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”

3 responses to “Bay Area Drivers Would Support Global Warming Gas Tax”

  1. 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)


  2. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *