Calling all greens: Barack Obama, battling to remain the front-runner in the Democratic presidential primary, this weekend took on the most sacred cow in American politics: cheap gas.
Campaigning in Indiana, Obama distanced himself from the gas tax "holiday" proposed by Sen. John McCain, saying it may not bring down prices and would require raising other taxes to pay for highway maintenance.
"The only way we're going to lower gas prices over the long term is if we start using less oil," Obama said in Anderson.
McCain pounced, saying through a campaign spokesman that "Americans need strong leadership that can deliver lower gas prices and a healthier economy, not Barack Obama's inexperience and indecision." Obama's Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, did likewise, unveiling a new ad calling for suspension of the gasoline tax -- a proposal first advanced by McCain on April 15.
As U.S. political campaigns go, the contrast between McCain-Clinton's playing the gas-tax card and Obama's brave clarity couldn't be clearer.
What the 2nd Amendment is to the gun lobby, and lapel flag pins are to summer soldiers, energy prices that reflect and internalize costs are, or ought to be, to greens.
The dirty not-so-little secret about U.S. energy policy, the Original Sin underlying our 35-year-old energy crisis and the now-exploding climate crisis, is cheap energy, and Americans' ingrained entitlement to it.
Low energy prices -- kept low with tax breaks, ruined mountaintops, scarred lungs, and now-fracturing ice shelves -- are what enabled suburbia, the "love affair" with the auto, and the hellspawn of SUVs that has begun engulfing China. Only high energy prices -- prices that internalize the grievous costs of energy extraction and combustion via gas taxes and revenue-neutral carbon taxes -- can instill the incentives and propagate the behaviors that will move us and other nations off of oil and off of carbon in the nick of time.
McCain has no clue. Clinton surely does, but can't pass up a chance to pander. "Hillary Clinton knows it's time to act, take some of the windfall profits of big oil to pay to suspend the gas tax this summer, investigate the oil giants for price gouging and collusion," her ad says. Right. Shadow-box at Big Oil while taxpayers and the climate absorb the punch. Here's the ad:
An 18 cent-a-gallon 100-day "holiday" adding up to ten billion dollars may not be much in the grand budgetary scheme. It's the principle that matters: closing the reality gap between the low price of energy and its outsize cost. With the Indiana and North Carolina primaries a mere ten days away, Obama's stance shows that he not only gets it but is willing to stick his neck out for it.
Energy prices that tell the truth. This -- not renewable fuel standards, not tough talk on Yucca Mountain, not even a moratorium on new coal plants -- is this century's defining energy policy issue.
U.S.-Russia climate and energy efficiency cooperation: A neglected challenge
Obama announces new efficiency initiatives as part of big clean-energy push
Comments View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 1:46 pm
27 Apr 2008
Er ...
I'm not sure the contrast is as sharp as you think:
Everybody panders.grist.org
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:25 pm
27 Apr 2008
Oh well
I say, vote for the smartest one and cross your fingers.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Theogarver Posted 4:26 pm
27 Apr 2008
Good move Obama
I find that this difference in opinion on fuel taxes really differentiates Obama and Clinton. In this case Obama has clearly demonstrated principles and is not pandering to the short-term thinking hyper-consumer that believes the earth is theirs for the taking. Neither has been brave enough to oppose corn ethanol, probably because of the importance of the votes from the Midwestern states. For a long time I have been impressed at how low the US fuel tax is by world standards. If you take a look at per capita fuel consumption and fuel taxes around the world you will find that there is less fuel consumption in places with higher fuel tax. Also, the indirect costs (highway cost,pollution, environmental damage, war) related to gasoline use are high and fuel users should contribute to these costs.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:54 pm
27 Apr 2008
That's not pandering
He's cutting subsidies to big oil (with a windfall tax, not simply cutting subsidies, but it has the same effect) and giving some of it to low income energy assistance programs, that are already in operation. And running low on funds.
I would prefer he just advocate cutting subsidies directly, oil companies get 18 billion per year, and giving it out in per kwh subsidies for GHG free energy and conservation.
