Carbon phobes want a gas tax to make you drive crummy autos

Thomas Friedman:

How many times do we have to see this play before we admit that it always ends the same way?

Which play? The one where gasoline prices go up, pressure rises for more fuel-efficient cars, then gasoline prices fall and the pressure for low-mileage vehicles vanishes, consumers stop buying those cars, the oil producers celebrate, we remain addicted to oil and prices gradually go up again, petro-dictators get rich, we lose. I’ve already seen this play three times in my life. Trust me: It always ends the same way — badly.

So I could only cringe when reading this article from CNNMoney.com on Dec. 22: “After nearly a year of flagging sales, low gas prices and fat incentives are reigniting America’s taste for big vehicles. Trucks and S.U.V.’s will outsell cars in December ... something that hasn’t happened since February. Meanwhile, the forecast finds that sales of hybrid vehicles are expected to be way down.”

Have a nice day. It’s morning again — in Saudi Arabia.

Of course, it’s a blessing that people who have been hammered by the economy are getting a break at the pump. But for our long-term health, getting re-addicted to oil and gas guzzlers is one of the dumbest things we could do.

That is why I believe the second biggest decision Barack Obama has to make — the first is deciding the size of the stimulus — is whether to increase the federal gasoline tax or impose an economy-wide carbon tax. Best I can tell, the Obama team has no intention of doing either at this time. I understand why. Raising taxes in a recession is a no-no. But I’ve wracked my brain trying to think of ways to retool America around clean-power technologies without a price signal — i.e., a tax — and there are no effective ones. (Toughening energy-effiency regulations alone won’t do it.) Without a higher gas tax or carbon tax, Obama will lack the leverage to drive critical pieces of his foreign and domestic agendas.

...

Here is a clue why his brain cannot find another way. Buyers do not want the kind of vehicles he wants them to buy. If there was a market for that kind of vehicle tax incentives would not be needed to get people to buy them.

As for "morning in Saudi Arabia" there is really no need for that either. If people like Friedman would get out of the way we could produce ample energy in this country creating enough jobs to pull us out of the recession and increasing the revenue to the treasury from the government's share of the royalties.

While I am a skeptic on global warming, I don't accept the premise that warming is all bad. I have often noted I like warmer weather and think it makes more sense to adapt to it than let the control freaks take over world economies. Even the worse case global warming predictions do not suggest temperatures for the US reaching the level our troops endure in Iraq, where they operate in 120 degree days in full battle rattle.

As for buying SUVs and trucks, they are a great value right now. They also offer a comfortable ride and the gas mileage my 2008 F-150 Super Cab XLT with a 5.4 liter V-8 is 20 miles to the gallon on the highway. When you consider the utility and comfort of the ride, that is very acceptable. Just 20 years ago, that was considered excellent mileage for a compact car.

The world that Friedman envisions is one that would not be acceptable to rural drivers.