Priorities!

California faces a budget deficit so they cut $1 billion from mass transit funding. This kind of thing, of course, is crucial to understanding the urban/suburban/exurban balance in American life. We get sprawl because people want to move out to these far flung places. But by the same token, nobody would want to move out to them if roads didn't go there. A patch of affordable land near a well-maintained road that's connected to a network of other well-maintained roads is an attractive place to live. A patch of affordable land that's connected by a crude trail to a dirt road isn't.

Similarly, if you never make building and maintaining the infrastructure of less car-dependent lifestyles a priority, people wind up not wanting to live those lifestyles. It's all perfectly understandably, but it'll ultimately be very, very, very hard to get climate emissions under control without some increase in the number of families living with fewer than one car per adult.

Comments

Sprawl isn't (or at least isn't *only*) the product of demand from people to live in far flung places. It is the product of a vicious cycle.

I recommend to any and all a fabulous book called The High Price of Free Parking. The author, Donald Shoup, argues convincingly that sprawl is in large part created by ridiculous parking mandates and nonsensical zoning laws. The "scientific" basis for the parking mandates are hardly scientific at all, but are institutionalized through inertia. Studies of parking are done on suburban, low density areas where there is poor mass transit, and then applied to *all* urban areas.

So rather than being the product of demand, sprawl is in large part a product of mandates. When you build a low density community, you reinforce the idea that a car is necessary, and that mass transit is inefficient, which in turn creates more sprawl.

Posted by 3pointshooter | July 20, 2007 12:35 PM

"it'll ultimately be very, very, very hard to get climate emissions under control without some increase in the number of families living with fewer than one car per adult."

FWIW, only 14% of annual greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation fuels, and auto emissions are obviously only a fraction of that number.

Or in other words, you could increase the number of families living with fewer than one car per adult to 100% without making much of a dent in global warming.

So, I'd say you aren't quite correct about your assertion here.

That said, I'm completely in favor of higher levels of mass transit funding for a wide variety of reasons, and there is certainly a good propaganda case for linking mass transit to global warming.

Posted by Petey | July 20, 2007 12:35 PM

But it's not just the roads.

The only way we'd ever be able to flip the balance from suburban to urban living is through 1) widespread and aggressive government control over urban housing costs (which would reduce the city tax base) 2) super massive increases in funding for urban school systems, 3) massive government maintenance of nearby parkland for casual recreation, 4) billions upon billions in funds to upgrade inefficient and already overtaxed public transportation systems.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier (and cheaper) to simply fund the development of sustainable fuel technology (of which there's already plenty of demand), rather than forcefully changing people's living habits through massive big-government intervention?

Posted by Dave White | July 20, 2007 12:36 PM

Go Schwarzenegger. I was in California for college during the recall. Scharzenegger said he would make the tough decisions to bring California back into fiscal health. The first thing he did was issue a gigantic bond offering. I think it was $13 billion. What a tool.

Posted by Joshua | July 20, 2007 12:37 PM

The reason people move out to the sticks is to get away from immigrants. Stop illegal immigration and you'll see reurbanification.

Posted by bjk | July 20, 2007 12:41 PM

Re: It's all perfectly understandably, but it'll ultimately be very, very, very hard to get climate emissions under control without some increase in the number of families living with fewer than one car per adult.

Why? I can think of something which, while perhaps not easy to achieve, would still be far easier to achieve than trying to herd everybody back into high rise tenements in the city: cars that do not produce CO2 emissions. That is, either electric cars or hydrogen fuel cell cars. Now I'm sure there are people who will pontificate on the engineering difficulties inherent in that task, but ANY physical engineering problem (as long as we are not talking about violating physical laws) is easier than the equivalent social engineering problem. Cars, like most inanimate objects, do what you tell them. People have minds of their own and are generally no easier to herd than cats.

Posted by JonF | July 20, 2007 12:46 PM

The reason people move out to the sticks is to buy big houses with nice yards. Build more of those in the city, and you'll see reurbanification.

Posted by strannix | July 20, 2007 12:49 PM

No, you get urban sprawl because in many places, people can't afford large enough lodgings in the city centers.

And no, people do NOT move out to get away from immigrants. What an assinine argument.

Posted by fourlegsgood | July 20, 2007 12:53 PM

"ANY physical engineering problem (as long as we are not talking about violating physical laws) is easier than the equivalent social engineering problem. Cars, like most inanimate objects, do what you tell them. People have minds of their own and are generally no easier to herd than cats."

Tax the price of gas up to $7/gallon, and the cats will herd themselves.

