Plus: Astronomy's emissions, corporate climate risk, and more |

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
Gas Prices May Be Rising But You’re Still Not Paying for the True Cost of Driving
By Justin Worland
Senior Correspondent

Across the globe, politicians are fuming about high gas prices—and trying a range of policy mechanisms to bring down costs. The United Kingdom has cut the fuel duty, helping slash the cost for consumers to fill up their cars. In California, lawmakers have proposed a gas tax rebate that would put money back in the pockets of drivers. A suspension of the federal gas tax has also garnered attention in Washington.

The reason for the push is fairly obvious: politicians and the voters they represent hate higher gas prices. When gas prices rise, the cost of filling up the tank chips away at consumers’ discretionary spending and puts the household budgets of the most vulnerable in the red. Right now, the average gas price in the U.S. is a near-record $4.24 per gallon, according to AAA, as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and other factors.

But nonetheless, as politicians try to bring down the cost of gas, I want to take a moment to reflect on the true cost of driving. That cost includes not just the price of a vehicle and filling up the tank but also the costs that operating it impose on society, including pollution that drives climate change. Calculating the damage done by pollution and other factors such as traffic and accidents—what economists call externalities—is a fraught process, and economists don’t necessarily agree about all the variables. But one thing is true under any reasoned consideration: driving costs society much more than you’re paying to do it.

Prices for gasoline over $4 per gallon are displayed on the
Paul Weaver/SOPA Images/LightRocket— Getty Images
Prices for gasoline over $4 per gallon are displayed on the pump of an Exxon station in Danville, Pennsylvania on March 6, 2022.

The idea that driving imposes costs on society is fairly easy to understand. Cars require well-maintained roads, which are subsidized by the government, and the more drivers use these roads, the more money is required to fix them. The pollution released when you drive worsens air quality, which contributes to a range of health ailments from heart disease to asthma, some of which can eventually kill people. Traffic wastes people’s time and harms economic productivity. More driving means a greater chance of car accidents, which kill tens of thousands of people each year in the U.S. And, most importantly for this newsletter, driving contributes to climate change. The average passenger vehicle in the U.S. emits 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, according to data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And, considered collectively, EPA data shows that transportation is responsible for nearly 30% of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, more than any other sector.

So what does this all cost in dollars and cents? To get an understanding, I dug into the past few decades of economic research and found one paper—a 2007 study from the research group Resources for the Future—that looked at the range of questions at play. If you add up all the mileage-related externalities, namely congestion, accidents, and local air pollution, the cost comes to a whopping $2.10 per gallon. The paper looked at climate change separately and estimated that the cost of driving to the planet only came to about six cents per gallon. But the paper notes one big caveat: it all depends on how much you assume climate change is going to cost. If you substitute the study’s outdated estimate with new figures for how much emitting a ton of carbon dioxide costs, the cost of driving to the planet balloons to 72 cents per gallon. Add those two together and you can see how the cost of the externalities can easily add up to $3 per gallon. That’s on top of the actual cost of the fuel; 86% of the gas price at the pump today is made up of the price of the original crude oil, the cost of refining it into usable gasoline, and the cost of distributing and marketing it.

Of course, it’s worth taking the externality estimates with a serious grain of salt. They’re outdated, for one, and many people question the whole practice of putting a monetary value on the loss of human life and very real suffering that will result from the effects of climate change. Moreover, no politician is seriously proposing trying to impose a fuel tax that would actually account for all the damage driving causes. On average right now, state taxes add 31 cents to the cost of a gallon of gas while federal taxes add another 18.4 cents, according to data from the Congressional Research Service. Given the political dynamics of gas prices—and the political interest in cutting those fees—any move to increase the gas tax would be political heresy. “It’s just very difficult to do through fuel taxes alone, because you need big increases in fuel taxes, which are politically difficult,” says Ian Parry, the author of the 2007 paper, who now works as the principal environmental fiscal policy expert at the International Monetary Fund.

Instead, economists like Parry suggest a slew of other policies to push: fees on dirty vehicles, rebates to purchase new ones, and road congestion fees, among other things. And more politically-minded policy experts say that there’s a world in which providing some form of gas tax relief could be good if it offers politicians the latitude to pursue other ambitious climate policies. “Do I, on this substance, support this? No, of course not,” says Gernot Wagner, a professor of climate economics at New York University, of proposals for a gas-tax holiday. But “if you basically trade off 18.4 cents for much, much more ambitious policies? Yeah, of course. Let's go for it.”

Still, no matter what happens with the political debate over high gas prices, I think it’s useful for drivers to be aware—both as consumers and citizens—that there is a much higher cost to driving than they’re paying at the pump.

