News One Reason I Can't Take All the Science on Global Warming Seriously

[GleefulNihilism]

I can make anything sound silly to if I refuse to distinguish between the cranks and the serious scholars.

Does brushing teeth your teeth prevent cavities or make your teeth visible by spy satellite?

 

[Economist]

That documentary is full of distortions and misrepresentations. The producers had to redo the documentary at least twice. Once to cut out several blatant errors, and the second time round, to cut out the entire section involving MIT Prof. Carl Wunch, after he publicly stated that he was completely misrepresented.

http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_new.pdf

I'm just saying that there seems to be bright scientists who disagree with all the hype about global warming. And since I am ignorant in the study of environmental science I have choosen not to read to much into the doomsday reports I've heard. It's not that I don't trust scientists in fields I'm ignorant about. But given the current politicized nature of global warming I am skeptical about some things. Specifically, it sounds to me like there's a lot of consensus that the globe is in fact warming (and that humans are for the most part the reason). But the degree to which it is warming and what can realistically be done about it don't seem as agreed upon (particularly the latter). Furthermore, there is a host of trade offs that people fail to mention in the discussion. Such as, what are the costs and benefits of doing something about it? And what are the costs and benefits of doing nothing about it? Also, is the money, time, and effort better spent on other causes?

Essentially, I tend to agree with Don Boudreaux here: http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/02/lets_have_less_.html

Especially when he says, "The truth remains that these scientists have no expertise to judge whether government can be trusted with the power and resources to "combat" global warming. Nor can these scientists tell us how a free market likely would deal with global warming's consequences. Contrary to widespread belief, environmental scientists can legitimately say nothing about whether, or how, to respond to global warming."

 

[Mororvia]

I think its a joke that global warming has become a politcal issue.

Lets say that it is emissions from our cars, power plants, etc. that is a major contributor to global warming. Then the government should pump in more money and create more jobs for alternative energy research.

Lets say global warming isn't all that it has been made out to be. Then the government should pump in more money and create more jobs for alternative energy research. Remove our foreign oil dependence and reduce pollution.

Its a win/win either way... except for those selling oil of course. But in the end, it will be good for them too.

 

[opus]

I think its a joke that global warming has become a politcal issue.

Yeah because international order, social stability, resource security and economic sustainability are not a concern of governments right?

Lets say that it is emissions from our cars, power plants, etc. that is a major contributor to global warming. Then the government should pump in more money and create more jobs for alternative energy research.

Where is this money going to come from?

Lets say global warming isn't all that it has been made out to be. Then the government should pump in more money and create more jobs for alternative energy research. Remove our foreign oil dependence and reduce pollution.

While it is noble of you to believe in alternative energy research and "patriotic" of you to believe in "independence", it's an issue of economics here.

Its a win/win either way... except for those selling oil of course. But in the end, it will be good for them too.

As far as I know, multinational (American) corporations are making huge amounts of money from the surge in oil prices as well. Exxon CEO got a 20 million bonus this year. Getting the government to invest in something that loses money will be difficult when corporations have lobbyists and influence. In fact, most people have given up on the government - it's been easier to persuade corporations to "go green" than asking the government to. Though the "green" campaigns should be taken skeptically as products of PR and profits rather than altruism.

 

[Moridin]

To me, it seems, if I may be a bit tongue-in-check, like the same MO as creationists:

"There is no evidence"
"There is a legitimate scientific controversy"
"It is a political / economical conspiracy"

(I'm not trying to be intentionally provacative).

 

[Skyhunter]

I think its a joke that global warming has become a politcal issue.

Lets say that it is emissions from our cars, power plants, etc. that is a major contributor to global warming. Then the government should pump in more money and create more jobs for alternative energy research.

Lets say global warming isn't all that it has been made out to be. Then the government should pump in more money and create more jobs for alternative energy research. Remove our foreign oil dependence and reduce pollution.

Its a win/win either way... except for those selling oil of course. But in the end, it will be good for them too.

The US House of Representatives just passed an energy bill that takes the 40+ billion in corporate welfare from oil and gas exploration and diverts it to renewable technology. The Senate Republicans are trying to strip that provision, and Bush has threatened a veto.

We should know by Christmas if the US is going to continue being an obstructionist to mitigating AGW until the next election, or if the last election provided us with enough seats in the House and Senate to address the biggest challenge that world faces this coming century.

