The Seventh Sense

Republicans' Boycott of Climate Change Bill Committee Fails

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee have been working for weeks on a bill to address climate change, and Republicans on the committee wanted to stop it.  Their tactic?  Not showing up.  Republicans were aware of committee rules saying that no business could go forward unless two members of the opposite party were present.  So, every day this week, they sent one member, who would make a perfunctory appearance, then leave.

It didn't work:

With Republican boycotting the proceedings, Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) relied on a little used interpretation of committee rules to move the legislation. Traditionally, two minority members are required to conduct committee business.

Boxer said that she passed the bill “in full accordance with long-standing committee and Senate rules.”

“This is not a procedure we wanted; it’s a procedure that’s available to us,” said Boxer. “The majority has to be able to do its work…otherwise the whole Senate could come to a screeching halt.”

It won't be long before Republicans start to complain that climate legislation is going through without their input, etc., and waah waah waaah how unfair it is.

The thing about bipartisanship is that both parties -- at a minimum -- have to show up.  Republicans can't complain now (or later) about how they were cut out of the loop when they themselves, on their own initiative, boycotted legislative procedure.

Stats From The Cash-For-Clunkers Program

The Top Ten Cash for Clunkers Trade-Ins:

1. 1998 Ford Explorer
2. 1997 Ford Explorer
3. 1996 Ford Explorer
4. 1999 Ford Explorer
5. Jeep Grand Cherokee
6. Jeep Cherokee
7. 1995 Ford Explorer
8. 1994 Ford Explorer
9. 1997 Ford Windstar
10. 1999 Dodge Caravan

The Top Ten Cash for Clunkers New Cars:

1. Ford Focus
2. Honda Civic
3. Toyota Corolla
4. Toyota Prius
5. Ford Escape
6. Toyota Camry
7. Dodge Caliber
8. Hyundai Elantra
9. Honda Fit
10. Chevy Cobalt

[Source]

Smart, money-saving, and good for the environment.

Conservatives are now deriding the C-4-C program as an example of a government program that doesn't work and was mismanaged.  To the extent that there was a government screw-up, it was only because it was so popular.  “Cash for Clunkers” — the government program giving people a $4,500 voucher to trade in an old vehicle for a newer, more fuel efficient one — has been so successful that Congress is considering appropriating more money for it to continue.

Dumb Idea

AP:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he wants to consider taxing motorists based on how many miles they drive rather than how much gasoline they burn—an idea that has angered drivers in some states where it has been proposed.

The reason, says LaHood, is that gas taxes don't cover the cost of the federal and state highway and road infrastructure.

Okay, fine.  But a mileage tax isn't as good as a gas tax.  A mileage tax will motivate people to drive less, but it won't incentivize you to by a fuel-efficient car.  A gas tax, on the other hand, will do both.  Right?

Speedy Trials? Not In These Bad Economic Times

This is bad:

The economic storm has come to this: Justice is being delayed or disrupted in state courtrooms across the country.

Financially strapped New Hampshire has become a poster child for the problem. Among other cost-cutting measures, state courts will halt for a month all civil and criminal jury trials early next year to save $73,000 in jurors' per diems. Officials warn they may add another four-week suspension.

"It brings our system almost to a screeching halt," said county prosecutor James M. Reams. His aides are scrambling to reschedule 77 criminal trials that were on the February docket.

Perhaps it saves $73,000 in jurors' per diems, but I imagine a lot of those savings will be eaten up by having to house criminals an extra month in prison.

Then again, if they do it in January and February, I'll bet they save a bundle on heating costs for the courthouses.

Fueling Your Car With Your Fat

It's possible:

Love handles can power a car? Frighteningly, yes. Fat--whether animal or vegetable--contains triglycerides that can be extracted and turned into diesel. Poultry companies such as Tyson are looking into powering their trucks on chicken schmaltz, and biofuel start-ups such as Nova Biosource are mixing beef tallow and pig lard with more palatable sources such as soybean oil. Mike Shook of Agri Process Innovations, a builder of biodiesel plants, says this year's batch of U.S. biodiesel was likely more than half animal-derived since the price of soybeans soared.

A gallon of grease will get you about a gallon of fuel, and drivers can get about the same amount of mileage from fat fuel as they do from regular diesel, according to Jenna Higgins of the National Biodiesel Board. Animal fats need to undergo an additional step to get rid of free fatty acids not present in vegetable oils, but otherwise, there's no difference, she says.

In fact, someone gruesomely has done it.  Beverly Hills doctor Craig Alan Bittner turned the fat he removed from patients into biodiesel that fueled his Ford SUV and his girlfriend's Lincoln Navigator. The prpblem is, it's illegal in California to use human medical waste to power vehicles, and Bittner is being investigated by the state's public health department.

Oxford Word Of The Year: "Hypermiling"

Annoucement here, from the New Oxford American Dictionary.

