1
2
3
Wealth and Want | |||||||
... because democracy alone is not enough to produce widely shared prosperity. | |||||||
Home | Essential Documents | Themes | All Documents | Authors | Glossary | Links | Contact Us |
Oil
“Free to Choose: A Conversation with Milton Friedman” — July 2006: http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/ The following is an edited transcript of a conversation between Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn and Milton Friedman, which took place on May 22, 2006, at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in San Francisco, California, during a two-day Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar celebrating the 25th anniversary of Milton and Rose Friedman's book, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement. excerpt:
Bill Batt: The Nexus
of Transportation, Economic Rent, and Land Use This relationship has been
demonstrated more empirically in a recent
study by the Urban Land Institute. The author concluded that, for
Portland Oregon,
each additional mile [traveled] translated into slightly more than $5,000 in housing costs; closer-in locations command a premium, those farther out save money. A ten-mile difference, all other things being equal, would amount to about $56,000 in new home value. For a household in which
one worker
drives downtown (or at least to a more central location) to work, that
ten-mile difference may amount to 4,600 miles annually, assuming 230
days of commuting and a round-trip of 20 miles each day. Moreover, if
non-work trips to the central area and elsewhere doubled that amount,
the tradeoff would be about 9,000 miles annually, which could mean a
higher/lower driving cost of $3,000 annually, not counting the time
saved/spent.(7)
That's the savings for living
closer to the urban center by ten miles.
If the urban resident has to rely upon a car nonetheless, subtracting
some $3,000 annual travel expenses will still leave him paying again
that much, and likely more, to own a car. Seven years ago James
Kunstler put the true costs along with other experts at about $6,100
annually.(8)
The American Automobile Association calculated that a car driven 15,000
miles in 2001 cost 51¢ per mile or $7,650.(9) Even
that figure reflects only direct costs to the driver, not those passed
on to society. One study calculated that the total costs of motor
vehicle transportation to our society equal approximately one-fourth of
our Gross Domestic Product (GDP).(10)(11) put
another way, drivers paid only 10% of the true costs of their motor
vehicle use.(12)
In
1991 road user fees totaled only about $33 billion whereas the true
costs to society were ten times that;
The latter figures include
externalities like pollution and the costs
of highway crashes. Hortatory public pleas for people to tune up their
engines so they pollute less, inflate their tires properly, and drive
more safely are not likely to change the reality that people are
forgetful and fallible. Regardless, pollution-free cars are not
available; people must drive to participate in this society. The
consequences of SO2, CO2, and ozone are no longer a matter of debate;
they are scientific fact. Despite frequent headlines about replacing
the internal combustion engine, all the realistic substitutes also rely
upon fossil fuel power directly or indirectly; solar powered cars are
far in the future, if at all, and also fail to deal with any
transition. ... However, if the direct pecuniary costs of
driving
increase in any substantial way, such as for an increase in motor fuel
as many experts forecast, there will surely be significant changes in
the tradeoffs involved in housing/transportation choices.(14) And
indeed a radical shift in the use of petroleum looms closely on the
horizon. The consensus view of most oil geologists is that worldwide
oil extraction will peak sometime in about 2009 or shortly thereafter,
then to fall off rather quickly. That graphic record and projection of
oil mining is shown in Figure 3.(15)
Making costs visible and linked to private personal behavior is one way
to ensure that transportation pays its own way -- if it isn't already
too late to save us.... read the whole article
Alanna Hartzok: CITIZEN DIVIDENDS AND OIL RESOURCE RENTS Abstract: Citizens of Alaska have been receiving individual dividend checks from an oil rent trust fund since 1982. Norway's citizens receive substantial social services and invest oil rents in a permanent fund for the future. Nigeria has yet to establish a similar fund for its oil revenue stream. This paper explores the oil rent institutions of Alaska, Norway and Nigeria with a focus on these questions:
The paper recommends full use of information and communication
technologies for transparency in extractive resource industries,
that resource rent from non-renewable resources should be invested in
socially and environmentally responsible ways and primarily in the
needed transition to renewable energy based economies, and that oil
and other non-renewable resource rent funds should transition towards
capturing substantial resource rents from surface land site values
(ground rent) and other permanent and sustainable sources of rent for
possible distribution of citizen dividends. ... Read the
whole article Bill Batt: Stemming Sprawl: The Fiscal Approach
Mason Gaffney: Who Owns Southern California?
|
|
to
email this page to a friend: right click, choose "send"
|
||||||
Wealth
and Want
|
www.wealthandwant.com
|
|||||
... because democracy
alone hasn't yet led to a society in which all can
prosper
|