Don't write off H2 completely. While it may not be feasible at present for our motor vehicles, it could replace kerosene and avgas for our aircraft.

Normally gas taxes are expressed per ton of carbon.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/co2.shtml

Gasoline weighs 6.3 pounds per gallon and is 87% carbon. This means that burning a gallon of gas emits 6.3*0.87 or 5.5 pounds of carbon. A tax of a penny a pound of carbon, equivalent to $20/ton of carbon (aka $20/tC) would be 5.5 cents per gallon.

This kind of tax is insignificant and will have no meaningful impact on gasoline usage. I pointed out above that average U.S. tax is 22 cents per gallon already. Making it 5 cents more would mean nothing.

Yet this is a typical range for carbon taxes being proposed. Look at this article by Greenpeace, not exactly a mouthpiece for the global industrial complex:

http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/oil/fdsub.html

"Tremendous attention has focused on efficient mechanisms to reduce the impact of climate change. Taxes on carbon are an oft-suggested tool to 'get the prices right' (i.e., to internalize environmental externalities) in energy markets. A number of economists have estimated economically efficient carbon tax levels that would begin the transition to lower-carbon fuels. Their results suggest median values of between $9 and $14 per ton."

That's even less than the $20/tC we were just talking about. It means a tax of 2 to 3 cents per gallon! That is the economically optimal tax to take care of the impact of climate change. That is going to change the world and put us on the path to a glorious, carbon free future. 3 cents per gallon, an amount lost in the noise.

This should make it clear that a carbon tax does not make sense as a solution to carbon externalities. For it to have any bite, you have to raise it to the level where it has no rational connection to the costs and impact of increased carbon levels. Then it just becomes arbitrary and is essentially a function of the proponent's distaste for the modern world and for private vehicles.

Just as a calibration point: I was speaking with a visitor from London. When remarking on our gasoline at $2/gal, she said fuel at home was $8/gal. That is a fuel tax!

In addition to the high cost fuel, her automotive registration is approximately $400/year.

She also said that after the London congestion fee was imposed her public bus commute went from 50 minutes to under 10 minutes.

The 22 cents/gal USA Federal gas tax is no where near the industrial countries average of between $3 and $4/gal. This is the main reason why Americans drive most of the gas guzzlers on the planet.

This trend started to change went gas was above $3/gal.for more than 2 months but quickly reversed as soon as gas went down to $2.50/gal.

The only way, to convince our fellow Americans, is to announce and apply a progressive gas tax increase, from 22 cents/gal. to at least $2.22/gal. over a +/- 50 months period at an average rate of +/- 4 cents per month/gal.

For 50%+ to accept this new tax, people (voters) must see and receive immediate benefits. The new revenues (100% + ) collected must be re-distributed fairly, starting with low income earners, PHEV and BEV buyers and clean electricity (higher price) buyers.

The extra gas tax does not cost a single penny to collect. Re-distribution is not costly.

From what I heard, even with the gas taxes in the U.K. the number of Prius sold in London was a very small fraction of those sold in L.A. If the gas tax was an incentive to conserve, I would expect Prius to be very popular in London.

"...Americans have to change their energy habits..."

What a crock of crap. The biggest energy habit we have is transportation and as consumers we have so little choice on the energy we use in this regard. This hardly seems.

I mean great, choose from an absurd Hum Vee all the way through to a Prius. It's still just degrees of dirty. The vehicle companies are holding all the cards and the options consumers given for moving around on 4 wheels are still lame as hell.

I find it hard to believe that we can put a man on the moon decades ago yet the best we can do is burn fossil fuels to get around.

"...Americans have to change their energy habits..."

Wrong sir. Regarding transportation, the change needs to come from the top down, not the other way around.

Our hands are largely tied while you and your buddies make token gestures for energy progress and you count your vast amounts of coin by keeping us dependent on your oil. All when the sun and the ocean and the winds can provide all the relatively clean power we need.

Yes it's more expensive to set up clean power plants and convert to electric cars but look at the TRUE cost of drilling for oil, refining it to gasoline and burning it.

Screw you and your empty rhetoric and token gestures Bush. I want my grandkids to grow up in a world where there are still bears and eagles and where you can actually still eat fish from the sea without the heavy metal payload.

You greedy old men are wrecking this joint.

Nature gets to bat last and she might just bat hard in the last innings to bring everything back into balance. We treat our fragile planet much like a virus consuming it's host and whatever cometh, we asked for it by keeping guys like this in power.

Those who can't do, criticize and whine like babies. Those who can do are busy changing things, leaving the whining to others. Excuse me, I've gotta get back to actually doing something.

Well said, but the "we" may have more to do with Florida, Ohio and the Supreme Court than "us".