 

[turbo]

We should know by Christmas if the US is going to continue being an obstructionist to mitigating AGW until the next election, or if the last election provided us with enough seats in the House and Senate to address the biggest challenge that world faces this coming century.

Don't hold your breath. Not only has the auto industry managed to kill every effort at tightening fuel efficiency, they have managed to subvert what weak standards there are. Case in point: PT Cruiser. They got that flimsy little wagon on a Neon frame classified as a "truck" so they could average the PTC's gas mileage in with that of the real trucks, so they could sell a lot more of the larger-displacement engines. Slime!

 

[Mororvia]

Yeah because international order, social stability, resource security and economic sustainability are not a concern of governments right?

... and other good points

For the most part I agree with you, though I assure you my reasons are not for patriotism.

On the quoted part above, I agree. What I think is a joke is that the science is being debated by politicians who for the most part are no where near qualified to debate it (and create policy about it). I just feel that there is no need to debate whether or not it is real when potential solutions can be found in energy research funding and it would benefit everyone regardless if global warming is real or not.

Money is an issue. They can debate that.

 

[Economist]

Not only has the auto industry managed to kill every effort at tightening fuel efficiency, they have managed to subvert what weak standards there are.

In one of my classes the professor (an environmental economist) said that there's empirical papers showing that fuel efficiency standards do not help the environment. Essentially, increasing the amount of miles per gallon a car gets makes someone able to drive the same amount of miles for a cheaper price, so instead of using less gas they use the same, and in some cases people drive more.

 

[turbo]

In one of my classes the professor (an environmental economist) said that there's empirical papers showing that fuel efficiency standards do not help the environment. Essentially, increasing the amount of miles per gallon a car gets makes someone able to drive the same amount of miles for a cheaper price, so instead of using less gas they use the same, and in some cases people drive more.

Apparently, he hasn't spent much time in Maine. Here, most jobs are in centralized locations and the population is diffuse. Many of the people working in the New Balance factory where my wife works drive 50-75 miles every day to commute to the only well-paying job in their reach. Increasing fuel efficiency would allow them to save more money and spend it on their families, save for retirement, etc. Like in much of this country, there is no public transportation available. To suggest that some worker who commutes 250-300 miles a week to earn a living would double their driven miles if fuel economy is doubled is myopic in the extreme. It sounds like something that might come out of the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation - neocon blather, not real life. Expenses in commuting are not entirely driven by gas prices. There is the cost of oil, tires, filters, and other consumables, as well as the depreciation that comes with driving a vehicle to death. Your professor needs to try living on a working wage in a rural area for a week or two to see how life really works for most Americans.

 

[GleefulNihilism]

I was going to hop in swinging, but I'm starting to think Economist is a troll. So instead here's a semi-relevent motivational poster.

 

[opus]

I was going to hop in swinging, but I'm starting to think Economist is a troll. So instead here's a semi-relevent motivational poster.

He's not a troll, I think Economist is honest. His points are relevant and meaningful, and it should be taken as legitimate dissent. It is often indicative of the real-world opposition, too. Not everyone in the world is "for" combating against global warming. We should recognize that, or this would be a one-sided thread. His statements aren't outlandish, and are often typical of the opposing side anyways.

 

[GleefulNihilism]

To be honest I was just looking for a fight. Probably shouldn't though, I do have some projects I should be working on.

 

[opus]

Just read up on critiques of neoclassical economics and you're all set.

 

[mheslep]

To suggest that some worker who commutes 250-300 miles a week to earn a living would double their driven miles if fuel economy is doubled is myopic in the extreme.

Economist's post was clearly about the general economics of fuel efficiency; to suggest it is all about your specific case is myopic in the extreme.

 

[Skyhunter]

In one of my classes the professor (an environmental economist) said that there's empirical papers showing that fuel efficiency standards do not help the environment. Essentially, increasing the amount of miles per gallon a car gets makes someone able to drive the same amount of miles for a cheaper price, so instead of using less gas they use the same, and in some cases people drive more.

What are the empirical papers? (citation?)

I think your characterization of your prof's lecture is over simplified.

I would like to see the evidence that supports that assertion.

 

[turbo]

Economist's post was clearly about the general economics of fuel efficiency; to suggest it is all about your specific case is myopic in the extreme.

