Six Dollar a Gallon Gas Is a Breath of Fresh Air
We need to start driving less. Soon. For our children. For the planet. If the price of gas is a cause, so be it.
Republicans are trying hard to make gas prices an issue. One can hardly blame them, since just about every other arrow in their quiver is a dud: Thursday’s Biden impeachment hearing, for instance, where their primary witness testified that they didn’t have a case.
Gas prices are up, there’s no doubt about it. Just about everybody’s experiencing sticker shock at the pump, like my life partner, who sent an alarming text after paying $70 to fill the Honda.
Reliably reactionary KUSI News brought Carl DeMaio out of the storeroom to explain why California's politicians are to blame for our sky-high gas prices. As usual, his solution ignored realities beyond his tunnel vision politics.
Gov. Newsom is accelerating the switch to “winter blend gas,” which is cheaper (25¢gal) to produce, hoping to tamp down some of the ruckus. Prices will drop slightly next week. And then they probably will go back up.
I come bearing bad views today: high gasoline prices at the pump are good for you. (Now pipe down and eat your broccoli.)
Gas price inflation rhetoric is an example of taking an event out of context to stir discontent. In the absence of any platform beyond ‘whatever Dear Leader says’ it’s a handy tool.
Let me start at the top of this fuel foolishness and work my way down.
No politician who cares about the future of democracy and the environment can do much about gas prices. The options for politicians who don’t care involve submitting to the whims of autocratic governments and bringing back the smog cloud over American cities.
Roughly half the pump price reflects the cost of crude — the rest being marketing, taxes and other costs. Reducing crude oil prices takes a global effort and doing things not in our best interest over the long-term.
First up, the U.S. of A. is energy independent, and is setting records for oil exports. There are differences in the quality/composition of crude oil that drive imports and exports worldwide so, yes, refineries import crude that is more efficient and profitable to process.
Although the US dependency on oil imports from the Middle East has declined in recent years (Canada is our largest supplier), market prices are a worldwide phenomenon, influenced by supply and demand. As prices have increased, speculators have bet heavily on further increases. That’s capitalism in action, folks, and it isn’t expected to change anytime soon.
Saudi Arabia and Russia have both reduced oil exports (by 1 million and half a million barrels per day) in a bid to weaken western Democracy’s economies (and fatten their wallets). Some experts believe there is a willingness to use oil pricing to assist Donald Trump in regaining the presidency.
The chaos caucus in the House of Representatives (along with state and local politicians) can’t make a dent in crude pricing by virtue of being in office.
Of course, California could reduce or cut gas taxes (currently at 58¢ per gallon) along with 23¢ cents a gallon for the state’s cap-and-trade program to lower greenhouse gas emissions, as well as 18¢ for the state’s low-carbon fuel program.
The trade offs here are less money for our deteriorating roads and a return of the yellow haze over Los Angeles and other cities. If you accept the reality of climate change and the impact of higher pollution on public health, reducing revenues in those areas is a bad idea.
One thing California could actually do would be to rip the cloak off these “unexpected refinery shutdowns” which occur with way too much regularity. It occurs almost as often as the ‘California takes on the oil and gas industry’ headlines appearing in the media.
***
Our society is organized around the supremacy of transportation by automobile. Changing to another way isn’t going to be easy or quick, but the first step is recognition that we have a problem.
Life without a car is difficult to imagine in San Diego. I can already visualize the area’s regressives being snide and snarky about the very concept. Nonetheless, we’re going to have to start planning now for a much different planet ahead. The pace of climate change, as measured by scientists, is accelerating.
From the Washington Post:
The world is likely to pass a dangerous temperature threshold within the next 10 years, pushing the planet past the point of catastrophic warming — unless nations drastically transform their economies and immediately transition away from fossil fuels, according to one of the most definitive reports ever published about climate change.
The report released Monday by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that the world is likely to surpass its most ambitious climate target — limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures — by the early 2030s.
