The Case for a Carbon Tax

Summary.  Increased burning of fossil fuels, producing higher rates of emission of greenhouse gases, generates worsening patterns of extreme weather events that affect human wellbeing.  In response to this trend, policies are being proposed to abate emissions.  This post summarizes two recent newspaper articles proposing use of a carbon tax, or a more limited gasoline tax, for lowering emissions.  It is judged that a carbon tax is simpler and more effective than establishing a cap-and-trade regime for limiting emissions.

 

Introduction.  Humanity’s rate of use of fossil fuels for energy has grown to high levels in recent decades, and is projected to continue increasing for the indefinite future.  As a result, the annual rate of emission of carbon dioxide (CO₂), the main greenhouse gas, as well as other greenhouse gases such as methane, has likewise been increasing.  Most CO₂, once it enters the atmosphere, remains there indefinitely for a century or longer, for there is no naturally occurring mechanism that removes it. 

Climate scientists hold greenhouse gases responsible for the recent long-term increase in the world-wide average temperature.  In turn, the warmer planet harbors an increased potential for more, and more intense, extreme weather and climate events such as rainfall and resulting floods, heat waves and resulting droughts, and wildfires.  These events have catastrophic effects on human populations, and inflict serious economic harms.

These considerations lead climate scientists and economists to develop mitigating policies intended to slow the growth in the rate of emissions.  This would have the effect of lowering the rate of increase in the CO₂ content of the atmosphere.  It must be noted that, because CO₂ remains resident in the atmosphere for a century or longer, its atmospheric concentration cannot be reduced within reasonable time frames; even if emissions ceased entirely, the result would be merely to stabilize the CO₂ concentration at the new, higher level.  One policy intended to abate the rate of emission of CO₂ is to impose an economic hurdle to use of fossil fuels.  This post describes recent opinion articles proposing use of a carbon tax or a gas tax to accomplish this.

Two Economics Commentators have recently come out in support of a carbon tax.  Robert Frank, professor of economics at Cornell, commenting in the New York Times, advocates a carbon tax for the following reasons.  First, he summarized some of the adverse weather events in the U. S. mentioned above in the Introduction, emphasizing that climate scientists today believe that man-made greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere contribute to the causes of these events.  Dr. Frank cites a global climate model study by Sokolov and coworkers that concludes that the global average temperature in 2045 has a median probability of increasing by 1.85ºC (3.3ºF), and by 5.1ºC (9.2ºF) by 2095, beyond the present level, which has itself already increased about 0.7ºC (1.3ºF) above the temperature that prevailed before humans began burning fossil fuels.  These predictions, based on Sokolov’s current more comprehensive model, are higher than earlier ones by his group and by others.

Dr. Frank then suggests gradually imposing a carbon tax in the U. S., citing an earlier recommendation by the U. N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for a tax of US$80/metric ton (1.1 U. S. tons) of emitted carbon, which works out to about 70 US cents per U. S. gallon of gasoline.  However, in view of the more dire temperature rise situation currently foreseen he also suggests a tax that could be as high as US$300/metric ton, translating to a rise in the price of gasoline of about US$3.00/U. S. gallon.  Many countries around the world already have taxes on fuel about this high, and, he notes, nations have adapted by developing more efficient cars.

Dr. Frank cites two beneficial economic effects of a carbon tax.  First, it would contribute to reducing the U. S. fiscal deficit, which is highly desirable.  In addition, phasing in the tax gradually only after the present economic distress in the U. S. had passed would provide a timed incentive to make energy use in all its aspects more efficient even before the tax took effect, thus contributing overall to a reduced rate of emitting greenhouse gases.  The U. S. could contribute to a worldwide increase in energy efficiency by imposing carbon-based tariffs on imports.  This, for example, would provide incentives for foreign emitters of large amounts of greenhouse gases to develop efficiencies in their own lands.

Dr. Frank concludes “If the recent meteorological chaos drives home the threat of climate change and prompts action, it may ultimately be a blessing in disguise.”

