Temporary suspension of gas tax might be a bad idea in the long run.

Temporarily suspending gas tax could bring long range problems. Increasing the debt or less funding for roads. We seem to be having a repeat of the fossil fuel crisis in the 1970s. I don't drive though I admit I eat food delivered by truck and prepared by folks who drive to work.

Here in Washington State, the high state gas tax gets complaints also. We may not get lots of road bang for the buck as some state money goes into salmon habitat restoration. We can't have it all. Whales in Puget Sound are large animals and they use the salmon for their food.

Maybe someone could do a historic photo exhibit to memorialize the graffitti rock that was recently removed from I-5 south of Bellingham.

Coming into Bellingham on I-5, there has been a famous rock painted with many layers of expression over the years. It's commemorated graduating classes and lots of other things.

There is now a local controversy as the rock has been destroyed. It basically fell victim to salmon stream restoration. Washington State has been ordered, by treaty obligation, to remove culverts under highways for improving salmon passage.

There's lots of construction for daylighting streams along I-5 and other roads and paint flakes from the rock can be poison near streams.

Some folks had wanted the Department of Transportation to move the rock to another location, but I guess that was determined too expensive. The rock was broken up instead.

The rock basically fell victim of contradicting demands from various constituencies of the public. Salmon restoration versus an affordable highway system. Keeping gasoline taxes from going through the roof while maintaining highways. I guess much of the highway budget, these days, goes to habitat restoration in this state. So much of life is about tradeoffs.

Since I don't drive, the rock hasn't been real important to me. I do remember some car and bus trips into Bellingham, during my college years, seeing a few of its graffitied presentations.

During the 1980s, soon after bicycling was allowed on rural shoulders of I-5, I stopped by the rock to hike up there. At its base were slabs of paint that had broken off. Each slab consisted of, possibly hundreds of paint layers in various colors. I took a slab home for souvenir. Eventually, I threw out that slab as it was crumbling and leaving a mess of paint flakes.

Recently, I got to thinking that good way to memorialize that rock is to collect pictures of its various paintings over the years; possibly for an art exhibit. Maybe someone has already thought of that.

A new sculpture could be placed in some public spot with the surface covered by various pictures of the original rock. Photos could be glazed into ceramic tiles covering the surface of a new boulder in some Bellingham park.

While I have none of my own photos from that famous I-5 Bellingham rock and I didn't keep that crumbing paint slab I found from the rock in the 1980s, I have found other souvenirs along roads. I still have a pile of warning signs that must have fallen off a tanker truck. Here are a few of those changeable metal signs. I wrote about the rock's demise in an earlier post.

I tend to ride less on I-5 shoulders, these days, than back in the 1980s after it was first legalized. Back then, the wide shoulder was, and probably still is, safer than many roads. The 55 mile per hour speed limit was still in effect from the 1970s, oil crisis. Today, traffic is flying by faster and there is probably twice as much traffic in this region as there was in the 1980s. More backroads have been improved since then as well.

November's vote may be a test of Washington State's resolve to address it's carbon emissions.

Low gas prices and reducing carbon emissions are contradictory goals.

In November, there will be an initiative, on Washington State ballots, to repeal the cap and trade system that was passed by the legislature. Cap and trade has been accused, in the media, of making gasoline more expensive, in Washington, than surrounding states. November's vote may be a test of our state's resolve to address it's carbon emissions.

I tend to favor a simple carbon tax instead of cap and trade, but cap and trade is better than nothing.

Carbon taxing does tend to be regressive taxing, but my solution to that problem is to try and reduce dependency on automobiles for transportation. Public transit is more efficient, though admittedly not available in many areas. Public transit is subsidized by taxes and it is something that the cap and trade, or tax revenue could go to.

Using public transit also reduces the need for another big expense with automobiles; the rising cost of car insurance. I'm still amazed that the bus fare to Mount Vernon, from Bellingham, is only $2 general, $1 senior on the County Connector buses.

US produces lots of oil and natural gas. The problem is not that it's produced, the problem is that it's consumed.

