My latest in The Conversation

\A new road charge is looming for electric vehicle drivers, amid reports Treasurer Jim Chalmers is accelerating the policy as part of a broader tax-reform push.

At a forum in Sydney this week, state and federal Treasury officials are reportedly meeting with industry figures and others to progress design of the policy, ahead of next week’s economic reform summit.

Much discussion in favour of the charge assumes drivers of electric and hybrid vehicles don’t “pay their way”, because they are not subject to the fuel excise tax.

This view is based on an economic misconception: that fuel taxes are justified by the need to pay for the construction and maintenance of roads.

This is incorrect. In a properly functioning economic system, fuel taxes should be considered a charge on motorists for the harmful pollution their vehicles generate.

That leaves the problem of paying for roads. To that end, a road-user charge should be applied to all motorists – regardless of the vehicle they drive – so no-one gets a free ride.

Real science from real scientists.

Get free newsletter

What is the fuel excise?

The fuel excise in Australia is currently about 51 cents a litre and is rolled into the cost of fuel at the bowser.

Some, such as the Australian Automobile Association claim revenue from the excisepays for roads. But it actually goes into the federal government’s general revenue.

The primary economic function of the fuel tax is that of a charge on motorists for the harmful pollution their vehicles generate.

Paying the cost of pollution

Vehicles with internal combustion engines – that is, those that run on petrol or diesel – create several types of pollution.

The first is carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to human-caused climate change. Others include local air pollution from particulates and exhaust pollution as well as noise pollution.

In economic terms, these effects are known as “negative externalities”. They arise when one party makes another party worse off, but doesn’t pay the costs of doing so.

How big are the costs to society imposed by polluting vehicles? Estimates vary widely. But they are almost certainly as large as, or larger than, the revenue generated from fuel excise.

Let’s tease that out.

A litre of petrol weighs about 0.74 kg. But when burned, it generates 2.3 kg of CO₂. That’s because when the fuel is combusted, the carbon combines with heavier oxygen atoms.

Before the re-election of United States President Donald Trump, the nation’s Environmental Protection Agency estimated the social cost of carbon dioxideemissions at about US$190 (A$292) per metric tonne.

So in Australian terms, that means CO₂ emissions from burning petrol costs about 67 cents a litre, more than the current excise of 51 cents per litre.

Even using a more conservative estimate of US$80 a metric tonne, CO₂ emissions generate costs of around 28 cents a litre, more than half the fuel excise.

A spotlight on health impacts

Motor vehicles are a major cause of air pollution. Air pollution is causally linked to six diseases:

• coronary heart disease
• chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• stroke
• type 2 diabetes
• lung cancer
• lower respiratory infections.

Estimates of the deaths associated with air pollution in Australia range from 3,200 to more than 4,200 a year.

Even the lower end of that range is far more than the roughly 1,200 lives lost in car crashes annually.

University of Melbourne analysis in 2023 landed at an even higher figure. It suggested vehicle emissions alone may be responsible for more than 11,000 premature deaths in adults in Australia a year.

Putting a dollar value on life and health is difficult – but necessary for good policy making.

The usual approach is to examine the “statistical” reduction in deaths for a given policy measure. For example, a policy measure that eliminates a hazard faced by 1,000 people, reducing death risk by 1 percentage point, would save ten statistical lives.

The Australian government ascribes a value of $5.7 million per (statistical) life lost or saved. So, hypothetically, a saving of 2,000 lives a year would yield a benefit of more than $10 billion.

This is more than half the revenue collected in fuel excise each year.

The best road forward

Given the harms caused by traditional vehicles, society should welcome the decline in fuel excise revenue caused by the transition to EVs – in the same way we should welcome declining revenue from cigarette taxes.

If we assume fuel excise pays for pollution costs, then who is paying for roads?

The cost of roads goes far beyond construction and maintenance. The capital and land allocated to roads represents a huge investment, on which the public, as a whole, receives zero return.