I actually know this word, because I actually do this.

"Hypermiling" is defined as "an attempt to maximize gas mileage by making fuel-conserving adjustments to one’s car and one’s driving techniques."

I do this all the time, and I expect most hybrid drivers do.  When you get below a certain mph, the gas engine cuts off and the battery takes over.  (Technically, the battery assists the engine at higher speeds, but you can't tell).  So when I drive into my neighborhood, with smaller streets and children playing, I like to lift my foot off the pedal just enough to turn off the engine.  And I silently glide through the streets and down my driveway.

More for Oxford:

Rather than aiming for good mileage or even great mileage, hypermilers seek to push their gas tanks to the limit and achieve hypermileage, exceeding EPA ratings for miles per gallon.

Many of the methods followed by hypermilers are basic common sense—drive the speed limit, avoid hills and stop-and-go traffic, maintain proper tire pressure, don’t let your car idle, get rid of excess cargo—but others practiced by some devotees may seem slightly eccentric:
• driving without shoes (to increase the foot’s sensitivity on the pedals)
• parking so that you don’t have to back up to exit the space
• “ridge-riding” or driving with your tires lined up with the white line at the edge of the road to avoid driving through water-filled ruts in the road when it’s raining

The American Automobile Assocation has issued press releases saying that certain hypermiling techniques are dangerous.  Like over-inflating your tires.  Yeah, ok.  That seems like a no-brainer to me.  Still, there is some blowback from the AAA criticisms.

Anyway, it may be less of an issue now, with gas prices under $2.00.  But I expect hypermiling to make a comeback.

Four other finalists for word of the year:

• frugalista - person who leads a frugal lifestyle, but stays fashionable and healthy by swapping clothes, buying second-hand, growing own produce, etc.
• moofer - a mobile out of office worker - ie. someone who works away from a fixed workplace, via Blackberry/laptop/wi-fi etc. (also verbal noun, moofing)
• topless meeting - a meeting in which the participants are barred from using their laptops, Blackberries, cellphones, etc.
• toxic debt - mainly sub-prime debts that are now proving so disastrous to banks. They were parceled up and sent around the global financial system like toxic waste, hence the allusion

Waxman In

Dingell is out and Waxman is in as Energy And Commerce Chair.  That may seem like inside-politics baseball, but it is kind of a big deal. This is a huge victory for environmentalists. TPM has the details:

Dingell, who first entered the House way back when Eisenhower was president, had been the head Democrat on this committee ever since 1981.

But many of the more liberal members over the years came to view him as too friendly to Michigan's auto industry and hostile to environmentalists -- especially on issues like climate change and carbon limits.

It also shakes up Congress' seniority system and is yet another sign that the political momentum is squarely in the camp of aggressive Dems. Waxman played a lead role in staking out a far more aggressive stance towards the Bush administration than many other more cautious Dems would take.

The willingness to address the global warming crisis could be the single most important change ushered in by the Obama administration - and now with Waxman taking over from Dingell, the prospects for real action just got that much closer to realization. 

Time Travel

I saw a station selling gas at $2.05 a gallon this morning, and for a split second, it was as if I had travelled back in time.  I wonder how long it was when gas around here was at $2.00 or under.

Turns out, not that long ago...

 

In Christmas 2005, gas prices were around the $2.00 mark.

The Price Of Oil

A pretty amazing graph, wouldn't you say?

 

When Bush came into office, oil was at $23 a barrel.  It's now just below $60, but was as high as $140 just a few months ago.

Closer To Home

(1)  Oil prices plunged today, which is good, because we'll see lower gas prices.  Too bad we won't have much around here.

(2)  Wachovia, my bank, got bought today by Citicorp.  I'm assured that my money is safe.  Riiiiight.

Gas Shortages In NC?

Last week, I went to fill up my gas tank.  The station I pulled into had plastic bags over the "regular" pumps and over the "mid-quality" pumps.  I was stuck buying the "premium" gas.  It was $3.99 per gallon, which was what regular was at in July and August, so I wasn't that upset.

But around the office, I have heard similar stories -- people unable to get gas.

Why is there nothing in the local news about this?  I've read there were outages in Nashville and other parts of Tennessee.  Even as far east as Asheville, NC and Western NC.  But not around here.

What's going on?

UPDATE:  Hmmmm.... apparently there are spotty supply problems throughout the South.  I wish the media would get on this more....

UPDATE:  I found this...

The executive director of North Carolina’s petroleum association says consumers should not worry. By the end of the month things should be back on track.

Well, okay.  I'm running low, so I guess I'll start my hunt on the way home from work....

And As If Things Aren't Bad Enough...

...the price of oil, which has been going down steadily for the past two months, just jumped up $25 per barrel.

It was down to $100 per barrel, down from its all-time high (in July) of $147.27.  Now it's trading in the 125 dollar range.

