Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, January 26, 1992 TAG: 9201290305
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: D-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CHARLES S. ROBB
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
A MATTER OF CONSERVATION
ONE YEAR ago, the United States led the international community to war in an effort to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi control. I had supported the Senate's authorization to use force because I thought it was important to stand up for American ideals - that aggression and lawlessness should not be rewarded - and because I thought it was in our national interest to ensure that a single dictator did not gain a stranglehold over more than half the world's supply of oil.We fought Saddam Hussein because both our principles and our national interests were at stake. Those who opposed the war were correct when they said that we would not have put 500,000 troops in the Gulf if Saudi Arabia's main export were kiwis. But in my view, the fact that the Persian Gulf possesses two-thirds of the world's oil reserves strengthened the case for our presence, rather than undermining it.
We owe it, to those who fought, to act swiftly to address our nation's precarious overreliance on Middle Eastern oil, and we owe it to their children to reduce as much as possible the likelihood that there will ever again be a question of whether the United States should expend blood in exchange for oil.
Sadly, one year later, we are no closer to that goal. Oil imports account for nearly 50 percent of America's consumption, and according to administration projections, that level is likely to rise above 60 percent unless we take dramatic steps.
A tool is available to reduce our reliance on imported oil, clean up the environment and help decrease the likelihood that we would ever again have to send America's youth overseas to defend energy supplies.
Yet despite all those positive attributes, the solution is taboo. In the political realities of 1992, it simply cannot be spoken of. And that's a shame, because when lives, our national economy and our national security are at stake, every idea needs to be discussed and examined.
Time after time, when I've discussed energy legislation with individuals, whether from the environmental commmunity or the business community, they've told me the best thing we could do to address our dependence on foreign oil is to increase the gas tax. While there are no true silver bullets for our energy problem, I've been told over and over again that adding a conservation tax is the closest we'll ever come to one. But then, in the next breath, they've invariably told me that, of course, the conservation-tax alternative will never pass the Congress.
It is simply unacceptable that the one policy which is widely acknowledged as the best option for addressing our energy dependence is not even being seriously discussed. I've seen combat up close and personal, and represent a state which disproportionately provides troops in times of war. Therefore, I can't - in good conscience - ignore any proposal which is seen by so many as a key to addressing our overreliance on imported oil.
The first question which comes to mind is what we might do with the revenue raised by a conservation tax. My instinct, as with all new federal income, is to use the money to reduce our federal deficit, to rebuild our infrastructure, and to boost the earned-income credit for the poor to counteract the regressive nature of any conservation tax. But that approach would mean a net tax increase on the American public.
Politically, it would be wiser to give every penny raised by the conservation tax back to consumers. Specifically, there could be a line in the income-tax form which could read, "National Security Tax Rebate." Every individual and married couple who filed a tax return (and is not counted as a dependent on someone else's return) would be eligible. Once the conservation tax was fully phased in, the credit would be rather substantial: $431 for a married couple filing jointly, according to Joint Tax Committee estimates.
By giving this rebate and thus making the program revenue-neutral, we wouldn't increase the net taxes on the average family. The conservation tax would simply shift the place where they pay their taxes - from the paycheck to the pump. It would be a tax on energy, as Congressman John Dingell has said, not a tax on people. And because the wealthy consume more gasoline per household than the poor, a program which rebates an equal amount to all taxpayers would actually be more progressive than the current tax structure.
You've probably heard a lot of talk about a tax cut targeted at the middle class. But to me, like many proposals that follow a given day's poll numbers, that seems short-sighted. To be sure, it might boost the economy - for a few weeks. But the net result would be to amplify the federal deficit which is the real underlying cause of our lousy economy. A revenue-neutral tax on gasoline wouldn't increase the deficit, and its fringe benefits would be positive and long-lasting.