More broadly, the beauty of a carbon tax is that it'll let folks make their own decisions about how to live in a manner that emits less carbon. Under such circumstances, I think you'd find significantly higher support among the electorate for mass transit subsidies.

Posted by Petey | July 20, 2007 12:53 PM

"The reason people move out to the sticks is to buy big houses with nice yards. Build more of those in the city, and you'll see reurbanification."

How many people actually have that, rather than a box with a small garden attached to it? Most people can't afford to live in McMansions.

Posted by Reality Man | July 20, 2007 12:55 PM

Oh really? What is the first question a young couple asks the real estate agent? The first question is always "how are the schools?" which is another way of saying "how many immigrants are there in the schools?"

Posted by bjk | July 20, 2007 12:56 PM

Good luck pushing a $4+ gas tax through congress Petey.

Posted by Dave White | July 20, 2007 12:57 PM

Re on of the early comments: It's not just the number of cars. High-density urban living is more energy efficient in ways that go beyond how much driving the typical person does.

Posted by Matt | July 20, 2007 12:58 PM

People moving out of urban areas isn't new - the difference between now and 100 years ago is that the non-rich can afford it. This may come as a shock to people like Matt, but there are plenty of people who like living in quiet suburbs that have good schools - where you can send your kids out to play and not worry much about safety.

Posted by James Robertson | July 20, 2007 12:58 PM

Petey,
Where do you get your data? I took a quick look at the Pew Center's GHG report and 1st line of the intro is "Transportation accounts for nearly a third of our nation’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and its emissions are growing rapidly." Study is from 2003 but looks like trend is increasing fairly rapidly.
Source:
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/information/briefing/9.pdf

Posted by Tom | July 20, 2007 1:00 PM

"The reason people move out to the sticks is to get away from immigrants. Stop illegal immigration and you'll see reurbanification."

I _knew_ that global warming (like all problems!) was somehow _really_ the fault of the darkies, but before this just couldn't put my finger on how. Now I know. The same with schools. Before I'd thought when people wanted to know how the schools were they were interested in things like whether a wide variety of classes, at all appropriate levels, were offered, if they were safe, if the teacher-student ratio was good, and things like that. Now I know they just want to know if there are too many darkies. So many great things you can learn from the interwebs.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | July 20, 2007 1:01 PM

"Petey, Where do you get your data?"

Here ya' go.

Posted by Petey | July 20, 2007 1:03 PM

How many people actually have that, rather than a box with a small garden attached to it? Most people can't afford to live in McMansions.

You can buy a 5 bedroom house with acreage in Whitefield, NH for less than the price of a studio apartment in Brooklyn.

Posted by Dave White | July 20, 2007 1:08 PM

"Tax the price of gas up to $7/gallon, and the cats will herd themselves."

No, the cats will lynch the people who raised the tax.

Improved information infrastructure, and techniques for telecommuting, will let people live in the low density enviroment most people prefer, while consuming less energy getting around.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | July 20, 2007 1:09 PM

It seems like it was a general transportation fund that was cut:

Other projects that would be delayed include widening Interstate 5 in part along a stretch at the Orange County/Los Angeles County line, where the daily bottlenecking has become legendary. A project that would complete the gap in carpool lanes on the 10 Freeway in the eastern San Gabriel Valley is also threatened.

Posted by joeo | July 20, 2007 1:10 PM

"Good luck pushing a $4+ gas tax through congress Petey."

Far more feasible than everyone expects.

First of all, you rebate it dollar for dollar from the payroll tax.

Second, you phase it in over 10 to 20 years, so if you've just bought a Hummer and a house in exurbia, you don't get punished too badly for decisions made pre-tax. This also gives the free market time to make the necessary adjustments.

Third, you make it a comprehensive carbon tax, not just a gas tax.

It obviously will be non-trivial to pass, and will require a period of education, but it's not nearly the political non-starter than folks seem to think. The keys really are a long phase in and the dollar for dollar rebate to prevent it from being a tax increase.

Posted by Petey | July 20, 2007 1:11 PM

where you can send your kids out to play and not worry much about safety.

They'll actually be much more likely to be hit by a car that way. Then when they hit their teens, you have to worry that they may die in a drinking-and-driving incident.

there are plenty of people who like living in quiet suburbs that have good schools

Actually, they like living in places that have good schools, period. In my experience, a lot of people who used to live in the city will be quick to tell you how much they miss it. It's not a fixed preference, it's a balancing of tradeoffs.

Anyway, tastes are quite flexible. In the 70s, one could have argued, "No, people like huge Cadillac El Dorado-style cars!" 30 years later, I hardly see any boat-like luxury automobiles on the road, and the luxury-sedan market has taken quite a different turn.