The point is (and I shouldn't have to explain it) that a very large percentage of people in this country commute to centralized locations to work. Increasing the efficiencies of their vehicles would positively benefit our environment and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. The argument that this is a zero-sum game (commuters would therefore drive more and waste more fuel, negating the benefits of improved efficiency) is disingenuous and unsubstantiated. The appeal to authority (my professor says so) is not real persuasive to those of us who have been around for more than a half-century watching this stuff play out.

 

[Skyhunter]

The point is (and I shouldn't have to explain it) that a very large percentage of people in this country commute to centralized locations to work. Increasing the efficiencies of their vehicles would positively benefit our environment and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

I agree, and consider the argument as presented (without evidence) to be at best an example of weak inductive logic.

People have regular daily routines that many times involve hours of driving. While some may, if their vehicle is more efficient, opt to take longer recreational trips, or drive before considering other options, for the most part, people don't let their MPG and the price of fuel influence their behavior much.

For example fuel prices have doubled yet fuel consumption has remained constant or increased.

Who can afford not to drive?

That is the problem. It is not so much that people will drive more. The problem is they will not drive less.

Only by changing behavior will we reduce our energy use. Technology will help through energy efficiency, but in the end people will need to change their behavior. That means that the way urban transportation infrastructure is developed and employed must change.

In transportation planning, moving people and products from here to there efficiently is the primary goal. A comprehensive approach would be to:

1. Increase vehicle efficiency.
2. Improve traffic flow patterns.
3. and finally and IMO the most important is to put all the essential heres and theres together, eliminating the need for an automobile, except for special occasions.

The best way to increase vehicle efficiency is to alter the ratio of vehicle to cargo weight. SOV's (single occupancy vehicles) are the least efficient and should therefore be discouraged. Public transportation is the most efficient and can be even more efficient and useful by doubling or tripling investment in public transit infrastructure instead of private transportation infrastructure.

Once you eliminate the need for everyone to have an automobile, you can begin to unpave cities, and make them more enjoyable to live in. If automobile capacity in cities is limited by design, and compensated for by having 90% of goods and services available within walking and biking distance, then all the residents of a city, including the elderly, frail, and handicapped can live independent of an automobile.

We do not need these smelly dangerous private vehicles in our cities. They are a menace to life and health, and the portion of infrastructure that goes into supporting them is considerable. A cities commons should be available for use by all it's citizens, not just the ones who own cars.

 

[mheslep]

...Increasing the efficiencies of their vehicles would positively benefit our environment and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

So you say.

The argument that this is a zero-sum game (commuters would therefore drive more and waste more fuel, negating the benefits of improved efficiency) is disingenuous and unsubstantiated.

Your assertion vs his.

The appeal to authority (my professor says so) is not real persuasive to those of us who have been around for more than a half-century watching this stuff play out.

Ok got it now; its offensive that Eco. used his authority vs. a 'been around for a half-century' authority. Sorry I find the later less 'persuasive'.

 

[mheslep]

I agree, and consider the argument as presented (without evidence) ...

Skyhunter, you may be correct in all points of you argument, I don't know. However you scold Eco. for asserting a point without evidence and then you assert a detailed behavior of a society and present no evidence at all?

 

[Skyhunter]

I did express my opinion regarding solutions

But I offered as evidence the fact that fuel consumption is relatively unchanged even though the price of fuel has doubled. This evidence supports my assertion that human behavior is not greatly effected by the cost per mile to operate an automobile.

 

[Economist]

Apparently, he hasn't spent much time in Maine. Here, most jobs are in centralized locations and the population is diffuse. Many of the people working in the New Balance factory where my wife works drive 50-75 miles every day to commute to the only well-paying job in their reach.

From an economic point of view this would not necessarily matter. If gas per mile is cheaper than people can more easily afford to live even a little farther from work. They also may live in the same place, but choose to drive more often to various entertainment, such as driving to bars, movies, dinner, etc more often. People may also choose to ride the bus less. Besides, even if it has one effect in Maine, doesn't mean it won't have completely different effects in other states (in some cases, these might even be the opposite effects that occur in Maine). Essentially, it's an empirical question which is why my professor was talking about empirical results.

Just for the record, it's a similar argument that states that increasing bridge lanes does not always decrease congestion. Essentially, people factor the bridge congestion into their decision making, and more lanes sometimes leads to equal congestion.

It sounds like something that might come out of the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation - neocon blather, not real life.

LOL. Considering my prof is an academic and the chair of the economics department at a well respected university (with a well respected economics department), I'm pretty sure he was talking about a good publication in a solid economic journal. Besides, his point was that if you really want to decrease the miles that people drive, then you do so by using a tax, because the econometric paper showed that the fuel standard policy didn't help. In his exact words, "It was a dumb policy choice, given their stated environmental goals."