Beyond that threshold, scientists have found, climate disasters will become so extreme that people will not be able to adapt. Basic components of the Earth system will be fundamentally, irrevocably altered. Heat waves, famines and infectious diseases could claim millions of additional lives by century’s end.
HEATED, one of the better climate-centric Substack newsletters, highlighted an academic paper published in the journal Science Progress, explaining “ecological overshoot”—that is, the consumption of natural resources that exceeds Earth’s regenerative capacity.
Led by New Zealand-based conservationist Joseph Merz, the paper’s authors argue that capitalism, and the consumer culture it drives in high-emitting nations like the U.S., “is causing [humans] to consume our natural resources at rates faster than they can be replenished, while also creating waste in excess of what the Earth can assimilate.”
If the world’s highest emitting countries only focus on technological climate solutions (like switching to renewable energy) and not systemic behavioral ones (like buying less stuff and using less energy), the authors argue, climate change may be slowed. But ecological overshoot—which includes symptoms like biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse, and ocean acidification—will worsen. And as overshoot worsens, the authors argue, “the likelihood of societal breakdown increases.”
The researchers thus call for global recognition of a so-called “Human Behavioral Crisis,” and propose that countries and individuals start recognizing the need for systemic change in social norms in addition to a change in energy systems. “This paper is a call to action,” co-author Mat Maroni said in a statement. “It is a new way to frame an issue that deserves a better conversation.”
In case you haven’t noticed, the automotive industry has been doing its best to increase the size of the vehicles they sell us. This is an area where, if wishes were horses, the federal government could do more to help the environment and reduce the high number of traffic deaths.
We ‘choose’ gas guzzling SUVs and pickups thanks to a fuel efficiency loophole left open by the feds in 1975. Today 4 in 5 new American cars are highly profitable SUVs or trucks, up from less than 1 in 2 in 2000.
But what about electric cars? This future of personal transportation also harms the environment, though not along the lines of what the former president rants about. The issue is microplastics, harming the ecosphere and our health in ways scientists are just beginning to understand.
Car tires are a major source of micro pollution. The more we drive the more we pollute. In fact, particles from car tires likely make up 78% of the microplastics in the ocean.
Again, the solution to this problem could/should be driving less.
EVs don’t pay for a portion of the costs of infrastructure enhancement and maintenance, via the dreaded gas tax. The market is already speaking, and as much as I dislike Elon Musk, there’s no doubt consumers are making the switch.
The search is on for a new funding source –other than cutting expenditures and throwing grannies on the streets– and a mileage tax has been discussed as an option.
To hear Republicans in San Diego talk, a mileage tax was already approved and ready to shove down drivers’ throats. It wasn’t and the truth is complex, something Republicans don’t do well.
In fact, a mileage tax is a bad idea for California. It’s practical in areas where geography dictates travel habits and a robust transit system exists.
What California needs is a tax that kills two birds with one stone, based on vehicle weight. (How it is applied is TBD) We’d get infrastructure funding and people buying the ever larger SUVs might have to stop and think.
Personally speaking, acquiring a larger vehicle is becoming a defensive move. The mambo-sized pickup trucks & SUVs can’t readily see sedans, bicycles or pedestrians. And when they crash into something the additional momentum caused by weight makes them into killing machines.
Norway, where 87% of new cars are EVs, has just instituted new taxes on car purchases that scale with vehicle weight (gas guzzlers pay a higher rate).
Washington DC, despite industry opposition and the usual propaganda campaigns, is now charging owners of cars weighing over 6,000 pounds $500 a year, almost seven times more than the cost of registering a modest-sized sedan. (the District offers EVs a 1,000-pound credit to account for battery weight.)
From a recent article at Slate:
Another environmental risk makes giant EVs even more of a problem. The size of an EV battery scales with vehicle weight, since heftier cars require more power to move. As a result, the biggest EVs have truly enormous batteries—like the 3,000-pound battery that powers the 9,083-pound Hummer EV. Gigantic batteries consume larger amounts of critical minerals like graphite and lithium that are in short supply worldwide.