The windfall tax idea is at least closer than cap and trade ever gets to making the old energy economy give up it's stranglehold on pork barrel billions. Most cap and trade just gives the major portion of permits to grandfathered GHG spewers.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:12 pm
27 Apr 2008
Sad truth
Nice post - it's good to see some real differences in policy between Obama and Clinton.
Unfortunately, though, this is no longer true. Even if we in the US use less oil, gas prices will still go up, due to demand in China/India and to oil reserves that are more expensive to exploit.Candidates can't be too upfront about this, because voters aren't ready for it. On the other hand, whoever is elected had best make policy based on the assumption of ever higher oil prices.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
katakanadian Posted 10:12 pm
27 Apr 2008
How steep do you want it?
Even if we in the US use less oil, gas prices will still go up, due to demand in China/India and to oil reserves that are more expensive to exploit.
True but at least the price will go up more slowly if the U.S. cuts back substantially in its consumption. Unfortunately, it's hard to get people excited about inflation being only 15% instead of 30% because people only notice that they are paying more.
Permalink
Shel Posted 11:33 pm
27 Apr 2008
Obama voted for the Cheney energy bill!
Come on, folks, look a little closer! Obama supported the oil company preservation act (Hillary voted against it) and he takes more money than any other candidate from oil company executives (while proclaiming that he doesn't take money from oil companies)!
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 1:27 am
28 Apr 2008
Revaluing Assets
I love it! Greens are the real Neo-Cons!
They want a true free market; one that rationalizes all costs.
So, I'm sure if you wouldn't object to us taking away all the subsidies for "mass transit" as well?
Texeme.Construct(Participant)
Permalink
EarthlingAngst Posted 1:47 am
28 Apr 2008
Good for Obama
Hooray for Obama! High gas prices are good for the fight on global warming. People drive less and buy more efficient cars. Hybrid sales were up 38% last year while new car sales overall slumped 3%. In the battle of politics vs. planet, Obama reigns.
EarthlingAngst
Permalink
Kit Stolz Posted 6:16 am
28 Apr 2008
pandering -- ineffectively
McCain is not just pandering, he's ignoring the laws of economics. Paul Mulshine, of the Berger Star-Ledger, explains:
"McCain came out with a proposal the other day that was every bit as clueless as his many gaffes on Iraq. He wants to suspend the federal gas tax for the summer driving season.
"The effect will be an immediate economic stimulus, taking a few dollars off the price of a tank of gas every time a family, a farmer or trucker stops to fill up," McCain said.
No, it wouldn't. McCain is failing to take two things into account:
Supply.
And demand.
The supply of gasoline during the summer months is limited by refinery capacity. If demand rises, as it traditionally does in the summer driving season, the price will remain roughly the same even if the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents a gallon is lifted, says Len Berman, director of the Tax Policy Institute in Washington.
"The elasticity in supply is very low, so a cut in the gas tax is mostly just going to translate into higher prices," said Berman.
Florida officials tried the same stunt several years ago, says Fred Rozell of the Oil Price Information Service, the national authority on oil prices, based in Lakewood. They cut the state gas tax, but prices failed to drop accordingly. Why? It's hard to tell, said Rozell. Maybe people were driving more or maybe the service station owners were just pocketing the difference.
"The state spent all this money to see if gas stations actually chopped the price off," said Rozell. But the results were inconclusive.
And when it comes to cutting the federal gas tax, Rozell agreed with Berman that the supply for the coming summer is already set, so cutting the tax would not necessarily lead to a drop in prices."
For more, see:
http://achangeinthewind.typepad.com/achangeinthewind/2008 ...
Permalink
human power Posted 7:40 am
28 Apr 2008
gas tax irrelevant
"Only high energy prices...can instill the incentives and propagate the behaviors that will move us... off of carbon in the nick of time."
I'm not buying it. Considering the need to reduce the American carbon footprint by 80-90% in the next fifteen years there is no way to get the top 10% of wealth-holders to reduce their emissions adequately by pricing alone and still allow the remaining 90% to live. We can institute individual GHG quotas to share the "burden" of sustaining life on Earth across income classes or we can kiss our behinds goodbye. Sadly, most Americans seem willing to choose the latter.
Permalink