Some countries think USA is hypocritical for seeking long term phase out of carbon in COP28 while US is the biggest oil and gas producer. Problem is US is, I think, the biggest oil consumer. I think consumption is more the problem than production.

We produce oil for ourselves and some of our natural gas goes to help Europe ween itself off of Russian gas. Our own oil production helps keep US gas prices from going so high that the cost of gasoline tank's Biden in the polls.

If Trump were to win, in 2024, I would guess he would go before the media and laughingly tear up any COP28 agreement in front of the cameras.

Paying to reduce climate change. Cap and trade in Washington State.

Here in Washington, people are learning that taxing corporations does have consequences for ordinary consumers. Our new cap and trade rules are contributing to Washington's relatively high gas prices. oil companies pass the costs on to consumers.

Still, Washington gas prices are a bargain compared to Canada where taxes raise the price. Here in Whatcom County, we still see many Canadians come south of the border to fill up.

I still follow the news even though I don't drive.

Yes energy taxes, whether hidden by cap and trade or seen at the pump, are regressive, but most energy consumption is done by the millions and millions of rank and file consumers. The super wealthy and corporations are like the maestros leading the orchestra.

My article in Betty Pages about Cap and Trade, Carbon Taxes and Climate Change.

Washington State tops the list for highest gas prices. Cap and trade a hidden tax? Way to go Washington on the road to lower carbon emissions, but I still think a carbon tax is more honest.

I hear that Washington State has the highest gas prices in USA. Since I ride a bicycle, I wouldn't notice except for the news media coverage.

Conservatives tend to blame our new cap and trade system for reducing carbon emissions. They do have a point. I don't think you can just tax corporations without them passing the cost on to consumers. Cap and trade is kind of complex. I'd prefer a straight forward carbon tax. Cap and trade is more like a hidden tax.

Even with a carbon tax, the government can still provide help to folks that are lower income and harder hit; like farm workers or folks who have to commute a long ways since they can't afford housing that's closer to jobs.

Still, if we really want to reduce our carbon footprint, the cost of fossil fuels needs to go up.

Variable rate carbon tax could stabilize oil prices the way the Strategic Oil Reserve does now.

During my college years, in the shadow of the 1973 oil crisis, the US created the Strategic Oil Reserve. Back then, the idea was to have a reserve supply of oil in case we needed to fight a war while overseas oil imports were diminished.

Back then, we were dependent on imported oil for much of our supply. Today, we produce most of our own oil, due to increased domestic production; thus the reserve serves another purpose.

Since my college days, the use of our Strategic Oil Reserve has shifted to other goals; mainly the goal of stabilizing oil prices. When gas prices go up, Biden and other presidents, have dipped into the reserve to lower prices and to save their own political fortunes.

When prices go down, the reserve can be refilled. This practice can make money for the treasury due to the process of buying cheap / selling high.

It is not necessarily a bad strategy, but I also think this price stabilization effect can be done with carbon taxes that would be imposed when oil is too cheap. This would put a floor on oil prices so they are less apt to undercut alternative energy. The tax could be removed or lowered at times when oil prices are high. That temporary tax cut could relieve the shock of sudden price hikes.

Dropping the gas tax? How about switching to a mileage tax to pay for roads?

To appease fossil fuel addiction, some states are temporarily dropping gas tax due to rising gas prices. Gas taxes tend to go toward paying for the roads so this could lead to cuts in highway budgets.

This also relates to the question of how to pay for roads if vehicles use no gas, such as electric vehicles. Maybe this could be seen as part of a transitioning toward mileage tax versus a gas tax to pay for roads. In the future, mileage and weight taxes make more sense than fuel taxes.

Given concern about climate change, with it's potential reductions of investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, gasoline may remain expensive. Carbon taxes could serve as the new gas tax.

Some folks might be weary of their vehicle being tracked by GPS to calculate the tax. They might say, "Big Brother satellite in the sky." On the other hand, I hear that car theft is on the rise. Knowing where the vehicle is, at all times, makes it easier to catch the thieves. The growing car theft problem could be significantly reduced.

In the future, even bicycles might pay the mileage fee, but they could get a huge break on weight. It's also harder to rack up lots of miles, on a bicycle, so the fees wouldn't be prohibitive.

