Kucinich votes against climate change bill

A recent survey of the literature carried out by the Centre for Transport Studies at
University College London (Hanly, Dargay and Goodwin, 2002) suggests that a 10
per cent rise in the price of fuel reduces fuel consumption by around 2.5 per cent
and the volume of traffic by 1 per cent after a year. The traffic volume falls less than
the fuel consumption because of the incentives to switch to more fuel-efficient
vehicles. The authors estimate long-run effects of a 6 per cent fall in fuel
consumption and a 3 per cent fall in traffic volume, and that the effects on vehicle
ownership are small and uncertain. These estimates imply that had the real rates of
duty been maintained at their peak values since 1999, we might expect current fuel
consumption to be around 4–5 per cent lower (and as much as 9–12 per cent lower
in the long run).

http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/14926/1/14926.pdf

One such study is Explaining the variation in elasticity estimates of gasoline demand in the United States: A meta-analysis by Molly Espey, published in Energy Journal. Espey examined 101 different studies and found that in the short-run (defined as 1 year or less), the average price-elasticity of demand for gasoline is -0.26. That is, a 10% hike in the price of gasoline lowers quantity demanded by 2.6%. In the long-run (defined as longer than 1 year), the price elasticity of demand is -0.58; a 10% hike in gasoline causes quantity demanded to decline by 5.8% in the long run.

Another terrific meta-analysis was conducted by Phil Goodwin, Joyce Dargay and Mark Hanly and given the title Review of Income and Price Elasticities in the Demand for Road Traffic. A PDF file of the study is available here. If you're interested in the subject, it's an absolute must-read. They summarize their findings on the price-elasticity of demand of gasoline as follows:

If the real price of fuel goes, and stays, up by 10%, the result is a dynamic process of adjustment such that:

a) The volume of traffic will go down by roundly 1% within about a year, building up to a reduction of about 3% in the longer run (about five years or so).

b) The volume of fuel consumed will go down by about 2.5% within a year, building up to a reduction of over 6% in the longer run.

http://economics.about.com/od/priceelasticityofdemand/a/gasoline_elast.htm

"I offered eight amendments and cosponsored two more that
collectively would have turned the bill into an acceptable starting point. All
amendments were not allowed to be offered to the full House. Three amendments
endeavored to minimize the damage that will be done by offsets, a method of
achieving greenhouse gas reductions that has already racked up a history of
failure to reduce emissions "" increasing emissions in some cases ""
while displacing people in developing countries who rely on the land for their
well being.

"Three other amendments would have made the federal government a
force for change by requiring all federal energy to eventually come from
renewable resources, by requiring the federal government to transition to
electric and plug-in hybrid cars, and by requiring the installation of solar
panels on government rooftops and parking lots. These provisions would
accelerate the transition to a green economy.


"Another amendment would have moved up the year by which
reductions of greenhouse gas emissions were required from 2030 to 2025. It
would have encouraged the efficient use of allowances and would have reduced
opportunities for speculation by reducing the emission value of an allowance by
a third each year.

"The last
amendment would have removed trash incineration from the definition of
renewable energy. Trash incineration is one of the primary sources of
environmental injustice in the country. It a primary source of compounds in
"I offered eight amendments and cosponsored two more that
collectively would have turned the bill into an acceptable starting point. All
amendments were not allowed to be offered to the full House. Three amendments
endeavored to minimize the damage that will be done by offsets, a method of
achieving greenhouse gas reductions that has already racked up a history of
failure to reduce emissions "" increasing emissions in some cases ""
while displacing people in developing countries who rely on the land for their
well being.

"Three other amendments would have made the federal government a
force for change by requiring all federal energy to eventually come from
renewable resources, by requiring the federal government to transition to
electric and plug-in hybrid cars, and by requiring the installation of solar
panels on government rooftops and parking lots. These provisions would
accelerate the transition to a green economy.


"Another amendment would have moved up the year by which
reductions of greenhouse gas emissions were required from 2030 to 2025. It
would have encouraged the efficient use of allowances and would have reduced
opportunities for speculation by reducing the emission value of an allowance by
a third each year.

"The last
amendment would have removed trash incineration from the definition of
renewable energy. Trash incineration is one of the primary sources of
environmental injustice in the country. It a primary source of compounds in
the air known to cause cancer, asthma, and other chronic diseases. These
facilities are disproportionately sited in communities of color and communities
of low income. Furthermore, incinerators emit more carbon dioxide per unit of
electricity produced than coal-fired power plants.

"Passing a weak bill today gives us weak environmental policy
tomorrow,"� said Kucinich.