A Modest Proposal for Helping to Save the Planet

Posted by: Steve Hamm on October 05

Back in 1939, GM sponsored a display at the New York World’s Fair called Futurama, which depicted a world 20 years in the future where millions of automobiles would roam the North American landscape on a vast network of multi-lane highways and people would live by the tens of millions in far-flung suburbs. At the 1964 World’s Fair, GM updated its vision with Futurama II: More lanes of highway and more automobiles coursing along them. Unfortunate, this vision of the future came true. Now we’re living with the consequences.

Temperatures are rising and, if they continue to increase as projected, we’re looking at rising sea levels that threaten coastal cities and weather changes that threaten agriculture.

At the same time, because of our over-dependency on cars, the average American spends more than a week in traffic per year, which costs the GDP over $200 billion a year and wastes 2.5 billion gallons of fuel. I’m not even counting the waste from those long commutes.

Then there’s the dependency on foreign oil suppliers.

It’s incredible that in spite of it being abundantly clear a decade ago that this way of living was unsustainable, the US government did nothing to alter the nation’s path. Indeed, the credit bubble encouraged people to move ever-further from their workplaces. All of a sudden, Pennsylvania’s Pocono Mountains began to be seen as a suburb of New York City, in spite of being 100 miles away!!

Are we nuts?

The answer is inarguably “Yes.”

So, now, what do we do about it? There are a lot of things that can be done, and many of them are underway. But the one thing that seems absolutely essential—and could accomplish a lot—isn’t even being seriously contemplated. That’s raising fuel taxes.

Right now, the average fuel tax for an American driver is about 45 cents per gallon. (That’s 18.4 cents federal tax and an average of 27.2 cents for state taxes.) Studies have shown that for each cent per gallon increase in gas and diesel tax reduces consumption by 0.2%. So if you increased fuel taxes by, say $1, perhaps you could reduce consumption by 20%. Also, even with that reduction in consumption, you’d raise up to $125 billion a year in additional tax receipts. This money could be plowed into improving the nation’s transportation infrastructure—hopefully, mainly, in alternatives to cars and roads.

Here’s another factoid that should give you pause. The United States is spending less than 1 percent of its gross domestic product on our transportation infrastructure, compared to 9% by China and 5% by India. To upgrade the transportation infrastructure to world-class status, we’d have to spend about $200 billion each year for 20 years. That $125 billion a year from increased fuel taxes could help a lot.

Unfortunately, the idea of a fuel tax increase is a non-starter in Washington, D.C. Apparently, Americans have two inalienable rights: The right to carry automatic weapons at anti-Obama rallies and the right to burn up incredible amounts of fuel and create incredible amounts of pollution with impunity.

Are we nuts?

The answer is inarguably “Yes.”

What got me thinking about these weighty matters was a “Smarter Cities” conference that IBM put on in NYC last week. I attended a breakout session on transportation, the highlight of which was a presentation by Quentin Kopp, the former chairman of the California High Speed Rail Authority. He was one of the main movers behind a proposal, now partly funded, to build an 800-mile high-speed rail network linking California’s major cities. Kopp has been advocating for high-speed rail for more than a decade, and was one of the people who pushed for the extension of the BART line to San Francisco International Airport.

If and when it’s completed, the high-speed rail line will make it possible for people to travel from LA to San Francisco in just 2 1/2 hours, and at just 20% of the energy cost of an automobile taking the same trip. “How do you get it done? Necessity,” Kopp said.

Kopp had slides mapping out the route and showing artists’ renderings of snazzy new transportation hubs linking rail and other modes. Now, that’s a Futurama I can get into.

What we need is brave leaders willing to paint a picture of the benefits of a less-car-dependent future that’s as compelling as the vision GM and its allies conjured up in 1939 and 1964. If the voters see the necessity, maybe they’ll support it.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/