Energy independence, ending global warming and terrorism funding...sounds like a job for SUPERMAN!  According the NY Times' recent "DriveTimes" article, Superman isn't necessary. Saving America is simple. Raise the gasoline tax. Done. Actually, the econo-metaphysics of gasoline tax ideology is nothing but elitism dressed up as "science." If the gas tax goes up marginally, it will raise lots of revenue, but not "change behavior."  If it is a draconian increase, it might change behavior of the poorest drivers who are already consuming the least land, water, and energy resources anyway! Exploit the poor to make the nation "more energy secure." That is what the NY Times and Tom Friedman advocate. Why not jut pass a law saying anyone making less than $30,000 a year is expressly forbidden from driving? That is what Freidman really envisions, and even a draconian gas tax likely wouldn't be nearly as effective as such a repressive law.

Taxes raise money for the government. Higher taxes could mean a lower US budget deficit - probably a noble goal, but the gas tax just doesn't change behavior on the margin. 
That it does is an elitist econo-metaphysical canard. In all of the NY Times' and Tom Friedman's drum-beating for a regressive gas tax, they somehow forget to mention that Bill Clinton raised the gas tax in the 1990s - in turn the 1990s saw the rapid acceleration of oil importation and petroleum use overall.

Clinton did not increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Also, the Newt Gingrich congress passed a measure that forbade Clinton from getting rid of the so-called "SUV loophole,” wherein “light trucks” have about a 30% lower CAFE standard than "passenger cars." Simply put: CAFE measures under Carter and (ironically) Reagan were effective. Clinton's gas tax didn't help anything. To give Clinton some credit though, it wasn't really sold as "energy independence" snake oil - it was just to (surprise - no econo-metaphysics) raise revenue. The 90's became the decade of the guzzling SUV.

"Now hold it right there KingElvis,” some might say. “We need draconian European-style fuel taxes - Clinton's gas tax increase wasn't harsh enough on the poor.” That's the crux of the matter isn't it? Well...

There are many other reasons even a high gas tax likely wouldn't lick terrorism and global warming in one fell swoop. 

1.  There is a tiny area of the US (the inner part of large cities) that is served by public transit. 2. To live in these areas, you must buy a much more expensive house, thereby more than offsetting the tax increase you would save by not driving. 3. The federal government subsidizes home ownership and new housing development, therefore suburban sprawl, and that makes people drive more. Getting rid of these subsidies would effect the middle class - why don't we make the economy more "rational" and encourage short commutes and inner city living that way? Regressive taxes on the powerless are easy and fun, that's why.  4. America has a "car culture" where car use and ownership is prized more than in Europe.

But let's just pretend the elitist econo-metaphysics will work and we get a draconian gas tax - one that will at least double gasoline prices - and the myriad of countervailing forces, including the four listed above, are suspended.

The poor and working class will:

A. Fight and die in Imperial oil wars.

B. Take the bus and therefore waste much more time commuting.

C. Be deprived of the instant mobility and personal freedom a car provides.

D. Have little choice but to live in the inner city.

I hate it when the wealthy talk about “sacrifice.” It’s just like the notion of “personal responsibility,” it’s a concept that is applied in a directly inverse ratio to a person’s wealth, influence and power. The poorer and more powerless you are, the more “personal responsibility” and “sacrifice” is demanded from you. The rich will "sacrifice" nothing. They'll likely devise a way to deduct fuel costs from their taxes, since they itemize everything anyway - even if they don't, the gas tax is a pittance to them, and it's the only kind of tax the wealthy bless: a regressive tax.


By increasing CAFE standards, we will decrease the gas consumption of cars, and therefore decrease oil use. No metaphysics necessary there. It's happened before; it's proven by history to be effective. Under increased CAFE, the rich will have to spend more on higher technology cars to get the excess power and size they want. A big SUV would have to be made out of carbon fiber or aluminum, and/or feature a more complicated, expensive drivetrain (hybrid drive for example) to make increased CAFE standards. These efficiency boosting measures will make SUVs, supercars and luxury cars more expensive. Then again, aren't they luxury items in the first place?

"Forcing" the wealthy to buy more expensive luxury cars and SUVs at least could be counted as a small sacrifice - a shared sacrifice. A marginal increase in the gas tax will do nothing for energy autarchy or global warming, or whatever Friedman's miracle gas tax snake oil diatribes promise - that was proven in the 1990s. A a draconian, regressive gasoline tax, even if it works as envisioned by elites (a big if), does nothing but exploit the poor to solve the problems caused by the rich.