All You Need To Know About "Drill, Baby, Drill"

That's right.  It's only going to end up a comparative drop in the bucket.... by 2030!!!  So says the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

I Think It's Safe To Say Obama Won The "Tire Gauge" Battle

Obama, yesterday, in Berea, Ohio:

"Let me make a point about efficiency, because my Republican opponents - they don’t like to talk about efficiency..."

"You know the other day I was in a town hall meeting and I laid out my plans for investing $15 billion a year in energy efficient cars and a new electricity grid and somebody said, 'well, what can I do? what can individuals do?'

"So I told them something simple... I said, 'You know what? You can inflate your tires to the proper levels and that if everybody in America inflated their tires to the proper level, we would actually probably save more oil than all the oil we'd get from John McCain drilling right below his feet there, or wherever he was going to drill.'

"So now the Republicans are going around - this is the kind of thing they do. I don't understand it! They’re going around, they're sending like little tire gauges, making fun of this idea as if this is 'Barack Obama's energy plan.'

"Now two points, one, they know they're lying about what my energy plan is, but the other thing is they're making fun of a step that every expert says would absolutely reduce our oil consumption by 3 to 4 percent. It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.

"You know, they think it is funny that they are making fun of something that is actually true. They need to do their homework. Because this is serious business. Instead of running ads about Paris Hilton and Britney Spears they should go talk to some energy experts and actually make a difference."

(Emphasis mine)

McCain, later yesterday:

The surprise came during a telephone town hall meeting McCain held on Tuesday with voters in Pennsylvania.
   
“Obama said a couple of days ago says we all should inflate our tires. I don’t disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it,” McCain said.

So, to sum up, the McCain campain spent several days mocking Obama for a common-sensical answer to a question about "what we as individuals can do, right now, to help with the energy crisis", and then, after days of mocking Obama, agreed that Obama's was actually correct and followed the advice of energy experts.

*******

Good analysis from Jonathan Singer:

The McCain campaign appears intent on trying to win the daily media battles -- even to the bane of crafting a broader narrative on what their campaign is about, what their candidate stands for, and what type of President he would be. I've always thought this to be a risky strategy; as much as the daily ups and downs affect the ultimate outcome, in the end voters decide on the feelings they have on a candidate, which stem not only from the back and forth but even more from events like the debates and the conventions.

But it is a tremendously risky strategy when the meme starts to take hold that a candidate will say anything -- even things that he distances himself from just days later -- to get elected. We've already seen this from McCain, who has changed his position on almost every single major (and even minor) issue facing the country, and whose campaign has been forced to walk back criticisms of Obama (think the visit to the military base in Germany or the claims about Obama's tax plan that were exposed as wholly false). Now McCain is being forced to back away from yet another claim, again feeding the story line that he will say anything (even claims he must walk back just days later) to become President. And as this meme takes hold, it gets that much more difficult for McCain to claw his way to the White House.

(Emphasis mine).

And indeed, it's true.  I've picked up a new theme in the bowels of the lefty blogosphere: "McCain doesn't speak for the McCain campaign".  That's probably true, and should be repeated often.  It seems that McCain's campaign is dead set on positioning McCain in ridiculous positions, mocking Obama, and then McCain walks back a few days later. 

Maybe this is intentional.  It's a way of smearing Obama without having McCain smear Obama.  But if that's the case, it's not destined to work.  After all, few people are going to distinguish between the McCain campaign and McCain himself, especially when he uses attack ads that end with "I'm John McCain, and I approved this message".  It also is going to raise questions about the kind of leader McCain will make -- I mean, if it appears that he cannot control the message being propogated by his campaign staff, then how can he lead a country?

*** UPDATE *** Obama is taking advantage.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday taunted Republican candidate John McCain for agreeing on the importance of keeping tires inflated as an energy-conservation measure after having joined the GOP in mocking the idea.

“It will be interesting to watch this debate between John McCain and John McCain,” Obama said as he campaigned in Indiana with Sen. Evan Bayh, widely considered a top-tier candidate for running mate.

This Tire Gauge Thing Depresses Me

To summarize, Obama mentioned to voters in Missouri that there are things individuals can do to help conserve energy, including bringing their cars in for regular tune ups, and keeping their tires properly inflated. He added that the amount of energy to be saved by routine auto maintenance is comparable to the savings we’d get from the GOP’s coastal drilling policy.

Unhinged conservatives everywhere, including McCain himself, began to argue that keeping tires inflated was the sum total of Obama’s energy policy.  "Hahahaha, what an idiot!"  they cry.  "Obama thinks we can cure our energy problem and dependance on foreign oil merely by keeping our tires inflated?"

Well, no, morons.  What Obama said isn't particularly difficult or nuanced.  He said there that keeping tires inflated is one of the many low-cost and easy things that we can, and should, be doing.  To say that it is the sum of his entire energy plan is, of course, insane.

