« Transit's Dirty Little Secret? | Main | Biodiesel craze turns fryer grease to gold »
November 13, 2007
Bay Area Drivers Would Support Global Warming Gas Tax
This article, on Planetizen, describes the results of a survey of 1,800 Bay Area residents that included questions asking if they would be willing to pay an increased gas tax if the additional revenue were dedicated to efforts to curb "greenhouse gas emissions," including researching alternative fuel, improving transportation options, and reducing congestion. The article goes on to compare the results of the Bay Area study to similar research conducted internationally with similar findings.
"Would Bay Area residents, already saddled with the highest gas prices in the country, be willing to pay a 25-cent fee on a gallon of gas if the money were spent to reduce the effects of global warming? According to a new poll, the answer is an unresounding “yes.”
"Preliminary findings indicate that Bay Area residents were “mostly willing to pay 25 cents more” (but opposed 50 cents) for a gallon of gas “if it would be used to limit or reduce global warming,” according to a recent telephone poll commissioned by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
The residents also indicated they would want the additional revenue from such an increase to go toward providing more transit services and research into alternative fuels and cleaner engines, according to the memo”.
Continue reading "Bay Area Drivers Would Support Global Warming Gas Tax"
Posted by Joseph Edge at 8:17 AM
Comments
November 13, 2007 10:03 AM
jim karlock Says:
Why the push against CO2, when di-hydrogen oxide gas is causing more than 2/3 of the greenhouse effect? (That is one of many dirty little secrets they don't like to talk about)
Thanks
JK
November 13, 2007 10:34 AM
Bob R. Says:
JK -
You use the pejorative form "di-hydrogen oxide" when you know full well that the hydrogen hydroxide (the proper, positive term) industry has been making use of this wonder of nature for many many years.
I continue to consume substances produced with hydrogen hydroxide on a regular basis, even though as a child I had a serious accident involving hydrogen hydroxide poisoning in a public swimming pool, which caused temporary acute lung problems.
Support hydrogen hydroxide!
But seriously, the point is that CO2 stays in the atmosphere many, many times longer than H2O vapor, which means CO2 emissions have a greater cumulative effect and lead to increasing imbalance as CO2 emissions increase.
Thanks for the humorous distraction, though.
- Bob R.
November 13, 2007 10:40 AM
Bob R. Says:
In the interest of fairness, here are links to two organizations on opposite sides of JK's controversy:
The safety police:
DHMO.org - Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division
The industry mouthpiece:
Hydrogen Hydroxide - DHMO - Your All-Natural Friend
Now remember folks, although DHMO is a great natural solvent and cleanser, avoid direct inhalation, even when showering.
- Bob R.
November 13, 2007 2:36 PM
Garlynn -- undergroundscience.blogspot.com Says:
More background: The study was commissioned by MTC, which already has statutory authority to put a gas tax on the ballot in the Bay Area, to see if they should go to the CA Legislature to ask for more authority or for a different type of authority, as a part of their RTP process (which is currently ongoing). Not to confuse the issue, but there is also the question of whether such an assessment would be a tax or a fee -- requiring either a 2/3 or 50%+1 majority at the ballot, respectively.
And finally, it's all just semantics -- who knows what a "gas tax for global warming" would really get spent on, and how much global warming it might actually prevent. Since mitigation (i.e. planting trees, green roofs, more vegetation etc. in urban areas) isn't currently being discussed as a way to use this potential funding source, then it's the cumulative effects of building more transit and other transportation infrastructure that we're mainly talking about here.
It's a complicated issue, and there are no easy solutions. But, this is at least an interesting proposal, and it has already gotten folks talking.
November 13, 2007 10:37 PM
Matthew Says:
So in other words, reducing the effect of global warming is worth ~$125/year, but not $250/year, to Bay Area drivers. And that is in a "liberal" area, in LA it probably isn't even worth that much...
With priorities like that, I can see how we got into this situation.
