Petrol taxes won't hurt the poor
- Ivo Vegter
- 17 Jan 2012 02:28 (South Africa)
“Higher petrol taxes don't hurt the poor but the use of fossil fuels should be made a crime against humanity as the world has only 50 years in which to mitigate the effects of climate change, says Thomas Sterner, a professor of environmental economics at Sweden's Gothenburg University.” Thus declares a news article on Monday on TimesLIVE.
Clearly the fellow is distraught about the supposed negative consequences of the internal combustion engine.
Liberation from slow, arduous travel has contributed in large degree to the astonishing rise in living standards in much of the world during the 20th century. It greatly expanded trade, and made labour more mobile than ever, presenting people with unprecedented choice and opportunity. It even permits professors from the world's richest countries – like, say, Sweden – to present workshops at universities in deepest Africa, to instruct us about our failings.
Consistent with his status as a revered oracle from a far-distant civilised kingdom over the seas, he preached terrifying numbers, as if the devil himself was hard on his heels.
He appears to have made them up out of whole cloth. Here's how you do that. Pick a number, any number, like the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's scary century-scale temperature predictions. Multiply the prediction by five, and halve the time scale. Hey presto! You now have a number that is ten times scarier.
For example, instead of two degrees in hundred years, as some climate models predict, Sterner says some regions will warm by as much as 10 degrees in 50 years.
If you're not scared witless yet, try the next bit, about crimes against humanity. It is idle to speculate how he proposes to charge and punish the owners of the world's one billion vehicles, all of whom are really little Hitlers by Sterner's standards. Maybe we can turn some barren waste, like Australia or the Karoo, into a penal colony for Sterner Criminals.
Although such a Gulag seems a chilling thought, the upside is it will only affect the world's rich people. Because you see, poor people don't drive cars.
No, seriously, this is his claim. His research has led him to believe that raising taxes on petrol won't hurt the poor, because poor people don't own cars. Instead, they use public transport.
Superficially – very superficially indeed – this is true. Monaco, with 863 vehicles per 1,000 population, is undoubtedly wealthier than Togo or Bangladesh, with two. The United States, with its 828 vehicles per 1,000 people, is probably better off on average than, say, Somalia or Liberia, with three. In South Africa, we have 159 vehicles per 1,000 people (or 108, according to our own data. The global average is 148, largely thanks to the fact that China and India, with almost 2.5 billion people, own relatively few cars per capita.
So, poor people don't own cars, rounding to the nearest hundred million who do. They rely on public transport.
If we concede this point, we must conclude that Sterner's research shows that over here in Africa we all ride mag-lev transport pods that can run for years on a thimbleful of powdered Kryptonite.
See, a third of South Africa's commuters use a mode of transport called “taxis”. Let us assume for the sake of this argument, and with no more stereotypical prejudice than his claims about vehicle ownership, that all taxi passengers are poor, and all the poor use taxis.
It would prove more than a little injurious to his claim if higher petrol prices made taxis more expensive to operate because they burn petrol. This would cause taxi owners to raise fares, which would have to be paid for by the poor, and remember, the poor aren't supposed to be hurt by taxes on fuel. So taxis can't be fuelled by petrol.
Besides, the truly poor, the 22.4% of South Africans with a household income of less than R500, spend a great deal of it on transport. Half spend more than 20% of their income on it, according to the 2003 National Household Travel Survey. As people get richer, the share of people who spend this much on transport declines, until by R6,000 a month, nobody spends more than 20% of their income on transport, and two thirds spends 5% or less. On average, 18% of South Africans spend more than 20% of their household income on transport. If Prof Sterner reckons that a fuel tax wouldn't hurt the poor, we must assume that poor people's transport is not fuelled by petrol.
Perhaps he thinks South Africa's public transport runs (or can run) on electricity or natural gas, like it does in his native Sweden. Even if this were true, it would undermine his claim that a tax on fossil fuels wouldn't hurt the poor. You see, two thirds of the world's electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels. Admittedly, once you've built the concentration camps to incarcerate car owners for their “crimes against humanity”, it can't be that hard to find the additional space for the teeming throngs who use electricity.
One must further assume not just that the poor eat significantly less than Prof Sterner's Swedish comrades, but that they eat nothing at all. Unfortunately, the production of food, its distribution, its cold storage and its retail sale, all require a non-zero amount of energy, both of the fuel-powered truck variety and the coal-fired electricity type.
The exact contribution of the fuel price to the cost of food varies widely, but the only way the poor would not be hurt by the impact of a fuel tax on food prices is if they ate nothing. Therefore, his research must contradict data from the National Agricultural Marketing Council, which says the poorest 30% of South Africans not only do eat, but spend fully a third of their income on food. For the richest 30%, by contrast, food accounts for less than 3% of income.
