Hiking tax on gas is good energy policy
The Oct. 25 issue of "The Economist" devoted several articles to "The End of the Oil Age," the Middle East and the United States energy policy. According to their research, no matter how much oil we get from Russia, our Alaskan fields or other areas, Saudi Arabia and three or four of its neighbors will still control two-thirds of the world's reserves in the future. They will have the reserves, cheaper production capabilities and their regimes can turn the tap on and off at will.
Not a good situation for The United States. Because of these factors, The Economist suggests that the answer is in attacking the problem from the demand side rather than supply: "By introducing a small but steadily rising tax on petrol, America would do far more to encourage innovation and improve energy security than all the drilling in Alaska's wilderness."
This makes sense to me. And to thousands of other people smarter than me!
The Bush administration is locked in on increasing supply. They have no imagination, but more importantly to them, don't see any profit in this approach for their friends in the oil industry. This small but steadily increasing tax idea seems so simple and should not be too painful because of the method employed. Maybe start at .10 per gallon, add another .10 each year until after 20 years you have added $2! This is nothing compared to the recent run-up in gas prices. We would have years to prepare for more expensive days down the road.
It should be salable to the American people because the money could be used to reduce or eliminate other existing taxes and begin a massive rebuilding of our infrastructure which is beginning to deteriorate drastically, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. More people would start insisting on more fuel efficient vehicles. It would go a long way to lowering our dependence on Middle East oil and increasing our energy security.
There must be more emphasis on reducing consumption. The administration's policy must change concerning energy. This also includes the Congress. They are as guilty as the president in lacking imagination and the guts to honestly address this issue.
Jim Wengerd
Wood Dale