Then, to a lesser extent, some on the right argued that Obama had exaggerated the potential efficiency benefits associated with tire care.  But this more reasoned argument, as it turns out, isn’t true either. Time’s Michael Grunwald sets the record straight.

[W]ho’s really out of touch? The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right. […]

The real problem with the attacks on his tire-gauge plan is that efforts to improve conservation and efficiency happen to be the best approaches to dealing with the energy crisis — the cheapest, cleanest, quickest and easiest ways to ease our addiction to oil, reduce our pain at the pump and address global warming. It’s a pretty simple concept: if our use of fossil fuels is increasing our reliance on Middle Eastern dictators while destroying the planet, maybe we ought to use less.

The RNC is trying to make the tire gauge a symbol of unseriousness, as if only the fatuous believed we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil without doing the bidding of Big Oil. But the tire gauge is really a symbol of a very serious piece of good news: we can use significantly less energy without significantly changing our lifestyle.

It creates an odd dynamic — conservative Republicans want Americans to believe there’s nothing individuals can do; they should just wait for the government to allow additional coastal drilling.

Grunwald added the right actually has this entire issue backwards.

[T]hings like tire gauges can reduce gas bills and carbon emissions now, with little pain and at little cost and without the ecological problems and oil-addiction problems associated with offshore drilling. These are the proverbial win-win-win solutions, reducing the pain of $100 trips to the gas station by reducing trips to the gas station.

Even if one disagrees with the numbers about keeping well-maintained cars, in the aggregate, will help, is there anyone who doubts that it will help conserve?  Anyone?  And isn't it just plain irresponsbile for a presidential candidate to mock those ideas in a time of a national energy crisis?

So that's why the whole tire gauge thing depresses me.  A sound, reasonable comment, which is undeniable gets turned into political fodder and makes countless thousands of Americans actually believe -- incorrectly -- that there is nothing we as individuals can do to help conserve energy.

The New McCain Ad Against Obama Is Staggeringly Dishonest On So Many Levels

McCain's new TV ad, "Pump", blames Obama for rising gas prices.

On its face, it is silly.  Obama has been a one-term senator.  How can one man be responsible for rising gas prices?

Here are some very worthwhile critisicms of the ad:

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD:   "John McCain has often said that he would run a respectful campaign, but he never said anything about running an honest one. [...] Did he forget that his own campaign said: '...allowing new offshore drilling would have no immediate impact on supplies or gas prices.' Did he forget all that or is he just lying?
• Drum: "Is the McCain campaign losing it? In an ad today about spiraling gasoline prices, the narrator asks portentously: 'Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?' This is accompanied by [Obama's picture] and background noise of a crowd chanting 'Obama! Obama!' Are they serious? They're going to try to convince the American public that Barack Obama is responsible for $4 gasoline? Or is this one of those pseudo-ads that never really gets aired anywhere and is released just to see if it can get some press attention from suckers like me? Regardless, this is really lame."
• Benen: "For McCain, it appears the equation is simple. If abandoning honor and honesty will give him the presidency, then so be it. The truth, McCain has concluded, is for losers. To anyone who cares about reality, the ad doesn't make a lick of sense. McCain has to hope, desperately, that we're all idiots. For example, the ad says gas prices are high 'because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America.' How's that, exactly? No one is saying no to 'drilling in America.' There's all kinds of drilling in America. There's drilling in U.S. waters, and on U.S. land. I don't know of a single U.S. policy maker who wants 'drilling in America' to stop. Worse, the ad wants Americans to believe that prices would be lower if there was more 'drilling in America.' McCain knows that's not true, but hopes to fool just enough people, playing them for suckers. It's shameful."
• Yglesias: "John McCain's new ad says that Barack Obama's refusal to open America's coastline to drilling is to blame for high gas prices. [...] They say nobody ever went wrong underestimating the intelligence of the voting public, but it is staggering that you can't find any credible people anywhere prepared to argue that McCain's drilling schemes will bring any short-term relief from high gas prices or that the long-run price reductions would be anything other than tiny. Meanwhile, it's McCain who has no plan to help bolster alternative fuels and no plan to bolster alternatives to driving."

Lack of honesty aside, the ad simply doesn't work

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "I don't think McCain's attack will work on Obama, since it is saying something that Americans fundamentally don't believe. The ad suggests that prices are rising because of insufficient drilling, and that more drilling will lower prices. That isn't true, and polling suggests people know it isn't true. An ad that says something along the lines of 'this isn't a total solution, but it's a start' would be much more credible as an attack on Obama. [...] If you drilled everything there is in the US tomorrow and oil started coming out of the ground tomorrow, gas prices would drop by about three cents."

Al Gore, Plagerist, Offers A Convenient Truth

Me, on July 15, 2008, on this very blog, saying how it was possible to remove ourselves from being addicted to oil and gas energy, if we only had the gonads to make such a commitment:

"We put a man on the moon in less than ten years.  When Kennedy proposed doing it in 1960, the materials and technology to put a man on the moon hadn't been invented yet.  Yet, less than ten years later, there was good ol' Neil planting the flag on the Sea of Tranquilty."

