	Agent009 "If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
	View My AgentSpace

Poll Shows Almost Half Of U.S. Won't Pay Additional Taxes To Reduce CO2

Agent009 submitted on 03/20/2008 Official AutoSpies Timestamp: 11:15 AM
from: www.autospies.com

[42] user comments | category: Spy Shots

Print this Page |

Digg It |

del.icio.us

Poll Shows Almost Half Of U.S. Won't Pay Additional Taxes To Reduce CO2

48% of Americans are unwilling to spend even a penny more in gasoline taxes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, says a new nationwide survey released today by the National
Center for Public Policy Research.

    The poll found just 18% of Americans are willing to pay 50 cents or more in taxes per gallon to reduce greenhouse emissions. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) has called for a 50 cents per gallon gas tax increase.

    "With one-fifth of all U.S. CO2 emissions coming from light trucks and cars, any serious effort to significantly reduce U.S. emissions would have to encourage fuel conservation in personal automobiles," said David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. "But almost half of all Americans oppose spending more for gasoline, despite polls indicating wide public concern over global warming. These results suggest Americans' concern may not be as deep as we've been led to believe."

    Opposition to increased gasoline taxes was especially strong among minorities.

    "It's not surprising that many minorities oppose higher gas taxes, as such taxes are sharply regressive, harming the economically-disadvantaged disproportionately," said Ridenour.

    Voters were told: "Congress is currently considering legislation that would raise the tax on gasoline in an attempt to motivate Americans to conserve fuel and reduce greenhouse gas emissions." They were asked how much more they'd be willing to pay in gasoline taxes and given seven choices: nothing, less than 50 cents, 50 cents, one dollar, two dollars, five dollars, eight dollars or more.

    18% were willing to pay 50 cents or more; 8% a dollar or more and 2% $2 or more.

    Opposition to gas tax hikes was strongest in the Great Lakes (56%), New England (51%) and the Farm Belt (50%).

    Opposition grew when respondents were informed that eliminating cars in the U.S. altogether would only reduce world emissions by a fraction.

    Among those willing to pay more for gasoline to reduce emissions, 58% are less willing to do so, and 42% much less willing, when informed their sacrifice would produce little positive results.

    "Many global warming polls ask the wrong questions," said Ridenour. "We shouldn't ask Americans if action is needed on global warming, but how much more they're willing to pay for that action. We need to also ask whether people would still be willing to pay more, given the almost certain futility of it."

Be sure and check out our extensive photo galleries including the 2008 New York Auto Show and catch up on all of the latest news and models on AutoSpies.

Comments:

Images hosted in your AgentSpace can now be posted in the comments section using the following syntax (case matters):
[img]IMAGE URL[/img]
Example: [img]http://agent004.myautospies.com/users/150/Sample-Gallery/sample1.JPG[/img]

1970toyotamarc - 3/20/2008 11:55:40 AM

+3 Boost

Maybe they should tax the world record shattering profits of ExxonMobil et al.

reply to this comment

07G35J - 3/20/2008 12:34:51 PM

0 Boost

That sounds good to me.

1970toyotamarc - 3/20/2008 3:24:42 PM

0 Boost

I took economics courses that didnt just espouse supply side voodoo economics. Big corps can take the hits, especially as they rake in obscebne profits while the rest of us suffer. In the real world economy that most of us live in, not much of the largesse actually trickles down except in serious boom times, which we are not in right now. In our last boom time (end of 90s), the supply siders had their way and gave huge tax breaks, millions, to the rich. Most of us got a $300 check. Look where we are now.

Stop apologizing for corps that are making tens of billions every year. Even if the free market, supply side, laissez faire economics is at the heart of your core beliefs, how can you continue to justify this. Especially since these corps get the biggest govt welfare checks of all (inlcuding trillion dollar wars fought on their behalf).

I guess we have to take pity on oil companies today as decreased demand has caused oil to drop to only $100 a barrel. Moment of silence for them, everyone.

cktoo - 3/20/2008 5:16:12 PM

+1 Boost

Ah, 1970, there a places in this world for you...it's called a socialist country. Enjoy. And you seem to have no understanding of supply side theory/economics. Maybe we should tax you at 90% and see how you like it?

I will agree with you on one point, however, the handouts these Corps get are unbelieveable and I'd be all for cutting their subsidies. Have you seen the recent Farm Bill...unreal.

