Prefice: I DO think this spill is a disaster. I do think BP (and really Transocean) should be held responsible for this disaster.
1. $6 a gallon gas is a political attempt to right subsidies in other energy delivery pathways (namely line-delivered power). Monopolies in power transmission industries lead to (politically-set) prices below that of an equilibrium (why do you think we had rolling blackouts? Answer: prices below equilibrium leading to a supply shortage). Energy is more expensive that the price we pay for multiple reasons--politically-set prices, liability caps leading to incorrectly set insurance premiums, etc. All of these things SHOULD be covered in the price charged by any business attempting to make a profit in this industry (and conversely by the consumers purchasing these products). Don't politically increase the price because those profits or taxes will not flow to insurance premiums, safety measures, liability costs, etc. as they would if accounting of these items was forced (or, more accurately, the price of these items is not held from the market price paid by the consumer and the true liability of these items not shielded from the business' responsibility--the accounting of these items is not forced BECAUSE of subsidies and caps, not because they're not true costs the business is ignoring). Rather it would seem much more intuitive to release politically motivated liability caps on the business side and release politically motivated price floors on the consumer side (the later being less politically-tenable, but analogous to the former, expect that everyone hates businesses and loves the little guy...).
2. I'm willing to make a bet. 20 years hence the amount of proven oil reserves will be higher than the amount of proven oil reserves today and, excepting taxes, oil will be cheaper, controlled for inflation, than it is today.
3. A 'tariff' with the purported purpose of cleaning the Gulf, investing in new energy development, subsidizing downsize transportation, and re-invigorating urban centers as living centers and developing high-speed rail is a bit of a non sequitor. First, the belief that the revenue will continue to be spent in that fashion after everyone has relegated this spill to memory is unlikely at best. Second, all points except point one happen as a result of economic viability, not because they're forced. This is not to say they can't be forced, but they end up being forced by adding subsidies to one area BECAUSE of subsidies already in place for another, doing nothing but increasing the cost of ALL sources and delaying further innovation.
To address each point.
1. Cleaning the Gulf. BP/Transocean, etc. should be held responsible for this. Make them responsible for it. Don't subsidize these companies at the expense of other companies/consumers.
2. Investing in new energy development. Make consumers bear the cost and businesses the true liability of their consumption and activities, respectively. Largely, this is a non-political activity in as much as it involves removal of subsidies and liability caps ($75MM right now). It's ridiculous to assume good intentions with subsidized new energy development when there is a continued subsidization of both the consumer and business end of oil production BY THAT SAME GOVERNMENT. This is a shell game of industry welfare.
3. Subsidizing downsize transportation. See above. Oil is subsidized and this leads and has lead to barriers to innovation. Subsidizing something, even new energy production, leads to decreased incentives for R&D and speed of innovation. Which new energy is subsidized? At the expense of what un-subsidized energy source, known or not?
4. Re-invigorating urban centers as living centers and developing high speed rail. Largely these are disconnected goals. High speed rail does not make for living urban centers. It makes for connection of distant locations. Stops are too proximate in an urban center for high speed rail. Maybe you meant light rail AND high speed rail, rather than light, high speed rail. Same story re: subsidization, though. Largely development of these items is stalled by subsidization of existing energy sources, not a lack of subsidization of rail--why subsidize both when you could release a subsidization on one and increase economic viability of the other without throwing money at both?
As much as everyone says they like to keep politics out of this, this is a disaster largely caused and abetted by political calculations (whether or not those calculations were at the behest of industry is largely irrelevent to whether or not politics is involved in this). Make those responsible pay (both consumer and business). Make those engaging in activities bear the cost and liability of those activities (both consumer and business). This is the way to keep politics out of it. Wishing politics out of it is just the machinations of a naive, unrealistic line of reasoning.