 

[Economist]

The point is (and I shouldn't have to explain it) that a very large percentage of people in this country commute to centralized locations to work. Increasing the efficiencies of their vehicles would positively benefit our environment and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

Again, let me state, this is an empirical question. Isn't that why scientists run experiments, analyze data, etc, in order to distinguish between which theories do a better job of explaining real world events. I mean, many intelligent people have layed out the theory that better fuel efficiency will decrease gasoline consumption. While other intelligent people have layed out a theory that says better fuel efficiency will have no effect on gasoline consumption. Both theories are plausible, so we need to go to the data and see which one seems more plausible.

I'm sorry that I don't know the paper off the top of my head. It's not even an area of economics that I am that interested in. It's just when I first heard about it, I said to myself, "Huh, that's interesting. I've never thought of it that way. I just always assumed that fuel efficiency standards would decrease the amount of miles people drove. But maybe not." Just for the record, I am not trying to persuade any of you to believe it. I just wanted to throw another argument out there that many probably haven't heard of.

Besides turbo, you don't seem to be throwing out evidence. You keep talking about how you've been around the block and know better. And then you accuse me of being hard headed and wanting to buy into conservative bs. You're not even considering that I could be right on this issue. I must just be biased, and making up comments from my professor that must have only been published in something by Cato or Heritage. In fact, my biggest beef with many of the college kids who walk around talking about global warming and climate change is that they're not even educated in the field. Most of them just saw the Al Gore movie, and hear all their professors talking about global warming. Some of them won't even consider for a moment that they could be wrong, especially given the current political nature of the issue. I suspect that some may not care about the truth, but rather they care about being part of a certain ideology and set of beliefs that all intelligent people are supposed to have. Just for the record, I am not accusing any of you guys of this.

 

[Economist]

People have regular daily routines that many times involve hours of driving. While some may, if their vehicle is more efficient, opt to take longer recreational trips, or drive before considering other options, for the most part, people don't let their MPG and the price of fuel influence their behavior much.

Wow! You could win the Nobel Prize in Economics as you have just disproved the Law of Demand, something that has yet to be done!

Ok, I'm just joking around with the comment above, so nobody needs to get all sensitive and respond to it. Seriously though, people do make decisions based on the costs of things, even when it comes to fuel. With something like fuel, these effects are not always as apparent in the short run. For example, if gas increases greatly next month (and stays that way) people will not move next month, because it sometimes takes people time to adjust to changes in prices. Nor will they sell their SUV immediately. However, in a few years when they look for a new car, they may get rid of the SUV. Similarly, they may choose to move closer to work in a few years. Similarly, if you make gas cheaper (which is essentially the effects of fuel standards) then you will also alter peoples decisions, albeit in different ways. Besides there are many decisions that one could make in this area, such as whether to drive to work or take the bus, whether or not to carpool, how often do I drive to entertainment events, or which places do I go for entertainment, etc. Don't underestimate the amount of decisions humans make based around prices/costs, as it is so important that economics is a study of mainly how these prices/costs effect individual decision making.

For example fuel prices have doubled yet fuel consumption has remained constant or increased.

Well, you might be incorrect about this. Often times when people talk about fuel prices, they are not controlling for inflation, so their statistic is completely meaningless. I have often heard that when controlling for inflation, gasoline prices in the 80's were actually higher than they are today. Furthermore, you have to control for changes in income to see the effects of an increase in prices on consumption.

Check out this chart: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/12/one-perspective-on-gas-prices.html

Who can afford not to drive?

I don't know, but when prices rise you quickly find out. Do you really think that doubling or tripling of gas prices has no effect on miles driven? This is like saying, who can afford not to eat? But when real prices of food increases, you will see people change their decisions as it relates to food consumption.

 

[Contrapositive]

Who can afford not to drive?

I haven't had a car in almost four years. I get by just fine by walking and public transportation.

 

[opus]

LOL. Considering my prof is an academic and the chair of the economics department at a well respected university (with a well respected economics department), I'm pretty sure he was talking about a good publication in a solid economic journal. Besides, his point was that if you really want to decrease the miles that people drive, then you do so by using a tax, because the econometric paper showed that the fuel standard policy didn't help. In his exact words, "It was a dumb policy choice, given their stated environmental goals."