“If we can redistribute these resources—instead of putting them in a Hummer, put them in smaller cars or e-bikes—that’s preferable,” said Jay Turner, a professor of environmental studies at Wellesley College and the author of the book Charged: A History of Batteries and Lessons for a Clean Energy Future. Supporting his point, a recent study found that SUVs are so inefficient that electrifying them instead of smaller vehicles could actually worsen climate change.
Largely because of their batteries, electric vehicles are typically around 30 percent heavier than equivalent gas-powered models. That leads to yet another concern of bigger EVs: the added force they exert during a crash. Already, the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety is revising its crash safety tests to account for the unprecedented weight of certain EVs. As National Transportation Safety Board chair Jennifer Homendy warned in a recent address, the tonnage of goliath-like EVs portends danger for any road user not inside one—especially those walking and biking.
***
Friday’s Feast of News Snips
***
House impeachment inquiry off to an awkward start Via Politico (That’s the nicest headline I saw)
Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) have spent months seeking proof that Joe Biden — as president or vice president — acted to benefit his family or in exchange for payments to his family. The Oversight panel has gathered bank records, Treasury documents and interviewed associates of First Son Hunter Biden, who faces an ongoing federal case of his own after his plea deal imploded.
But no evidence has emerged that the business dealings of Hunter Biden or other family members directly affected Joe Biden’s decisions. That investigation is expected to escalate. with Comer preparing to subpoena records pertaining to Hunter and the president’s brother James Biden.
***
California gunmakers fear their ‘expiration date’ in a state that doesn’t want them Via CalMatters
Meanwhile, a new state tax on firearms and ammunition looms in July, if it survives a near-certain legal challenge. Gov. Gavin Newsom — the architect of California’s large-capacity magazine ban and a vocal critic of Benitez, whom he has derided as “a wholly owned subsidiary of the gun lobby” — signed the bill on Tuesday, creating an 11% excise tax, paid by dealers and manufacturers, to fund gun violence prevention programs.
It’s not a death knell for Rifle Supply. Though that 11% is more than the typical profit margin for gun and ammunition sales, owner John Koukios said he would pass on the cost to customers, as much as he can.
But it’s another burden, in a long line of California laws and regulations and restrictions and paperwork — so much paperwork — that makes many people in what remains of the state’s firearms industry wonder whether those in charge are simply looking for a way to push them out.
***
Biden Issues a Blistering Attack on Trump Via the New York Times
The gloves-off assault on Mr. Trump represented a marked shift for Mr. Biden, who has spent months mostly talking up the benefits of his policies while ignoring the race to choose a Republican nominee to challenge him. But repeated speeches claiming credit for “Bidenomics” have not moved his anemic approval ratings, as many voters tell pollsters they worry about the 80-year-old president’s age.
Democratic strategists have pressed the White House to draw a sharper contrast with Mr. Trump to remind Democrats and independents disenchanted with Mr. Biden of the stakes in next year’s election. Whatever Mr. Biden’s weaknesses, Democratic strategists maintain that swing voters will come back to him once they focus on Mr. Trump, 77, as the alternative.
Mr. Biden’s campaign released an ad assailing Mr. Trump as both the current and former presidents traveled separately to Michigan to meet with autoworkers. “He says he stands with autoworkers,” the ad says, showing images of Mr. Trump on the golf course, “but as president, Donald Trump passed tax breaks for his rich friends while automakers shuttered their plants and Michigan lost manufacturing jobs.”
I agree a tax of vehicle weight could be a better approach than a mileage tax - similar impact without the political backlash. But I would be ok with ditching the 18¢ tax per gallon for the state’s low-carbon fuel program - at this point vehicles should just go electric, no need for biofuels or other intermediate (and costly) solutions.