This morning Robert Samuelson grades Sens. Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s stated energy policies, giving them failing grades:
Forget about a candid national conversation on energy. As John McCain and Barack Obama campaigned last week, that much seemed clear. To lower oil prices (which were already dropping), Obama proposed releasing 10 percent of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is an atrocious idea. The SPR was intended as insurance against a catastrophic loss of oil from wars, embargoes, terrorism or natural disasters. It should not be manipulated cynically for political advantage. Earlier, McCain suggested suspending the 18.4-cents-a-gallon federal gasoline tax; that was another bad and expedient idea.
No doubt Obama and McCain want to relieve Americans’ discomfort at the pump. The trouble is that Americans should feel discomforted. We want a return to cheap, secure oil; we want painless pathways to lower greenhouse-gas emissions. These are fantasies; they should not be indulged.
In his column Mr. Samuelson basically says what I’ve been saying here for the last few weeks: that the candidates are engaging in demagoguery on energy, that most of their proposals are nonsense or are worse than the disease they’re trying to cure, that we’re going to have a fossil fuel-based energy economy for the foreseeable future, and that it would be more prudent to confront that fact forthrightly than to deny that’s the case. He just says it on the opinion page of The Washington Post.
Samuelson also, as I do, prefers a straightforward carbon tax to the “cap and trade” policy advocated by both candidates. I simply feel that “cap and trade” presents too many opportunities for political connivance and bureaucratic red tape. That was, after all, the experience in Europe. I’d feel better about it if somebody could point to an unalloyed and unambiguous success story for “cap and trade”.
So, is there anything we can do? Sure. First and foremost, remove the subsidies. Let prices rise. If you’re concerned about ameliorating the circumstances of the poor, put more money into public transportation and housing closer to where people work.
