The Folly of Man: Reaction to the Banning of Gas-Powered Vehicles
It would appear that New Jersey has gone forward with their plan to ban the buying of gas-powered vehicles by 2035. Those who support this plan will claim that reducing the sales of gas-powered vehicles will benefit the people of New Jersey with better air quality, reduce the emissions from vehicles, and help transition to a zero-emission future. However, using the best analysis available to us today, we have only one simple question for those in power. Does the Murphy Administration not realize the folly of their plan?
We will first look at the economic impacts on the citizens of New Jersey. When the gas tax passed controversially during the Christie Administration, there was a poison pill within this bill; now this poison pill will decimate the taxpayers of New Jersey. Since the passage of the bill, the gas tax is now adjusted based on revenue collected. If revenue is not met, the rate goes up; if revenue is greater than expected, the rate goes down. The original bill raised the gas tax by 23 cents to 37.5 cents per gallon; since then, the gas tax has been raised multiple times wherein the gas tax is currently 42.3 cents per gallon. Imagine how large this tax will be if the average citizen cannot buy a new gas-powered vehicle. Either the gas tax will skyrocket or, if the Murphy Administration is successful, the gas tax will fail to collect needed revenue. This would account for $2 billion that is solely devoted to infrastructure needs. While this does not include the loss of matching federal funds, it will mean that New Jersey residents should either expect their state government to raise revenue through other means or watch greater deterioration of their road network. Unfortunately unlike the gas tax, out-of-state commuters would not be able to assist in the state’s revenue collection.
Let us leave aside the economic impact for a moment. Some may say the cause to fight climate change is enough for us to act. This begs the question, does the Murphy Administration not realize the negative impact this has on the environment? In Mexico City, they tried to reduce emissions by reducing the number of cars on the road. The enforcement was based on the car’s license plate. If a car ended with a 0 or 1, driving was not allowed on a Monday; if it ended with 2 or 3, driving was not allowed on Tuesday, and so on. What they found was the emissions increased. How? One of the reasons given was that residents and commuters bought used vehicles. These used vehicles had worse emissions than newer vehicles. Despite the goal of this ban to reduce mileage and thus emissions, emissions increased due to people buying used vehicles and then driving them on days when their original car was banned. Considering used vehicles are not banned in this bill and newer vehicles built in this decade were 32% more fuel-efficient than cars built in the mid-2000s, would we rather people buy the more fuel-efficient newer vehicles rather than used vehicles? Another reason for the increase in emissions was the change in behavior. If the gas tax skyrockets in New Jersey, gas stations will have to shut down or sell gas at punitive prices. This may make it more economical for the average citizen to leave the state to buy gas and then return. This extra mileage will surely hurt the environment in the long run.
This of course does not point out that electric vehicles have their own negative consequences on the environment. Due to material inputs and manufacturing, it takes years for electric vehicles to be environmentally friendly compared to gas-powered vehicles. So for an electric vehicle just to be environmentally neutral, it needs to last and be used for many years. Considering road infrastructure is going to lose billions in revenues and the shape of roads nowadays, that may not be a safe bet.
Which brings me to my last point. Is the current government the most environmentally hostile administration in the history of New Jersey? Ironic, I know. Plastic is bad for the environment they say, ban it from the grocery stores. The alternative literally takes over a hundred years to be as environmentally friendly as plastic. They decide we need a carbon-free environment so they put wind turbines in the Atlantic. Marine wildlife is washing up on our shores and we already know the adverse impact sonar has on these animals, oh well. Now they want to ban gas-powered vehicles, which we now know does not work thanks to the good work done in Mexico City. Creating positive public policy in order to protect the environment is hard. Creating negative public policy in order to harm the environment is easy. Unfortunately, the Murphy Administration chose to pursue the latter to claim the former.
