Emission standards impose costs on the car producers and the car drivers. So we internalize some of the cost by having to pay more for our cars in the first place and more to keep them from polluting. The cost of buying and driving a car would be far lower w/o emission standards. California has higher emission standards because pollution does more harm there.

Keep in mind that internalizing an externality does not mean that there will be no pollution. It just means that there will be an “efficient” amount of pollution. As technology improves, the efficient amount of pollution will decrease. Right now, it is simply too expensive (alternatives are too expensive) for there to be no pollution at all.

The cost of pollution should be born by those who create it. We pay for trash pickup from our house, we pay for disposal of automotive oil, why shouldn’t we pay for our exhaust pollution? We already pay gas tax, which helps cover that cost already…but is it enough? I don’t know.

You can’t localize a tax like that, though. Because cars, whether they’re driven in California or North Carolina, pollute. (Actually, with current state emissions laws, cars probably pollute less in California.) It doesn’t matter that more people live in LA, my car contributes the same pollution there as it does when I drive it to another state. So if I fill up my gas in one state that doesn’t have a gas tax and drive to another, I’m not covering the cost of my pollutants. Existing externalities are irrelevant. What matters is what do from here on out: will we add to the problem? Then we should pay for it.

Again, I can control my consumption of gas, so a gas tax wouldn’t seem irrational.

And another thing…I heard a report on NPR that the oil-producing countries in the middle east are suffering now that the price of oil has dropped. I couldn’t care less. You want to talk about artificial demand. Those guys invented it! They screw us over for so long, I don’t care if they are going to hurt economically when the screwage finally comes to an end.

As for domestic oil: I really have no idea why we aren’t doing this. It completely boggles my mind that we would pay for imported oil, that potentially funds our enemies of war, when we have so much oil in our own country. Sure it’s nice to have an animal refuge in Alaska, but at what cost? Loss of American lives and billions of dollars? Let’s not pretend that most of our recent wars weren’t fought over oil. I don’t think a mother should have to hear that her son died in war saving the life of moose.

I haven’t heard about the potential of oil shale before. That is intriguing. I don’t like the idea that we depend so much on non-renewable energy; however, it still is the cheapest thing we have right now. You are right about that. My main purpose of this post was to provide a different outlook on how a gas tax could be used. I don’t think we need it, but if it happened, I would rather see it used like that than only supporting alternative fuels.

Next, why can’t we use our own blasted oil? Check out this article: http://www.usnews.com/articles/science/environment/2008/10/22/how-oil-drilling-could-power-the-future.html
Our natural resources are a big reason we became an economic power in the first place. Lets use them to reestablish ourselves.

Artificially raising prices creates artificial demand. Make the alternatives compete on a level playing field. Why must we settle for higher prices across the board for energy? If artificial demand is used to develop alternatives, than artificial demand will be required to keep it viable. Let me buy my gasoline and when alternatives are cheap, I will buy them.

I would much rather put money in the hands of the oil companies than in the hands of the government. Besides, consider how many Americans own stock in the oil companies. It’s the only industry thriving, why try to hinder it?

Finally, I could care less about the carbon footprint. Carbon is a good thing for plants. “Global warming” plays absolutely no part, none, in my financial decisions.