This is the worst appeal to authority I've seen in this thread. Post evidence, or retract your claim. "MY PROF SAID IT SO IT MUST BE TRUE!11"

Well, you might be incorrect about this. Often times when people talk about fuel prices, they are not controlling for inflation, so their statistic is completely meaningless. I have often heard that when controlling for inflation, gasoline prices in the 80's were actually higher than they are today. Furthermore, you have to control for changes in income to see the effects of an increase in prices on consumption.

Check out this chart: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/12/one-perspective-on-gas-prices.html

That relies on household income - for the single person living alone today, you can expect them to pay much more gasoline than if they were a single male than in the 1950's.

Besides turbo, you don't seem to be throwing out evidence. You keep talking about how you've been around the block and know better. And then you accuse me of being hard headed and wanting to buy into conservative bs. You're not even considering that I could be right on this issue. I must just be biased, and making up comments from my professor that must have only been published in something by Cato or Heritage. In fact, my biggest beef with many of the college kids who walk around talking about global warming and climate change is that they're not even educated in the field. Most of them just saw the Al Gore movie, and hear all their professors talking about global warming. Some of them won't even consider for a moment that they could be wrong, especially given the current political nature of the issue. I suspect that some may not care about the truth, but rather they care about being part of a certain ideology and set of beliefs that all intelligent people are supposed to have. Just for the record, I am not accusing any of you guys of this.

So because you're angry at students that talk about global warming while not really knowing anything about it, you do the exact same thing while only on the other side?

Just for the record, it's a similar argument that states that increasing bridge lanes does not always decrease congestion. Essentially, people factor the bridge congestion into their decision making, and more lanes sometimes leads to equal congestion.

This is correct. (as you can see, I'm not totally against rational self-interest) But you may not be correct on the fuel efficiency question - because if you look at the "polluters", much of it is in the trucking industry. Transportation of goods will not change in terms of fuel efficiency. Yes, your argument may apply to the average joe who will move out farther into suburbia if efficiency goes up. Ultimately the best thing to combat global warming from a transportation perspective is urban density, and urban geography majors will know this first-hand. But fuel efficiency is supposed to be a good thing, because at least it will make the transportation industry more green. Of course, that means putting in upgrades and increased maintenance, which certain lobbyists do not want. It probably won't do much to stop global warming, but I can't imagine higher fuel efficiency being a bad thing in a general respect.

Essentially, I tend to agree with Don Boudreaux here: http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/02/lets_have_less_.html

Especially when he says, "The truth remains that these scientists have no expertise to judge whether government can be trusted with the power and resources to "combat" global warming. Nor can these scientists tell us how a free market likely would deal with global warming's consequences. Contrary to widespread belief, environmental scientists can legitimately say nothing about whether, or how, to respond to global warming."

He is published in The Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily, Regulation, Reason, Ideas on Liberty, The Washington Times, The Journal of Commerce, the Cato Journal, and several scholarly journals such as the Supreme Court Economic Review, Southern Economic Journal, Antitrust Bulletin, and Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking.[/url]
Yes, we should leave it to the economists to solve the world's environmental problems, Gods of the economy..

 

[Skyhunter]

I haven't had a car in almost four years. I get by just fine by walking and public transportation.

Almost 2 years for me.

The more people who just do it, the more people will see that it can be done. Eventually public policies will change.

 

[Economist]

This is the worst appeal to authority I've seen in this thread. Post evidence, or retract your claim. "MY PROF SAID IT SO IT MUST BE TRUE!11"

LOL. I got to say that you are very entertaining. I'm not going to waste my time looking for it, because I doubt it will do any good. If I came up with some solid evidence I think you would just try and shoot it down.

That relies on household income - for the single person living alone today, you can expect them to pay much more gasoline than if they were a single male than in the 1950's.

Isn't it per capita income? Per capita means per person.

So because you're angry at students that talk about global warming while not really knowing anything about it, you do the exact same thing while only on the other side?

Nope, not exactly on any side. I'm not qualified to talk about environmental science. But maybe environmental scientists aren't qualified to discuss all the economic implications of global warming?

Transportation of goods will not change in terms of fuel efficiency.

Yeah, you're probably right. Transportation of goods will not depend on the costs of that transportation. Are you kidding me? Fuel efficiency, gas prices, etc effect the costs of transporting things, which then effects the amount of transportation which takes place.