Al Gore, yesterday:

"Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years....

When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon...

I will never forget the inspiration of those minutes... I watched along with hundreds of millions of others around the world as Neil Armstrong took one small step to the surface of the moon and changed the history of the human race."

But in all seriousness, Gore's proposal is exciting.  He seems to think it is possible to totally remove ourselves from the plague of oil and gas dependency IN TEN YEARS. 

You can read the full transcript here.  Ah, screw it.  I'll put the whole thing below the fold....

Or watch the video:

He plagerizes my Kennedy reference at 16:40.

UPDATE: The Oil Drum has some thoughts on whether or not Gore's plan this is realistic:

The short answer is: while 100% is probably unrealistic, it’s not unreasonable to expect to be able to get pretty close to that number (say, in the 50-90% range) in that timeframe, and it is very likely that it makes a LOT of sense economically.

Well, that alone makes it worth it.  Shoot high.

Read the post. It’s a little technical, and it’s a lot to get your head around, but it’s comprehensive and addresses three things:

1) is it technically feasible to build the requisite capacity within 12 years?
2) what will it cost, and what will it mean for power prices?
3) how can the intermittency issue be dealt with?

Jimmy Carter Stole My Solution Retroactively

This afternoon, I wrote a lengthy post about the gas crisis, and I proposed that the best solution to get us out of this mess would be a concerted national effort to ween ourselves off of oil and gas.  I wrote:

If a President were to annouce a serious national effort to develop new (and hopefully clean) technology for running our cars -- a national effort along the lines of the Manhatten Project or the NASA Mission to the Moon -- that announcement alone would affect the oil and gas commodity markets, and bring some price relief as soon as it was announced.

Irony or ironies, a President did come pretty close to doing just that.... 29 years ago to the day when I wrote the above words.  Jimmy Carter delivered a televised speech on July 15, 1979, and had to say this about the energy crisis:

...We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.

All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to true freedom for our nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our energy problem.

Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this nation, and it can also be the standard around which we rally. On the battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny.

In little more than two decades we've gone from a position of energy independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof. Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous toll on our economy and our people. This is the direct cause of the long lines which have made millions of you spend aggravating hours waiting for gasoline. It's a cause of the increased inflation and unemployment that we now face. This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation. The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them.

What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.

Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over 4-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day.

Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas. I'm announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow. These quotas will ensure a reduction in imports even below the ambitious levels we set at the recent Tokyo summit.

Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun.

I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this effort to replace 2-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day by 1990. The corporation I will issue up to $5 billion in energy bonds, and I especially want them to be in small denominations so that average Americans can invest directly in America's energy security.

Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.

These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans to Americans. These funds will go to fight, not to increase, inflation and unemployment.

Point four: I'm asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our nation's utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source.

Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the red tape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects.

We will protect our environment. But when this nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it.

Point six: I'm proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.

I ask Congress to give me authority for mandatory conservation and for standby gasoline rationing. To further conserve energy, I'm proposing tonight an extra $10 billion over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems. And I'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense -- I tell you it is an act of patriotism.

Our nation must be fair to the poorest among us, so we will increase aid to needy Americans to cope with rising energy prices. We often think of conservation only in terms of sacrifice. In fact, it is the most painless and immediate way of rebuilding our nation's strength. Every gallon of oil each one of us saves is a new form of production. It gives us more freedom, more confidence, that much more control over our own lives.

[...]

I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our nation's problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure honesty. And above all, I will act. We can manage the short-term shortages more effectively and we will, but there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice.

Twelve hours from now I will speak again in Kansas City, to expand and to explain further our energy program. Just as the search for solutions to our energy shortages has now led us to a new awareness of our Nation's deeper problems, so our willingness to work for those solutions in energy can strengthen us to attack those deeper problems.

I will continue to travel this country, to hear the people of America. You can help me to develop a national agenda for the 1980s. I will listen and I will act. We will act together. These were the promises I made three years ago, and I intend to keep them.

Little by little we can and we must rebuild our confidence. We can spend until we empty our treasuries, and we may summon all the wonders of science. But we can succeed only if we tap our greatest resources -- America's people, America's values, and America's confidence.

I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for an energy secure nation.

In closing, let me say this: I will do my best, but I will not do it alone. Let your voice be heard. Whenever you have a chance, say something good about our country. With God's help and for the sake of our nation, it is time for us to join hands in America. Let us commit ourselves together to a rebirth of the American spirit. Working together with our common faith we cannot fail.

Thank you and good night.

Emphasis added.

Now there were certain parts in that speech where his cadence was very Kennedy Man-on-the-Moon-before-this-decade-is-out-esque.  And this is Jimmy Carter we're talking about!