Posted by Tyro | July 20, 2007 1:14 PM

"The first question is always "how are the schools?" which is another way of saying "how many immigrants are there in the schools?""

Yes, because nobody can ever really want to directly care about school quality?

"You can buy a 5 bedroom house with acreage in Whitefield, NH for less than the price of a studio apartment in Brooklyn."

There's a difference between one house on a real estate site and the average house size, etc. of where the average American lives. Consider the suburbs being built up in eastern West Virginia. Professionals who work in DC can afford to live in the McMansions, but they tend to live in only tiny slivers of the towns divorced socially and geographically from the rest of the towns, which tend to be rather poorer and often relatively run-down.

Posted by Reality Man | July 20, 2007 1:14 PM

"No, the cats will lynch the people who raised the tax.
Improved information infrastructure, and techniques for telecommuting, will let people live in the low density enviroment most people prefer, while consuming less energy getting around."

Well, if they're consuming less energy getting around, then the tax will cost them less than they'll be saving through the lower payroll taxes.

The whole point of the tax is to make "consuming less energy getting around" financially sensible.

Posted by Petey | July 20, 2007 1:15 PM

"The reason people move out to the sticks is to buy big houses with nice yards. Build more of those in the city, and you'll see reurbanification."

How many people actually have that, rather than a box with a small garden attached to it? Most people can't afford to live in McMansions.

It doesn't have to be a McMansion. I have a 2400sf generic colonial in the suburbs that I got for $150K. Yes, I have to drive 3 miles even to get a gallon of milk, and no, I don't like it. But when I was house-shopping (2001), I couldn't have bought that space for twice the price in Saratoga Springs proper. Suburbs it was.

Posted by Angelos | July 20, 2007 1:19 PM

No, the cats will lynch the people who raised the tax.

I agree with Petey that it is feasible. 15 years ago, gas was $1/gallon. Now it's more than $3/gallon. Surely phasing in a double of price in half the time it took for the price to triple could be done.

Only problem: deducting off the payroll tax. Suddenly, the millions of people who used to file a 1040EZ form will have to start saving receipts and taking deductions. The tax system is incredibly simplistic for huge swatchs of the population. Petey is proposing that these people suddenly have the "privilege" of enjoying all its rabid complexity previous only experienced by more-well-off earners.

Posted by Tyro | July 20, 2007 1:22 PM

"Only problem: deducting off the payroll tax. Suddenly, the millions of people who used to file a 1040EZ form will have to start saving receipts and taking deductions."

No.

You don't get a rebate based on how much you spend on carbon emitting energy. That would defeat the whole purpose of the tax making it economically sensible to emit less carbon.

The payroll tax rebate is per capita. Everyone would get the same payroll tax reduction no matter how much they spent on carbon emitting energy. No saving of receipts and complicated tax-time calculations would be necessary.

Posted by Petey | July 20, 2007 1:25 PM

I have to say that Petey's proposal for limiting greenhouse-gas emissions by taxing gas seems a far more possible approach than blue-sky ideas about re-engineering the structure of American cities.

As for "alternative fuels--" Huh? What cost-effective alternatives to oil are on the horizon that we should be funding development of?

That telecommuting will enable everyone to work from home seems equally unlikely. The infrastructure to do so has been in place for ten years, and yet virtually all American workers are still expected to physically show up for work every day.

Posted by James Gary | July 20, 2007 1:25 PM

The median US home price first quarter this year was $212,000. The median for the New York Metropolitan Area? More than double that, at $463,700.

That's a lot of people living a lot more affordably outside the range of public transportation.

Numbers are from this Bloomberg article.

Posted by Dave White | July 20, 2007 1:27 PM

"I have to say that Petey's proposal for limiting greenhouse-gas emissions by taxing gas seems a far more possible approach than blue-sky ideas about re-engineering the structure of American cities."

I'm a big fan of Adam Smith. If you tax carbon at a high level, the invisible hand of the market may well spur the re-engineering of the structure of American cities in a rational manner and achievable manner.

Posted by Petey | July 20, 2007 1:28 PM

ANY physical engineering problem (as long as we are not talking about violating physical laws) is easier than the equivalent social engineering problem.

Not only is Petey right about the $7/gallon gas, but I find the sentiment itself kind of disgusting and ultimately dangerous. Life, economics and ecology are unpredictable, and we may possibly find ourselves in the near future find ourselves having to live with a lot less than we have now for any number of reasons. You can call me naive if you wish, but I hope that we would have at least some tolerance for discomfort and adaptation before society just collapsed into a Hobbesian war of all against all.