Eduardo Porter, an economics columnist with the New York Times supports a more limited carbon tax in the form of a gas tax.  Mr. Porter noted that President Obama’s administration has ruled that motor vehicle fleet average gas efficiency has to reach 54.5 miles per U. S. gallon by 2025, almost doubling the present efficiency.  (In a previous action his administration had set a standard of 36.6 miles per U. S. gallon by 2017.)  The administration foresees that by 2025 these standards should result in a reduction of fuel use by 12 billion gallons, with a concomitant lowering of greenhouse gas emissions when burned.

But Mr. Porter has several concerns with the use of vehicle efficiency standards to lower use of fossil fuels for transportation.  First, he states that the engineering, production and societal costs to attain such efficiency may be excessive, representing an ineffective use of productive resources.  This is so even accounting for the reduction in harms inflicted by lowered incidence of weather extremes, and better health such as lower incidence of asthma, according to economists.  Second, he warns that more efficient vehicles may have the “perverse incentive” of inducing drivers to travel more, not less, because the expense per distance traveled will be lower.  In other words, vehicle efficiency standards do not change behavior toward reducing use of fossil fuels.  Further, they only take effect as people move from older, less efficient cars to newer, efficient ones, a process that stretches out over the decade or more needed for the fleet standard to be put in place.

Instead, Mr. Porter favors a gas tax.  First, a gas tax directly affects drivers’ behavior right away, even with their existing vehicles.  They would travel less, and when they decide to buy new cars, they would opt for more efficient ones which in turn provides the incentive to manufacturers to optimize efficiency.  This effect has already been observed when gas prices rose in the past for brief episodes.  Second, any inequity in imposing a gas tax can be reversed by offering tax credits at income tax time, say, to people with lower incomes; behavior at the pump is affected by the price tag staring drivers in the face rather than by the distant, subconscious, expectation of a return of the tax at a later time.  Third, the gas tax spurs car makers to make the most efficient vehicles they think drivers would buy in response to the newly imposed gas tax.  Mr. Porter cites a currently circulating analysis by Prof. Christopher Knittel, an energy economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, that found that if a gas tax had been imposed in the 1980’s, after the Arab oil embargo, gas mileage could have improved by 60% by now.  Instead, car makers have emphasized increasing size, weight and power. 

Tom Friedman, a foreign affairs columnist for the New York Times, has repeatedly called for a tax on carbon as the most direct way to lower consumption of fossil fuels, in order to minimize the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and to reduce U. S. importation of petroleum from abroad.  Others at the New York Times espousing a carbon tax, both conservatives and liberals, are David Brooks, Nicholas Kristof and Bob Herbert.

In 2011, Profs. Daniel Esty (Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection for the state of Connecticut) and Michael Porter published an op-ed article in the New York Times espousing a carbon tax.

Analysis

Cap-and-Trade Mechanisms to Lower CO₂ Emissions. Two principal economic mechanisms have been devised to lower the rate of emissions of greenhouse gases, including CO₂.  One is the cap-and-trade mechanism.  In this regime the government jurisdiction (region, nation or state) administratively establishes how many emission allowances, usually worth the right to emit 1 ton of CO₂, for example, that each fixed point source of emissions (e.g., a power plant) is allowed.  These are granted or sold to the source.  Accordingly, cap-and-trade requires initially establishing the emissions rate for each source, which relies on reporting from the sources without bias.  The total of all allowances constitutes the “cap”.  Allowances have value, because a source that succeeds in reducing its emission rate can “trade” them on an open market to other sources whose emission rate exceeds their allowances.  Cap-and-trade is intended to lower overall emission rates with time, as the administering government lowers the cap each year; this would result in increasing the price  of each allowance.  The result is to lower emissions, while reflecting the price of the allowances by an increased cost for generating power or using energy, which is passed on to consumers.

Thus cap-and-trade uses market forces to, on the one hand, induce conservation behavior by consumers, and on the other hand, to induce efficiencies in generation of energy.  A further complication, though, is the right usually built in to cap-and-trade regimes to “offset” excess demand for allowances by “importing” allowances from outside the territory of the regime; these also must be monitored effectively by those administering the regime.

Cap-and-trade, it can be seen carries several difficulties and inefficiencies.  Its administration is very complex: there is the need to allot allowances and lower them each year; market mechanisms must be established; and offsets must be monitored.  Additionally, the market for allowances establishes third-party traders having no interest in global warming, but only in trading an object (allowances) for profit among themselves, potentially leading to market abuses and speculation. 

