If you had any doubts that Californians are serious about de-warming the planet, San Francisco regulators are determined to remove your lack of faith. The New York Times reports that "Air quality regulators in the San Francisco Bay Area appear set to begin charging hundreds of businesses in the region for their emissions of heat-trapping gases." Ready, set, appear set! The Old Gray Lady reports that the proposed tax on greenhouse gas "pollution" is a pittance– just 4.4 cents per ton of carbon dioxide emitted– and will hit some businesses (e.g. Big Oil) harder than others. "Regulators indicated that the fee could raise $1.1 million annually. Refineries, power plants and cement plants would pay nearly 90 percent of total fees. The largest gas stations might be charged $1 a year; the Safeway bakery that supplies bread to all stores in the Bay Area would pay $85 a year. The biggest emitter of the gases, the Shell oil refinery in Martinez, would have to pay $195,355, based on 2005 emissions of 4.4 million metric tons." To paraphrase Horton, a tax is a tax no matter how small. And while it would be difficult [politically] to hit-up local residents for CO2 emissions at the user end of the equation (say, a thousandth of a penny per box of organic Raisin Bran), I wouldn't it put it past these guys. 

Speaking to The New York Times, Republican Senator Charles E Grassley made no secret of his contempt for "foreign officials" at a Washington conference on food prices. Grassley says biofuels are not to blame for recent food price spikes and the resulting political instability (e.g. Haiti's riots). "He questioned why they were not also blaming a drought in Australia that reduced the wheat crop and the growing demand for meat in China and India. 'You make ethanol out of corn,' he said. 'I bet if I set a bushel of corn in front of any of those delegates, not one of them would eat it.' Equally unsurprising (if slightly more conciliatory), the president of The National Corn Grower's Association says ethanol production has a minor impact on food prices and supply. "There’s no question that they are a factor," admits Ron Litterr. "But they are really a smaller factor than other things that are driving up prices." Yes, well, the Old Gray Lady reports that "a fifth of the nation’s corn crop is now used to brew ethanol for motor fuel, and as farmers have planted more corn, they have cut acreage of other crops, particularly soybeans. That, in turn, has contributed to a global shortfall of cooking oil." So ethanol might not be "the" problem, but it's "a" problem. And that's going to get… better?

The Hindu Times reports that the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers and TATA Motors have asked the Indian government to slap a 35 percent duty on Chinese goods. The duty's proponents argue that Beijing's enforced yuan-to-dollar parity has given Chinese manufacturers up to 30 percent advantage on exports. The proposed duty will supposedly level the playing field. Of course, what's bad for Indian manufacturers is good for Indian consumers. But protective tariffs have become a worryingly commonplace phenomenon in the Asian auto biz. Once one country gives its industry a small advantage, it tends to create a protective tariff arms race and from China and Korea to Malaysia and Indonesia, everyone is jumping in on the action. If India further legitimizes the practice, there will be few remaining incentives for fair competition in the fastest growing auto markets in the world.

The Seattle Times reports that the U.S. Secretary of Transportation wants to lower federal gas taxes. The bad news: Mary Peter wants to replace the taxes with tolls. "Peters aired her views Friday to the Washington Roundtable, a group of business executives who have backed transportation campaigns. She argued that Americans lack 'investor confidence' in higher gasoline taxes, because she said the money is spent inefficiently and hasn't reduced congestion." Reduced congestion? Since when was that the point of federal gas taxes? Since… "Her department is offering $139 million to launch congestion-price tolling on the Highway 520 floating bridge by September 2009. Peters said the federal government will yank a similar grant from New York City if the state fails on Monday to approve a toll for driving into Manhattan. And there's another unstated reason for the policy shift: as U.S. vehicles become more efficient (by law) and/or cash-strapped motorists drive less, Uncle Sam's fuel excise income will tumble. And just in case you thought toll taxes are regressive (they are), how about this? She praised an experiment on Highway 167 that begins April 26, when solo drivers will be able to pay to enter the uncrowded high-occupancy-vehicle lanes." [thanks to Ryan Kauzlarich for the link]

It's no secret that The New York Times hearts "congestion pricing" (not "Congestion Charging" as that sounds like a tax). As the deadline for scarfing major matching funds from the feds approaches, the Old Gray Lady is getting hysterical; for them. The editorial begins with a hosanna for The City Council and the inescapable, irrefutable benefits of the "pricing" scheme: "The City Council did right by New York City this week and voted to move forward on congestion pricing. If that brave action were enough, we would be cheering the advent of cleaner air, less gridlock and billions of dollars for mass transportation." The downside? None. And the villain preventing "pricing?" "Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker, has been his usual reticent self… Mr. Silver also asked for the City Council to approve the plan first, providing cover for state legislators to follow suit. Now it is Mr. Silver’s turn. He needs to schedule congestion pricing for a floor vote this week while there is still time to meet the federal deadline." So Silver's covered his ass. What's the holdup? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of motorists/taxpayers who see "pricing" as a cash grab disguised as a P.C. boondoggle. Nah. Couldn't be. 

