Posted on Thursday 20 March 2008
If you asked someone whether they would be willing to help the environment, more often than not they would give you a resounding yes as their answer. Ask them if they would be willing to pay extra for fuel to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and nearly half would say no. That’s the finding of a new study run in the U.S. by the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR).
The study found that 48% of Americans are unwilling to spend even a penny more in fuel taxes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At the other end of the scale, just 18% of those surveyed would be willing to pay 50 cents or more in taxes per gallon to reduce greenhouse emissions – an idea the U.S. government is considering.
These results, however, need to be taken with a grain of salt. The NCPPR is well known for its right-wing, anti-environmentalist bias. The group is even sponsored by oil companies so it’s not surprising that it’s claiming a small tax on fuel to help the environment would be a bad idea. Officials even told respondents of the survey that eliminating every car in the U.S. would only reduce world emissions by a fraction, so it’s easy to understand why most would be against the tax on fuel. Among those willing to pay more for gasoline to reduce emissions, 58% were found to be less willing to do so, and 42% much less willing, when informed their sacrifice would produce little positive results.
This is a little hard to swallow given the fact that NCPPR’s vice president David Ridenour also states that one-fifth of all U.S. CO2 emissions comes from light trucks and cars.
Maybe if OPEC quits artificially raising prices by not increasing supply they won’t need to charge more.
These people are lying, conniving, thieving bastards.
How much gas is taxed and how much of it we spend have very, very little to do with each other. Gas is something that we use because we have to. We need to drive around to get places and that’s it. Politicos know this and so they waste no opportunity trying to raise taxes in things they know we NEED. No one thinks of raising taxes on pink cashmere sweaters. Why? Because we’d just buy blue cashmere sweaters and be done with it. Or we would buy no cashmere sweaters at all! But there’s no substitute for gas and we have to buy it to propel our cars.
Global warming is a ploy, one more underhanded tactic in a long list from those who would part us from our hard earned money. In the name of the environment they would place on us a heavy burden and then make it heavier. Gas is more expensive. So is everything else that needs gas to be produced or moved around which is virtually everything. But these disgusting bottom feeders would make things even more difficult for us.
Go ahead. Raise gas taxes. Repeal the Bush tax cuts (and please don’t bother telling me they’re only for the rich - I’m not interested in your idiocy), institute Canadian/European style universal health care and force global warming down our throats.
I have a morbid fascination with seeing just how bad things can get.
How about stopping with 39 different states that have 39 different regulations on fuel. This makes refineries happy to produce expensive boutique fuels for each one.
It is and has been a huge expense passed on the the consumer.
I like the title because it’s true when it comes to oil. Would you pay more for oil to help green house gas emission, ‘NO’. isn’t oil the main problem of green house gas?.
everything will come to a standoff or a riot if they don’t solve their basic needs of today.
in Australia people are just simply driving out the gas station without paying because of the price
There must be an alternative, fuel cell,battery and small cars.
Cow farts have more to do with greenhouse gasses than all the cars in America combined.
The reason I wouldn’t pay more in taxes is that it wouldn’t do s**t…
As a Democrat, a car guy and someone who enjoys breathable air, I realize that something has to be done to curtail CO2 emissions. Furthermore, we have to move on to the next step in a sustainable energy policy.
That being said, I firmly believe the last place we should look to for answers or solutions is Congress.
Consumers have a well founded distrust of the State when it comes to the responsible use of gasoline taxes. So no matter what party label you apply to the polling agency, the response they received was a foregone conclusion.
Case in point:
Out here in L.A., we’re paying over 30 cents more than the national average. Yet our roads — which by law are to supposed to be maintained using gasoline tax revenue — rival the surface of the Moon in their chasm-ridden topography.
Voters have passed countless ballot initiatives to keep the hands of the Assembly out of the gas tax cookie jar, yet they keep on stealing for projects that have nothing to do with state infrastructure.
Since the State can’t be trusted to spend 18 cents per gallon in accordance with voters wishes, why on earth would anyone trust them with 36 cents, nevermind 50…
When it comes to performance per dollar, the public sector will always outperform the government.The legislature is too bureaucratic, decadent and ponderous to use any additional revenue in a cost-effective manner.
Extremely well said.
I’m a Republican (well, a liberal one) and I fully agree with you.