Vehicle registration fees make only a modest contribution to road costs. That’s why all motorists should pay a road-user charge.

The payment should be based on a combination of vehicle mass and distance travelled. That’s because damage to roads is overwhelmingly caused by heavy vehicles.

Then comes the question of Australia’s emissions reduction. The switch to electric vehicles in Australia is going much too slowly. A road user charge targeting only electric and hybrid vehicles would be a grave mistake, slowing the uptake further.

I wrote this for the Cleaner Air Collective, who used it as an input to their submission to the Productivity Roundtable

Cleaner Air Submission here

Given the purpose of the exercise, the discussion is framed in terms of productivity though many of the issues are broader

Covid-19 is a serious economic problem for Australia, not only as a major cause of death, but because of serious impacts in productivity.

Although most Covid-19 deaths occur among people over 80, there were over 200 deaths from Covid among people aged 40-64. This is a mortality rate comparable to that of road trauma (377 deaths in this age group in 2022) As of 2023, excess mortality remained high at 5 per cent

With the effective abandonment of most forms of reporting, it is hard to assess the prevalence and impact of Covid-related morbidity. However, there is substantial global evidence of increased worker absenteeism associated with both acute Covid-cases and post-Covid conditions (long Covid). Evidence also suggests cumulative damage to various organs associated with repeated infection.

Read More »

… as long as they are healthy, well fed and well educated

Much of the panic about falling birth rates can be dispelled once we realise that (barring catastrophe) there will almost certainly be more people alive in 2100 than there were in 2000. But what about the distant future? Dean Spears, co-author of After the Spike has kindly provided me with projections showing that with likely declines in fertility the world population will decline by half each century after 2100, reaching one billion around 2400. Would that be too few to sustain a modern civilisation ?

We can answer this pretty easily from past experience. In the second half of 20th century, the modern economy consisted of the member countries of the Organization For Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). Originally including the countries of Western Europe and North America, and soon extended to include Australia and Japan, the OECD countries were responsible for the great majority of the global industrial economy, including manufacturing, modern services, and technological innovation.

Except for some purchases of raw materials from the “Global South”, produced by a relatively small part of the labour force, the OECD, taken as a whole, was self-sufficient in nearly everything required for a modern economy. So, the population of the OECD in the second half of last century provides an upper bound to the number of humans needed to sustain such an economy. That number did not reach one billion until 1980.

Read More »

The New York Times recently published a letter from me responding to a guest essay (op-ed) by Michael Geruso and Dean Spears, with whom I’ve been engaging on the question of pro-natalism. As a colleague who had such a letter published a few years ago observed, this will probably get more readers than any journal article I’ve ever written. The text is over the fold

Read More »

I can’t be bothered engaging with people who use “woke” as a pejorative, or similar Trumpist rhetoric. I’ve therefore banned a couple of commentators (Jack Strocchi and Svante) who persisted in using it, despite warnings. There are plenty of other places where they can bloviate if they choose. Anyone offended by my decision on this is welcome to a full refund on the way out.

Have they changed, or just become their worst selves

While Trump is unpopular with a majority of Americans, his support among Republicans remains solid. That’s despite blatant corruption, fascist policies and a failure to deliver any of the economic benefits he promised. Faced with this depressing fact, the standard New York Times response has been to send an intrepid reporter to “Trump Country” (rural Kentucky or Midwestern diners) to find out what is going on.

But it would be far more instructive to send them to Long Island, where Trump won both counties in 2024. Long Island voters have given solid support to Republicans at all levels. Even as he was crushingly defeated in New York as a whole, Mitt Romney got close to half the vote in Suffolk and Nassau counties. Trump did a few percentage points better in 2024, winning both. But he would have gone nowhere if not for the solid support of Romney voters

This doesn’t fit at all with the usual stories about Trump voters. The residents of Long Island are not the “left-behinds” routinely described in explanations of Trump’s appeal. The average income is over $100 000 and unemployment rates have long been around 3 per cent. Like most New Yorkers, Long Islanders have been beneficiaries of the globalised economy of which Romney was a symbol. And, if you were to believe Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind they did so because they valued honor, loyalty and purity, qualities Trump routinely trashes.