With the deadline for $354m in federal matching funds for New York City congestion charging (CG) looming (April 7), the New York Times ongoing support for the plan is approaching fever pitch. In the ironically titled Op Ed "Moment of Truth on Congestion Pricing," the Old Gray Lady argues that "The only way to ensure the [City's mass transit] system will continue to work is to move forward on congestion pricing." In the lead up to this "do or die" conclusion, the Times' rhetoric [once again] flies in the face of the facts. "What it [the M.T.A.] needs is a reliable source of income. As London and Stockholm have discovered, congestion pricing could provide that— and cleaner air and less gridlock." Anyway, "the M.T.A. has developed detailed plans for that money, including providing express buses to the outer boroughs where resistance is strongest." Nice. And what about poor people who have to drive into the City? "One sensible proposal would allow those drivers to apply for rebates on their applications for the Earned Income Tax Credit." Fortunately for opponents of the NYC CG, the Governor who supported the plan didn't confine his enthusiasm for prostitution to his political career. 

If there's any surprise to be found in The New York Times editorial "Pain at the Pump And Beyond," it's that the Old Gray Lady almost acknowledges the effects of supply and demand on the price of gas. Watch carefully, or you might miss it! "The Bush administration can’t be entirely blamed for the pain at the gas pump. But its shortsighted energy policies — zealously focused on increasing the energy supply, with little attention paid to conservation and greater fuel-efficiency — means the country is far too dependent on oil that is both ruinously expensive and ruinous for the environment. There are several reasons for oil’s dizzying price spiral. Soaring demand in fast-growing developing countries like China and India means there is little oil to spare. The turmoil in financial markets — the White House can take a good chunk of the blame for that — has driven prices even higher, as investors have bought oil and other commodities as stocks and the dollar plunge." There's more Bush bashing (believe it or not), but the ed gets strange when it argues that the U.S. should raise taxes on gas. Huh? Sympathize with consumers for high gas prices, blame Bush and then argue we should be paying MORE at the pump? I guess rhetorical consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. 

"Call it a strike, a shutdown or just flat-ass going broke.” That's how independent trucker/cattle hauler Dan Little describes his intention to pull over on April first. The Quad City Times reports that "what started as a small, online grassroots effort now appears to have the potential for something bigger." Little's website– uscattlehaulers.com— is the locus for the one-day action. He's calling for a suspension of all federal and state fuel taxes, insurance changes and countrywide uniformity in safety regs. Little says he has two thousand truckers pledging their participation. Little does not have the support of either the all-important Teamsters Union (800k+ truckers) or the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (160k+ small trucking companies and drivers). But the Industrial Workers of the World (16k members) told TTAC they're putting the idea to a vote on Wednesday at 6pm. Meanwhile, in an interview [podcast below], Little says Hillary Clinton's office called twice "for background." Developing…

I'm sorry to keep harping-on about the U.K.'s draconian anti-motorist policies, but I'm gob-smacked by the country's endless parade of car-related taxes, fines and regulations. Pistonheads reports that the island nation's government has raised the cost of a London parking ticket to, well, you saw the headline. Outside the capital city, a parking ticket will cost a hapless parking scofflaw "just" £70. Folks, that's for overstaying a parking meter. The fines are higher for more serious offenses, such as parking on a double yellow line. And if you don't pay straightaway… It gets worse. The Peterborough Evening Telegraph reports that new laws transform parking attendants (a.k.a. meter maids) into "civil enforcement officers." These new "officers" can use handheld numberplate recognition systems to identify persistent fine dodgers and call in the clampers. And worse. They'll be able to post penalties to offenders who try to drive away before a ticket can be issued. And worse. "The law will also give local authorities the ability to fine drivers spotted flouting parking rules on CCTV." In other words, they don't have to actually put a ticket on your car. Looks like Orwell was off by 24 years.

There are two main reasons why E85 is going nowhere fast: over-production and under-consumption. The U.S. Department of Energy has tackled the latter part of the non-equation with a federally-funded report exhorting gas station owners to get on the corn juice bandwagon. E85 Retail Business Case: When and Why to Sell E85 advises that "E85 offers relief from this [local] competition by differentiating a station as green, cutting edge, patriotic, and pro-farmer." So, greenwashing it is! What about, you know, making money? "E85 projects can be profitable investments. However, their profitability depends on numerous factors… This checklist includes robust local competition in the gasoline market, access to low E85 costs, mid-grade tanks available for conversion, large potential throughput of E85, and state or local incentives for E85 infrastructure." Large throughput as in sales? Good luck with that. Meanwhile, there's lots of agri-prop. My favorite argument: who cares about gas anyway? The money's in snack foods and car washes! And that's good news because "even if E85 drew no new customers but merely converted gasoline customers from the same store, the number of customer visits would increase. This is because a vehicle’s range is reduced by 23% to 28% when operating on E85 because of ethanol’s lower energy content compared to gasoline." The mind boondoggles. 