EnnNorak - 3/20/2008 5:59:08 PM

+2 Boost

Do not worry about C02. GM has a minority interest in a firm that has a process for heating agricultural waste, wood chips, switchgrass and other feedstock to produce carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Ethanol-excreting bacteria then turn the carbon monoxide and hydrogen into ethanol. The process uses only about one seventh of the energy that can be obtained from the ethanol.

I see the CO2 problem as a temporary disruption on our planet. A high human population is a much greater threat since humans compete for scarce resources and produce all that CO2 in the first place. We will have more severe climatic effects with greater concentrations of greenhouse gases but warm water ecologies will replace cold water ecologies and cute polar bears will be replaced by cute warmer climate animals.

BTW, any day now, final approval will be given for a 450 megawatt wind farm 5 miles off the coast of Cape Cod, MA. No CO2 produced there.

Tax the fuel but use the incremental revenue exclusively for the benefit of motorists by repairing crumbling highways and bridges. This will reduce fuel consumption and create needed jobs.

1995e34 - 3/21/2008 12:10:18 AM

+2 Boost

ennorak,

the wind farm is actually coming? i thought for sure the locals were going to win that one.

1970toyotamarc - 3/21/2008 12:45:49 PM

+2 Boost

You dont have to be a socialist to support smart government intervention in an economy. And no one is asking for 90% tax rates. (BTW, was the US socialist when it had 90% tax rates??) But when the upper tax rate was close to 40% in the 90s, the economy was booming. Now lowered to 35%, the rich are keeping more of their wealth. But how is that helping the rest of the country? Are they investing in infrastructure? No. Levvies and bridges are collapsing. Are they investing in factories? In Mexico. Are they creating jobs? Only at Starbucks and Wal-Mart. Supply-side economics has been a collosal failure in the past 7 years.

SteedPub - 3/20/2008 12:13:03 PM

0 Boost

Most Americans are smart enough to know this whole carbon/global warming notion is folly at its core.

Even those who believe in the great lie are smart enough to know that taxes NEVER solve problems, but rather empower government to take more liberties from the people.

reply to this comment

Threepoint1415926 - 3/20/2008 12:19:41 PM

+2 Boost

The first line of this article should read: "99% of Americans are unwilling to spend even a penny more in taxes"

1995e34 - 3/20/2008 12:33:20 PM

0 Boost

who says taxes NEVER solve problems? it seems to have done the trick for europe. look how much more efficient they are.

america's biggest blind spot is our fear of taxes.

Threepoint1415926 - 3/20/2008 12:58:18 PM

+1 Boost

I have a fundamental problem with stealing whether it solves problems or not.

1995e34 - 3/20/2008 1:08:12 PM

+2 Boost

i would argue they have too large a population rather than their tax system being flawed.

EnnNorak - 3/20/2008 6:06:50 PM

+3 Boost

SteedPub, you are so mistaken or perhaps brainwashed by special interests. Special taxes are OK provided the incremental revenue is used strictly for the benefit of those who pay the extra taxes. That is why I advocate spending 100% of gasoline taxes on projects that benefit motorist i.e. repair of highways and bridges which will also help to boost domestic jobs and the nation's economy.

SteedPub - 3/20/2008 6:30:31 PM

+1 Boost

EnnNorak, so which government entity do you naievely trust to do just that?

w209w114 - 3/20/2008 1:12:15 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

We dont want any more taxes. Period.

reply to this comment

EnnNorak - 3/20/2008 6:19:12 PM

+2 Boost

I'd like to see anyone below the poverty level not pay any income taxes and everyone else pay a flat income tax rate regardless of income. The alternative minimum tax is a crock.

Sales taxes should only be in the form of a value added tax and only at the national level. Property taxes are unfair. State (provincial in Canada) revenue should be only in the form of a federal grant proportionate to the relevant population -- this would ensure fiscal responsibility below the national level and not cause people to move for tax reasons. States in turn can dole out money to local municipal jurisdictions according to their respective populations.

phoenexius - 3/20/2008 1:35:18 PM

+2 Boost

brilliant!!
I say double gas taxes, then 48% of america will stop buying gas, and therefore stop driving, thus acheiving the goal - reduced emissions and foreign oil dependence

reply to this comment

SteedPub - 3/20/2008 2:57:49 PM

+2 Boost

And the next logical steps in your domino line.....