The same goes for any other commodity that the poor buy. All are affected, to a greater or lesser degree, by the price of fuel. Therefore, one can only conclude that Sterner thinks the poor are born, do nothing for a while, and promptly die. Of starvation. Swedish newspaper pictures of fly-specked black babies with bloated bellies, skeletal limbs and rheumy eyes, must feature prominently in his research.
What Sterner may have meant to say is “the higher the dependence on motoring among the (electorate) population the more dif?cult it is politically to raise fuel taxes.” This is how he puts it in a 2007 Energy Policy paper advocating fuel tax as “an important instrument for climate policy”.
In a way, this is an even worse claim. Instead of saying fuel taxes won't hurt the poor, it says the poor may not notice a fuel tax, because they buy little fuel directly, and will see the effects only indirectly in the prices of things of which fuel is merely a component cost. The former is a comforting lie, but the latter is a cynical argument that says authoritarian politicians may be able to fool the poor without great risk of sparking an angry revolution.
Either way, the truth is the exact opposite of what Sterner claims: higher fuel prices as a result of taxes will harm the poor disproportionately more than they will harm the rich.
Amusingly, my browser warned me of an untrusted connection when I tried to download his paper, and if Sterner is travelling the world telling poor people that fuel taxes won't harm them, I can see why. He promotes his alarmist climate delusions by means of outright dishonesty. This is the sort of deceit to which one has to resort to justify the abuse of tax as an authoritarian policy instrument, instead of a means to raise revenue to fund the protection of life, liberty and property. This is, indeed, not a man to be trusted.
While we're on the subject of Professor Sterner, perhaps he should be asked to turn himself in to the International Criminal Court. One assumes that in order to lecture us, he flew from his rich-world ivory tower to our distant shores, burning more fossil fuels in order to do so than most Africans burn in a year. That, by his own admission, is a crime against humanity.
Let him set an example for us poor Africans, and report to a work camp in the Kryptonite mines for re-education. DM
- Fearful Fukushima fiction fatigue
- Do we tolerate private sector corruption?
- In defence of a lion killer
- Save the rare wine and endangered craft beer
- Forever blowing bubbles: shale gas economics
- Promotion and Protection of Investment Bill: When “certainty” means “wait and see”
- This land is my land: a revolution
- The launch of SA's Libertarian Party: herding cats in time for 2014
- The African case against the ICC
- The fossil fuel subsidy myth
- Think of the little fishies!
- The hilariously misunderstood libertarian
- The sickly history of sweeteners
- Pants on fire, but they’re not mine
- The obstructionism of shale gas activists
- How mind-numbing numbers whip up fear
- Why pick on Khanyi Dhlomo?
- Half-measures will fail the rhino
- Malema’s righteous anger... and naïve confusion
- Lottery licence to go to one lucky winner
- Vaccinations: when the state stabs the people
- Do reusable shopping bags kill people?
- The long walk to serfdom
- The Karoo desperately needs development
- The trials of Samson Shuttleworth
- The girl who kicked the hornet’s nest
- Raping the discourse about rape
- Who is the reasonable man?
- Fracking: Debating a big deal
- Who needs the Queen’s English?
- Electric cars: Taking from the poor to give to the rich
- Business Licensing Bill: An indefensible defence
- Red-tape tourism
- The Big Business Bribery Bill
- On Thatcher and society, Vavi and the market
- Extinction: Let’s make up numbers and panic!
- Feeding the world is getting easier
- Stop talking shit: Build your own toilet
- Climate change is pseudo-science
- Anti-competitive competition law
- The Department of Less Government
- An open letter to President Zuma
- In defence of Kim Kardashian
- The world’s weirdest wildlife sanctuary
- Boycott calls are simple-minded
- In defence of vegans
- The population explosion implodes
- Environmental backpedalling picks up pace
- How Mangaung can help and hinder entrepreneurs
- The elusive libertarian enclave
- The Gathering: Ivo Vegter
- The hidden overemployment crisis
- The case for constructive environmentalism
- Privatise the Western Cape's shacks
- Tenders: Not open to employees or their families
- Hurricanes fuel climate sensationalism
- Next: Gross-out warnings on food
- No new deal: The failure of Zumanomics
- Benoni has a bright idea
- Was I wrong about acid rain?
- Public food gardens: Where dumb ideas thrive
- Rethinking the costly food label madness
- Give hunting a chance
- Fracking gets green light, but here's the risk
- Socialists, bless 'em, visit Cape Town
- Buy a 1Time ticket now
- Give the ANC credit where credit is due
- The myth of the competent apartheid government
- It's a disaster that 'peak oil' is not a disaster
- No Gravy: a label for sustainable business
- This lightbulb's going to blow
- Smokers? Get 'em up against the wall!