The European Union established a cap-and-trade in the last decade, but it was initially judged a failure because it wound up issuing more allowances than necessary, leading to a collapse of the market.  On the other hand, the American regimes in California, and in the Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, are operating cap-and-trade regimes at various stages of progress.

A Carbon Tax or a Gas Tax.  The second principal mechanism for lowering emission rates is imposition of a tax on all forms CO₂ emissions, frequently including other greenhouse gases, or a more limited tax on gasoline only.  A carbon tax impacts all sources of energy and economic activity that depend on fossil fuels.  A gasoline tax is more restricted to limiting use of fossil fuels for personal and commercial transportation.

Administratively a carbon tax is far simpler than setting up a cap-and-trade regime.  It too is based on economic behavior, affecting the demand side of the market, as opposed to the supply side impacted by cap-and-trade.  Typically a carbon tax is imposed gradually, beginning at a low level and increasing annually to an economically meaningful level.  A political “sweetener” for a carbon tax could be a rebate to needy taxpayers to compensate for the increased year-long expense arising from the tax, as noted above. 

This writer believes that a carbon tax is preferable over a cap-and-trade regime for its simplicity, efficiency and effectiveness. 

Mr. Porter’s article above cites U. S. government studies on the overall “social cost of carbon”, per ton of CO₂ emitted.  This arises from harms due to extreme weather and climate events, and adverse effects on health and nutrition from global warming.  These calculations are subject to great uncertainties, but economists place the cost at between US$5 to 68, and increasing even more as time passes.  It thus behooves all societies, including our own, to take active measures to lower emissions, striving to attain zero emissions as soon as possible in order to minimize the harms from extreme events.

Gas taxes are very effective in affecting drivers’ travel habits.  The graphic below

Sources: New York Times presenting data from the U. S. Department of Energy and the World Bank; http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/11/business/Fuel-Taxes-and-Consumption.html?ref=business

 

shows per capita use of fuel for driving in developed countries decreases as the size of the gas tax increases.  The U. S. has the lowest gas tax correlated with the highest amount of fuel used per capita. It is seen that most of the benefit appears to be attained at a tax level of about US$2.20 per gallon (although other factors not apparent from the graphic may also be in play.)  As an example, in Great Britain, according to Mr. Porter, the gas tax is about US$3.95 per U. S. gallon.  Ford, the American car maker, sells a model of its+ compact Focus there whose efficiency is 72 miles per U. S. gallon.  A Focus model sold in the U. S. gets only 33 miles per U. S. gallon.  Clearly, automakers currently have the technology and capability to mass produce fuel efficient cars.  While further research can be devoted to enhancing efficiency, this shows that the state of technology today is sufficient to garner significant improvements today.
 

Conclusion.  Frank and Porter have proposed imposing a carbon tax or a gasoline tax to abate further increases in the rate of emission of greenhouse gases.  A carbon tax is judged to be more straightforward, efficient and effective than implementing a cap-and-trade regime for reducing emissions.  No government bureaucracies need to be created, and the simplest of motives driving economic activity by individuals have an immediate effect on behavior.  Where deemed necessary, tax rebates could be devised to ease the tax burden on people with low incomes.  A carbon tax additionally would have positive effects on American society, for it would contribute to resolving our severe fiscal problems.  Policymakers should give serious consideration to this mechanism for abating greenhouse gas emissions.

© 2012 Henry Auer

The Libyan Oil Crisis Argues for Developing Renewable Energy

Summary.  The present political crisis in Libya, which produces 2% of the world’s oil, has resulted in a sharp spike in the price of oil.   The U. S. is projected to need a slightly higher amount of oil in future decades, of which an increasing amount will be imported from foreign sources.  Because of a) a projected increase in production of oil world-wide from reserves that to date are undeveloped or unidentified, b) an increase in the number of cars world-wide, and c) a consequent strong increase in the price of oil, the U. S. will be sending large and increasing amounts of funds abroad to buy the needed oil.  In view of this situation, the U. S. should wean itself from its dependence on imported oil.  Burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming by emitting greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide, CO2), which have recently been shown to contribute directly to weather extremes.  Forest fires, droughts and floods resulting as effects of global warming have enormous economic costs associated with them.  It would be beneficial instead to invest expenditures now to limit greenhouse gas emissions by imposing economic penalties for use of oil and other fossil fuels.  This could be achieved by a cap-and-trade mechanism, or through a carbon tax.  The revenues from these policies could be distributed to the treasury or the public, or be applied to support innovative research and development of renewable energy sources.  As many have said, “If not now, when?”