No more driving.....No more deliveries. No more commerce. No more eating. No more economy. No more people.

Smart.

cktoo - 3/20/2008 5:20:42 PM

0 Boost

Forget double, quadruple the tax and 80-90% will stop...along with most commerce. Then we can see the .000000001% change it has on global scamming, I mean warming. Great idea.

jpnuss - 3/20/2008 1:38:59 PM

+4 Boost

What a surprise, coming from the National
Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR)!
The NCPPR opposed action on global warming at the international summit in Kyoto, Japan. It established the Kyoto Earth Summit Information Center, issued an "Earth Summit Fact Sheet" and fed anti-treaty quotes to the media through a "free interview locator service" that offered "assistance to journalists seeking interviews with leading scientists, economists and public policy experts on global warming."

Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, NCPPR began using the rhetoric of anti-terrorism to attack environmentalists. In May 2002, it created the Envirotruth web site, to attack what it called the "jihad" that environmental activists are waging against corporations.

So any poll done by the NCPPR is going to support its own view. And, Agent 009, when you quote the NCPPR, maybe you should give some background info about them.

reply to this comment

Agent009 - 3/20/2008 3:26:25 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

The release was presented in its entirety.

cktoo - 3/20/2008 5:25:24 PM

+2 Boost

Wow, sounds kinda like the polls done by the news media...

Spectator - 3/20/2008 2:09:44 PM

+3 Boost

Personally I already spend $600.00 -after taxes- on fuel per month. I'd not like to see an extra $100.00-$300.00 added onto that. The devaluation of the US dollar and the 2002-2005 housing market insanity has already screwed me.

The government is already slow to adopt telecommuting (which I think should become mandatory in all metropolitan areas) which could do so much to benifit us all; yet I bet they are quick on picking up this study and using it as a baseline to raise fuel taxes.

reply to this comment

EnnNorak - 3/20/2008 6:21:27 PM

+2 Boost

Telecommuting is already in widespread practice for certain occupations and employers are finding great productivity with this arrangement.

Spectator - 3/21/2008 10:58:14 AM

+2 Boost

True. I used to a have a job (and I still have flexablility within my current job, just less) which allowed me to telecommute and I do belive we are in violent agreement. However what I'm envisoning is a work week where one works from home 2-4 days a week.

If there is not a criticality for one to be in a specific physical location (emergency workers, police, retail, construction, etc.) then you do not need to commute into an office just to sit behind a computer for 9 hours or sit in an office where there is teleconfrencing/video conferencing already, 5 days a week. Once to twice a week is all that should be required to ensure maintainence of a good working relationship with your cowokers and supervisors.

Auto_expert - 3/20/2008 2:25:22 PM

+4 Boost

F taxes! There are so many bigger fish to fry than CO2. How about focusing on REAL toxins/pollutants in the water and air? Or, how about methane which 10 times as destructive as CO2? No, we have go bonkers over the thing that feeds the trees and lush greenery.

reply to this comment

EnnNorak - 3/20/2008 6:29:30 PM

+4 Boost

Actually, methane is more like 47 times as potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 but there is so little of it that it is a small component of the overall problem. The most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor. My theory is that the extra CO2 causes enough heat to be built up to increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere sufficiently to cause terrible storms. I am also afraid that one of these winter storms with lots of snow from all the freezing water vapor will cover so much land with reflective snow that much of the sun's rays will get reflected back into space and precipitate an ice age.

NItePhire - 3/20/2008 2:55:28 PM

+2 Boost

I am for taxing as long as it across the board and not just on gas. It should be on all forms of energy since they are quoted as saying that 1/5th of the gases come from cars. Well hell where do you think the rest comes from, energy use of houses, factories, and things like that. Take a small tax and levee it across the board. I may driven an Infiniti but my house ain't 6000 sqft.

reply to this comment

EnnNorak - 3/20/2008 6:31:46 PM

+2 Boost

How much CO2 is China creating with all its coal-fired polluting power plants?

Whelan - 3/20/2008 4:40:08 PM

+2 Boost

The fact that the oil companies even with the rise in taxes, prices, etc. Have still continued to make record profits goes to show you whose getting hit, the general public.