Democrats from Hillary Clinton on assumed that these contradictions would lead suburban Republicans to abandon Trump in numbers large enough to offset any losses of Democrats attracted by Trump’s racism and misogyny. Evidently this is not the case. Not only have the Republicans who once voted for Romney maintained their support for Trump but they have preferred him to any Republican alternative. And, with few exceptions, they have embraced Trump’s racist and fascist policies, even as he approaches outright Nazism.

What has happened here? Has Trump, as Walter Olson suggests, radicalised his followers leading them to support positions they would once have rejected? Or has he simply allowed them to reveal themselves (or at least their worst selves) as the racists and fascists they always were?

The answers to these questions are academic, in the pejorative sense of the term, as regards the US. Romney-Trump voters have made their choice, and there is no going back to old-style Republicanism. Perhaps, if enough of them realise that their choices have been both evil and disastrous for the US as a whole, the regime might collapse relatively quickly. But there is no sign of that.

The big question for those of us living outside the US is whether it could happen here. As long as the far-right remains essentially a protest party for low-education voters who are mostly disengaged and disaffected, like Pauline Hanson’s One Nation in Australia, its occasional flare-ups can be expected to fade, as appears to have happened with Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. But if the middle class and business base of the mainstream conservative parties goes the same way, democracy is in trouble.

Read More »

I’ve held off posting this in the hope of coming up with some kind of positive response, but I haven’t got one.

When I wrote back in November 2024 that Trump’s dictatorship was a fait accompi there was still plenty of room for people to disagree. But (with the exception of an announced state of emergency) it’s turned out far worse than I thought possible.

Opposition politicians and judges have been arrested for doing their jobs, and many more have been threatened. The limited resistance of the courts has been effectively halted by the Supreme Court’s decision ending nationwide injunctions. University leaders have been forced to comply or quit. The press has been cowed into submission by the threat of litigation or harm to corporate owners. Political assassinations are laughed about and will soon become routine. With the use of troops to suppress peaceful protests, and the open support of Trump and his followers, more deaths are inevitable, quite possibly on a scale not seen since the Civil War.

The idea that this process might be stopped by a free and fair election in 2026 or 2028 is absurdly optimistic. Unless age catches up with him, Trump will appoint himself as President for life, just as Xi and Putin have done.

None of this is, or at least ought to be, news. Yet the political implications are still being discussed in the familiar terms of US party politics: swing voters, the centre ground, mobilisation versus moderation, rehashes of the 2024 election and so on. Having given up hope, I have no interest in these debates. Instead, I want to consider the implications for the idea of democracy.

The starting point is the observation that around half of all US voters at the last three elections have supported a corrupt, incompetent, criminal racist and rapist, while another third or more of US citizens have failed to vote at all. And Trump’s support has not been diminished to any significant extent (if at all) by his actions since returning to power.

Any claims that might be made to exonerate Trump’s voters or mitigate the crime they have committed don’t stand up to scrutiny. The US did not face any kind of crisis that might justify such an extreme outcome (as, for example, Germany did in 1933). Unemployment was at historically low levels. The short-lived inflation resulting from the pandemic was well below the rates of the late 20th century, crime was far below those rates. And so on. The only real driving factor was the resentment and hatred felt by Trump’s voters for large groups of their compatriots.

One part of this is fear of immigrants, particularly but not exclusively, asylum seekers and other undocumented immigrants. But this fear has long been a winning issue for the political right, in many countries including Australia. It has not produced anything like the turn to dictatorship we have now seen in the US.

In this context what matters is not the marginal groups of swinging voters who have absorbed so much attention: the “left behind”, the “manosphere” and so on. It’s the fact that comfortably off, self-described “conservative”, white suburbanites, historically the core of the Republican base, have overwhelmingly voted for, and welcomed, the end of American democracy.