A Sharp Spike in the Price of Oil.  The United States, as well as other countries of the world, is addicted to fossil fuels for their energy needs.  The present political crisis in Libya, which produces 2% of the world’s oil, has led to a shock-provoked spike in the price of oil in the last few days (see the 1-year price chart in the graphic below).  On this day, February 23, the price peaked at $100/barrel; according to Barron’s.  As may be seen, the price increased sharply from about $88/barrel on February 16 to its present price in 1 week.

Crude Oil Price, US$/barrel

Source: http://online.barrons.com/data

This week’s events show that the threat of instability in a very small fraction of the world’s oil supply has a dramatic effect on its price.  This effect, on a percentage basis, is much more profound than the amount of oil potentially lost if Libya were to cease production. 

Increased Demand for Oil Predicted for the U. S. The consumption of oil in the U. S., and the amount projected to be needed in future decades, is shown by the dark red band in the following graphic.

Actual fuel usage up to 2009 and modeled projections after that date.

Source: U. S. Energy Information Agency Annual Energy Outlook 2011 – Early Release Overview.  http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/

The amount of oil that will need to be imported increases slightly over the period 2009 to 2035.

The world-wide production of oil, projected to 2035 by the International Energy Agency (IEA), is shown in the following graphic.  The dark blue band shows projected delivery from sources known today, and the light blue triangle shows expected but unproven delivery from oil reserves that remain to be identified or developed.  The gold band shows projected oil production from unconventional sources such as tar sands and shale oil.



Reproduced from World Energy Outlook 2010 © OECD/IEA.  http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2010/weo2010_london_nov9.pdf



Increased Demand Due to Higher Numbers of Cars. Oil is used world-wide to refine gasoline for use as a vehicle fuel.  The IEA projects total vehicle counts in the world through 2035 in the following graphic, broken down by region.  (The OECD is the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, consisting of economically developed countries including the U. S., Europe, Japan and Australia.)  Non-OECD countries include India and Brazil, for example.

Reproduced from World Energy Outlook 2010 © OECD/IEA.  http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2010/weo2010_london_nov9.pdf

It is seen that the projected number of vehicles almost doubles from 2008 to 2035, with significant increases coming from developing countries (orange and red bands).  They will require ever-increasing amounts of gasoline to fuel them.

Higher Prices Predicted for Oil As Demand Grows. As oil demand throughout the world increases in the next decades, the price can be expected to continue increasing.   Some predictions prepared by the U. S. Energy Information Agency are shown in the following graphic.  The various scenarios are to be discussed in the full version of the Annual Energy Outlook 2011.  The Reference scenario traces the projected price if minimum efforts are made to limit consumption.

Source: U. S. Energy Information Agency Annual Energy Outlook 2011 – Early Release Overview.  http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383er(2011).pdf

The increasing share of American need for oil coming from abroad, coupled with the anticipated increase in price as shown in the graphic above and the growth in the number of cars on the road, mean that over the coming decades, Americans will be sending many billions of dollars abroad to buy oil, in ever-increasing amounts,. 

Why Not Reduce Dependence on Oil? It is fair to ask, given these predictions of expanding demand and increasing cost, “Wouldn’t it make sense to adopt policies that wean the U. S. from its dependence on oil imported from abroad?” 

Global Warming from Man-Made Greenhouse Gases Is Already With Us. This blog has treated the effects of burning increasing amounts of fossil fuels on global warming in several earlier posts (see, for example,

http://warmgloblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/we-need-to-achieve-alternativesustainab.html ;

http://warmgloblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/steven-chu-u-s-energy-secretary.html ; http://warmgloblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/co2-bathtub.html ).   These offerings point out that it is crucial to abate greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, because the level of greenhouse gases that lead to global warming in the earth’s atmosphere continues to grow.  

