Wednesday, March 3, 2010


From an Instapundit link,

CHANGE! To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.

I was only a kid when Carter was president, but one thing I do remember is gas lines. I don't think that $7/gallon gas will produce lines, necessarily, but it will be something people remember about the Obama presidency. And, I suppose that an alternate way to make people drive less would be to limit the supply of gasoline, which would cause gas lines. Oh, but taxes would be so much nicer!

$7/gallon gas would be another job killer. People won't be able to justify traveling 45-60 minutes to a job when the cost of getting there triples. That is in addition to the doubling/tripling of gasoline in the past couple of years. The differential cost could be a utility bill for some, or going out to dinner every so often for another.

Severe inflation of any kind will have this crippling effect, but this rise in cost would be artificial with the intent of curbing green house gases. So, if they can't get Cap-and-Trade, I guess this is one possibility to achieve a similar purpose. I suppose that ideally there will be an equal increase in the ability to commute in less green-house emission ways that cost less. I'm sure the first will be true, but second will not. Even now, traveling by BART may be preferable on some levels (inconvenient in others), but it's not necessarily more economical - especially if you're traveling with more than one person.

OTOH, If he doesn't find a way to decrease fuel emissions by 14% from 2005-2020, another campaign promise will again be broken.

Of course, a failure to meet the EPA deadline by 2020 will fall in the next administration. Similarly, the fall out from health care reform, i.e., the realization of rationing, higher taxes, and decreased innovation won't happen until then, either. Deflecting blame to someone else is par for the course.

$7/gallon gas is a very bad solution. I bet there are less penalizing solutions, if they look for them. If they're set on spending billions of dollars on green energy, what about subsidizing green alternatives so that they're actually cheaper than the more pollution causing traditional sources. Wouldn't that solve it w/o destroying the economy (even more than now)? The scary part is contemplating that an option that doesn't include raising taxes defies their real purpose (as in Cap and Trade).

No comments:

Post a Comment