JUST ENGAGE

Filling my gas tank is much more painful than it used to be.  With gas averaging $3.61 a gallon last week, I'm spending about $45 with each visit to the pump.  Thankfully, my hybrid can drive 550 miles each tank – but that does not negate the pain of each fill up, regardless of the frequency. 

In a rash attempt to alleviate this discomfort, our political leaders have proposed a "gas tax holiday."  For three months, we will (theoretically) spend about 18 cents less per gallon of fuel, or about 2 dollars each visit to the gas station.  Over the course of the summer holiday, the blog Autopia reports that this proposal will save the average American about $30.  Of course, it's unlikely we'll actually see this "tax break" at all, because oil companies will simply raise the price of gas by almost the size of the tax cut.  Americans will continue to pay roughly $3.61 a gallon – but now, our nation will lose billions in potential tax revenue, which could be used to maintain our nation's infrastructure.   And at a time when unemployment rates are already rising, the proposed gas tax holiday could cost more than 300,000 jobs.

The flaws of this approach are clear.  Automobiles are the second largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions. Shouldn't we be trying to reduce the amount Americans drive – rather than creating incentives for people to drive more?  And what better way to incentivize carpooling and public transportation than to raise the price of gas?  In fact, the market is already creating its own incentives, with AAA reporting a decline in miles traveled and sales of compact and subcompact cars reaching record highs last month – a trend Ford's chief sales analyst has called "the most dramatic segment shift" in his 31-year career. And if we want to encourage the use of clean-burning alternatives to fossil fuels and coal, shouldn't we give tax breaks for those alternatives?  Sadly, our leaders are painfully misdirected. They are offering a tax break on the behavior they hope to discourage – yet, as I described in my February 12 post, they have failed to extend tax breaks on activities they should reward. 

More than 2000 years ago, our ancestors fell victim to a similar scheme.  Left alone in the wilderness at the base of Mount Sinai, the Israelites built a golden calf in a desperate attempt to find security.  The calf, of course, did not offer any answers.  To the contrary, when Moses descended from the mountain, he rebuked the Israelites and repeated his journey to retrieve the Ten Commandments.  The calf was an exercise in futility – a false prophet that never brought its intended reward.

Today, it is our leaders who offer a false prophet – suggesting $30 could ease a troubled economy or eliminate our dependence on foreign extremists who control our oil markets.  Like the Israelites, we need strong leaders who can guide us through times of adversity.  We need leaders who will require our cars to drive farther on less fuel and who will support a growing transit system, who will invest in research on alternative energy and provide incentives for the people who use it.  In short, we need leaders who have the courage to introduce policies that will actually reduce our dependence on oil – so that it does not matter if prices rise. 

Climate change is expensive. 

Frankly, I don't think responding to climate change is what's going to drive our economy over a cliff.  Doing nothing, however, just might.  And on this point, EPA and I seem to be in agreement.  About a week ago, EPA released it's analysis of the Lieberman-Warner bill – and the report confirmed what we knew all along:  we can cut our greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 60% without harming the U.S. economy.  As Senator Warner (the Bills Republican sponsor) says, "You can control greenhouse gas emissions in a manner that leaves the economy whole and is not burdensome on consumers.”

In fact, EPA forecast that U.S. GDP would grow by some 80 percent between 2010 and 2030 under the bill -- only 1 percent below what it would otherwise have been.  In other words, national climate change legislation will only modestly slow a thriving economy.

And that's only half the story.  The EPA analysis assumes the U.S. economy will continue to grow unabated absent climate change legislation.  In other words, the baseline disregards the costs of climate change.  It disregards the rising seas and dying forests and failing agriculture.  It disregards the cost of responding to hurricanes and elevating houses. And yet, in one basic regard, EPA and I agree: responding to climate change will not drive the U.S. economy over a cliff.