Car insurance could take mileage from GPS into account also. Thus eliminating the insurance penalty for car owners who only use the car on rare occasion.

Getting off dependency on fossil fuels. Temporary fixes for fuel price surges and replacing oil from Russia. Balancing contradictory goals.

Listening to Canadian Radio, news related to oil comes to mind.

British Columbia has a carbon tax which adds to it's high gas prices. Now that there is talk about gas tax holidays, in some US states, there is talk in BC as well. Could it be a temporary rebate from part of the carbon tax? If there is a carbon tax to begin with, there can be something to rebate.

Now I hear it is a rebate in BC's ICBC insurance rates. In BC, the province runs the vehicle insurance system. That system is said to be on sound financial footing.

BC taxes, including the carbon tax, can provide a cushion so there can still be money for things like transit and road maintanence. Here in USA, there is talk of gas tax cuts, but the taxes are used for infrastructure. Who pays for the roads?

I was thinking about my idea of a variable rate carbon tax. Raise the carbon tax, when fossil fuel prices are low, but bring it down when prices are high in order to stabilize fossil fuel prices somewhat. I think this would provide a more stable price footing for alternative energy. In much of the 2020 downturn, fossil fuel prices were too low leading to less push toward alternatives.

Someone commenting on my Facebook wall did suggest, however a different strategy. Rather than temporarily lowering carbon taxes during periods of high gas prices, use money to lower overall sales taxes which tend to be regressive taxes. There was an initiative to do that, several years back, here in Washington State, but it didn't pass at ballot box.

In other news. Canada is talking about temporarily increasing oil production to help Europe reduce it's use of Russian oil. How would that oil get to Europe? Much would travel by rail to the US Gulf Coast for shipment, from those ports, to Europe; the same route that Keystone Pipeline would have gone.

Oil trains might be better as a temporary solution. If Keystone Pipeline were built, it would be more permanent infrastructure. If we want to cut back on using fossil fuels, in the long run, we still shouldn't need that pipeline.

Conservatives still think we should have built, or should still build, that pipeline. Another pipeline to climate change. I think less consumer use of fossil fuels can help us as various countries scramble to help Europe. Countries are scrambling to patch up holes in supply. Holes related to increased demand after the pandemic and the situation with Russia.

If international competitiveness of corporations is compromised paying whole bill for infrastructure, maybe a gas tax and or carbon tax could help.

Looks like all Democrats may not support Biden's raising of corporate taxes / infrastructure bill. With Republicans probably against it, just one no vote from a Democrat would kill the bill.

I got to thinking, maybe they should spread the tax over a wider base of revenue sources. Raise corporate tax slightly less, but add a gas tax. Also a tax on high income individuals. Small taxes in all these areas.

Basically a gas tax is a carbon tax. Yes, a true carbon tax covers all carbon fuels, but gasoline is one of the worst. We already have a gas tax. The federal gas tax hasn't been raised in years so it could go up a bit. A new tax, such as a carbon tax, might be harder to pass.

Just raise the gas tax a few pennies. 2 or 3 cents a gallon? These kind of taxes can be regressive so proposed carbon taxes have included complex systems for rebating money to low income people. Often the proposals fail due, in part, to complexity of measures to try and mitigate the impact on low income and essential workers.

Maybe just a small tax is the answer. Keep it simple.

Just a few pennies wouldn't stop climate change, but it's better than nothing. Keeping it low is a simple way to address the regressive nature of such a tax.

Over time, it could be raised. Anti tax people don't like the idea of a tax raising over time. They see it as the camel putting his nose under the tent and then ratcheting it up.

If global warming is as serious as some scientists think, a tax that ratchets up might be the least of our problems.

One problem with any tax change is how hard it is to get anything through the Senate. If we can get enough Senators on board and use the reconciliation tool against filibuster, we might be able to raise modest taxes. If this were the case, the taxes wouldn't have to be the be all and end all solution.

Easier passage through the Senate would allow things to be adjusted on an ongoing basis. This could include taxes as well as infrastructure improvements and strategies for dealing with climate change. It wouldn't have to be the one do or die one big time solution.