I think this notion of "social engineering" is confused. The reason that whole sale attempts to recreate society from top to bottom like revolutionary France, Mao's China, or Bush's Iraq fail is because the social institutions that have grown up in our culture over the century are what gives us the strength we need to adapt to adversity.

Posted by Consumatopia | July 20, 2007 1:30 PM

As for "alternative fuels--" Huh? What cost-effective alternatives to oil are on the horizon that we should be funding development of?

Microbial fuel cells. Or hydrogen fuel cells farmed off of bioconversion.

Posted by Dave White | July 20, 2007 1:32 PM

I'm a big fan of Adam Smith. If you tax carbon at a high level, the invisible hand of the market may well spur the re-engineering of the structure of American cities in a rational manner and achievable manner.

I'm a big fan of Occam, who would lead me to believe that increased carbon taxes wouldn't result in the massive restructuring of the foundation of American culture, but rather in the development of non-carbon based, sustainable fuel technology.

Posted by Dave White | July 20, 2007 1:36 PM

"I'm a big fan of Occam, who would lead me to believe that increased carbon taxes wouldn't result in the massive restructuring of the foundation of American culture, but rather in the development of non-carbon based, sustainable fuel technology."

Fine. Whichever way such a tax would result in lower carbon emission levels is entirely up to the market.

But it is worth noting that the explosion of the suburbs coincided with the cheap gas era, and that an expensive gas era that folks know isn't going away might result in different living patterns.

I'm not nearly as optimistic as you that there is some technological magic bullet that will create cheap, non-carbon emitting energy in the near future. But a high carbon tax will certainly focus big research dollars into trying to make that happen on a scale far beyond what we have today.

Posted by Petey | July 20, 2007 1:44 PM

Agreed with the idea of a carbon tax. As for the particulars of what tax rates are politically feasible-- I don't have an informed opinion. Also, I believe the purpose of a carbon tax should be to internalize externalities, not simply to arbitrarily penalize a certain way of life. The price should follow from a reasoned, thorough and honest economic analysis.

Posted by mk | July 20, 2007 1:55 PM

Re: Tax the price of gas up to $7/gallon, and the cats will herd themselves.

No, the cats will turn on their keepers and claw them to death, then install a replacement set of masters whose response to the problem will be to send armies of conquest (or at least control) abroad.
As I have said and said on this issue, PLEASE USE COMMON SENSE!

Re: The first question is always "how are the schools?" which is another way of saying "how many immigrants are there in the schools?"

Um, no it isn't. It really means, "how are the schools?" Im not at all persuaded that we're a bunch of racist, nativist snobs. Sure, for some people "schools" may be a code word for "How dark-skinned are my neighbors?" (which question applies to people also whose ancestors were laboring in the fields of the South long before Washington crossed the Delaware), but I rather think that most parents care mainly about having good schools for their kids and are not simply being politically correct.

Re: This may come as a shock to people like Matt, but there are plenty of people who like living in quiet suburbs that have good schools - where you can send your kids out to play and not worry much about safety.

In too many of today's suburbs you can't send your kid out to play because there's no place for them to play (and rather few other kdis for them to play with).

Re: Then when they hit their teens, you have to worry that they may die in a drinking-and-driving incident.

That's a concern pretty much everywhere. Teens do not become wise and responsible because they live in higher density communities. Nor is alcohol harder to get hold of.

Re: Not only is Petey right about the $7/gallon gas, but I find the sentiment itself kind of disgusting and ultimately dangerous.

Well, same to you, from the other side. I am inherently wary of proposals to reengineer human behavior. Some of history's greatest horrors, from Auschwitz, to Gulags, to auto da fes arose from that impulse. Global warming is not a moral problem; we can leave the sermons and the anathemas at home. Global warming is a practical and technological problem and it will have a practical and technological solution.

Re: You can call me naive if you wish, but I hope that we would have at least some tolerance for discomfort and adaptation before society just collapsed into a Hobbesian war of all against all.

What are you talking about? This really does sound like a religious belief (Armageddon for atheists) whereby the sinners are collectively punished by Mother Gaia rather than Father God for their sins. But Hobbes however was wrong: there has never been a "Hobbesian war of all against all", in fact there never was a state of nature. Leave the doom-saying for the Bible-thumping contingent.

Posted by JonF | July 20, 2007 1:57 PM

Also, Matt is correct that individuals make decisions in the context of "what's around them". And these decisions can have a powerful combined effect that changes the context in which others make decisions.

Same thing happened with the QWERTY keyboard, or VHS versus Beta. There was a self-reinforcing trend that resulted in a stable equilibrium (not many Dvorak keyboards nowadays, not many Beta VCR's, not much mass transit).

