<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Energy prices that tell the truth: the real presidential litmus test]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by David Roberts http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/ Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:46:49 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/1 Er ...

I'm not sure the contrast is as sharp as you think:
"It isn't right that oil companies are making record profits at a time when ordinary Americans are going into debt trying to pay rising energy costs," [Obama] said. "That's why we'll put a windfall profits tax on oil companies and use it to help Indiana families pay their heating and cooling bills and reduce energy costs".Everybody panders.

grist.org


]]> Er ...

I'm not sure the contrast is as sharp as you think:
"It isn't right that oil companies are making record profits at a time when ordinary Americans are going into debt trying to pay rising energy costs," [Obama] said. "That's why we'll put a windfall profits tax on oil companies and use it to help Indiana families pay their heating and cooling bills and reduce energy costs".Everybody panders.

grist.org


]]> Comment #2 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/ Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:25:44 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/2 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

]]> 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

]]> Comment #3 by Theogarver http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/ Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:26:16 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/3 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.  

]]> 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.  

]]> Comment #4 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/ Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:54:13 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/4 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

]]> 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

]]> Comment #5 by Bart Anderson http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/ Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:12:34 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/5 Sad truth

Nice post - it's good to see some real differences in policy between Obama and Clinton.
"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. 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


]]> Sad truth

Nice post - it's good to see some real differences in policy between Obama and Clinton.
"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. 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


]]> Comment #6 by katakanadian http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/ Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:12:06 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/6 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.

]]> 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.

]]> Comment #7 by Shel http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/ Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:33:01 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/7 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)!

]]> 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)!

]]> Comment #8 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/ Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:27:00 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/8 Revaluing Assets


...energy prices that reflect and internalize costs.

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)


]]> Revaluing Assets


...energy prices that reflect and internalize costs.

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)


]]> Comment #9 by EarthlingAngst http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/ Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:47:38 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/9 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

]]> 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

]]> Comment #10 by Kit Stolz http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/ Mon, 28 Apr 2008 06:16:54 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/10 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 ...

]]> 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 ...

]]> Comment #11 by human power http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/ Mon, 28 Apr 2008 07:40:12 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/obama-plays-it-straight/11 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.

]]> 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.

]]>