Of course, it never came to pass, because the following year, Republicans played the fear card over the Big Red Menace, and Ronald Reagan was voted into America.  America was treated to "Morning in America" ads featuring wheat thrashers and some such nonsense, and the whole Carter plan was thankfully forgotten.

Kind of wish your parents had listened to him, huh kids?

Why Are Gas Prices So High? (In Which I Solve The Problem)

Okay, since I've been on an economy/energy blogging tirade today, I think I'll answer the question on every person's mind: Why are gas prices so high?

I've wondered this myself.  Energy and economic aren't my forte, but I've done a lot of reading on it lately, and I think I can boil it down to (admittedly oversimplified) layman's terms.

The answer is quite simple.  Supply and demand.  As the demand for something goes up, the supply of it goes down (at least until more of it gets made).  And if the supply of something goes down, it become rarer.  And when things are rarer, the price goes up. 

Example: There's only one Mona Lisa, and everybody would LOVE to own it.  High demand, low supply.  And we can't make anymore.  Result?  The "price" of the Mona Lisa is "priceless". 

Example:  There's only a few hundred first edition copies of "The Velveteen Rabbit", and they're highly sought by book collectors.  High demand, low supply.  Price?  They're each worth $10,000 or higher.  By contrast, there's millions of recently-published versions of the "The Velveteen Rabbit".  Moderate demand, moderate supply to meet demand.  And they're worth $9.95 at Borders.

Supply and demand.  That's Economic 101. You with me so far?  Grasp that and you grasp the rest of this really long post.

So what's the deal with gas prices? 

Well, first of all, let's consider some things unique to gas, as opposed to, say, grain or some other commodity.  Prices for all commodities fluctuate, but gasoline prices are generally more volatile than prices of other goods.  Why?  Think about it.  If grain were explode in price the way gas has, consumers would substitute grain with some other food product.  Or go without.  Thus, demand for grain would go down.  And when demand goes down, prices go down.  For grain and most other commodities, it's self-regulating, in a sense -- what goes up in price goes down in demand, which in turn, cause prices to go back down.

But unlike grain, we can't substitute gas with something else (or go without).  We can't fill our tanks with something other than gas.  I mean, we COMPLAIN, but we still fill our tanks, don't we?  So from a market standpoint, we don't switch.  Which makes it different from grain. 

Okay, so what's the deal with supply and demand viz-a-viz gas?

Well, the supply has been relatively constant over the years.  I mean, sure, there have been situational things which cause the supply of crude oil to become scarce.  In the 1970's, the OPEC nations intentionally withheld the supply of gas, allowing it to just sit in the Middle East, in order to create a supply crisis, which drove up prices.  That wasn't very nice.  And certainly, conflicts in the Middle East create a strain on the supply of crude oil.  But generally speaking, supply has been relatively constant.

The thing that has really changed with gas... is the demand.  Let me 'splain.

You know how gas prices seem to spike up on Memorial Day weekend?  That's because demand is up, compared to supply.  That's a seasonal thing (and there is plenty of that -- gas prices are always higher in the summer due to increased demand -- more travelling, people using boats, etc.). 

But that demand increase is, like I say, a spike.  It doesn't explain the steady increase we've seen over the past few years.

No, the kind of demand I'm talking about is something else.

Specifically, it's this: China and India (especially China) are getting off their scooters, bikes, and rickshaws -- and buying cars.  This is a phenomenon that really has exploded in the last decade, as capitalism has crept into the Far East.

Now, I don't know if you've heard, but China and India?  LOTS of people in those countries.  So when they start driving, that's a heavy demand for gas.

Fuel energy, like everything else, takes place in a GLOBAL economy.  Don't think for a second that Exxon, BP, Mobil, etc. are American companies which make the lion's share of their money off of selling to Americans (or even Europeans).  They sell, as they should, do whoever will buy.  And if they have lots more customers competing for (roughly) the same supply of fuel, then the gas companies can (and do) raise prices.  Economics 101, baby.

You can cynically say that it is greed (and I often do), but actually, it's just capitalism.  It's just the free market.  Exxon is not a charity.  It exists to make money, which benefits its shareholders (which may include you, either directly as a stockholder, or indirectly through the mutual funds that you get as part of your 401(k) at work).

So that's the reason.  Gas prices are high primarily because demand, globally, is high.  In fact, demand for gas is probably at its highest now because of short term factors (it's summer, and we want to drive to the ocean and ride our boats), and long term factors (billions and billions of people worldwide are entering the global market of car driving).  And it's the long term factors that will cause prices to continue to rise (just wait until this time next year, kids!)

Not all that complicated.  Demand going WAY up, while supplies are not going up to meet the demand.

Which beings me back to drilling in ANWR and the coastal regions.  Some say, "Well, if we drill in these areas, that will boost supply so that its more commensurate with demand".