You need to insert a separate argument here though, which tells us why the stable equilibrium with mass transit and density is preferable. It would cost a lot of money, probably tax money, to get there. Is that the best use of our money? A lot of smart people say no. I haven't read closely enough to have a strong opinion one way or other.

Posted by mk | July 20, 2007 1:57 PM

Don't discount the observable fact that people like to live within what they perceive or wish their peer group to be. Add in the tribalism that has been accentuated in America in the last forty years and you have one reason for the burbs.

Affordability. Just about everyone I know wants a nice home somewhere. For many, the homes they wanted and could afford were out of town, somewhere. While the reasons for this are many, it's not something easily countered or for that matter, it's not something that will be changed with a simplistic, one pronged approach.

Schools are a key issue for those with families and, don't forget, with our aging population another issue completely for those without school age children. Those aging folks hate to pay for schools when their own children don't attend them. Ignore that at your peril. And I'm not arguing it's a logical position but it is one that I have observed.

Crime, safety, whatever, these are generally code words other issues with the superficial issue being farther down the list than the hidden ones. Matters of race are important to most people. Again, right or wrong, ignore it and your plan is doomed.

And then there is the accumulated effect of decades of it being pounded into your head that you're a second class citizen if you don't an automobile and drive it daily (we'll ignore the whole issue of judging people by what they drive). Face it, the reality is that for most Americans in most places around the country, you're a loser if you take the bus or the train. These people have no experience with mass transit and don't want it, whether it makes environmental or economic sense. Changing those perceptions won't be legislated.

Posted by ice weasel | July 20, 2007 2:10 PM

If you want more middle class people to cluster in urban areas, stop subsidizing housing for low income people in the cities. That would increase the supply of housing available to the middle class in cities, and make cities more attractive to them by reducing crime and dysfunction. It makes sense too, because people on welfare don't need to worry about commuting downtown, so there's no need to pay for them living in the city. Why not offer them subsidized housing in the exurbs?

Posted by Fred | July 20, 2007 2:25 PM

That's a concern pretty much everywhere.

Not in college. Why? Because after getting really, really drunk, I was able to stumble home on my own two feet rather than needing to drive home. It's not that higher density areas make people more responsible. It's that certain irresponsible behaviors-- eg, driving, which is quite dangerous -- are less accessible and less necessary.

(by the time I left college and had a car and moved to someplace where I wasn't within walking distance of my friends, I simply stopped drinking as much, because I knew that being inebriated had much worse consequences)

Posted by Tyro | July 20, 2007 2:26 PM

"Tax the price of gas up to $7/gallon, and the cats will herd themselves.

More broadly, the beauty of a carbon tax is that it'll let folks make their own decisions about how to live in a manner that emits less carbon. Under such circumstances, I think you'd find significantly higher support among the electorate for mass transit subsidies."

This will cause the value of every suburban house not served by public transportation (most of them) to plummet in value as they become unsellable. The middle income people who bought them in the last 10 years or so will not be able to pay the gas tax and their mortgage. They will be bankrupted. But hey, that's only tens of millions of hard working people cast into poverty.

Posted by Njorl | July 20, 2007 2:26 PM

Well, same to you, from the other side. I am inherently wary of proposals to reengineer human behavior.

Adapting to adversity through social organization IS human behavior. That's what tribes do. They share resources when times are tough, and they work together to make it less likely that times will be so tough in the future. That's how we made it through crap like the Great Depression or World War II, and it's the only way we'll make it through something like that again. YES, the capacity of a society to survive and avoid calamity is a moral issue. Morality IS practical.

The last thing we need is someone shrieking about Auschwitz just because the price of gas goes up--like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum with the consequences being riots and war.

I'm not talking about Gaia--but with decent probability, there will be SOME sort of adversity--war, famine, or disease--that our society will have to face collectively in the future, as there have been several in the past. Will our society have the strength to overcome it, or will we surrender to violent barbarism?

Posted by Consumatopia | July 20, 2007 2:31 PM

"This will cause the value of every suburban house not served by public transportation (most of them) to plummet in value as they become unsellable."

Hyperbole much? $7/gallon gas will cause every suburban house not served by public transportation to become unsellable?

O....K.....

There obviously is a very small grain of truth in this statement, which is why a hefty carbon tax should be phased in over 10 to 20 years, both to make it politically feasible, as well as for a basic sense of fairness.

The idea isn't to needlessly hurt someone who just bought a house in exurbia. The idea is to make folks in the future make a decision about buying a house into exurbia that better factors in the carbon emission costs.

If there is no economic pain in living a high carbon emission lifestyle, carbon emissions will not be efficiently reduced.