We really need to take care of these things as we go along.

As for a tax on wealthy individuals, that could direct a corporation's capital to better uses. Corporations sometimes use much of their money to pad the incomes of their top executives / stockholders. Other times, they invest it in things, like new buildings or scientific research, to improve their products and services.

If the corporation is using it's money to improve it's product and service, that's not necessarily bad, but if the money is mostly going to personal income of the folks on top, it should be more taxed.

Maybe it's easier to sort that out as a personal income / wealth, or even / inheritance tax than as a business / corporate income tax.

Republicans aren't likely to pass taxes for infrastructure anyway

Trump walks out of meeting with congressional Democrats that was to be about infrastructure spending. Oh well, we can't increase infrastructure spending without raising taxes anyway; or maybe taking money from the military or adding to the debt. We can't do federal public infrastructure, that is. Private infrastructure; like toll roads can still be done and states can move forward also.

The fight wasn't about infrastructure, but it is the battle between Trump and the new Democratically elected House over investigations of the president. Investigations; even impeachment can take place in the House, but Trump is still highly protected by most of the Republicans in the Senate.

Beyond just the politics of Trump and Congress, the American people are divided. A good way toward better infrastructure is to raise the gas tax. A hard sell especially to Republicans, but to Democrats also. Democrats don't like regressive taxes, which a gas tax would be. They are reluctant to do this without raising taxes on the wealthy. Republicans are pretty set against the latter.

Trump might say, oh, hell, we've got almost full employment anyway without the damn infrastructure.

Yes, Americans are employed, but many are stuck in traffic, or unable to afford convenient housing.

Speaking of traffic, another question is, where are we going to put the infrastructure? In most cities, there is no room to add lanes to the freeway.

The old American way is no longer working. We need greener infrastructure, greener lifestyles and greener politics. Investigations or not, 2020 election is on its way. Are you going to vote?

Forward Washington Transportation plan sounds a bit similar to my gas tax / carbon tax combo idea

They are thinking of combining the idea of a carbon tax with the gas tax. Almost like the idea I was conjuring up last summer. See my blog entry from August. This bill isn't the same as my idea, but it's surprisingly close. Called the Forward Washington Transportation Plan introduced by state Senator Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens.

There's a need to raise money for Washington's roads and other transportation systems. Much of the need is environmental. US Supreme Court has recently ruled that our state must take out a lot of culverts under roads. Widen river crossings under many roads to enhance salmon habitat and maybe save the whales.

Carbon tax and the gas tax are sort of like cousins.

Follow above link to my blog entry from last August with a somewhat similar line of thinking.

Canada's new carbon tax. Seems like a good plan.

A $20/ton carbon tax translates into a 16.6 cent per gallon surcharge on gasoline. So, in 2022, the $50/ton carbon tax will increase Canadian gasoline prices by about 42 cents per gallon (11 cents per liter). That would be about an 8% gasoline price increase by 2022.

I'll add that even the top figure of 42 cents per gallon is still less than the increased cost of gas that people experienced in 2008 when gas prices were up due to supply and demand; before significant increase of oil production (such as in North Dakota and Texas due to fracking) which led to low oil prices from the oil market glut.

This carbon tax will reimburse Canadian taxpayers in other tax savings.

The price of coal would more than double, with a carbon tax surcharge of about $100 per ton in 2022. Natural gas prices will rise by about 10 cents per cubic meter in 2022 compared to current prices of around 13 cents per cubic meter – about a 75% increase. This will increase demand for cheaper carbon-free electricity. However, Canada already supplies about 60% of its electricity through hydroelectric generation and 16% from nuclear – only about 20–25% comes from fossil fuels.

The carbon tax will top out in 2022 with no more tax increase unless future legislation changes that. It's a fairly modest tax, but they still think it will create a significant incentive toward cleaner energy.

Sounds like a very good plan tho there has been some struggle to get all the provinces on board. Compromises have been made. There could still be rebellion at the local level. We'll have to see how it all plays out.

While I still support Washington State's carbon tax, I think the Canadian version is better. Washington State's plan seems to try and hide the fact that it will cost fossil fuel consumers more. It goes after polluting industries, such as our oil refineries in Whatcom and Skagit Counties, who are now flooding our state with anti carbon tax campaign funding.

Canada's industrial sector will not be subjected to the carbon tax, but rather to an Output-Based Allocations system (similar to cap and trade).

The rebates to Canadian taxpayers are anticipated to exceed the increased energy costs for about 70% of Canadian households.

My unique thoughts after reading climatologist Cliff Mass's recent critique of Washington State I-1631

Looks like Washington State's popular climatologist, Cliff Mass, is critical of Washington State's latest attempt to tax carbon emissions; I-1631. I still favor the bill, tho it has its blemishes. I guess he feels that a better carbon tax bill could be crafted.

I-1631's organizers created a very complex bill based on community input. It has a lot of payoffs to various special interest groups; such as Native American Tribes, labor groups and so forth.

Could it be that the laundry list of left leaning groups creates such a gauntlet, for any bill to get through, that the bill ends up just creating another morass? On Cliff's blog there is a picture of hogs at the trough. I would guess that right wing leaning groups create similar gauntlets for proposals to get past.

I still think of myself as leaning left, but I do see a problem of all the special interests, each wanting their share of the action. The "big picture solution" seems to always get clouded.

Yes, there are, conceivably, many simpler solutions than I-1631. Two years ago, there was a simpler solution that didn't pass the popular vote. It would have imposed a carbon tax and then, basically, give money back to the taxpayers in the form of sales tax relief. That bill didn't have much support from the various interest groups that this bill has attempted to bring on board. Maybe that's why it didn't pass.

Cliff praised that bill for its simplicity, but at the same time he is criticizing this bill for not doing enough to focus the spending side of the bill on things that would really make a big dent in climate change. Such things as putting lots of money into speeding up the build out of light rail transit. He suggests some other big ticket proposals as well; like thinning out some of the dead wood in our forests to make them less fire prone. Another suggestion is to build more water storage capacity for the irrigation in areas like the Yakima Valley to help them cope with the expected decline in snow pack storage.

A simpler bill could do that. It wouldn't be like the bill that was on the ballot two years ago, however. That wouldn't have boosted light rail, or these other ideas, that much as it would have been giving the money back to taxpayers in the form of sales tax relief. It was considered "revenue neutral."

Personally, I'd propose a simpler idea as well. It would, basically, tax all fossil fuels at the pump; so to speak. Yes, it would cost consumers more. Then, if we really want to focus the revenue on things that reduce global warming, it would be like forcing the car drivers to pay higher taxes to support things like light rail. I'd say bike paths also, of course. You folks know me. I'm into bicycling.

My idea wouldn't make it through the gauntlet of public process for sure. My idea would be kind of regressive also, but maybe we can't use the carbon tax to solve income inequality. We need another tax for that, like an income tax.

Still, I support I-1631 as a start as we can modify it as we go along, hopefully.

If we could think outside automobiles, a tax on car drivers could be less regressive if it really did bring on a lot more alternative transit. In the long run, alternative transit is less expensive than driving. Still, most people are waiting for driving to be fueled with alternative fuels instead.

The gas tax is kind of a carbon tax. It could be raised and extended to other fossil fuels. Keep it simple.

View from Western Washington University's Music Building plaza during smoky skies Aug. 2018.

Most carbon taxes, like one's proposed by Washington Governor Jay Inslee, seem too complex, but I will vote yes anyway. I think they are designed by politics. Tax big industries, like oil refineries, to make it look like we aren't taxing consumers, but industry passes it's cost along to consumers anyway. Really, to be honest, it is taxing consumers. I still support the idea. It's better than nothing.

A carbon tax can be made more simple, however. Make it like the gas tax that is seen at the pump. In fact I would combine the gas tax and the carbon tax concept. Just make it one tax; rather than two taxes.

There are 3 big ways in which energy is consumed and I would put a tax on each of them. Basically only 3 products to tax so it could be simple. Oil, natural gas and coal. The tax would reflect how much carbon is placed into the atmosphere from each of these items.

Natural gas would have a slightly lower tax than oil or coal as it's carbon content is lower.

The price levied on coal would effect the price of things like electricity, depending on how much of the electricity mix comes from coal at a given time.

The carbon tax could be low, at first, like maybe even just adding the equivalent of a few cents per gallon of gas. This would address the fact that a carbon tax is somewhat regressive. Quite a few low income people have to drive to work, for instance. At least a small tax would be a start. Better than nothing. If future legislatures, or the voters, wanted to raise it, they could.

I think Washington's carbon tax proposal would automatically ratchet higher over time. This might be hard to swallow politically. My idea wouldn't ratchet up automatically, but would rely on the legislature, or the voters for that. Maybe that's not strong enough, but at least it's a start. I hate to say it, but if skies get smoky enough, voters might take more kindly to these taxes.

As for the tax on oil, much of it would show up as a higher gas tax. People are already used to the gas tax. It goes to transportation infrastructure; the highway fund. I keep hearing that the gas tax needs to be raised as roads and bridges are in poor repair. Gas is quite cheap, in USA, compared to other countries. The cost of maintaining the highway network keeps rising. Just raising the gas tax would be like a carbon tax in a way.

Even raising the gas tax is difficult politically. It's justified by the need to improve public infrastructure. Maybe other carbon taxes could be looked at in the same way. Ironically, it might have to be sold by saying it's money for highways.

I would try and use a lot of the money for green transportation. Public transit, pedestrian improvements and bike paths. Bellingham has a similar tax in place now. It puts some money into roads, but emphasizes alternative transit. It's called Bellingham Transportation Benefits District 1. This money comes from a sales tax, however. The tax was passed by voters in 2010. It brought back Sunday bus service after some cuts. It also pays for street improvements with emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle safety.

I know, the public grumbles if they think they are paying for buses or bicycles that they don't ride, but alternative transportation does help the cars by reducing traffic.

Taxes on natural gas and coal could go toward things like making our power grid smarter. Green energy and conservation. Like with the gas tax, it's basically infrastructure.

The tax could be raised by future legislatures, but, admittedly, it's a fairly regressive tax. As for the problem of income inequality, in USA, we really do need more progressive income taxes as well. I think of the carbon tax as dealing with infrastructure and carbon reduction needs. It can't do everything. Income inequality could be addressed with different taxes.

If people could figure out how to give up their cars, alternative transit does address income inequality. It's usually cheaper than car ownership.

Washington State's latest carbon tax proposal will be on the November 2018 ballot. I think it's more complex than my idea, but I still plan to vote yes. It taxes a lot of businesses and exempts other businesses out of the fear of driving certain businesses to other states. The tax proposal is the result of a lot of public consultation. Complex, but maybe the best we can do given the circumstances.

Still, I think we could benefit from relating our thinking about carbon taxes to the already successful gas taxes.

Carbon tax is a good idea, but politically it is even hard to raise enough gas tax to maintain the roads

A carbon tax is a good way to reduce global warming. A few places are starting to get carbon taxes including some provinces in Canada.

Governor Inslee would like to see a carbon tax in Washington State which the legislature is discussing. It's a hard sell, politically. For gasoline, it would be like a gas tax. I got to thinking that it's politically hard to even raise the gas tax enough to keep the roads and bridges in good repair.

Sometimes I gain insight from what Republican lawmakers say. A Republican state lawmaker, interviewed on Pullman Radio, said that she didn't feel the gas tax would go over well if people didn't even see road improvements from it. Kind of like a tax for what?

Most carbon tax proposals would pay out not necessarily in road improvements, but other areas such as cuts in other taxes like the high Washington State sales tax. Another idea would be Governor Inslee's plan to use some of that money to fill the gap created by the State Supreme Court ruling for funding education.

A tax is a hard sell, even if it goes to very visible and tangible road improvements. Ideally, maybe it would go to "transportation improvements," rather than just roads. Public transit, bike paths and so forth. Such a tax did pass, a few years back, here in Bellingham. Bellingham prop. 1 transportation improvement tax which went to bring back Sunday bus service and do other improvements with some emphasis on bicycles. That did pass within the fairly liberal city limits of Bellingham in 2010.

We do need infrastructure and how is that to be paid for? More deficit spending? How about taxes so it can be pay as you go? How about combining the justification for a carbon tax with that for infrastructure? Raise the gas tax and call it a carbon tax. Get better roads and bridges. Use some of the money for bike paths and public transit. Some car drivers will complain about even that diversion of funds, but better transit does mean less traffic thus helping the cars also.

I guess a true carbon tax would also include other forms of fossil fuel besides gasoline; like, for instance, natural gas used in electricity production. Well, we need infrastructure improvements to the power grid also. How do we pay for that? A carbon tax.

Another big use of fossil fuel is heating and manufacturing. I guess agriculture as well. Okay, we need to fund environmental cleanup. Where does the toxic waste "super fund" cleanup money come from? In Washington I think some of that comes from a tax on our oil refineries.

State Rep. Ed Orrcutt's comment about bicycle pollution makes a funny distraction

A lot of heat and media comments are being generated by an assertion from Washington State Representative Ed Orcutt (R) of Kalama, that bicyclists cause pollution by just breathing out carbon dioxide. Washington State Rep. Ed Orcutt, Who Is Pushing Bike Fee, Walks Back Claims That Cyclists Cause Pollution. Headline in the Huffington Post.

Kind of a funny distraction. Carbon dioxide, from breathing, is basically a non issue compared to burning of fossil fuels, but it makes funny news copy.

The more real issue is about a proposal to put a sales tax on bike sales to help pay for roads that bikes ride on. I think it's a Democrat that first proposed the idea as part of a Washington State transportation bill, but a Republican has induced some hot air over the matter. The proposal calls for a $25 sales tax on bikes priced $500 and above. I'm a bicyclist, but I still see some logic in this as a way to partially pay for bike infrastructure.

It may be a poorly designed tax, however. If this tax were imposed, there would be a lot of bikes selling for $499, to avoid the $500 tax cutoff. Maybe they should just have a $5 tax per hundred dollar price on bikes. Then the cheaper bikes, sold at places like Walmart, would be taxed as well as the more expensive bikes that tend to be sold at the locally owned bicycle shops. Level the playing field between discount box stores and local bike shops.

Still, I'm not totally against some revenue from bikes to help establish our legitimacy on roads in the public perception. Even with this tax, bike facilities are highly subsidized by other taxes and that is good. Since bicycling is healthy, promoting bicycling, by subsidizing bike paths, could help the entire population save on healthcare costs. So, yes, for the most part I favor giving bicycles a free ride, but I'm not against at least a small tax of some sort.

Washington State could go back to charging more for license tabs

They say the gas tax isn't enough to cover cost of roads in Washington State because more fuel efficient cars are buying less gallons of gas. Also people may be driving less. Other sources of revenue are being considered including the possibility of tracking cars with GPS and charging an additional fee on a per mile basis. Some folks think this GPS solution is unworkable and also some folks feel it would be a violation of privacy for the government to track private cars with GPS.

So, maybe we could go back to higher license fees as an alternative source of revenue; rather than GPS tracking?

The license tab was a broader tax base than just the gas tax alone, but it was thrown out by voters, in 1999, as part of Tim Eyman's famous Initiative 695. Before 695, more revenue was available from license tabs and the tax was graduated. Expensive cars paid more while less expensive cars paid less. 695 gave a break on the cost of license tabs, especially the higher cost for more expensive cars as it lowered the rates and made the rates more like a flat tax. Regressive.

695 was tossed out by courts as unconstitutional after that 1999 election, but governments have, to some extent, preserved it's intent. Maybe the license tab fees could be revisited?

More recently, the state is holding some meetings discussing alternative revenue sources in light of the falling gas tax revenue.

Some folks say that the license fee was siphoned away from roads before I-695. In truth, a lot of it went to non car transportation. Much of the funding for public transit came from the license tabs and people tend to forget that public transit can help automobile drivers by reducing overall traffic.