I personally feel it's a way for governments to have the auto industry roped into moving to more environmentally friendly cars and with the coming of the Civic Hydrogen car for lease in Cali end of this year. If you wanna make the buck now, invest in Hydrogen, get a startup and start working out the infrastructure problem we are gonna face. Do that, and car companies will sell hydrogen cars by the masses.

Car companies are years ahead of the fuel industry, each brand has hydrogen cars ready for production if need be, they can store it safely, it can operate in cold temperatures, and has become very safe and reliable. Come up with a standard for filling them (i.e. like a gas station or a home tank that is filled by a private company) and setup the infrastructure damnit!

I feel like what you are going to see in the next 10-20 years is not a Mobil or Chevron station for filling. They are refusing to make the move to other fuels currently. Companies like BP and Shell you may see, but I really think the Auto Industry as a whole is going to go head first into the hydrogen market. You will be filling up at Honda and Chevy stations instead of Mobil. Since the auto industry is getting squeezed on by government and fuel costs, time for them to flip the bird and go it on their own.

reply to this comment

mini22 - 3/20/2008 5:52:59 PM

+4 Boost

I think the tax should be based on the size and weight of the vehicle you own. The larger and heavier the vehicle the more tax you pay.

reply to this comment

EnnNorak - 3/20/2008 6:35:45 PM

0 Boost

Do I get a credit for medical expenses saved by not getting injured when my big vehicle gets hit by a little one?

Weight is great as it increases the sprung weight to unsprung weight ratio for a more comfortable and less stressful ride. Less stress equals lower blood pressure equals lower medical expenses.

SteedPub - 3/20/2008 9:22:35 PM

+1 Boost

We have a tax like this already that is directly tied to the vehicle's consumption. It is called the "gas tax".

The more it uses, the more you pay because you buy more gas.

moto - 3/20/2008 6:15:58 PM

+1 Boost

Isn't the real tagline that 52% of Americans support a modest tax on gasoline to reduce CO2 emissions?

Look at the numbers and it's clear that more Americans support the environment rather than their friendly oil companies, even if it costs a little more.

reply to this comment

Badkarma - 3/20/2008 6:21:53 PM

+1 Boost

What about the other four fifths? The government wants to tax the car owners, but is giving subsidies to the other four fifths who cause green house gasses! Yes, that's a solution we can live with!

reply to this comment

huu76 - 3/20/2008 11:03:03 PM

+1 Boost

xdrive,
I agree with you on that one.

They should just tax people who don't claim pick trucks as a business expense. This will stop all the tough guys from buying big honkin' V8s.
Tax the crap out of V6/V8/V16 luxury vehicles unless they're hybrid or significantly reduce emissions (this would let the new 4 cylinder diesels slip under the radar).

They can also raise the tax a little, then double it on the next grade of gas, then triple it on premium. The people who need premium generally have big engines, and if they don't, they can afford it anyway.

A domestic carbon trading plan would only work if they taxed companies that moved factories overseas to continue circumventing any environmental laws here. If they don't, then there's no point.
An international carbon trading plan would just force wealthy countries (that do more to reduce emissions) to give money to poorer countries that don't do anything except build idle factories.

If not a depression, then we need a serious recession to get everything back in line.
When N.A. stops spending, the rest of the world will too and nothing cuts oil prices like no demand.

In seriousness though, the sooner we have a crash, the less it'll hurt. All these corrections and bail outs are just prolonging the inevitable bubble burst.
The Feds would have been better to cover 2 years worth of interest payments and put a moratorium on foreclosers while people get back on their feet (find a job, clean up some debt, sell their home etc). The actual payments would just be added to the end to make banks happy. This would steady the housing market and in turn the investment banks and in turn overall outlook. Of course, this all hinges on people not being stupid, yet again, and refinancing to buy bigger homes and more crap they don't need instead of consolidating debt.

reply to this comment

Whelan - 3/21/2008 1:16:36 PM

+2 Boost

I for one kinda am welcoming the recession. It's part of the checks and balances. The sooner they admit we are in a recession, the sooner we can work on getting out of it.

Getting married this July and buying a home soon after or right before. I'll get a good home, at a decent price and a great rate! So in 7-10 years when we move, things will be normal and I will have made money on my home.

I think taxing based on the car you drive is a HUGE plus. Aside from business use, the type of car driven truck/SUV vs. econobox would be a nice thing to see.