Posted by Petey | July 20, 2007 2:37 PM

"Will our society have the strength to overcome it, or will we surrender to violent barbarism?"

Well, since diversity is strength we should do fine. As recent academic studies show, the more diverse a society is, the more people trust each other, so that will make it easier to band together in times of crisis.

Posted by Fred | July 20, 2007 2:37 PM

FWIW, only 14% of annual greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation fuels, and auto emissions are obviously only a fraction of that number.

Or in other words, you could increase the number of families living with fewer than one car per adult to 100% without making much of a dent in global warming.

Nice "fact." That's worldwide. It's about 30% in the US.

Posted by none | July 20, 2007 2:44 PM

"I'm not nearly as optimistic as you that there is some technological magic bullet that will create cheap, non-carbon emitting energy in the near future. But a high carbon tax will certainly focus big research dollars into trying to make that happen on a scale far beyond what we have today."

Not really.

A rapidly implemented, very large, carbon tax will cripple industry and will cause catastrophic disruption in civilian sectors. That is not an environment in which technological development will flourish. A carbon tax that is smaller and phased in over time will do no good in time.

A technological solution is the only answer. However, it can not be attained via incentives in a timely manner. The solution is a big honking government program funded by a broadly dispersed tax burden. I know it is not fashionable anymore, but it is the only way that will work.

Posted by Njorl | July 20, 2007 2:48 PM

"There obviously is a very small grain of truth in this statement, which is why a hefty carbon tax should be phased in over 10 to 20 years, both to make it politically feasible, as well as for a basic sense of fairness."

Oh yeah. A carbon tax phased in over 20 years will do a load of good.

Posted by Njorl | July 20, 2007 2:53 PM

One of the proposed alternatives was to cut the Calif. State University budget by 1%. The CSU budget is already at the minimum-funding amount permitted under a prior compact. That cut would have jeopardized staff and faculty labor agreements agreed to 3-months ago on the brink of a system-wide strike. That strike was averted, in part, because some in the state legislature told the chancellor there would be no budget until the labor problems were resolved. If you are going to criticize cuts in transportation, you have an obligation to suggest where else the cuts can be made. Matt -- the question here is whether you consider transporation infrastructure a higher priority than an educated workforce. When you make these sorts of criticisms, please consider the entire picture.

Posted by Perry | July 20, 2007 2:58 PM

"Oh yeah. A carbon tax phased in over 20 years will do a load of good."

Glad to see you're on board, Njorl.

A quick turnaround from the nonsense you were emitting previously. Kudos.

Posted by Petey | July 20, 2007 2:59 PM

Or in other words, you could increase the number of families living with fewer than one car per adult to 100% without making much of a dent in global warming.

Nice "fact." That's worldwide. It's about 30% in the US.

Which really means that making the changes in the US will have even less of an impact globally.

Posted by TW Andrews | July 20, 2007 3:09 PM

"I can think of something which, while perhaps not easy to achieve, would still be far easier to achieve than trying to herd everybody back into high rise tenements in the city: cars that do not produce CO2 emissions. That is, either electric cars or hydrogen fuel cell cars. "

It is easy to achieve, and nearly pointless if you charge the cars with power from fossil fuel burning power plants.

Posted by Njorl | July 20, 2007 3:14 PM

Which really means that making the changes in the US will have even less of an impact globally.

That is some stunning logic.

Posted by JB | July 20, 2007 3:26 PM

While Petey's proposal is a good one, and one I support in concept, he is clearly crazy if he thinks that it is politically palatable. Much easier to increase regulation on industry - CAFE, power plants, etc. - and let the costs be passed along indirectly. No question that gutless legislators will choose that instead.

Posted by Al | July 20, 2007 3:45 PM

"Much easier to increase regulation on industry - CAFE, power plants, etc. - and let the costs be passed along indirectly."

You are utterly correct that it would be politically easier to follow that course, but I honestly believe that with a dollar for dollar offset in the payroll tax, a hefty phased-in carbon tax is indeed politically feasible.

And, of course, the policy benefits of just imposing the tax and letting the market work out all the details are overwhelming when compared to a piecework regulation regime that'll almost definitely treat different kinds of emissions differently.

"No question that gutless legislators will choose that instead."

It'll take leadership. Someone will have to run for President espousing such an idea, take the hits, and win the election.

Posted by Petey | July 20, 2007 3:55 PM

Completely eliminating all carbon emissions from transportation in the US would be offset by the increase in carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants in China over the next 2-3 years.

Eliminating all carbon emissions from transportation in the world would be offset by increases in Chinese coal-burning power plants over the next 4-5 years.

