President Obama's fiscal year 2010 EPA budget calls for carbon reductions that would require raising the cost of gasoline to $7 per gallon within the next 10 years. A report released this month by Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs explained that for Obama to reach his goal, he would need to employ a one-two punch approach, hitting both utility and transportation sectors with strong emissions-reducing taxes.

The Belfer Center report, Reducing the U.S. Transportation Sector's Oil Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, criticizes Obama's current plan as short-sighted. "Reducing oil consumption and carbon emissions from transportation is a much greater challenge than conventional wisdom assumes," warns the report. It also says subsidies for alternatives such as electric and hybrid vehicles are "extremely expensive and ... ineffective" in the short term.

But don't let their criticisms fool you. The authors of the report call for aggressive climate change policies and illogically conclude, "Even under high-fuels-tax, high-carbon price scenarios, losses in annual GDP, relative to business-as-usual, are less than 1 percent, and the economy is still projected to grow at 2.1 – 3.7 percent per year assuming a portion of revenues collected are recycled to taxpayers."

Ignoring recent revelations that EPA's greenhouse-gas "endangerment finding" is based on fraudulent data, the report proposes several scenarios which the authors claim will reduce so-called emissions from the transportation sector without significant harm to the economy. The scenarios involve an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax set at $30 per ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 per ton in 2030. The Belfer Center says it would be "a surrogate for a cap-and-trade system like that proposed in the pending American Clean Energy and Security Act." The reference is to H.R. 2454, passed by the House last June and now before the Senate in the form of S. 1733. Many Democrats have suffered in the polls because of their support of these bills, leading Obama to begrudgingly admit final passage is unlikely.

Harvard's solution (in characteristic socialist fashion) is adding to a cap-and-trade tax one or more of the following:

1. Income tax reductions to offset the burden of a carbon tax on consumers. The authors note there is no such provision in the American Clean Energy and Security Act, but claim including it would significantly reduce economic impacts.
2. A "strong" gasoline and diesel tax of $0.50 per gallon this year, increasing by 10 percent per year to reach a $3.36 per gallon tax in 2030.
3. Improvements in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to 43.7 miles per gallon by 2030.

The authors argue an economy-wide carbon tax alone would provide little incentive to the transportation sector to curb emissions. Electric utilities would be more adversely affected since they rely more heavily on coal. Therefore, the suggested "additions" listed above are necessary because taxing consumers is the only way to reduce oil consumption and its accompanying greenhouse gas emissions.

The report advises if Obama wants to reduce both emissions and petroleum imports, "consumers cannot continue to drive more and more each year." That is why, according to the authors, electric and hybrid vehicles don't measure up — they only encourage more driving. The report argues, "The most effective policy for reducing CO2 emissions and oil imports from transportation is to spur the development and sale of more efficient vehicles with strict efficiency standards while increasing the cost of driving with strong fuel taxes."

It ends with the ominous warning that greenhouse gas emissions will continue to grow if the report's suggestions go unheeded.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

how to be less affected by gas prices hikes: By using carpooling and commute transit systems, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Dan DiFabio said:

Government Environmentalists Any Carbon taxes or additional gasoline taxes that are levied by Congress will cripple our economy.The Democrats in Congress want to be re-elected,and their prospects for re-election will diminish upon implementation of the aforementioned schemes.

March 08, 2010

Flu-Bird said:

Lets drill Its time to stop allowing the environazis to block drilling in the ANWR and of the coast repeal all the enviromental regulations reject this fragile earth poppycock and stop allowing OPEC to rob us anymore

March 08, 2010

Henry said:

Vote them all out Vote all of the corrupt and incompetent criminals out of office. That lunatic in the White House is bound and determined to destroy this country's economy and the sooner the sheeple understand this the faster we can get rid of him and all of his "progressive" cronies in D.C.

March 11, 2010

Lee Gonzales said:

Car pooling? Forget it, man Do Mr. and Mrs.Obama car pool? Do US senators car pool? Congressmen carpool? Environmental Deaprtment honchos carpool? Do Department of Energy bureaucrats carpool? JP you just aren't getting the bigger picture. The government isn't interested in solving anything. The oil, gas, coal is in the ground and they don't want anyone to get to it. Plain and simple. You sound like a kid with your car pooling comment. wake up, man! The government has to create the illusion that they want to solve energy issues so they waste money by building solar collectors and wind farms. No amount of electricity generation from solar and wind won't will cut the mustard. Where's the nuclear plants we were promised years ago?

March 15, 2010