Greenhouse Gases Are Directly Related to Extremes of Weather.  Reducing emissions is necessary because the atmosphere already has a high enough greenhouse gas content to cause severe climatic effects on the planet.   Indeed, two recent papers published in Nature show, for the first time, that greenhouse gases originating from human burning of fossil fuels has directly contributed to extreme weather events such as heavy rain and flooding in recent years (see Note 1).

Economic Basis for Addressing Global Warming Now.

Economic Damage Wrought by Extremes of Weather.  Forest Fires.  Droughts and floods have been predicted for the last two decades as part of the weather disruptions brought about by global warming.  Regions of drought make more likely the occurrence of severe forest fires, such as those in the western U. S. in recent years.  These destroy valuable commercial timber lands and private homes, and have required intensive fire-fighting activities.  Forest fires consumed almost 7 times more federal land during the 1987-2003 period than during the preceding 17 years, and has been attributed to global warming. Such events potentially have losses in the billions of dollars.

Agriculture.  Drought in the U. S. affects water resources that nourish urban areas and irrigate farms.  Limitations on drinking water, and restricted irrigation, lead to potentially large economic losses in water supply activities and lost agricultural yield.  Abroad, in 2010 severe droughts in Russia and Australia severely reduced wheat harvests, adversely affecting world-wide availability of food.  Wheat prices around the world have risen considerably as a result, including in the U. S.

Floods. Major floods in the U. S. (“100-year floods”) have occurred repeatedly in recent years.  Examples include Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and several floods in the Mississippi-Missouri river basin.  Hurricane Katrina was the costliest natural disaster in the U. S., and produced tragic loss of life.   Human suffering leads to economic loss, and the adverse economic impact on the New Orleans area has been huge.

Elsewhere in the world, the tremendous flooding of the Indus river basin in Pakistan may be at least partly correlated with global warming.  20% of the population of the country has been directly affected, and one estimate of overall long-term economic impact may be more than US$40 billion.  Although this occurred abroad, the U. S. is likely expected to contribute to major relief and recovery efforts, incurring unforeseen budgetary expenses.

By this selection of potential economic effects that may be attributed to global warming, it is seen that enormous economic expenses and losses have already occurred, and are likely to increase in amount and severity in coming decades, as a result of global warming.

Economic Incentive Policies to Limit Greenhouse Gas Emissions.  Unexpected economic burdens such as those sampled above may be considered to be one arm of a zero-sum scenario.  The other arm would involve undertaking planned investment expenditures to prevent global warming from occurring.  Policies to combat the emission of greenhouse gases include imposing negative incentives on burning fossil fuels and emissions of all greenhouse gases that add to the direct cost of using them.  This added cost, much of which would probably be passed along to the consuming public, has been a major negative political factor that has impeded enactment of policies at the U. S. federal level that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  (Other factors include the argument that developing countries like China and India, whose emissions have grown dramatically in the past decade, were excluded from coverage under the Kyoto Protocol.)   It would be more cost-effective, over the long term, to spend funds on these long-term preventive measures than to wait until we have to react on an emergency basis to climate-induced disasters.

Cap-and-Trade.  In the face of inaction at the federal level in the U. S., three regional agreements have been put in place in recent years: the Western Climate Initiative, the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative of the New England and Mid-Atlantic States.  All three of these accords rely on a cap-and-trade (market-based) mechanism to limit the emission of greenhouse gases.  Generally, the cap-and-trade mechanism works by issuing “emission allowances” to each industrial and commercial source.  The number of allowances establishes the cap, or upper limit, of greenhouse gas emissions across the program.  The cap is reduced each year.  The allowances can be bought or sold (traded) in a regional market, which establishes a price for emitting greenhouse gases and in essence creates a penalty for emitting.  This provides an incentive for each source to innovate in order to reduce emissions, thus lowering its expenses toward purchasing allowances each year.  Proceeds from the trades are delivered to the participating states, and are used at least partly to promote research and development of renewable energy enterprises.