Considering that China is not the only rapidly expanding developing country, and that public transportation is only going to make our transportation fractionally more carbon efficient, we are discussing shaking up our society to buy ourselves a year or so.

Posted by Njorl | July 20, 2007 4:07 PM

Matt -- the question here is whether you consider transporation infrastructure a higher priority than an educated workforce.

Well, that is your question, and it is not really the question at hand. Yes, Matt should make some suggestions as to what he thinks should be done( though I doubt he is sufficiently knowledgeable about California's budget to make an usable proposal). On the other hand, his suggestion does not have to be a question of transportation or education. He could make suggest a cut somewhere else.

Notice this(from linked article):
"It includes tax breaks totaling $140 million for the film industry and other businesses -- the first such incentives to be passed by either house of the Legislature in years"

I know that comparatively, 140 million is not a lot, but why are we talking about so many cuts while still giving tax breaks? Why are those necessary?

Posted by Rambuncle | July 20, 2007 4:39 PM

In the SF Bay Area, we don't have sprawl because people want to live far away from San Francisco. Nearly everyone wants to live in or close to it.

We have sprawl because SF and surrounding areas are so expensive.

Thus, outlying areas like Antioch, Rohnert Park, Turlock that now serve as SF Bay Area suburbs are populated by comparatively lower income workers, while SF and the inner ring areas are populated moreso by higher income professionals.

Welcome to the Third World, or at least the part of the Third World we are copying.

The idea of White Flight is gauche. White professionals are now populating the cities. Poor people are largely getting pushed out of the cities.

Get with the program and update your understanding of sprawl. Surely, you should know better since you're in Santa Fe. Almost every resort/tourist area is pricey but has a community at some distance away that is where the worker bees in that resort/tourst area live:

Sedona/Cottonwood
Monterey-Carmel/Salinas
Lake Tahoe/Meyers, Reno, Carson City

To name a few.

Posted by david in norcal | July 20, 2007 5:23 PM

Take a step back for a moment and think about this. If someone came up with an alternative source of energy that was cheaper than fossil fuels, he would have a market incentive to develop it right now, without a carbon tax. On the other hand, if the alternative form of energy needs a steep tax to make it competitive, what effect will that have on the rest of our economy?

Imagine that an alternative source of energy universally approved by Greens were developed. Let's call it goreium. Let's say goreium was great, but it was more expensive than coal or oil. What if it took $120 worth of goreium to replace the energy provided by one barrel of oil?

If Caterpillar, John Deere, or another American manufacturer had to decide whether to expand a plant in the U.S. or build another overseas, and they knew they had to use expensive goreium-fueled energy here, but could use cheaper fossil fuels overseas, what do you think they would do?

Posted by Fred | July 20, 2007 5:27 PM

Re: Those aging folks hate to pay for schools when their own children don't attend them.

I think this is a bit unfair to the elderly. Many of them have very limited incomes and find their property taxes to be an unsupportable burden. This is a good argument for funding schools in some other manner, and at the state rather than local level.

Re: Face it, the reality is that for most Americans in most places around the country, you're a loser if you take the bus or the train.

Buses, yes. Because they are very unpleasant and slow way to get around. Trains I think not. Many people wish they did have a high-speed, dependable rail-line to take them to work. And certainly no supposes the people who ride NYC's subways (pretty much the whole population of the city) or Chicago's El or San Fran's BART are losers.

Re: Not in college. Why? Because after getting really, really drunk, I was able to stumble home on my own two feet rather than needing to drive home.

Right, except that teens cannot drink in public places, and given the trend toward harsh enforcement of the laws against allowing kids to drink at home, many cannot do that either. Result: they drive out to parts distant to party, or perhaps just "booze-cruise". And by the way, I recall drunk driving accidents involving students at the U of Michigan when I was a student there. As downtown Ann Arbor yuppified it became rather hostile toward student partying (we nicknamed the town "Anal Arbor"), and so many students ended up driving out to clubs on the outskirts or even to Detroit.

Re: More broadly, the beauty of a carbon tax is that it'll let folks make their own decisions about how to live in a manner that emits less carbon.

Oh good grief no it does not! Put down the crack pipe please! A large number of lower and lower middle income people and even some above that level, are trapped in their current life style and CANNOT CHANGE BECAUES THEY DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY. What you are proposing makes it even harder for them to change-- and may sink some of them entirely. Honestly, you folk go bingeing on your "Sky is falling" riff and all thought of social and economic justice goes right out the window! What a bunch of fake progresseves and elitist leftists. Justice first, people, always justice first. There are other ways to deal with CO2 and climate change than by ruining the middle class and reducing the poor to Third World misery.