The conservation tax would also have the potential to break the political deadlock which stymied the president's energy bill: the competing desire to preserve the environment and promote our national security. Unlike the rancorous debate over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the conservation tax would unite environmental and national security interests; conserving energy and moving toward alternatives to oil means less pollution and greater security. In particular, increasing the motor-fuels tax should result in a sharp reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions, a major contributor to global warming.
Despite all these benefits, I'm fully aware that introducing any proposal for a conservation tax, even one that rebates all of the revenue raised, is considered risky politics at best.
There's no question in my mind that such a bill would get 75 votes in the U.S. Senate if there were a secret ballot. But there are far fewer who would want to publicly stand up for it. The conventional wisdom is that the American people will be too stupid to understand the point - that they'll hear "gas tax" and won't hear the tax-cut portion. That they'll talk about patriotism but won't want to do anything to prevent threats to our national security.
I'd like to give the American people more credit than that. They know the ultimate sacrifice paid by those in the Persian Gulf War - by those who fought and their families. They know we should not continue to send dollars to unfriendly and unstable states so that their war machines - and nuclear capabilities - can be built or resurrected. They know we have had three energy crises in the past 15 years - and that each time, there has been a brief flurry of activity, but that only the easy options have been pursued.
But I'm convinced the political climate has changed significantly since the earlier failed attempts to raise the gas tax, for three reasons.
The American public better understands the real cost of oil dependence now that we have gone to war in large part over oil. There had always been warnings that given the strategic importance and scarcity of oil, and its concentration in the most volatile part of the world, that nations would one day go to war over oil. In the late 1970s, our oil dependency cost us jobs; in the early 1990s, it cost us lives.
Gasoline prices in real dollars are now at their lowest point in decades. Oil is selling as low as $17 a barrel, and may go to $16. Adding a conservation tax now would not be a "piling on" on top of natural price increases, as it was in the late 1970s. Clearly, there are reasons to delay implementation - and a good argument could be made for not implementing a conservation tax until the recession is over - but with gas prices at historic lows, the time seems ripe for a phased-in conservation tax.
Environmental awareness is much stronger today than it was a decade and a half ago. We now know much more about the dangers of global warming. Each gallon of gasoline used produces 18 pounds of carbon dioxide, a key "greenhouse gas." We now know that more than 100 of our cities violate federal clean air health guidelines. Pollution problems have grown worse, and the American public has awakened to the dangers. The environmental community is now a political force to be reckoned with; witness the Senate's vote to reject the president's energy proposal.
Skeptics will say that a gasoline tax is regressive - and that's true, if you don't rebate the revenue. It will be claimed that a gasoline tax unfairly hits those in the West and the South. But we in the South know the price that's been paid for our overreliance on oil. If you drove through the South during the Persisn Gulf War, you saw the yellow ribbons and flags flying in every community.
Opponents will say that we shouldn't interfere with the marketplace by giving certain alternative fuels an advantage over gasoline. But our reliance on imported oil has costs not reflected in the current level of taxation: the money we spend to defend our interest in oil, the environmental costs of profligate energy use, and the costs associated with gridlock. Also, with all of the federal tax subsidies received by oil companies, the conservation tax could be considered a way of recapturing those subsidies.
Opponents will say that this idea just gives non-drivers a windfall. They'll get the tax credit, but won't pay the conservation tax. But we want to encourage non-drivers to continue to use mass transit or alternative transportation. And those who don't drive don't impose the external social costs that the rest of us do.
Opponents would charge that a conservation tax would cause inflation and impede economic growth. The real risk of inflation and recession lies in perpetuating our deep dependence on oil, and on imported oil in particular.
The question, in the end, is whether or not we want to leave ourselves open to more oil price shocks. Whether, in the end, we want to continue to send more of our money to the Middle East, or to conserve and keep more of the money here at home.
Charles S. Robb is a U.S. senator from Virginia. This is excerpted from a Jan. 16 speech at the Marshall-Wythe Law School of the College of William & Mary.