This is something that, as far as I can tell, is unprecedented in the history of modern democracy, and threatens the basic assumptions on which democracy is built. While the last 200 years of modern (partial or complete) democracy have seen plenty of demagoguery, authoritarian populism and so on, these have invariably been temporary eruptions rejected, relatively quickly, by an enduring democratic majority. The idea that a party that has been part of the constitutional fabric of a major democracy for more than 150 years, would abandon democracy and keep the support of its voters was inconceivable. That’s why so many have refused to admit it, even to themselves.

Nothing lasts forever, but there is no obvious way back from dictatorship for the US. Viewed in retrospect, the the Republican party was a deadly threat to US democracy from the moment of Trump’s nomination in 2016 and certainly after the 2021 insurrection.

With the benefit of hindsight, Biden might have declared a state of emergency immediately after the insurrection, arrested Trump, and expelled all the congressional Republicans who had voted to overturn the election. But this would itself have represented an admission that democratic norms had failed. It was far more comfortable to suppose that Trump had been an aberration and that those norms would prevail as they had done at previous moments of crisis. That is no longer possible.

As I siad, I’ve held off posting this in the hope of coming up with some kind of positive response, but I haven’t got one. The best I can put forward is that the US, founded on slavery, has never been able to escape its original sin, and is unique in that respect. Every country has its original sin and a dominant group with its racist core. But only in the US (so far) has that core secured unqualified majority support. The downfall of American democracy should serve as a warning. For conservative parties, flirting with fascism is a deal with the devil that must be avoided. For the left, the nostalgic appeal of the “white (implicitly male) working class” should not tempt us into pandering to racist and misogynist reaction.

I don’t know whether that will be enough to save us. At least in Australia, Trumpism is political poison. But until we understand that Trumpism is not an aberration but the course Americans have chosen, we will not be able to free ourselves from our past allegiance to an idea which is now an illusion.

Pro-natalism (the idea that people, or rather, women, should have more babies than they choose to do at present) has become an established orthodoxy,[1]. The central claim is that, unless something changes soon, human populations both global and national, are going to decline rapidly, with a lot of negative consequences. This is simply not true, on any plausible assumptions about fertility[2]

There’s no need for me to do any calculations here. For many decades he Population Division of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs has been producing population projections for the world, and individual countries, under a variety of scenarios. One finding is unambiguous. Short of a drastic decline in fertility, far beyond what we are now seeing there will be more people on Earth at the end of this century than there were at the beginning

The range of projections considered plausible is the shaded area. All the projections in that range show population increasing for several decades to come, and remaining higher than at present at the end of the century. The reason is simple. Global fertility is close to the replacement level (one surviving daughter per woman) at present, but past growth means that a large proportion of the population is in, or approaching, child-bearing years. It’s only when this group ages out that the effects of declining fertility, assumed in the lower projections will start to dominate

What about the blue dotted lines? These assume drastic reductions in fertility. On the low side, that involves the entire world becoming like South Korea, where the combination of high employment rates for women and pre-modern male attitudes on gender role has produced reproduction rates below 0.5.

But even in this extreme case, world population in 2100 only falls to 6 billion, the same as in 2000. I was around at the time, and did not feel as if there were too few people about.

One reason these predictions have only a limited range of variation is that most of the growth in population is already baked in. There are 2 billion or so children under 14 at present in the world, and most of them will be around in 2100 as will their soon-to-be-born siblings.

What about the need for workers? One unsatisfactory feature of long-running projections like this is the use of outdated statistical concepts such as the “dependency ratio”, that is, the ratio of people aged 15-64 to everyone else. That made sense 50 years ago, when this range represented the period between leaving school and retiring in most industrial societies. But these days (and it will be even more so in 2100) education continues well past 20 and retirement is often deferred to 70 or more. A look at the age group 25-69 shows that it is going to remain more or less stable in absolute numbers declinging only marginally relative to the growing population

Population projections for individual countries depend largely on what happens to migration. In the absence of stringent restrictions, the flow of migrants from poorer to richer countries will largely offset differences in fertility, meaning that the trajectory for individual countries will look similar to that for the world.