Pity the poor U.K. motorist. On top of new "gas guzzler" showroom taxes, higher sky-high taxes on gas and diesel, 17.5 percent VAT on everything car-related (soon to include car insurance), increased CO2-based London congestion charging, the introduction of CO2-based parking space taxes and the ongoing prospect of road pricing (and all the other taxes), Heathrow Airport is considering imposing a £20 "drop off" fee for passengers arriving by car. Oh, and a £3 congestion charge for trucks using roads around the airport– including the M4. According to The Evening Standard, The British Airports Authority's (BAA) new taxes charges would raise £137m a year, which they'd use to pay for the costs of administering the scheme. Just kidding (kind of). BAA would use the money to pay for the airport's expansion and meet the Government's stipulation that Heathrow's growth should not result in an increase in nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels. Meanwhile, environmentalists are giving British Airways shit [at the bottom of the same article] for flying three jets into LHR without a single passenger on board. Oy.

Who profits most when you pay $3.28 for a gallon of gasoline? Taking their cues from the mainstream media, many people blame oil speculators for driving-up the prices. According to CNNMoney, they don't actually get a cut of the price. Some traders profit by correctly predicting the change in prices, but others balance that by losing money. Meanwhile, only about seven to 10 cents of the retail price goes to gas stations; which make more money selling legal drugs (caffeinated beverages, artery-clogging, obesity-reinforcing snack foods; cigarettes, lottery tickets, etc.). Federal taxes account for 18 cents; state taxes average 22 cents/gallon. Shipping and storing fuel costs between 23 and 26 cents/gallon. Refiners like Valero, Sunoco or Frontier charge about 24 cents/gallon, but get squeezed when oil prices rise quickly. That leaves crude oil suppliers like BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Petroleos Mexicanos, Petróleos de Venezuela and Saudi Aramco. They take the lion's share: roughly $2.04 per gallon. And now that gas is averaging $3.285 a gallon, they make even more. But then, it's one of those risk reward deals. And these calculations don't include the cost of U.S. military efforts in oil-producing regions. Or an eventual federal bailout when one of the D3 goes belly-up. Or a lot of other things, really. 

The recently enacted U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act mandated 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022. Good luck with that. Purchasing.com reports that soaring corn prices, a go-go ethanol industry and so-so E85 sales have turned the current bio-fuels boom into a damp squib. "Late last year, about 5.6 billion annual gallons of new or expanded fermentation ethanol capacity was due for completion in 2008, reports Nathan Schaffer, a fuels analyst with PFC Energy in Houston. Of that, he says, about a quarter has been 'put on hold or taken off the boards' since the start of the fourth quarter of 2007." Maybe that's because America already has an eight billion gal/year ethanol production capacity, relative to six billion gallons worth of domestic consumption. As R. Jeffrey DeReamer, president of EthanolMarket.com puts it "Supply is not going to be an issue for [ethanol] buyers this year." Ya think? Oh, and "domestically produced ethanol will be supplemented by imports of the commodity from Brazil and the Caribbean this summer." If the ethanol industry is going to stand on its own two feet (i.e. stop sucking on the government tit), consumers and retailers better fall in love with E85 STAT.  

The Telegraph reports that a new "showroom tax" will add between $500 and $2k to the price of new cars in Britain, depending on their level of carbon emissions. Oh wait, and add nearly $1k in annual taxes thereafter. Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling says the tariff are educational; a way for consumers to understand the environmental cost of their purchase. But these measures are not simply targeting "Chelsea Tractors," the luxury SUV's that haunt London's wealthiest neighborhoods. Middle-class family haulers such as the Ford Mondeo Estate and Renault Espace would be hit hard as well. Critics point out that the measures are as disingenuous as they are patronizing. An anonymous spokesman for The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders says "Trying to force people out of high-value cars has no environmental merit and will be seen as a smokescreen for revenue raising." And then what?

According The Wall Street Journal, New York governor Eliot Spizter admits he "failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself." Whatever. As Client Number 9 continues his fall from political grace, Empire State motorists are breathing a sigh of relief. The scandal effectively kills Spitzer's plans to remove the state's gas tax cap. If he'd been successful in that endeavor, the potential indictee's Petroleum Business Tax (PBT) would have elevated gas taxes by nearly $56m per year. The Hudson Valley Times also reports (retroactively) that "Spitzer Car Tax" would have increased NY's registration fee from $5 to $20. Oh, and Spitzer also supported Thruway toll hikes. So, once again America's hopes for freedom from onerous taxes begin with the Mayflower. [thanks to starlightmica for the link]