Michael, actually our tax rate is very low compared to other wealthy industrialized western societies. Look at this article I found in the Seattle Times. It is really hard to argue with a straight face that America is taking just its fair share of the earth's resources, or that we could not do a lot better:
Opinion/Editorials : Tuesday, October 07, 1997
Global warming: driving to destruction
by Eldon Kenworthy
Special to The Seattle Times
AMERICANS know the price of many commodities, from a gallon
of milk to a gallon of gas, but few of us give a second thought to the
price we pay when we squander nature's precious resources.
Nature's resources, including breathable air, clean water,
dependable weather and stable water levels, are the most
over-used and under-valued commodities on earth. Mother Nature
gets no respect from the citizens of the United States, who
represent only 5 percent of the world's population but are
responsible for 23 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the
atmosphere. Our carbon dioxide emissions represent two-thirds of
the greenhouse gases now destabilizing the world's climate -
bringing about floods and droughts, blizzards and hurricanes. This
destabilization will result not in just the "warming trend" most
Americans have come to accept as the inevitable result of
greenhouse gasses, but rather drastic changes in where food will be
grown, which diseases will spread where, where certain species
will survive, and which low-lying cities will remain habitable. Hello,
Seattle . . .
More specifically, if nothing is done to counter this trend, the
Pacific Northwest could see its current average high temperature
increased 2 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2020 and 4.5 degrees
by the year 2050, according to a group of scientists and
government officials that met in Seattle this summer for a regional
climate-change conference. Seven such conferences, initiated by
the White House, were convened around the country, each in a
different region, each issuing reports after their two-day
workshops.
The experts who met in Seattle mid-July, using data generated by
the University of Washington, predicted that the Northwest's future
holds dryer summers and wetter winters, meaning less water for
hydropower electricity and irrigation during the summer months. In
addition, more smog can be expected, an increased spring runoff
west of the Cascades could mean more landslides and flooding,
and rising ocean levels could contaminate human drinking water
and certain animal habitats. Not a pretty picture.
Even so, the United States continues to increase its carbon
emissions - up 8 percent since 1990 - jeopardizing the very
services of nature that we depend on for survival, and for which we
refuse to pay. Americans use three times the gallons of gasoline per
person as Europeans do. Each tankful of gas sends 300-400
pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Yet, we fill up more
often now - and for what? The two top-selling vehicles last year
were pickups, each weighing more than two tons and getting less
than 17 miles per gallon. Gaining in popularity are minivans that get
only 18 miles per gallon. As Car and Driver (August 1997) reports,
"the vehicles we're driving today are 200-plus pounds heavier than
they used to be," compared to 1973, and each pound brings
decreased fuel efficiency. Meanwhile, Mercedes-Benz has
designed a safe city car that weighs 1,500 pounds and gets 65
miles per gallon on ordinary gas. So, while it is possible to drive a
comfortable, fuel-efficient car, the popularity of the big, heavy
fuel-guzzlers is what continues to grow.
Of course, nowhere is gas so cheap as in the United States, and,
ironically, its price - like that of cigarettes - is shaped by the
government. Our government is currently considering making
cigarettes more expensive, so that more children will live longer.
But if we fail to address the problem of global warming, what will
the quality of those lives be, filled as they are with hurricanes,
floods and malaria?
Taxes on carbon emissions make just as much sense as taxes on
nicotine content. Their impact would not slow economic growth
appreciably but would move electrical generation away from coal
and transportation away from gas-guzzling vehicles. In both cases,
the alternative is on the market. We are not betting on exotic
technologies. Bringing U.S. gasoline taxes of 35 cents per gallon in
line with European taxes of $1.50-plus per gallon won't
disadvantage the U.S. economy, especially if phased in over
several years and offset by decreases in other taxes.
Such a tax realignment is not only necessary to save our natural
resources, but it would also position U.S. businesses and
consumers economically to navigate the coming decades without
being swamped by insurance costs, disaster relief and health
expenses. A tax on carbon emissions adequate to stabilize the
greenhouse effect by the middle of the coming century, if used to
cut other taxes, would slow the global economy by only .04
percentage points, according to computer modeling at Stanford
University as reported by David Roodman in "Getting the Signals
Straight."
Germany and Japan both provide their citizens with standards of
living that match, if not exceed, ours. They do so at half our rate of
carbon dioxide emissions. Transmitting a future that our children
consider a legacy and not a curse doesn't mean banishing
air-conditioners or private automobiles. It just means making a few
smart choices.
For starters, let's get the information out that cars no longer can be
viewed as fantasy objects. Let's follow up by asking businesses to
stop portraying them and selling them as if they were - under threat
of lawsuits if need be. That's the course of action our government
has taken with tobacco products, and there is a definite parallel
between the two. The main difference is that while few who smoke
remain unaware of the risk, most Americans who put their five tons
(the U.S. average) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere still
haven't a clue as to what they are doing.
Eldon Kenworthy is a professor of politics and teacher of
environmental science at Whitman College.
archives.seattletimes.com
Incidentally, I think there are two very separate functions of taxation. One is as discussed in this article, and involves government's proper role in encouraging or discouraging certain kinds of behavior for the common good. I would certainly support a higher gasoline tax. As the article points out, the overall tax should not rise--taxes should be adjusted elsewhere.
|
