New laws should address long-term energy concerns--even if they lead to higher energy prices.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
By Kevin Bullis
As gas prices soar, it may get more difficult for Congress to enact the sort of legislation that can address long-term energy and climate concerns. As oil prices continue to flirt with the $100 mark, the government warns that gas prices will increase for the holidays, and the New York Times reports that some analysts expect $4 a gallon of gas by spring. The same report suggests that lawmakers are feeling pressure to pass some sort of energy legislation before the year is out. (Separate energy bills were passed by both houses earlier this year, but differences between them and veto threats have stalled the legislation.) In response to this pressure, a scaled-down version of the energy legislation might be passed.
If such a law does something to cut fuel prices in the short term, it may do more harm than good. Instead, legislators should focus on long-term solutions, including requirements for higher fuel efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources. Last week, the International Energy Agency issued a bleak report urging efficiency measures in light of possible supply crunches in coming years. While such measures could improve prices in the long term, in the near term, they would likely increase costs to consumers as utilities use more-expensive sources of electricity, and automakers add fuel-saving technologies to vehicles.
But higher costs may be just what's necessary to urge consumers to make choices that decrease dependence on fossil fuels, compelling them to switch to more-efficient lightbulbs, appliances, and vehicles. One problem is that those who will be most affected by high energy prices--the poor--are also the people least able to afford new, efficient technology. Legislation that leads to increased energy prices but is coupled with subsidies for more-efficient technology could do the most good in the long term.
Comments
Phineas on 11/16/2007 at 9:16 PM
42
Every solution to the 1979 oil crisis had the opposite effect of what was intended. Taxation made oil more expensive.
Rationing will create a black market and corruption.
If we must struggle with scarce oil, government mandates will expose us as fools.
gabrielg01 on 11/17/2007 at 2:09 PM
270
It should come from investing massively in R&D for alternative energies, and alternative ways to use energy (more efficient power trains for vehicles).
It should be like a major government lead research initiative like the Manhattan project, the Apollo program, or the Human Genome Project. It could be done, and it would be far less costly than the current war in Iraq.
We just need leaders who are smarter, less greedy and corrupt than the current Cheney enterprise.
dmm on 11/20/2007 at 1:09 PM
128
bkshilo on 11/20/2007 at 4:14 PM
13
Americans are always fixated on expecting one person to solve all the country's problems. We then elect that person president and end up blaming them for not solving enough problems.
Problems are endless, as is our capacity for believing in painless solutions.
gabrielg01 on 11/22/2007 at 2:16 PM
270
But no one can deny that this administration is probably the worst one in the last 50 years. And problems, not even endless problems, are not an excuse for crass incompetence.
rnarlock on 11/22/2007 at 9:35 AM
3
Hydrogen can be produced on-site anywhere electricity and water are available. A few more nukes would give us the options of pure electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen internal combustion. The market could then decide which method it prefers as the technologies mature. Then we could get past the ridiculous hybrid fad in which we are now stuck.
The government's only role in this is to clear the way for more nukes, as it is clearly in the national interest to get us off of oil. It is not for the government to decide to waste our tax dollars on subsidies to encourage poor people to throw out a somewhat less efficient device. Governments don't tend to consider questions like "At what energy-cost do we manufacture energy-efficient appliances, light bulbs, hybrids etc. to replace the less efficient?", "Does it exceed the benefit?" Their interest is in grandstanding to get re-elected, the only benefit they really care about.
McMillan968 on 11/23/2007 at 11:11 PM
38
In cheap but realistic way.
Sounds great doesn't it??THAT would only take our gov't what 40 years??300 billion dollars??
So lets get going lol after 10 years to debate it and lets see another 10 years to study it and another 30 billion our grandchildren MIGHT be able to use it.Of coarse the oil will be gone by then right so it better work.
dmm on 11/26/2007 at 4:02 PM
128
Second, we should NOT tax specific ways to consume energy, nor subsidize specific technologies. Why? Because energy efficiency depends crucially on context.
My favorite example is lightbulbs. Regular incandescent lightbulbs "waste" a lot of electricity by turning it into heat rather than light. However, if the temperature outside is cold enough that your furnace is working, then that lightbulb heat is not wasted at all -- it is heating your house. Same with "inefficient" refrigerators, TVs, washers, dryers, etc.
The point is, if you use any of these things in winter, they are almost free, because you would have had to heat the house anyway. Of course, in the summer it is opposite: their efficiency is even worse than advertised, because all that waste heat has to be removed by air conditioning, which has its own inefficiencies.
However: In summer, the days are longer, so people don't use light bulbs as much. People are outside more, so they might not watch as much TV. Summer clothes are smaller and lighter, so you can wash more at a time. People can easily hang their clothes out to dry.
And don't even get me started on cars. Who is more eco-minded: the guy who carpools with 2 others in his CAFE-busting maxivan getting 15 mpg, or the guy who drives the same distance alone in a hybrid getting 45 mpg?
All of this is to say that the lifestyle choices of individual consumers (i.e., the context) have a more powerful effect on energy consumption (and carbon production) than technology or special-interest legislation. Policy makers need to target ONLY the problem -- greenhouse gases -- and leave everything else for their constituents to decide. Collectively, we are far smarter than the most brilliant policy wonk.