The choice offered here creates a false dichotomy. We do very much need to bring gas to its actual price. This includes far more than hidden subsidies. Prices need to reflect all the external costs, from climate damage, military expenditures protecting oil supplies, and respiratory diseases from pollution. The International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA.org) did a study that placed that cost as high as $15/gallon, and this was when gas was selling for below $2/gallon.
But this does not need to mean a regressive tax on poor people. The way most progressive folks are approaching the question of a carbon tax, the best way to bring external costs in, is that the money should be used on the one hand to develop alternative energy sources and on the other as a tax credit to offset the affects of rising fuel prices. People could increase their income if they found more fuel efficient ways to live.
This won't be an easy political battle by any means. But then, changing the world never is. :-)
The choice offered here creates a false dichotomy. We do very much need to bring gas to its actual price. This includes far more than hidden subsidies. Prices need to reflect all the external costs, from climate damage, military expenditures protecting oil supplies, and respiratory diseases from pollution. The International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA.org) did a study that placed that cost as high as $15/gallon, and this was when gas was selling for below $2/gallon.
But this does not need to mean a regressive tax on poor people. The way most progressive folks are approaching the question of a carbon tax, the best way to bring external costs in, is that the money should be used on the one hand to develop alternative energy sources and on the other as a tax credit to offset the affects of rising fuel prices. People could increase their income if they found more fuel efficient ways to live.
This won't be an easy political battle by any means. But then, changing the world never is. :-)