A New Data Point
Risky Business

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission proposed new rules on March 21 that would require publicly traded companies to disclose what they’re doing to reduce emissions as well as the risk climate change poses to their firms. I wrote earlier this week about the brewing divide in corporate America about the rules as some companies embrace the energy transition and others remain hesitant. This graph shows the industries in which discussion of climate change has already permeated SEC filing—and where it hasn’t. Thanks to the SEC, these percentages will soon grow quickly.

Read More »
Quick talk…
…With Essam Yassin Mohammed, the director general of WorldFish, a non-profit research institution that promotes the sustainable use of ocean resources for human and planetary health.

Four years of negotiations on a landmark U.N. Ocean Treaty concluded last week without a final agreement on how humanity manages international waters. My colleague Aryn Baker spoke with Mohammed, the representative for the State of Eritrea, about the failed negotiations and the next steps for a lasting agreement.

 

What was the UN Ocean Treaty supposed to achieve?

The Law of the Sea governs maritime bodies and coastal areas out to 200 nautical miles from the shoreline. But new technological advancement means we can venture thousands of miles away from shore to do deep sea mining and bioprospecting in search of pharmaceutical resources or fish, and there is a legal and governance vacuum in that space. Those areas—we call them the high seas—make up to 50% of the planet's surface area. So the United Nations gave a mandate to the member states to start negotiating on a treaty that would establish how we fill these governance gaps on half the planet, looking at how we allow economic activities and how we equitably share whatever benefits are generated from there.

 

But aren’t countries already using the high seas for fishing, bioprospecting, and transport?

Exactly. This is about something that belongs to everyone, and it’s become a free for all. It has to be regulated, monitored, and assessed. More than 98% of marine genetic resources [for pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and technology] that have been patented so far are registered to only 10 industrialized countries.

 

What were some of the sticking points?

The core group of developing countries are demanding that the high seas be considered the common heritage of humankind that needs to be protected for future generations, like the moon. No one can appropriate the moon or claim ownership over it. The ocean belongs to all of us. So there needs to be a mechanism to share benefits equitably. Obviously, rich and wealthy countries have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. [They] are saying, if there's any benefit to be shared, it should be on a voluntary basis. While developing countries feel like they're missing out. [They want] a mandatory beneficiary mechanism in place, some kind of capacity building and technology transfer, not just a few voluntary scholarships.

 

So, what happened?

Essentially, we were not able to strike a deal. The ocean is facing assault from humans without any protection. Anyone can go into any kind of economic activity in the high seas without any regulation, which endangers the health of the ocean. Maintaining the status quo means more danger to the ocean and it means perpetuating the current inequalities that we are already seeing between industrialized and developing nations. The ocean is highly interconnected. Fish species migrate from the coastal areas to the high seas and back. Whatever happens hundreds of miles away could end up on shore, so this impacts vulnerable coastal communities, particularly in developing countries. Long story short, no deal means an unhealthy ocean, widening inequality, and increased vulnerability of coastal communities.

 

What are the next steps?

[We will likely see] another round of negotiations in the summer of 2022 where we can expect countries to iron out their differences. But for that to happen there are serious concessions that need to be made. It’s not impossible. There is a recognition that it is in the interest of humanity to protect the ocean, to promote a shared prosperity for all and to protect vulnerable coastal communities facing the pressures of climate change.

 

What kind of leverage, if any, do developing nations have to push this forward?

The mandate given by the General Assembly was to strive to achieve consensus. It doesn't necessarily mean we must, but that has been the ambition so far. We may get to a point where we say a two thirds majority is enough, but the desire is still to pass a treaty that everyone can agree to. The status quo is not an option at all.

What Else to Know
Another Sunrise

In a comprehensive deep dive, my colleague Molly Ball writes about how the Sunrise Movement, the group of U.S.-based youth climate activists, is rethinking its strategy to meet the current political realities.

Read More »
Looking to the Stars

My colleague Jeff Kluger looks at astronomy’s surprisingly large environmental footprint—as well as the ways that it can be cleaned up.

Read More »
Cutting Back

On March 18, the International Energy Agency issued an extraordinary call for advanced economies to reduce their energy consumption in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Read More »
Thank You For Reading

This edition was written by Justin Worland, and edited by Kyla Mandel and Elijah Wolfson. We welcome any feedback at climate@time.com.

 
TIME may receive compensation for some links to products and services in this email. Offers may be subject to change without notice.
 
Connect with TIME via Facebook | Twitter | Newsletters
 
UPDATE EMAIL     UNSUBSCRIBE    PRIVACY POLICY   YOUR CALIFORNIA PRIVACY RIGHTS
 
TIME Customer Service, P.O. Box 37508, Boone, IA 50037-0508
 
Questions? Contact climate@time.com
 
Copyright © 2022 TIME USA, LLC. All rights reserved.