Looks like neither Japan nor Europe (who depend on foreign oil way more then US) will not lead the push for less oil dependency. US crack program with really massive spending to reduce oil use is long overdue. Probably it is too late for President Bush to do something dramatic, but hopefully next President will recognize that only drastic measures are effective in critical situation. First of all I am talking about massive push for PHEV.

SJC:

The British don't have to buy Toyota Prius to get more mpg. A London cab already gets about twice as many pmg than a N.Y. cab. The average British light vehicle also gets about twice the mpg than the American counterpart. The same could be said about Italian, French vehicles etc.

The land of oversized 10 mpg 3+ Ton 4 x 4 and Hummers is on this side of the ocean.

The biggest energy habit we have is transportation

Industrial energy use is higher.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb0201a.html

as consumers we have so little choice on the energy we use in this regard

Huh? Walking, biking, transit, carsharing are some mode alternatives. Demand substitution through proximity etc are other alternatives. There's also fuel substitutes for personal vehicles.

Just a note to Hal above...

Your calculations of price of a carbon tax are off by a factor of three.

It is Carbon Dioxide we are weighing - not just the carbon atom, so multiply by three. 5.5 cents times 3 is 16.5 cents per gallon for a $20 per ton. I haven't checked the rest of your calculation, so that could be off a bit.

My opinion is that our government may want to step in & offer big time incentives to encourage battery manufacturing in this country. Then encourage Americans to buy GM or Ford cars powered by batteries.

If we don't do this.. probably Toyota / Nissan / Honda will run circles around us. They already manufacture all the lithium ion batteries. They already make a better hybrid system.

Why is the US slow to do this things? My take is that the govt. and car company execs simply have their heads in the sand. And they are being paid splendidly for keeping them there.

Cheers
Matt

This should make it clear that a carbon tax does not make sense as a solution to carbon externalities.

Aside from the correction given above about C vs. CO2 mass, what it really points out is that transportation is not the 'low hanging fruit' of CO2 reduction. Coal burning powerplants would be much more seriously affected by carbon taxes. It would be economically much more efficient -- by an order of magnitude -- to reduce CO2 emissions by replacing coal plants with nukes (or by adding sequestration) than to achieve efficiency improvements in vehicles.

Bush finally gets it! At least he is verbalizing it. Yes, PHEV, Biofuel but not necessarily ethanol, and Hydrogen can all co-exist. Bio-methane and Bio-hydrogen are much more efficient and a lot cheaper to produce than ethanol. I hope he got good energy policy advisers beside those provided by Big Oil!

Actauly bush always got that its the sillies arund here that never figured it out.

Right from the start bush was pointing out that we needed alot of different fuels to replace oil because to be blunt there is no one fuel that can.

Biofuels may seem fine by co2 concerns but it does pollute and as bush himself said unless the work on better biofuels pans out we are talking about a huge amount of ag land and resources to produce the fuel. With luck tho both the new second gen biofuel .. fuel from grass and other leftovers and fuel from algae pan out.

As for batteries.. EVEN if you go pell mell rose tinted glasses ev cars cant handle even 5% of all our needs within 50 years. Yes hybrids and plug in hybrids will help expand that greatly but pure ev is very limited and will remain so.

And h2. We dont know what the weather will be like in 50 years we dont know where the wind will blow in 50 years and we cant count on the sunshining bright in the same areas in 50 years... But we can count EXACTLY on how much a given nuke plant or coal deposit or whatever can turn out h2. And even if it doesnt take over everywhere it is important NOW. And will likely be even more important in 50 years even if it never becomes a main fuel source.

Actauly bush always got that its the sillies arund here that never figured it out.

Yes, he's a real genius.

Since DME has an advantage of decomposition at lower temperature than methane and LPG, R&D for hydrogen source for fuel cell has been carried out. DME has a potential of feedstock for chemicals. DME to olefins is under development in Japan.

If you would like to know more on the latest DME developments, join us at upcoming North Asia DME / Methanol conference in Beijing, 27-28 June 2007, St Regis Hotel. The conference covers key areas which include:

DME productivity can be much higher especially if
country energy policies makes an effort comparable to
that invested in increasing supply.
By:
National Development Reform Commission NDRC
Ministry of Energy for Mongolia

Production of DME/ Methanol through biomass
gasification could potentially be commercialized
By:
Shandong University completed Pilot plant in Jinan and
will be sharing their experience.

Advances in conversion technologies are readily
available and offer exciting potential of DME as a
chemical feedstock
By: Kogas, Lurgi and Haldor Topsoe

Available project finance supports the investments
that DME/ Methanol can play a large energy supply role
By: International Finance Corporation

For more information: www.iceorganiser.com