The Truly Best Energy Policy? Keep Gas Prices High

[jeffrey]

Imagine for a minute, just a minute, that someone running for president was able to actually tell the truth, the real truth, to the American people about what would be the best — I mean really the best — energy policy for the long-term economic health and security of our country. I realize this is a fantasy, but play along with me for a minute. What would this mythical, totally imaginary, truth-telling candidate say?

For starters, he or she would explain that there is no short-term fix for gasoline prices. Prices are what they are as a result of rising global oil demand from India, China and a rapidly growing Middle East on top of our own increasing consumption, a shortage of “sweet” crude that is used for the diesel fuel that Europe is highly dependent upon and our own neglect of effective energy policy for 30 years.

Cynical ideas, like the McCain-Clinton summertime gas-tax holiday, would only make the problem worse, and reckless initiatives like the Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep offer to subsidize gasoline for three years for people who buy its gas guzzlers are the moral equivalent of tobacco companies offering discounted cigarettes to teenagers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/opinion/28friedman.html

[Broken Arrow]

Haha, you want to know something crazy? I actually thought of that before (but never posted it). While I don't actually like paying too much for anything, including gas, I have to admit it's nice to have a general mindset change towards fuel-efficiency. Though I don't actually count on it, I hope fuel-efficiency sticks this time.

[sweeps]

There's a difference between a gradual long-term rise in gas prices and the runaway gas prices we're currently experiencing. One encourages reducing energy usage and developing energy alternatives. The other just wrecks jobs and people's standard of living.

[geojen]

Are prices really "running away" though? I read an article yesterday in Slate that said basically, when you account for inflation, we are paying the same price for gas that we paid in 1922. So, if that is true, then prices are not running anywhere. In fact, they should be much, much higher to reflect their true costs.

[Broken Arrow]

geojen, that's a good point, and with inflation accounted for, I don't think it's that bad either.

I suppose, in the minds of the average citizen that is going to get a tank of gas, it's running away. Hence the mentality shift towards fuel-efficiency, which I approve of.

[sweeps]

Actually the article says we're paying 20% more than we paid in 1922 after accounting for inflation. And note that 1922 was a 60-year high. (See graph.)

But regardless, I don't have as much a problem with the actual price of gas as the rate in which it has climbed. It's gone from $2.10 to $4.00 today in just 16 months. That is painful.

[geojen]

Actually the article says we're paying 20% more than we paid in 1922 after accounting for inflation. And note that 1922 was a 60-year high. (See graph.)

But regardless, I don't have as much a problem with the actual price of gas as the rate in which it has climbed. It's gone from $2.10 to $4.00 today in just 16 months. That is painful.

Even though I think that prices are not at the level they should be, I agree that the rate of change is shocking for people who have not thought much about gas before. Perhaps if over the years, the government had let prices adjust naturally as they should have, the rate wouldn't be so fast today? I don't know, I'm just guessing.

Either way, you have to admit that is rate of change is having a huge impact on the mentality of drivers toward conservation and fuel efficiency, and that is nothing but positive.

[sweeps]

I'm with you... I'd love to be off our dependence of oil right now. And if this isn't putting the issue forefront into people's minds, I don't know what is.

But the infrastructure changes that are needed are massive. People can't immediately change jobs. They can't immediately move within biking distance of their workplace. They can't immediately swap out their car for an electric car. Companies can't all of a sudden stop trucking their goods to places, or stop using oil-based materials in their products.

People need some time to adjust.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

The 1922 comparison is not terribly helpful for me in understanding the effect of gasoline prices. We did not yet have an economy that so relied on gasoline. Gasoline was for cars which were still somewhat a luxury item. Railroads and barges were the big movers of goods and raw materials, and for mid to long distances, of people. Horses of tradespeople were still to clatter down the streets of my neighborhood for another 20+ years. Cities were not yet designed around cars. Even suburbs were possible because of commuter trains, not because of cars.

It sounds to me that if we are saying that gasoline is relatively little more expensive now than in 1922, then we are admitting that it is a higher end consumer item.

[Sporkman]

[i]Imagine for a minute, just a minute, that someone running for president was able to actually tell the truth, the real truth, to the American people about what would be the best — I mean really the best — energy policy for the long-term economic health and security of our country. I realize this is a fantasy, but play along with me for a minute. What would this mythical, totally imaginary, truth-telling candidate say?

This candidate is imaginary because he/she wouldn't have the slightest chance of getting elected.

[zooracer]

This candidate is imaginary because he/she wouldn't have the slightest chance of getting elected.

that is correct.
Whether you vote for the dem or the repub. you are not getting anything NEW.
You are voting for the same ole thing.
Want proof? Just look at the voting records in congress.
With every single bill, just enough repub's or dem's cross over to get it to pass.

We have no choice during a presidential election.