'It would have actually served the interests of the American people'

Cambridge Energy Research Associates Chairman Daniel Yergin, at an American Chemistry Council-US News & World Report energy issues forum on Jan. 13 with US Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) and House Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), on whether a higher federal gasoline tax is needed:

"I think if we had had a higher gasoline tax, so in 2000, you know, 50 cents or a dollar, we probably would not have had some of the kind of whiplash that we've had now . . . One of the things I was looking at when I revised The Prize was when did the SUV take off? It took off around 1998 when we had the cheapest gasoline in real terms that we had ever had in our entire history. That was a price signal, and Detroit responded to it. Then the whole world changed with globalization [and the growth of so many new economies], and the price went up.

"So I think if we had had something more predictable, not on the level that the Europeans have (where they really use gasoline stations as sub-branches of the national treasury to raise revenues) but something more than we have now, with rebates in some cases, it would have actually served the interests of the American people . . .

"[Many experts agree] it's about the most controversial tax you can have. I also think right now, where the aim is to have money in the pockets of consumers so that they can spend it, so that they can deal with these terrible pressures they're under, it would be tough to put any new tax on right now, including on gasoline.

"But I think that it's kind of an obvious thing, and that what we use instead is fuel efficiency standards as another way to get at the same thing. As I say, I think it would have brought more stability. And so the way I guess I'd say it is, most economists would say that that would be a very sound thing to do."

Contact Nick Snow at [email protected]