Amanda Griscom Little's article on energy bills in Congress failed to mention the most important energy issue facing us: the impending peak of global oil production, also known as peak oil. Evan Bayh's bill that would cut US oil use by 2.5 million barrels per day in ten years is likely to be made irrelevant by peak oil. It's possible that in ten years, we'll have cut more than that--even without new laws--just because of lack of availability.

To date, Salon has published very little on this topic. I've seen two articles by Robert Bryce and a piece about James Kunstler's book, The Long Emergency, with a mini-debate between Kunstler and Amory Lovins. Unfortunately, lack of coverage doesn't make the story any less real or the potential consequences less foreboding.

In short, the peak of global oil production will probably occur within 10 years, after which oil supplies will decline. The Hirsch Report, from the US Dept. of Energy, showed that mitigation has to start 20 years before the peak to allow for a smooth transition. The ramifications of peak oil are wide and deep, and it's time for Salon to stop ignoring this issue.

The best energy-use law would be a program to

raise gas and diesel taxes in a long series of

slow steps to a high level. The ultimate goal

would be a gas and diesel tax high enough to punish use and reward conservation. The slow buildup would be to give people and society time

to adjust. The money raised would be spent on

restoring our missing mass-transit systems and

making them rider-friendly and rider-inviting as

we raise the tax on gas and diesel to punitive

levels.

Or we can just leave gas and diesel taxes nice

and low in order to encourage more people to deplete the remaining oil faster. America can

party hearty all the way down the farside of Hubbert's Peak, till we come to a final

stop at the bottom of Hubbert's Pit. Hopefully

Houston will get just as drowned as New York by

the rising seas in a Post Hubbert icecap-meltoff

futureworld.

This remind's me of public radio's Marketplace's Chris Farrell's example of a huge overnight hike in the gas tax is the perfect example of 'Great Idea, BAD Execution". What WOULD be possible to implement now is a plan that:

a. Announces we have to start to get off of petroleum, (energy security, global warming, pollution.... reasons, etc.); sooner, not later, 'cause it's gonna take years.

b. Therefore starting Jan.1: Federal tax on gas will increase by one penny.

And the next month; and each month after that, on the first........

Starts off at a penny; increases 12 cents a year.

Forevermore.

c. Proceeds from the tax would go into a trust fund that will be used to pay for only two things:

1. It will go to pay for clean transportation options--new van or bus lines with natural gas-powered buses, for example-- for the people most vulnerable to any energy hike: jobless and people below the poverty line. That would enable them to get to where the jobs are--something that is a big problem for the working poor in America right now. Taking away the 'no transporation' excuse for the poor/working poor ends up increasing taxes receipts via increased employment , by the way.

2. The other beneficiary of this tax would be the Deparment of Energy, where itt would go to pay for R&D in alternative energies in a way that doesn't contribute to the deficit. (AE = windpower, fuel cells, hydrogen, distributed generation, high-temperature superconductivity). Not only would this not increase the deficit; it would end up increasing high-tech employment in alternate technologies. We would, essentially, be taxing the dirty to pay for the clean- in a fiscally responsible manner that creates jobs, lowers imports, and doesn't increase the deficitc.

Other Benefits of this approach:

- This small, gradual-but forever-incresaing- sends EXACTLY the message we need, which is: This oil stuff is not going to get any cheaper, because even if OPEC won't raise the prices, we will, on ourselves.

- The money does something about our oil environmental/security/trade deficit problems in that that the extra money goes to pay US, the people of America- with cleaner air, greater energy security, lower trade deficit, stronger dollar, less poverty, and more high-tech employment; in place of paying the Saudi royal family, Exxon, or indirectly funding terrorists.

Americans would understand, and accept, that whole scenario..

- Increasing by a penny the first of each month would not be a 'burden' to gas station owners--though that will be their initial complaint. But, hey--I don't know what country THEY live in, but in the country I live in, gas prices go up as much as ten cents IN A DAY. And they change EVERY DAY already. So the impact to implementing an ever-increasing one penny per month gasoline tax: ZERO.

- Such an exceedingly gradual tax increase does NOT provide a killer shock to our economy. In fact, we wouldn't even notice the darn tax for a couple of years....BUT EVERYONE WOULD KNOW IT WAS THERE, INCLUDING OIL EXPORTING COUNTRIES, oil traders....and, us.

- we would NOT end up paying for all of that tax increase ourselves, anyway. As public radio's Chris Farrell pointed out, if the most wasteful nation in human history was seen by everyone to finally have gotten serious about its oil problems, oil prices would almost certainly drop down to a lower plateau than where they are now ....and probably stay considerably down. Remember that oil futures are determined by expectations; and the high-prices are built in now assuming that China, the US, and India continue to be incredibly wasteful, and aren't making any serious efforts focused exclusively on reducing petroleum use.

In short: 'They' would pay for a lot of it--OPEC, Exxon, et al- not us, due to the price drop overnight once the US is realized as finally have gotten very, very serious. (A tax that goes up forever--no matter how small--is very serious, first of all for the message it sends to Americans, as well as to the oil barrons). ; But the benefits...more high tech jobs, cleaner air, more security....would be ALL OURS.

The American people in 2005 ARE READY to hear a plan like THAT without going 'tilt'; and aren't half-measures as each of the current proposals are.

It's doable, folks. We need a champion bigger than me. But I'm willing to do what I can to help, and many other Americans would be, as well.

Dave Huntsman

Cleveland