(I write this post with some sadness. I would not have expected a major progressive politician who obviously cares about global warming to propose a gas tax holiday, which has no public benefits whatsoever and at the same time undermines the entire rationale behind a national climate strategy that includes, as it must, a pricing mechanism for greenhouse gases. Kudos to Sen. Obama for opposing this absurd proposal -- double kudos because it might cost him a few votes.)
The gas tax holiday proposed by McCain and Clinton is indefensible. That, of course, is why just about every independent observer has criticized it. The Washington Post and, separately, Huffington Post have catalogued an impressive list of serious critiques, starting with the rather obvious point that in a demand-driven price shock, a gas tax holiday probably won't even save consumers a penny -- it will just enrich the poor, suffering oil companies:
Harvard professor N. Gregory Mankiw, who has written a best-selling textbook on economics, said what he teaches is different from what Clinton and McCain are saying about gas taxes. "What you learn in Economics 101 is that if producers can't produce much more, when you cut the tax on that good the tax is kept ... by the suppliers and is not passed on to consumers," he said.
Leonard Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, said the laws of the market argue against a tax suspension. "Every summer, the refiners are running full out. If the price fell, people would want to drive more and there would be shortages," he said. "It's a basic economic principle that if the supply is fixed, the price is going to be determined by demand."
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), who said that the Democratic leadership of Congress has no intention of pursuing the summer tax suspension that Clinton touted. The move "would not be positive," he said. "The oil companies would just raise their prices."
NYT's Paul Krugman calls the idea "pointless" and "disappointing." Tom Friedman labeled the plan "so ridiculous ... it takes your breath away." Newsweek's Jonathan Alter said,
Hillary Clinton has now joined John McCain in proposing the most irresponsible policy idea of the year -- an idea that actually could aid the terrorists.
Now, I wouldn't go that far -- mainly because I don't think the proposal would actually lower gasoline prices very much and therefore wouldn't make us depend much more on foreign oil or send much more money overseas to governments who don't like us. Huffington Post couldn't find any serious "economic or environmental analyst" who supported the plan.
And, of course, there is that pesky issue of global warming that McCain and Clinton say they care about -- a claim seriously undermined by this absurd proposal:
What I am terribly concerned about is that this strongly suggests a President McCain would be prepared to walk away from the price for carbon he plans to impose upon the public -- the first time there is a recession after a cap-and-trade bill is passed.
Let's be very clear -- the greatest threat to the long-term health and well-being of this country is unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions. The key strategy that McCain and Obama and Clinton have embraced is a cap on emissions coupled with a trading system that sets a market price for carbon dioxide. That is how you get decarbonization at the lowest possible cost. Now, the greatest threat to the success of a cap and trade system is that somebody might artificially limit the carbon price, either through a safety valve designed into the system or because some weak-kneed President (or Congress) walks away from that price the first time the economy suffers a downturn.
I wrote that last week because I knew McCain was weak-kneed on this issue -- heck, he is afraid to even use the word "mandatory" with voters to describe his cap-and-trade system.
Weak-kneed is the last word I would have used to describe Sen. Clinton -- especially since her husband opposed a similarly misguided proposal by Bob Dole in 1996. I hope her campaign will explain how she can be for a gas-tax holiday and for a cap-and-trade system, too. As Kevin Knoblauch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said,
"It sends a confusing message. What's more helpful is if [politicians] help consumers understand that this isn't about near-term gas prices, it's about a comprehensive and smart approach to energy policies."
Bottom line, as Robert Shapiro, undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration, put it:
"Stated as clearly as I can," he wrote, "it's utterly misguided both environmentally and economically."
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Oil: enough energy to melt glaciers!
Comments
View as Flat
Nick Berning Posted 12:46 am
02 May 2008
And now her campaign can't identify a single expert who thinks this proposal will work.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/01/clinton-camp-gas ...
Permalink
Nick Berning Posted 12:47 am
02 May 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:36 am
02 May 2008
Instead of pandering to the Keno Pick 3 crowd, how about some of these "Presidential" candidates promoting the expansion of Hydrogen fueling stations and E-85 pumps?
How about accelerating the Coskata pilot?
Let's go guys!
Texeme.Construct(Participant)
Permalink
bigTom Posted 1:49 am
02 May 2008
Permalink
socialscientist Posted 3:05 am
02 May 2008
http://frepubtra.blogspot.com
.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:38 am
02 May 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:57 am
02 May 2008
How about another?