Why does it cost so much to build roads in Washington State? Part of that may be the high cost of land needed to build new road capacity. Also the high cost of living, especially in central Puget Sound region, tends to bring up labor costs and so forth.

We got a classy state here, but we can't have it all. Million dollar homes and inexpensive roads. It doesn't necessarily add up.

I don't drive. I ride my bicycle. I know, I'll never get people to stop griping. Maybe the license tab shouldn't have been broken in the first place, but on the other hand, if they decide to track cars with GPS, I'm okay with that also.

They can even track my bicycle. Wait a minute, they'd be charging me a tax also. I'm almost okay with that; a reasonable fee at least. Traveling through Wisconsin on a bike tour, I didn't mind buying the day permit that helped pay for maintaining Sparta to Elroy Trail. Year permits are available also. The permit is good for many of the Wisconsin bike trails that charge for their use. I think the Wisconsin program is run by their state department of natural resources.

Now why have I gotten on that subject? Oh oh, I've opened a Pandora's box now.

McCain's summer gas tax holiday idea full of potholes

Who's going to pay for the road and transportation construction during Presidential candidate John McCain's proposal for a summer holiday from federal gas taxes?

Much of this revenue now goes to road construction. Will this construction just grind to a halt laying off all those workers? Will future traffic gridlock just get worse due to lack of funding for transportation infrastructure?

Or will construction continue and just be added to the federal debt?

It's so easy to just promise everyone the world and then add it to the debt. Maybe there is no consequence from adding to the debt. It's just like plucking money from the money tree.

Who is not thinking these things through all the way?

One possible outcome from Tim Eyman's congestion relief proposal

Something my camera found on a concrete wall.
Graffiti art could be a cheap substitute for publicly funded art that's associated with Washington State transportation projects. Some of it isn't that bad, but I'm not a big fan of most graffiti.

The latest Eyman proposal isn't as bad as some of his previous "slash taxes and government" suggestions.

This one calls for creating a special fund devoted to congestion relief on Washington roadways. Initiative now has a number. It's I-984. (I added this note Jan.9).

Something like $85 million per year. Now estimated at 130 million.

Money would come, in part, from cutting funding for public art and sculpture. Currently, a certain percentage of money spent on capital projects, such as transportation projects in the state, is devoted to art associated with said projects.

This is just small potatoes.

A bigger part of those millions would come from the sales tax that's currently collected when new and used vehicles are sold in the state. 10% (now increased to 15%) of that sales tax revenue would be diverted into the congestion relief fund, rather than going into the state's general fund where most sales taxes currently go.

Tim Eyman's latest initiative was filed yesterday.

$85 (even 130 million) is hardly a drop in the bucket for relief of traffic congestion. I keep saying that land has gotten so expensive, it's practically impossible for the state to build it's way out of congestion. The land that's under new highway lanes would be a budget buster.

I realize that his proposal is mostly about doing things like timing traffic lights better. Also things like pre positioning tow trucks for faster clearing of blocking accidents.

Small steps can sometimes make a big difference. It's not a totally bad idea.

Still, I don't think there's much we can do to relieve congestion short of getting rid of automobiles as the main form of transportation.

Also, for some reason, the framers of our state's constitution implied that education is the paramount duty of state government.

I know, I sometimes feel there's a lot of waste in education as well.

Education: the biggest priority of money in the general fund.

Diverting even just 15% of sales tax revenue on the sale of vehicles in our state would be like stealing food from the lion's cat dish.

When the lion's share of state funding goes to schools and the constitution roars in it's favor, watch out.

Yes, watch out.

Education? What good is it doing us?

Here might be another way to spell congestion relief in Washington State.

Not spelling it R-O-L-A-I-D-S, as the old Rolaids commercials would have it.

We can put the lion called "education" to work for us. Why can't we encourage our schools to teach alternative transportation?

Remember, "Bike To Work Day" is actually called "Bike To Work AND SCHOOL Day." The schools have already gotten involved to some extent.

There are a lot of things we can do to "learn better ways of getting around" in our state. We can do these things regardless of whether this Eyman proposal succeeds or not.