- Inflating the obesity scare
- Bring a Shotgun to School Day
- GMOs: Hacking genes to feed the world
- The hidden dangers of charity
- Fracking: the unread paper debated
- Fracking: The “U-turn” paper nobody has read
- Eco-cronyism is as dangerous as any other
- SKA: Be grateful Karoo residents didn't object
- Energy: Get cracking on fracking
- Fair trade, unfair trade-off
- Casual labour is only bad for Vavi's unions
- 'Externalities', the catch-all justification for regulation
- 'Externalities', the catch-all justification for regulation
- How do we fix our dismal education?
- Barter: the rebirth of sound money
- Rights are not entitlements
- Debunking 'limits to growth' inanities
- Tax: Why align with "most other countries"?
- Newspaper sensationalism doesn't help rhinos
- Rolling Stone reprises Gasland's fracking fantasies
- Cosatu's manipulative march move
- Why do 16 million people not constitute an economy?
- The age of smear politics
- Does fracking cause earthquakes?
- The Chinese model is morbidly obese
- Green tech: doubling down on a losing bet
- Rape, pornography, and hell's grannies
- Petrol taxes won't hurt the poor
- Jailtime mooted for bad weather warnings
- Let's ban bans, and start with CITES
- In defence of overpaid sport stars
- On the death of Kim Jong-Il
- COP17: Let's ban fire
- Cancer gets you when nothing else can
- COP17: The 'party on' agenda
- COP17: The Blue Line of Death
- New seven natural inanities
- Occupiers' anger is all that makes sense
- The Luddites and Technocrats live on
- Malema marches for economic slavery
- Profitable purveyors of pudendal prettiness
- Sense? Us?
- If they want rhino horn, let's sell them some
- "Stimulate" economy by ending telco abuses
- Executive pay makes nobody poorer
- Malema's real persecution
- Mogoeng: Lock up your daughters
- Don't mandate insurance, deregulate healthcare
- I sympathise with Malema's persecution complex
- Short selling: panicked pols ban proof of failure
- Don't blame those who saw it coming
- What's obscene about profit?
- In defence of Bombela
- Dear president Zuma, you are not above the law
- The economics of love
- Treasure the Karoo? Ban the SKA!
- Malema is right, you know
- Gautrain's PPP: political patronage profiteering
- Kumi Naidoo is no hero
- LeadSA fails to lead when it matters
- No logo means carte blanche
- The drug war: dopey but dangerous
- A response to fracking critics
- Don't vote. It's your right.
- Welcome Walmart
- If you're happy and you know it clap your hands
- Buy local, support poverty
- Ubuntu, the free-market way
- Karoo fracking scandal exposed!
- I'm ashamed for my profession
- The bill of bunkum
- Being gay: a brand new concept!
- Who's afraid of the nuclear wolf?
- The nationalisation canard
- Ogilvy should grow a spine
- The new robber barons
- A classy revolution: Why we cared
- Bombastic Bombela balks
- Liberty is more than mere democracy
- Gautrain has a law unto itself
- The irony of 'services for all'
- How to hire a hitman in SA
- Arrive alive and neurotic
- The oppression of taxis
- Protection of Information Bill and why WikiLeaks is so dangerous
- Fifa, Russia and Qatar deserve each other
- One day, we'll all hate WikiLeaks
- The cycling mafia strikes again
- What Julius got for Christmas
- Let's return the beads
- Away with fascist seat belt laws
- Tintin Mbeki in the Sudan
- How the ANC can make everyone happy
- Currency: the race to the bottom.
- Hurrah for national healthcare!
- Give Zimbabweans citizenship
- Carte Blanche has no carte blanche
- That finger-licking, lip-smacking taste
- Bomb the barbaric lot already
- Green tax: another raid is coming
- Do strikers deserve anything?
- The media will lose this battle
- Global warmism needs a fisking
- A glass half-full
- Go ahead, have a baby
- Stop the handouts - end xenophobia
- The right to fire
- FIFA's heart of darkness
- Have some self-respect
- I ordered an orange skirt
- Secretly, Match blames South Africa
- The stupendous Gautrain: a rare marvel!
- The Fifa conquistadors are coming!
- What's wrong with everyone?
- Leave poor BP alone
- The destructive power of government
- The bonsai economy
- The darkness of Africa
- Who is ripping off whom?
- Anatomy of a whitewash
- While FIFA takes over, we fight
- The pointless pretence of Earth Hour
- Ten reasons to reject climate alarmism
- Really, boycott the FIFA farce
- The climate dominoes fall
- Lessons in ethics from Dick Cheney
- Screw the consumer
- In defence of bankers
- Break the banking cartel
- Julius Malema, the walking contradiction
- Boycott FIFA
- Climate clarity
- In defence of Boney M
- Pray Copenhagen fails
- Capitalism is not unkind
- Climate fraud kills people
- Pop goes the hot air balloon
- Peace, love and schadenfreude
- The irony of the left
- Too late to cool it?
- Going cold turkey