I do get a good laugh though when I pull my Matrix into a station on E, the guy next to me is already in the process of filling his truck. I get out, fill up, get my receipt and pull away while he is still standing there holding the pump, looking at my total of $33 for ten gallons, HA! It's even more fun when it's really cold out.

reply to this comment

Bighead255 - 3/23/2008 5:37:51 PM

+1 Boost

wanna stop global warming tell the worlds major automakers to build build good looking hybrids or alt fuel cars that go from 0-60 in less than 6 sec for avg models and 0-60 in less than 5 for sports cars. That would really stop the spread of global warming. Everyone wants to play their part but avg enviromentalist like me dont wanna do 0-60 in 7. hate the fact that I pay $3.60 for premium but at the same time just cant see myself buying a Prius.

reply to this comment

To post a comment for this story, you must first Login.

If you do not have an account, you will need to Register (It's Free!).

Most Recent Stories

FORD CEO Alan Mulally Will Drive to Washington D.C. To BEG For Money - But What Car Will He Drive To D.C.? His Lexus, OR Perhaps Maybe a Ford Product?Industry Sales Likely To Be Down 28% In November GM May Fare Worse Lotus Evora order list includes 007 and Top Gear hosts Everyone Is On A Budget, But Are These 5 Your Choice To Keep Living Large?Could The Detroit Recovery Plan Really As Simple As Merging In To One?Fiat Abarth 500 receives Top Gear’s “Best Hot Hatch” award Detroit Tells UAW They Can No Longer Pay For Idled Workers To Play Checkers 2010 Porsche Panamera auto show debut delayed Swedish Government Confirms Discussions With Volvo and SAAB BMW not putting MINI E into mass-production Top Gear Car of the Year 2008 award goes to VW Scirocco New Mitsubishi Lancer EVO X FQ-400: Limited Edition with 405HP 2009 Nissan 370Z Driven in Japan 2010 Jaguar XF-R spotted nearly finished UAW wants limits on carmakers' executive pay Does It Hurt The BMW Brand Image When They Are Being Sold At Costco?2008 Essen Motor Show: Vw unveils Touareg North Sails Edition Carlsson releases limited edition automatic watch Video: 2009 Mini Cooper Cabrio in action Porsche Museum to open its gates on 31 January 2009 Vw Eos White Night Edition unveiled at Essen UPDATE 1-German carmakers make fresh move to cut output Audi R8 GT3 LMS Hits the Track (Video)GM UK takes two Top Gear awards BMW Konfigurator Using Microsoft Surface for Product Navigator How About A Piece Of Kim Kardashian's Booty For The Holidays?Cars They Wish You'd Forget About - "Hey, they can't all be winners!"Acura V8 won't Arrive Until 2015: Report Brabham M3 revealed at the Essen Show 2008 Essen Motor Show: Dodge Challenger SRT8 by Eibach Nissan 370 Z Japanese Promotional Vide Elite Carbon Maserati Gran Turismo Marangoni M430 based on Alfa Romeo Mi.To 2008 VW Scirocco Collectors’ Edition debuts at Essen Ford at the top of the list for safety in accidents Bamford releases custom Rolex Daytona Ferrari red watch Rolls-Royce RR4 to reveice Bmw’s iDrive technology 2009 Vw Golf VI by ABT shows up at Essen Confessions of A Test Drive Junkie: Funny Experiences & Observations Behind The Wheel of Other People's Cars!Nissan changes its mind regarding the 2009 Chicago Auto Show New details of the next-generation of Audi A2 revealed Top 10 Most Popular Sport Utility Picks Far From Perfect? Mercedes-Benz ML320 BlueTec Diesel SUV Question Of the Day: Just How Long Will Gas Stay This Cheap?A New Maserati Quattroporte With A $35K Black Friday Discount? And The Spies Say DON'T Buy It?Confirmed: Audi To Replace R10 With R15 TDi In 2009 GM Asks FAA To Keep Jet Movements Confidential BMW And German Brands Worry Openly About the Biggest Crisis Since WWII Should Detroit Rebuild Itself Around the Slovakian Manufacturing Model?Reflections on the Acura NSX

More Recently Added News

Join AutoSpies

Photo Galleries

AutoSpies presents the best Auto Show Photos, Automotive Videos, Car Reviews and Hot Rides.

Latest Galleries

Cars

Auto Shows

More Galleries