettles me and I respond in way that’s somewhat less temperate than I’d prefer. Today, on a post about the irrationality of energy independence as a national goal (another subject that nettles me, albeit not irrationally), here’s part of a comment in response to one of mine that elicited a somewhat sharp response from me:
And, no, don’t give me the nonsense about population density. Most of us don’t ever drive in places like Montana – we go to/from work in metropolitan areas which could be and in many cases are no more disperse than the WE model.
I hadn’t raised any points about population density as a justification for America’s oil consumption but I think that there’s a pretty fair argument to be made along those lines and you don’t need to go as far as Montana to make.
The reality of life in the United States is that, once you get out of the northeast, and, especially, south of the Mason-Dixon line or west of the Alleghenies, the population density of the United States is much, much lower than that of European countries. Here’s a few representative population densities of European countries and U. S. states:
| Country/State | Population Density (per km) |
|---|---|
| Netherlands | 393 |
| Massachusetts | 313 |
| Germany | 231 |
| New York | 155 |
| France | 113 |
| Illinois | 86 |
| Spain | 85 |
| California | 83 |
| Virginia | 69 |
| Washington | 34 |
| Texas | 30 |
| Sweden | 20 |
| Colorado | 16 |
| Oregon | 14 |
| Russia | 9 |
| Montana | 2 |
All data derived from Wikipedia.
Perhaps what bothered me the most is the notion that every country needs to act the same, that the standards are the same for all, and that the differences among the circumstances that prevail in different countries don’t matter. Even the communist dictum of “to each according to his needs” doesn’t say that “all needs must be the same”.
Ah, but a lot of people who embraced climate change it’s a new religion, not a sensible question to discuss.
Actually I’m anti pollution and pro organic myself, but often end up aghast at their assumptions…
The one that really makes me boil is assuming “quaint” peasants who live in beautiful areas don’t want a choice to get an easier life. as my (Philippino) husband once told me: You can’t eat a pretty view….
I believe that what is being said here is that the USA is bound to use more oil (in particular, automotive fuels) because distances are greater; for example, you are probably going to have a longer drive to work than the average European.
OK as far as it goes. However, that does not explain why the average American car (or personal transport in general – apparently pickup trucks are popular) is so much higher in fuel consumption than the average European one. One would think that Americans would want to buy cars that are cheaper to run than the average European one, not more expensive.
The real explanation is that American fuel is much cheaper than in Europe. British gasoline is getting to around the $8/US gallon mark, so we use less – and gas guzzlers attract more car tax, as well.
A large increase (staged over several years, naturally, to avoid major disruption) in automotive fuel taxes in the US would inevitably lead to the buying of smaller and more fuel-efficient cars, and even if you don’t believe in AGW this would lead to lower oil prices and lower revenues for Dark Ages barbarians that want to kill you (and us in the UK, as well!) All this without any element of coercion.
Why won’t it happen? Simple – POLITICS. The US administration that brought this in wouldn’t get re-elected, because of its effect on votes in districts dependent on the oil business and because the oil companies would heavily fund the other side. And because Detroit doesn’t want to stop selling its gas-guzzling junk, so all the new cars would probably come from the Far East – at least until the Detroit dinosaurs went out of business and new companies sprang up in their place, causing job disruption in those areas as well.
The fact that the US would need to spend less money and American lives on killing terrorists in such a scenario doesn’t stack up very well against that. Simply put, no American politician (and very few others, to be fair) cares about soldiers’ lives and the taxpayers’ money, when spending less of both might involve him losing the chauffered limousines and helicopters.
First, I support a gasoline tax hike. Second, I don’t want you on my side Fletcher. You say “POLITICS†with such derision, overlooking the notion that there are people on the other side of the argument, not simply big bad oil and auto businesses.
Problem One: Gas taxes are regressive taxes that hurt the working class the most. Problem Two: Gas taxes are redistributive along political and geographical lines. Population density only tells a portion of the story. Even in dense areas people may commute for as many hours to their job as in a less dense area. Problem Three: Gas taxes are not considered family friendly. The people that tend to drive the biggest cars are soccer moms trying to haul large groups of kids to various activities. Problem Four: Gas taxes increase the price of food and other goods shipped by truck. Problem Five: During times of economic downturn, politicians of both parties have been known to intervene to lower gasoline costs. This is very popular. Problem Six: This country has developed for decades on the back of cheap gas; there is a substantial infrastructure dependent on it.
Ultimately, a gas tax hits that wide group of stakeholders the hardest, the people who vote.
I’ve supported higher gas taxes for 30 years, since the first time I visited Europe.
Higher gas taxes are unpalatable for all sorts of reasons, including the ones you’ve mentioned, PD. Another reason, I think, is that many people are convinced that revenues from any tax will merely be squandered.
That’s why I, in addition to favoring an increase in the tax on gas, also favor other measures which I think would meet with less resistance e.g. decoupling the gas tax from highway spending, ending ethanol subsidies, capping the home mortgage interest deduction, and so on.
PD Shaw:
Your problem 4 is interesting. Higher prices for truck-shipped goods? Then don’t use trucks! Ever hear of a thing called a “train”? And I believe the railway lines in most of the USA are still there, if grossly underused and starved of money for developing things like better signals.
Most goods don’t need fast delivery. A train is more efficient in fuel use (and labour, for that matter) than trucks by several orders of magnitude. It also uses far less land – although admittedly that isn’t much of a problem in most of the USA.
And if goods become more expensive, so what? Perhaps if food was more expensive then the average American wouldn’t be so fat. And if imported goods were more expensive, then the USA would have a better balance of payments.
As to your Problem Three: Large vehicles may be needed for some purposes. They don’t have to be enormously fuel-inefficient, though; there are quite a lot of “people-carriers” available that seat 7-8 in comfort and safety, and use much less fuel than 4x4s. In any case, are you really trying to say that 4x4s are primarily bought for this purpose? Rubbish. Most of them are bought to show off – certainly the ones in cities. And in any case, even conventional American cars are far bigger than European ones, with no benefits that I can see.
I live in the UK, which is extremely densely populated compared to the USA. I get rather annoyed when I see a 4×4 on the road, as for one they are far too big for our crowded streets and for another they are invariably driven by idiots with no regard whatsoever for other road users. There is one exception to this reaction; when the vehicle has a towbar. Why? Because this means that the vehicle is being used, at least occasionally, for a purpose for which it’s actually needed. Most of these vehicles don’t have one.
In any case, the problems caused by a fuel tax rise could be largely eliminated by doing it gradually. Vehicles don’t last for ever; neither do vehicle models. Gas is more expensive? Then when you buy a new car, you buy one that uses less of it. Simple.