He is published in The Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily, Regulation, Reason, Ideas on Liberty, The Washington Times, The Journal of Commerce, the Cato Journal, and several scholarly journals such as the Supreme Court Economic Review, Southern Economic Journal, Antitrust Bulletin, and Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking.[/url]
Yes, we should leave it to the economists to solve the world's environmental problems, Gods of the economy..

I like how you criticize me for "appealing to authority," and then you discredit a guy based on where he has published instead of his actual ideas or research. Besides, he's not trying to solve the world's environmental problems. He's just skeptical to allow environmental scienctists to tackle economic problems.

 

[opus]

LOL. I got to say that you are very entertaining. I'm not going to waste my time looking for it, because I doubt it will do any good. If I came up with some solid evidence I think you would just try and shoot it down.

I can't shoot down articles without posting my own articles. But if this is your way of saying "no, I won't because my professor is all-knowing and I agree with him", then sure I'll take it as that.

Isn't it per capita income? Per capita means per person.

Oh it does, I just assumed it was household. Anyways, read the blog post Mankiw links to,
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-goldilocks-economy-can-handle-3-gas.html
It shows the methodology - but importantly - it shows critiques of the data in the comment section. :)

Nope, not exactly on any side. I'm not qualified to talk about environmental science. But maybe environmental scientists aren't qualified to discuss all the economic implications of global warming?

Agreed. However, environmental scientists know what works and what doesn't work in terms of what is needed to stop global warming. There is no doubt about that - they are the ones with the data and the right models.

The question for economists is how to implement these necessities into public policy - but clearly the Economic Council in the US Presidency does not want a thing to do with it.

Yeah, you're probably right. Transportation of goods will not depend on the costs of that transportation. Are you kidding me? Fuel efficiency, gas prices, etc effect the costs of transporting things, which then effects the amount of transportation which takes place.

So lower transportation costs, means lower cost of goods, and you somehow translate this into people needing twice as many vegetables?

I like how you criticize me for "appealing to authority," and then you discredit a guy based on where he has published instead of his actual ideas or research. Besides, he's not trying to solve the world's environmental problems. He's just skeptical to allow environmental scienctists to tackle economic problems.

For me discrediting him based on his publications to institutes to organizations such as CATO, how is that an appeal to authority? He even references his own letter to the Washington Post. Sure, he has valid scepticism, but that's the end of his story. The whole reason global warming is happening is because we are polluting. Why are we polluting? Pollution is an "undesirable" social outcome from rationally motivated actors. I don't see how economists will come up a decision to save the planet, when they are still stuck in this neoclassical paradigm.

I would gladly like environmental economists or economic environmentalists to step in, but clearly there's an issue of power here.

 

[turbo]

Besides, his point was that if you really want to decrease the miles that people drive, then you do so by using a tax, because the econometric paper showed that the fuel standard policy didn't help. In his exact words, "It was a dumb policy choice, given their stated environmental goals."

As Skyhunter pointed out, people's driving habits (and gasoline consumption) really have not changed since gas prices abandoned the $2 realm and topped out over $3. The idea that you can modify people's behavior by slapping another, higher tax on gasoline is not supported by the facts. People who have to drive to make a living will still drive and tighten up elsewhere. Most places in this country are optimized for automobile access, and public transportation serves very few, aside from those who live in cities. Driving is a necessity for most of us, not a choice.

Increased gasoline taxes are a bad idea, anyway. They are horribly regressive and they penalize people who cannot afford to live in the places where they have to work to earn a living. Case in point - coastal cities in Maine such as Portland, Brunswick, and Belfast are homes to many large business, hospitals, insurance companies, etc. The rank-and-file workers who work in such places cannot afford to buy properties in those cities nor pay the property taxes on them, so they find more affordable properties with lower taxes maybe 50 miles inland, and commute to their jobs each day. They cannot afford to raise families in a city where a tiny 1 bedroom, 1 bath condo sells for more than $200,000, and modest homes in nearby bedroom communities routinely sell for $400K-500K. Median income in Maine's largest city (Portland) is about $35,000 according to the 2000 census, and you can't afford much of a mortgage on that pay. Those workers have to buy houses in areas far enough from Portland that the property prices haven't been jacked up too badly, and they have to drive daily to work. Raising gas taxes on them will not decrease their gasoline consumption-just leave them with less money to feed and clothe their families and pay for electricity, heat, etc.

For state income figures.
http://www.maine.gov/spo/economics/economics/medianinc.php