One Holiday I'm Glad We're Not Celebrating

By: TheGreenMiles
Published On: 5/26/2008 2:36:54 PM

The Green Miles recently made headlines (OK, so it was page 48 of the Post Express) for suggesting that public opposition to the Clinton/McCain plan to temporarily eliminate the federal gas tax showed that maybe, just maybe, we'd reached a turning point on energy policy:
Americans are finally saying they don't want short-term cheap gas -- they want solutions that would take long-term pressure off energy prices, like more fuel efficient cars and American-made renewable energy.

But if there's anyone who can keep a good pander alive in the face of increasing public awareness, it's your ratings-seeking media. Last week on WTOP radio, an anchor teased an upcoming gas prices story by saying, "Still ahead, waiting for that bubble to burst so we can fill our gas tanks in a pain-free manner." If anyone out there thinks we'll wake up one day to magically find gas back to $1.09 a gallon, I strongly discourage you from holding your breath.

The great irony is that previous attempts to change our national energy policy (like 2005's Climate Stewardship Act) were rejected because opponents said they might -- get ready for it -- drive up gas prices. So now we have the worst of both worlds -- high gas prices and we're still as addicted to oil as ever. As Joseph Romm writes at Grist, analysts are now revising their previous caps on just how high prices might go:

While $12-15 a gallon gas is probably a long way away -- and still preventable -- it looks increasingly like we dawdled too long on alternatives to avoid $6-7.

What's the reason for the delay in alternatives? I think we all know why.



Comments



The stupid thing about this debate (Lowell - 5/26/2008 2:41:46 PM)
is...well, just about everything. The media is beyond ignorant, bordering on professional malpractice, whenever they discuss energy.  With very few exceptions, they simply have no clue - none whatsoever -- what the @#$%@# they are talking about.

Now, here's a thought for the day: if our vehicles got 2-3 times the fuel economy than they do now (yes, this is technologically feasible), gas prices could double from where they are now and we'd still save money.  That's the beauty of energy efficiency; getting the same economic "utility" but using less energy, spending less money, emitting less carbon dioxide, and being less dependent on countries that hate us) doing it.  Sounds like a "win, win, win, win" to me.



Plenty of stupidity to go around (citizenindy - 5/27/2008 9:25:17 AM)
I would add that many on this site also have no clue what they are talking about.  It fits with the general theme of Americans wanting to be coddled instead of facing the reality that behaviour is going to need to change

I'll attack my side first but don't think you are off the hook

To think that the long term solution is that there is more oil somewhere is ridiculous

At the same time.  Ds thinking that people are somehow going to stop driving or start conserving in mass quanities is also ridiculous.

We need a gradual balanced solution with plenty of optinos and choices.

This hits on a bigger theme of BOTH sides sticking their head in the sand or proposing an extreme solution that would never actually work

Some quick examples

State wide

Trnasportation
Rs (what problem)
Ds (tax and spend doesn't address root cause of problem)

National  

Environment (see above)

The War on Terror
Rs (short term fine what about long term)
Ds (expecting negotiating with terrorists to actually wrok!?!?!?!)

Healthcare
Rs (what problem)
Ds (higher taxes and less choice)

Education
Rs (let the states work it out)
Ds (tax and spend doesn't address root cause of problems)

Politicians are interested in getting elected and reelected.  Telling the truth and actually addressing issues is secondary.  Spending more money (aka what democrats do best) is not an actual solution its just as cowardly as when Republicans pretend that nothing needs to be done.  

One thing is certain, pain is coming higher taxes and spending reductions are coming.  We need some adults who will actually tell the truth.  



How About...... (Flipper - 5/26/2008 7:12:10 PM)
a little music to go with that picture?

http://www.bu.edu/globalbeat/j...

Condi looks a bit jealous, don't ya think?



AP's Rachel Beck writes about the gas holiday problem (Will Write For Food - 5/27/2008 1:00:49 AM)
... the idea proposed by presidential candidates John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton to ease the federal gas tax would strip the U.S. government of about $10 billion for roadway and transportation projects.

...

