I will concur in Mr. Anderson's suggestion that this thread not go further.
But I do just want to respond that the figure of $10/gallon for a gas tax to cause motorists to bear the full social cost of their motoring is not "absurd" or "wild," it is quite conservative. Many studies by economists and those in related disciplines to try to quantify the social costs of driving (and there are many categories of such costs, some easier and some harder to quantify) have produced estimates at or beyond the $0.60/mile range. There are, of course, many questions about assumptions and methodologies, but that's the bottom line. Further, almost none of these studies even attempts to include the most difficult to quantify, and contentious, but greatest costs of all. These are the types of costs that, for example, Gary Hoover speaks about: not just our vast "defense" spending (much of which does not even appear in the public budget), but the cost of the injuries our addiction causes us to inflict worldwide to the well-being and aspirations of those in resource-rich regions of the world; the cost of the resentment of the U.S. that results from our efforts to control those resources; the cost of the damage to democracy in this country resulting from the need to cultivate ignorance and passivity in the populace in order for those efforts to remain politically acceptable; and the gargantuan cost that will come if we continue to drive the combustion engine of our society toward, and then over, the cliff. Discount these costs by the 50% likelihood that we might just discover, before its too late, a vast and benign new energy technology to bring prosperity to the world, and you still get a huge number. There's that supposed Native American notion that all actions should be judged for their impact seven generations into the future. Isn't that principle even more apt today, when climate change and fossil fuel depletion raise real risks about the very sustainability of our society and world within the lifetime of our now-living children? Chuck Holtman Prospect Park Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 21:19:09 -0500 From: "Anderson & Turpin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [Mpls] Freeway Woes To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Actually, I love your idea of increasing the gas tax so that direct costs of roads and externalized costs of pollution are paid for -- it's something that I've been pushing for years. Plus of course increase the amount of the fare box so that it pays its full share. Of course your $10/gallon is absurd; I think it'd be more like $3-4 per gallon. I enjoyed your comment "only progressives advocate for the operation of the free market." If you consider yourself in the camp of the "progressives," then you're the first one to advocate the free market. Of course others have mentioned wild numbers like your $10/gallon that should be added to the gas tax if all costs were to be included, but that doesn't mean they really want to have such a tax. It's only brought up as an excuse to subsidize mass transit even more. In any case, there is no point arguing the fine points of how such a tax should work, for two reasons: 1) As you say, there's only miniscule support for it. It seems everyone believes that transportation should be paid for out of general funds. 2) It only makes sense as a national policy, and this forum is about Minneapolis. .... Mark V Anderson Bancroft REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