Carbon Tax.  An alternative mechanism for limiting greenhouse gas emissions would be to impose a direct carbon excise tax on fossil fuels.  The tax rate is based on the amount of greenhouse gas emitted by the respective fuels.  The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has been advocating a carbon tax for several years, most recently on February 22, 2011.  Professor Daniel Esty of Yale University has also proposed a charge on burning fossil fuels that he calls a carbon charge, or a “harm charge”, on April 13, 2010. 

In each case, the authors propose imposing a low tax at the outset, then raising the tax according to a pre-established schedule, until it reaches a high enough level to have an effect on consumers’ energy habits.  Mr. Friedman suggests using the proceeds to reduce the U. S. national debt.  Prof. Esty, in contrast, suggests returning the proceeds to taxpayers by lowering the payroll tax (contribution to Social Security).  Overall, according to Prof. Esty, the higher cost associated with use of fossil fuels will lead businesses to change to measures and investments that increase conservation of fossil fuel use and produce a shift to renewable energy sources.

The Current U. S. Carbon Tax on Gasoline.  The United States imposes a modest tax on gasoline and diesel fuel at the federal level.  For gasoline currently it is US$ 0.184/gallon (US$ 0.049/liter).  (In contrast, as a result of high taxation, the representative price of gasoline in Europe in 2008 is about US$ 7.83/gallon, whereas in the U. S. it is about US$ 3.25-US$ 3.40/gallon.) As of April 2006 the federal tax is scheduled to fall to US$ 0.043/gallon on October 1, 2011.  This tax has been apportioned partly to the federal Highway Trust Fund, which is used mostly to support maintenance and expansion of the federal vehicle highway system, as shown in the graphic below:  

Collection and Distribution of Federal Gasoline Taxes, FY2001

It is to be noted that although the rectangles for the Highway Account and the Mass Transit Account appear the same size to the eye, the Highway Account is actually more than 5 times as large as the Mass Transit Account.

Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, compilation of trust fund certifications dated June 18, 2001, Sept. 18, 2001, Dec. 28, 2001, and March 19, 2002; http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/06May/RL30304.pdf.

The costs of cap-and-trade or a carbon tax would be higher than the current federal tax.

Opposition to the Present Carbon Tax.  Interest groups express differing opinions about the federal gasoline excise tax.  RedState.com feels that even the low present level of taxation on gasoline is too high. The group notes that combined federal and state gasoline taxes average about US$ 0.272/gallon.  It feels that with fuel prices rising, the taxes should be eliminated so that drivers don’t have to pay as much.  It also advocates eliminating federal support for highway construction projects.  On the other hand, the Public Policy & Sustainability Blog, which appears to be affiliated with Con-way freight, notes that the Highway Trust Fund is underfunded, requiring infusions from the Treasury to maintain its expenditures.  The blog suggests that the portion of the gasoline tax directed toward mass transit, such as high-speed passenger rail, be transferred into the Highway Account.

Conclusion.  The Libyan revolution in progress as this post is being written has critically affected its oil exports.  Even though only a small fraction of the world’s supply  is in question, the crisis has had a disproportionately large effect on the near-term price for oil, which results in higher prices of fuels for cars and trucks.  This has an adverse effect on our economic growth, and carries the disadvantage of transferring excessive wealth from the U. S. to the overseas producers of the oil.  Clearly, the instability and uncertainty of oil supplies from abroad should be a matter of serious concern to the American public, and to its government.

This occasion highlights the need for the U. S. to move away from its addictive dependence on fossil fuels for its transportation needs as soon as possible.  Renewable energy should be developed on an urgent basis to substitute for oil in our transportation.  Imposing a financial penalty on gasoline and diesel fuel, graduated over time, would help constrain our demand for these fuels, and would provide significant revenue for the federal treasury.  The penalty could come from a cap-and-trade system, or from a direct fuel tax, or from other mechanisms not yet identified.  The revenues could either be distributed as tax rebates to the driving public, or could contribute to paying down the national debt, or could be used to support research and development of alternative fuels and transportation modes as is currently done by the ARPA-E and other programs of the Department of Energy.  As many have said, “If not now, when?”

Note 1. Abstract available online free, or the full article for a fee or through personal or institutional subscription.  Many public libraries, and university libraries open to the public, receive the journal.

© 2011 Henry Auer