As economists explain it, gas prices typically rise in the summer months because demand is higher. Now, refineries are already running near capacity. If lifting the federal tax reduces gas prices, that could boost demand even more. Supply can't grow - in economics terms it is known as being inelastic - so it could drive prices back up.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/bu...



No, I want both. (Jack Landers - 5/27/2008 3:21:16 PM)
I want both short term cheap oil and long term efforts to reduce the overall demand for gasoline. I think most people probably feel the same way.

The thing about the McCain/Clinton gas tax holiday is that it wouldn't even reduce the price of gasoline by very much. A whole 18 cents per gallon. Whoop de doo. We'd need a bigger impact than that to justify messing with the federal budget to that degree. And I think that this is why so many people have opposed the McCain/Clinton proposal. It's not that we don't want cheap gas. It's that this proposal doesn't really get it for us.



Other things I want (TheGreenMiles - 5/27/2008 3:40:51 PM)
I also want ice cold Sam Adams Summer Ale coming out of my faucet and Natalie Portman calling my cell phone every 10 minutes begging me for a date, but I don't think those are rational expectations.

I don't want to pay $4 a gallon for gas, but I also understand that there are no rational policy solutions to bring it down in the short term.



Long term efforts (Teddy - 5/27/2008 3:44:08 PM)
will not, repeat not be made so long as the price of gas is not high enough to be painful. Really painful. At least, not in the United States.

We are not ever known to repsond to crises until it is almost too late. The market is, um, "working."



I hope you realize the irony in your statement (citizenindy - 5/27/2008 3:50:37 PM)
It actually is working

Hybrid sales are through the roof
Public Transportation Numbers are up
Homes in the outer burbs are dropping in value

and all without the government doing anything.  

The thing that democrats will never understand is that people are motivated the most by money and costs.  Its why we can hit you over the head with the tax issue every time.



The problem is... (Lowell - 5/27/2008 4:03:38 PM)
...in the absence of government policy, we're at the mercy of the vicissitudes of the market.  Prices go up, people conserve. Prices go down, people buy SUV's again. And around and around we go.  Brilliant.


So what is the solution (citizenindy - 5/27/2008 4:26:39 PM)
(Just some random thoughts here)

maybe a gas guzzler tax based on average MPG for the class

on the other hand how American is that... that just screams Big Brother and Nanny State

Some people actually need SUVs.  Family size, safety, security

Also where do you draw the line on governemnt involvement on enviroment/health issues

Smoking is almost banned
Do you tax fast food
What about alcohol thats bad too time to tax that
BMI over 25 time to tax you

Does the government really want to get involved in business ventures.  I can see a scandal with wind/solar power companies on the horizon.  (To be fair the current situation with the oil companies isn't that great either)  We each have our own coalitions to keep happy

Noone is stopping you from buying oil stock or opening up a driller to benefit.  Just like no one is stopping you from investing in alternative energy as well.

Bottom Line the problem with not allowing the market is who decides what is the best course for government to take.  Who decides when we need to make long term change.  How are the costs and benefits weighed.  

My ultimate contention is that a majority of time government ends up making a complex situation even more complex

Few examples  Tax Policy, Healthcare Policy, Education (No Child Left Behind Specficialy)



This doesn't have to be complicated (Lowell - 5/27/2008 4:30:04 PM)
If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions, simply slap on a carbon tax, make it totally revenue neutral if you like, and let the market work its magic.  If a carbon tax is too much for politicians to deal with, they can do a roundabout version of it through a "cap and trade" system.  Personally, as an economist, I prefer the more direct, efficient, market-oriented approach.


Or, if the goal is to reduce energy consumption (Lowell - 5/27/2008 4:44:00 PM)
a "BTU tax" would work just fine as well. Unfortunately, this is a classic case where sound public policy making and "smart" politics clash, big time. So much easier to pander than to lead...no wonder why Gore stays out of politics.


I'm not seeing irony here (Eric - 5/27/2008 4:06:52 PM)
You're right that things are shifting, but not nearly enough to make a serious long term impact.  As Lowell says, the numbers you cite would quickly turn around if gas fell to $1 again.  In fact, it would probably be even worse because people would feel a great sense of freedom and relief and would over react.

Teddy's numbers aren't here yet - the numbers that will force real, long term change.