Of course, if you combine low fertility and an already-old population with hostility to immigrants, and you can’t stop your own young people from seeking a better life abroad, you end up with a sharply declining population, as in South Korea and Hungary. But it’s much easier to let more migrants in (there are plenty of young adults, many of them well-educated, knocking at the door) than to persuade people to have more babies.

There is no difficulty in gaining access to these projections, and anyone with a spreadsheet and a bit of time can reproduce them. Yet I’ve read dozens of pro-natalist articles in both traditional and new media and the evidence is never mentioned. Maybe I’m living on the wrong planet.

fn1. Some this is driven by racists worrying specifically about the lack of white babies. But the belief that declining fertility is a crisis is also dominant among centrists, like those pushing the “abundance agenda”, who also support high levels of immigration. Archetypal example is Matt Yglesias who advocates One billion Americans

fn2 There are plenty of ways in which we are risking massively increased mortality (nuclear war, climate catastrophe, pandemics, AI apocalypse etc), but having babies won’t help in those cases.

Hi everyone

My  Brissie to the Bay cycle for MS Queensland, a huge success. Donations totalled $2595, which gave me the title of “Neuro Legend”. Thanks again to all the readers and friends who keep me going on events like this. I’ll never be competitive as a triathlete, but I’m still on top of my game as a fundraiser.

The weather leading up to the event was bitterly cold by Brisbane standards, falling as low as 3° C, but on the day it was very pleasant, starting at 9° C and warming up after sunrise. I had a great time for the first 80km, but suffered a bit on the final 50, which accounted for most of the 1100 metres of total climbing, moderated by some nice downhill runs.

I had only returned on Friday from a three-week trip overseas, during which I couldn’t do any real cycling, so I’m going to attribute my lack of stamina to being out of practice, rather than to my advancing years. I’ll be testing this theory in the Sunshine Coast 70.3 Ironman in September, which includes a 90km ride, between the 1.9km swim and half-marathon run.

As usual, my beautiful Canyon bike attracted lots of nice comments, and my jersey showing status as an MS Legend from previous years got me some encouragement as fellow-riders passed me towards the end.

My reward was another MS cycle jersey. Unfortunately, by the time I finished they’d run out of all sizes except XXL. If anyone who donated would like a huge cycle jersey, just email me at john.quiggin@icloud.com

As always when raising money to fight disease and illness, I’m reminded how lucky I am to have made it to the Biblical three score years and ten (next birthday) without any significant impairment to my health, as well as being in good shape financially. I know that many of my readers aren’t so lucky, and need to focus on looking after their own difficulties. But if you can help, please do.

Hi everyone

I’m riding 130km on Sunday to raise money for the Brissie to the Bay cycle for MS Queensland, my longest running fundraising event. I reached my target of $2000, with a couple of days to spare. So of course, I’ve set my sights higher. The top level in the fundraising hierarchy is “Neuro Legend”, and it will only take another $500 to get there. The reward is a lovely MS cycle jersey. I already have a couple, so I’ll use this as an incentive/gimmick. I’ll give the jersey to the first person to donate $100 and include contact details. If you’ve already donated $100 and would like the jersey, get in touch, first come best dressed.

Thanks again to all the readers and friends who keep me going on events like this. I’ll never be competitive as a triathlete, but I’m still on top of my game as a fundraiser.

As always when raising money to fight disease and illness, I’m reminded how lucky I am to have made it to the Biblical three score years and ten (next birthday) without any significant impairment to my health, as well as being in good shape financially. I know that many of my readers aren’t so lucky, and need to focus on looking after their own difficulties. But if you can help, please do.