Well, yeah, it will increase supply to be more commensurate with demand.  But how MUCH more commensurate?

Remember, drilling in ANWR and off the coasts will, by most estimates, only boost the U.S. supply by 2-5%.  However, that estimate is based on the assumption that everything pumped from ANWR and the coasts will stay in the U.S. 

But like I said before, the crude oil biz is multi-national.  So some, if not most, of that oil drilled is going to end up where the demand is -- which (as I said) is in China and India and so on.  So a 2-5% increase in supply, small as it is, is even smaller when you understand that it is a mere 0.2% (or whatever) for the global supply.

So, unless Congress passes a law saying that everything pumped within the United States has to stay in the United States, we're only talking about a savings of a 30 to 50 cents per barrel of oil for ANWR drilling, which translates to a penny or two on the overall gas prices per gallon here and worldwide (since everyone in the world will reap the benefits of ANWR and coastal drilling). 

The problem with such a protectionist law?   Many things, but mostly:

(1)  Assuming the law is constitutional (which is questionable), the mega oil companies will NEVER go for it.  They're going to spend billions drilling in these places, and they aren't allowed to sell their product to the highest bidder?  More likely, they'll just say, "Oh, well, fuck it then.  We're gonna lose money on this deal if we can't sell it internationally."

(2)  Now, if we DID drill and keep it all at home, we would still have to import foreign oil.  Right now, 65% of our oil is imported.  Assuming ANWR and coastal drilling is successful, we'll still have to import, at best, something in the neighborhood of 60%.  And how will OPEC respond to a protectionist law like that?  Quite likely, they'll do what they did in the 1970's, by starting an embargo of their own.  So even though we'll need 60% of their oil instead of 65%, it will be harder to get that 60%.  Result?  Our prices will actually end up higher as a result than if we had never drilled at all. 

Okay, I hear you cry.  So what's the solution?

Answer: in the short term, none. In the long term, we have to ween ourselves off of gas dependency.  Not just foreign oil/gas, but all oil/gas.  Drilling in ANWR and off the coasts simply can't affect the supply enough to make a difference. 

The only thing we can do to make any realistic impact is decrease demand for gas.  And you can only decrease demand two ways -- (1) tax the living fuck out of gas so people won't/can't buy it; or (2) move away from a oil/gas-based energy systtem.

The problems with Option 1, I don't need to tell you.  I'm not talking about a 20 cent increase per gallon, because (I suspect) demand for gas will not go down enough, even if gas is taxed to be $6.00 per gallon.  In order to make a REAL difference on demand, gas probably has to be in the area of $10.00 per gallon.  Maybe then people will behave differently in their driving and usage habits.

Yeah, I'm not wild about Option 1 either.

So that leaves us with Option 2.  The downside to that?  It's going to take time. 

But I look at Option 2 this way.  We put a man on the moon in less than ten years.  When Kennedy proposed doing it in 1960, the materials and technology to put a man on the moon hadn't been invented yet.  Yet, less than ten years later, there was good ol' Neil planting the flag on the Sea of Tranquilty.  If a President were to annouce a serious national effort to develop new (and hopefully clean) technology for running our cars -- a national effort along the lines of the Manhatten Project or the NASA Mission to the Moon, that announcement alone would affect the oil and gas commodity markets, and bring some price relief as soon as it was announced.  And then of course, when we actually DO ween ourselves off of gas and oil, we won't give a shit about what the prices are.

Sound reasonable to you?

Now if we can only find a President who will get all Kennedy-esque about this issue.  I don't know if that's Obama, but it definitely ain't McCain.

Inflation, Recession, Energy and Ecology Woes, Dogs Mating With Cats....

Inflation grows at fastest pace in 27 years

Over the past 12 months, wholesale prices are up 9.2%, the largest year-over-year surge since June 1981.  Gas and food prices are to blame, since "core inflation", the economic indicator which excludes energy and food, was better behaved in June, rising by just 0.2%. 

The main culprit is gas, I would think, as the cost of transporting raw materials to manufacturers is more expensive, and then there's the added expense of transporting finished consumer goods from manufacturer to wholesaler to retailer.  It all makes things more costly.

So we've got inflation and recession.

The unemployment rate is holding steady at 5.5% which is okay, BUT....

When we had high inflation and recession back in June 1981, the unemployment rate shot up a couple of years later (it tends to lag behind....) Also, the dollar his a new low against the Euro today.

And then there's that whole Fannie Mae bailout, which sounds like a flood occured in rural Alabama, but its not.

Dow down 100 so far today at all this economic news.  [UPDATE:  Okay, it resurged early this afternoon, but now it's going down again...]

Oh, and getting back to gas, here's an interesting trend.  With the rise in gas prices, state and local governments can't afford -- wait for it -- public transportation, so many of them are scaling back.  Just the thing you need in a time of global warming and high gas prices -- less public transportation.

