The Energy Plan America Really Needs
August 4, 2008 by Joshua Davis
First it was FISA, now Barack Obama appears to have caved and wants offshore oil drilling, but thankfully this time he appears ready to do some negotiation:
Senator Barack Obama said on Saturday that he would reluctantly consider accepting some new offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in exchange for stripping oil companies of tax breaks and extending several tax credits to spur the search for alternative fuels.
This is not enough to reduce oil prices, and the only thing it increases is risk to the environment (oil spills and global warming). I’d be willing to support this plan if it had more strings attached:
- Invest heavily in bus rapid transit along highways and other commuter thoroughfares. Bus rapid transit is like a subway system without the trains, and instead of a stop every block, routes have only select stop areas. The fare is also payed at the station, speeding bus boarding.
- Invest in mass transit systems like subways and light rail which often times spurs walkable transit oriented development that encourages a car free lifestyle.
- Continue to expand congestion pricing, which uses free market ideas to charge road users increasing amounts of money to use a road, which encourages people to drive less, use mass transit, or drive at less congested times (when prices are lower, due to lower demand).
- The money for this would come from the National Highway Trust Fund. While it’s tempting to spend all the money saved from leaving Iraq on domestic programs, that money is money America doesn’t have to spend.
- If oil from the strategic oil reserve is released it must be tied to reducing the speed limit on national roads. This reserve should only be used for emergencies, like when America invades Iran and the Middle East gets together and says no more oil for the Americans.
But McCain’s energy plan is even worst, with his advocating for drilling in ANWR and his gas tax holiday scam. But my point is to challenge the Democrats to create true energy reform, not just band aids and funding for futuristic concepts, but use technologies that are already available.
Obama’s negotiation doesn’t make any sense. Drilling offshore will prolong America’s dependence on oil as the primary source of fuel. The higher the prices, the greater the demand should be for alternative sources of fuel. If the oil prices go down due to increased supply, the demand for alternative fuels will go down because people will once again settle comfortably and complacently into the oil habit. Everyone knows that you break the habit of smoking cigarettes by buying a few more packs. And, if demand for alternative energy goes down, what would be the worth of extending tax credits for searching for alternative sources of fuels?
Oil companies, in the first place, should not have had any tax breaks whatsoever. Removing these tax breaks will hurt them little in light of the record profits that they are making. Im sure that the oil companies would gladly trade these tax breaks for offshore drilling that would continue their dominance in American politics and in the profit made by controlling our main source of fuel.
The problems of offshore drilling, and the continued dependence on oil that it will cause, in my mind, create drawbacks not outweighed by the benefits of stripping the tax breaks from oil companies and instituting tax credits for an alternative fuel search. Offshore drilling makes these other negotiative proposals ineffective and inconsequential, in my view. I would be glad and interested to hear your thoughts, and perhaps your corrections, concerning my assertions here.
I readily concede that the “gas tax holiday” and ANWR drilling proposals of McCain’s are also boundlessly ineffective and ridiculous. For some reason, politicians look at the problem as high gasoline prices, because that it what people are complaining about; the real problem is our dependency on this unenvironmentally-friendly fuel. Gas prices have to be high if we are going to get off of gasoline for good, because high prices increase demand for alternative fuels. A politician can’t (or they can, illogically) advocate lowering gasoline prices and obtaining alternative fuels at the same time. These statements are, of course, though, Mr. Davis, subject to your scrutiny.
Mr. Davis, I was very interested to read about your ideas on energy. Your ideas on bus and mass transit are good. Countless numbers of people would doubtless use mass transit if it were made available to them. It appears that you are suggesting that, if we decrease the demand for oil, we can decrease the prices for oil. Which would be good, except for my above criticisms; I’m the kind of fool who wants oil prices to shoot up so that we can get along to alternative fuels as quickly as possible. This is probably a logical fallacy on my part. If we both increase the supply of oil and decrease the demand for oil, prices will go down, as will the demand for alternatives. As for your last proposal, #5, I’m not sure that many people would appreciate that lowering of the speed limit, including my father, who probably has gotten six speeding tickets in the past 14 months as it is (now you can probably see where I get my crazy streak).
All statements that I have made here are open to your correction; I would be glad of correction. Admittedly, I don’t know much about energy.
Even if commuters stop using personal vehicles, and communities change to walkable areas overnight there will still be a need for oil to use in shipping food from farms, for those living in rural areas where mass transit would be a waste of money, and other situations where personal transit is needed.
I agree that high prices are good for the longterm, but Americans are short term and they are falling for John McCain’s energy scams, because it sounds like a fix to their immediate issues. And his oil lobbyist filled campaign is more than happy to exploit the high gas prices, so they can continue to over charge customers until the last drop of oil has been drilled.
Americans are short-term. That is a problem. Because the world does not end tomorrow—it goes on, stretching off into some far-away, undetermined time and place. The world is not short-term. These problems of our country and of the world are not short-term. We need to develop a long-term attitude. Instant-gratification will just not cut it. John McCain’s energy ideas may be scams (scams which some Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, partook of), but both McCain and Obama are addressing the instant-gratification problem of high gas prices and not the long-term problem of moving to cleaner sources of fuel. Obama and McCain are both seeking quick-fixes to the short term. The fact that Obama is doing so undermines his support for a tax credit for alternative fuels, because, if the oil prices go down, the demand for alternative fuels go down, and a tax credit as such would not be in demand. I don’t see any striking difference between the two candidates on this particular question. I am not aligned with McCain and Obama concerning this short-term energy policy; in light of long-term effects, I am not inclined towards lowering gas prices. Of course, I am not running for political office, but, really, that is no excuse.
I defiantly want to see someone who will be more friendly to transit options other than cars, and Obama’s defintly that person, but if he’s ever going to win he’ll have to reach out to the uninformed people. The oil and car companies make a clear effort to distort these issues as demonstrated by this recent FOX report that was (coincidently?) sponsored by Toyota Highlander.
Congestion pricing is baaaaaaaaaaaad. They tried to do it here in NYC, and thank god it failed(God bless Sheldon Silver!!!). You talk about it as so simple. I hate the train and the bus. I like to be driven. And it ain’t cool when I am charged 8 bucks just to go to Manhattan to get my muffin!
Gas Tax holiday would be a good idea. Obama should think about flip-flopping on this one.
They don’t have any good muffins in Brooklyn? What a waste of gas to drive all the way to Manhattan.
Anyways did you know that road drivers subsidize less of their ride then transit users? According to TxDOT, a highway is even lucky to recoup 50% of it’s cost. Meanwhile the Washington Metro brings back 61% in fares, and other subway systems like in NYC, and San Fransisco bring in roughly the same amount.
Congestion pricing is about reducing the tax burden on people who don’t take advantage of a service (I’m sure New York charges for say dog licenses, because many people don’t own dogs). Since especially in New York, most people don’t own cars it doesn’t make since they have to heavily subsidize people that have the money to drive automobiles.
Congestion pricing has two benefits, it reduces congestion without spending taxes to add more lanes (which ironically increases congestion), and it takes an unfair tax burden off the people that are using the better transit option.
My objection to congestion pricing has proof behind it. It failed in London. It will fail in the US’s big cities.
The results have actually been mixed. Congestion has been reduced, various pollutants have fallen between 7 and 24 percent, and road crashes have been reduced. However transit usage has only increased slightly, and some retail locations report losing revenue, though numbers show the overall effect was flat, meaning some retailers saw an increase in shoppers.