I don't generally agree with Charles Krauthammer, and I don't agree with everything he says here either (there's no good reason I've ever heard why we should drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). However, I DO agree with the following:
...what does this president propose? Another great technological fix. For Jimmy Carter, it was the magic of synfuels. For George Bush, it's the wonders of ethanol. Our fuel will grow on trees. Well, stalks, with even fancier higher-tech variants to come from cellulose and other (literal) rubbish.It is very American to believe that chemists are going to discover the cure for geopolitical weakness. It is even more American to imagine that it can be done painlessly. Ethanol for everyone. Farmers get a huge cash crop. Consumers get more supply. And the country ends up more secure.
This is nonsense. As my colleague Robert J. Samuelson demonstrated this week, biofuels will barely keep up with the increase in gasoline demand over time. They are a huge government bet with goals and mandates and subsidies that will not cure our oil dependence or even make a significant dent in it.
Even worse, the happy talk displaces any discussion about here-and-now measures that would have a rapid and revolutionary effect on oil consumption and dependence.
This is exactly what I've been saying for days, months, years now. When we talk about super-techno-gizmo fixes to global warming, like how we're going to replace our oil consumption tomorrow using bean stalks, wood chips and cow manure, I mainly laugh. Except that it's not funny to the extent it distracts us from a real conversation on measures that can be taken right here, right now to reduce our carbon emissions substantially. Measures such as:
#1: Sharp increases in fuel economy standards for automobiles right now. Last year, Ford lost $12.7 billion building gas guzzlers. You think it could do any worse building fuel-efficient vehicles? (note: national health care would help Ford immeasurably with its massive "legacy costs")
#2: Set a floor on the price of gasoline (Krauthammer suggests $4 per gallon, which would still put our gas price well below that of other advanced, industrialized countries of the world). Then, use that revenue to fund super-fuel-efficient vehicles (40? 50? 100 miles per gallon). Also, we could use that revenue to reduce other taxes, particularly taxes that hit lower income people most harshly (aka, "regressive" taxes). In other words, we can (and probably should) make this gas price floor "revenue neutral," since the goal is NOT to raise revenues, but to cut oil consumption and carbon emissions. Finally, we could use some of that money to provide first-class, cheap (hell, make it free for people under a certain income level!) public transportation.
#3: Nuclear power, if done safely and with an agreed-upon repository for waste, can be part of the solution. Nuclear has problems, but one good thing about it is that it emits ZERO carbon. Even one of the former founders of Greenpeace now agrees.
#4: Launch a massive push towards energy efficiency in buildings, both commercial and residential. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2005, the residential and commercial sectors accounted for 39% of total U.S. carbon emissions. We can make huges strides in those areas through passive solar, green building technologies (e.g., "green roofs"), energy-efficient appliances, etc. This can be done right now, and would make a big difference in coming years.
If we did all this, we'd not only be able to lower our profile in the Middle East (and reduce the level of antagonism that profile engenders) substantially. Just as importantly, we would be able to slash our greenhouse gas emissions, without hurting our economy in the least bit. In fact, I would argue that all this would HELP our economy, moving it towards far less energy intensive direction, slashing our costs for military spending in the Persian Gulf, reducing our exposure to disastrous climate change effects (like hurricanes, erosion, damage to skiing and maple syrup industries, I can go on and on...), etc.
What are we waiting for? Only one thing. One simple thing that the Bush Administration has shown itself utterly incapable of in pretty much every area. Leadership. Sad to say, the Bush Administration, for all its tough talk ("bring 'em on"), is basically a bunch of craven cowards, terrified to take any action that might offend their oil industry masters, and lacking any sign of imagination, vision, innovation, or competence. Someone please remind me, what the heck are these people doing in the White House? Now THAT is "nonsense!"
It would make more sense if the revenues gained from the tax hike are invested in the development of renewable (not alternative) technologies or into environment-friendly mass transportation like passenger trains or subways.
The point Charles is missing is that any decrease in US consumption, resulting from tax hike, would lead to a significant decrease in US oil supply needs therefore lower oil prices. This will occurs despite the growing oil consumption of China and India , at 40%, the US oil consumption remains by far the largest in the world.
As a result, There should be no need to explore ANWR or increase oil supply in general.
So, the same principle is at work in Lowell's diary. 22 years ago when I built my house here in Virginia it was designed with a passive solar sunroom, skylights and a black slate floor, which is amazingly effective on winter days. I also had solar panels put in that assist in heating my hot water. In the winter it assists the main system and in the summer it totally heats the hot water. The initial cost for these simple design elements amortized itself withing 4 years because of reduced energy costs. When I got a new car last year (my 14 year old Honda still got nearly 30 mpg in town and 35 on the highway but had no airbags so my kids nagged me into a safer car) I got a Prius. And my older son gave me a TerraPass as a Christmas present. In themselves these things I have done aren't going to make a measurable impact on global warming or curbing our dependence on oil but if we all do what we can individually and speak out to urge business and government to support environmentally sound practices, we will collectively make a difference. It's only when we don't speak out and do what we can privately to change our own habits that we lose the chance to make a difference.
So, Lowell, speak loudly and passionately and eloquently for us. Send the LTE as suggested. You are worth a whole cupful of water all by yourself.
While I can not cite to any studies to support this, it is my belief that the past 20 years have seen a sort of "arms race" in personal vehicles. There is a certain persentage of drivers who believe, not without justification, that bigger is safer. These drivers are afraid to drive a Yaris when there is a good chance that if they do have a collision, they will be hit by a Ford Expedition or Cadillac Escallade (not to mention the simple fact that it is impossible to see much of the road if you are driving a compact car and a full size SUV is in front of you.)
So if a plan is passed that imposes a "floor" on gas prices, the taxes collected should also be used to reduce the number of oversized personal vehicles.
I'll set back and duck while I read the responses. It is generally unpopular to suggest that the government interfere in the free automobile market.