(It ain't ethanol -- if it's not cellulosic!
http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9934234-54.html?tag=news ...
The auto giant on Thursday announced a partnership and an undisclosed investment in cellulosic-ethanol company Mascoma. The Cambridge, Mass.-based start-up is developing a biochemical approach to converting wood chips and agricultural wastes into ethanol.
Texeme.Construct(Participant)
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:11 am
02 May 2008
So, the effect would just continue.
Permalink
meander Posted 6:14 am
02 May 2008
"We believe the presidency requires leadership," said Wolfson. "There are times that a president will take a position that a broad support of quote-unquote experts agree with. And there are times they will take a position that quote-unquote experts do not agree with."
Much of the mess we're in today is because the Bush Administration has been ignoring the experts and going with the gut feeling or radical ideology of the President and his minions.
Stein's piece also has this:On Wednesday, The Huffington Post attempted to find one expert from any and all ideological persuasion who believed that a gas tax holiday is a wise idea. It proved impossible. However, the idea is likely popular in upcoming primary states like Indiana and Ohio, and other politicians, alongside Clinton, have argued that it is in the government's interest to give all consumers a bit of at-the-pump relief.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 7:29 am
02 May 2008
Clinton is a right wing Democrat, which can best be described as center-right by global standards. These people fully support rule by corporations, they just want some small degree of regulation so that the corporations don't blow up the planet and/or kill everyone, including them. (Whereas the Republicans don't want any constraint, either because they don't care, because they trust corporations, or because they're religious nutcases who want to see the planet blown up.)
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:45 pm
02 May 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:51 pm
02 May 2008
Indiana could be that nail, but I wouldn't count on it.
Permalink
human power Posted 4:41 pm
02 May 2008
Until this week, I wasn't sure which dem I would hold my nose and vote for when my state finally holds its primary. I will now vote for Obama.
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 12:08 am
03 May 2008
I voted for Obama
But his choice of advisers on environment and energy give me pause
And CTL -- I just close my eyes
Permalink
dotcommodity Posted 4:57 am
03 May 2008
Very bad move, throwing us ecovoters under the bus. The one thing that differentiates her from Obama has been her far superior eco policy credentials.
Compare their two clean energy plans:
She plans to make the wind Production Tax Credit permanent, while Obama just extends it 5 years, like we Dems always do, then we act surprised that the Republicans get in and squash it again, destroying wind power for another four years...
She plans to make every Federal building carbon neutral (put solar on it) in 2009, Obama says only by 2030...
Her plan is from The Center for American progress, his comes from some Bipartisan (reassuring name...not!) policycenter that looks like it's hastily put together by a bunch of ethanol lobbyists, Daschle and Dole, and a nuke CEO (Exelon)and is just continuing Bush dependence on ethanol, nukes and clean coal.
Very bad move: pandering.
MCain = McSame: check this eco voting record (!)
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 10:14 am
04 May 2008
Sorry, Dotcommodity, you've been badly fooled. The examples you gave are minor details. Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama both support coal and nuclear energy, and neither has said that Americans need to quit driving so much and that vehicles that don't get good gas mileage should be eliminated. Nor has either of them come out against suburban or big box lifestyles, which both require large amounts of fossil fuels.
You could fit the significant differences between Clinton and Obama on ecological issues in a thimble, if there are in fact any at all. Obama seems less repugnant to progressive values, but neither will do anywhere near what needs to be done for the natural environment, beginning with ending the private motor vehicle era. If you want to support someone who actually advocates for the natural environment, you'll have to go outside of the two gangs, er, I mean major parties.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:45 pm
04 May 2008
Clinton: "We've got to get out of this mind-set where somehow elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans."
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN3055017520080 ...
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN3055017520080 ...
Now she's saying that the fact that every economist happens to disagree with her, that their opinion doesn't matter because they are all elist snobs ;D
Classic.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 3:55 am
05 May 2008
I know that if I'd graduated from an Ivy-league college, accumulated a fortune worth tens of millions of dollars, enjoyed millions of dollars in donations from special-interest Wall Street firms, and loaned $5 million of my own money to keep alive my my own campaign for president, I'd probably have a finely-honed ability to recognize an "elite" when I saw one, too.
Permalink
awkline Posted 6:34 am
08 May 2008
Permalink