Posted by Jonf | July 20, 2007 7:13 PM

A patch of affordable land near a well-maintained road that's connected to a network of other well-maintained roads is an attractive place to live. A patch of affordable land that's connected by a crude trail to a dirt road isn't.

I could think of a few places only connected by a crude trail to a dirt road that would be highly attractive to live in - but maybe that's a European thing.

Posted by novakant | July 20, 2007 7:45 PM

Wow, that's just what Los Angeles and the Bay Area and San Diego need: less means for poor people to navigate throught the massive sprawl to reach the land of the rich on the other side of town. Keep those poor people in their cars for an extra hour per day so that they won't have time to play at the beaches and clubs of the rich. - - The new segregation is geographical -> these socio-economically divided enclaves are material structures that reinforce inequalities. E.g., by making poor people waste hours of their day in traffic - time for which they are not only not financially compensated, but also they are psychologically punished by having to endure the mindnumbing, frustrating, and alienating lethargy of traffic, and physically punished by the exhaust fumes and inactivness of sitting. According to this article on the "urban happiness movement," commuting to work is the number one source of unhappiness in people's lives. It sure is shitty of the government of California to shift the burden of that unhappiness onto poor people.

Posted by Eli | July 20, 2007 8:35 PM

The reason there's no "white flight" in SF is because expensive liberal zoning laws priced immigrants out of the market. Few immigrants, no white flight.

Posted by bjk | July 20, 2007 8:37 PM

Imagine that an alternative source of energy universally approved by Greens were developed. Let's call it goreium. Let's say goreium was great, but it was more expensive than coal or oil. What if it took $120 worth of goreium to replace the energy provided by one barrel of oil?

If Caterpillar, John Deere, or another American manufacturer had to decide whether to expand a plant in the U.S. or build another overseas, and they knew they had to use expensive goreium-fueled energy here, but could use cheaper fossil fuels overseas, what do you think they would do?

That's an extremely populist argument you're making there. The same logic would have you subsidizing the cost of energy, because if you could open your factory in a country with subsidized energy rather than one with standard price energy, well, who wouldn't?

If you'd step back and think, you'd realize that oil already is subsidized energy, with both national security and environmental externalities that are paid for collectively.

If greenhouse gases were the only externality of oil (they aren't), you'd have a point--because that externality is paid for globally.

Which is why greenhouse gases have to be dealt with by international cooperation..

Posted by Consumatopia | July 20, 2007 8:38 PM

"If you'd step back and think, you'd realize that oil already is subsidized energy, with both national security and environmental externalities that are paid for collectively."

Not really. There is a global market for oil which determines its price; it isn't cheaper in the United States because any de facto "subsidies" you claim (unless you mean to claim that the United States subsidizes the global price of oil, but that would be a stretch).

"Which is why greenhouse gases have to be dealt with by international cooperation."

Good luck with all that! Although there may be enough anti-industry/anti-development folks in the U.S. to influence policy, adherents to the global warming religion are considerably more scarce in countries such as India and China. Better just resign yourself to that 1 degree increase in average temperatures over the next century.

Posted by Fred | July 20, 2007 9:26 PM

There is a global market for oil which determines its price; it isn't cheaper in the United States because any de facto "subsidies" you claim

The subsidy is partly in the form of not having to pay for ecological damage (not just CO2) caused by burning and refining the stuff. Put it this way--if we put taxes on carbon and used them to cut taxes elsewhere, dirty factories would move out and clean ones would move in. Since we'd rather have clean ones, our tax policy should reflect that.

unless you mean to claim that the United States subsidizes the global price of oil

Yes, of course it obviously does. It's in American interest to guarantee the supply of oil. We burn the most, so we end up guaranteeing everyone's supply, propping up regimes that pump it out, knocking them over if they stop pumping. Just like how America is the most interested in having fancy drugs so we end up researching everyone's drugs. Just like when one spouse wants the house cleaner than the other spouse and ends up doing all the work.

Of course, in all those cases the "sucker" gets something for their payment--the power to decide the oil supply, medical research, and home cleanliness that results. When you buy a car or build a factory that requires oil, you're not just depending on the price of today, but the price of oil for the remainder of the lifetime of that piece of capital. Countries that export oil and have refineries can guarantee that supply domestically. America guarantees it militarily. Other countries rely on the kindness of strangers.

Posted by Consumatopia | July 20, 2007 10:24 PM

Don't think we're going to need tax to have gas at $7 a gallon. Peak oil is here. Works out well with the global warming, though.

Posted by doug r | July 21, 2007 2:42 PM