I'm not an economist, so I'll just use the layman's terms for what this all portends:  "shitstorm".  [UPDATE:  Hmmm.  Bush said the same thing today, but with a different twist...

"I think the system is basically sound, I truly do. ... I'm not an economist, but I do believe we're growing. I'm an optimist. I believe there's a lot of positive things for the economy."
--Bush as his sales pitch today

Heh.]

UPDATE:  Have no fear, the BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS HERE!

"It's been a difficult time for American families." Bush said at a press conference.

He noticed!  He noticed!

His plans?  Well, to bail out Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac by having the federal government buy some of the sagging stock.  (While this may be a good idea, one wonders whatever happened to the conservative adage of "let the market take care of itself".  Hmmmm?).  Of course, just Bush saying that has caused those stocks to plummet today.

But turning to energy....

He wants to drill for oil in ANWR.  This is, of course, silly.  Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States.  Which means that when we get the oil, which won't start happening until 2018, it's going to be too little, too late.  As the Wall Street Journal says:

At current prices even the high-end estimate would trim just about 1% from the cost of a barrel of oil, and even that reduction can’t be expected for almost 20 years.

Then there's the notion of lifting the ban on drilling for oil off our nation's coastline.  We do this already, but there's been a ban on doing it more.  Probably because people don't like this:

Happy vacationing, America.

Hmmm.  Oil rigs off the Florida/Louisiana/Georgia/Carolina coast.  Seems to me that those places tend to get hit by -- oh, what do you call those things -- hurricanes?  By the way, don't buy the myth that Katrina and Rita didnt cause oil spills off of Louisiana.  It happened (video).

In fact, the clear satellite evidence of major spills was borne out by final reports. In May 2006, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) published their offshore damage assessment: “113 platforms totally destroyed, and 457 pipelines damaged, 101 of those major lines with 10″ or larger diameter.”

Unsurprisingly, this devastation caused significant spillage, according to the official report prepared for the MMS by a Norwegian firm:

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused 124 Offshore Spills For A Total Of 743,700 Gallons. 554,400 gallons were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 189,000 gallons were refined products from platforms and rigs. [MMS, 1/22/07]

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused Six Offshore Spills Of 42,000 Gallons Or Greater. The largest of these was 152,250 gallons, well over the 100,000 gallon threshhold considered a “major spill.” [MMS, 5/1/06]

The Exxon Valdez disaster spilled 10.8 million gallons, so this oil spill was very very large.  (One reason it didn't get the media notice was that it didn't all happen in one place, so the damage was diffused).

And, ecology aside, the problem with drilling of the coastlines of America has some of the same shortcomings as ANWR drilling.  What is potentially hypothetically there in terms recoverable oil and case is but a mere pittance of the U.S. oil reserves and a drop in the barrel (no pun intended) when compared to the worldwide oil market.  In other words, not enough to make a significant difference in energy prices, and -- once again -- whatever impact it will make will be years away. [UPDATE:  Bush admits at a press conference today that there won't be oil from offshore drilling for a while, but says that drilling there will "change the psychology".  Video here.  Uh, no, it won't change the psychology.  An actual significant change at the gas pump -- now -- will change it.]

And finally, Bush is touting the whole "rape the pristine western lands for shale" thing again.  Problem with that is, we don't yet know how to turn shale into oil, and even if figure it out (which we've been trying to do since 1908, it's going to be a bloody expensive R&D process.  And the cost of all that will be passed on to the consumer.

So again, no energy savings.... just a boondoggle to the oil and gas industries.

God, I'm depressed.

FUN FLASHBACK:  From CNN, 2 months after Bush took office in 2000:

Gas prices surging, but still below record levels

WASHINGTON -- Gas prices have surged in the past 12 months, experiencing their biggest dollar increase in the past 30 years, according to a survey conducted for AAA.

Self-serve regular, unleaded gasoline averaged $1.54 per gallon nationwide, according to AAA's March Fuel Gauge Report released Tuesday.

Those were the days, my friend...

But By All Means, Let's Drill In ANWR

Stupid bureaucrats:

Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years.

The Bureau of Land Management says an extensive environmental study is needed to determine how large solar plants might affect millions of acres it oversees in six Western states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah.

But the decision to freeze new solar proposals temporarily, reached late last month, has caused widespread concern in the alternative-energy industry, as fledgling solar companies must wait to see if they can realize their hopes of harnessing power from swaths of sun-baked public land, just as the demand for viable alternative energy is accelerating.

***

Galvanized by the national demand for clean energy development, solar companies have filed more than 130 proposals with the Bureau of Land Management since 2005. They center on the companies’ desires to lease public land to build solar plants and then sell the energy to utilities.

According to the bureau, the applications, which cover more than one million acres, are for projects that have the potential to power more than 20 million homes.

I smell a rat.  An oil-lobbyist-with-boatloads-of-cash kind of rat.

Shorter McCain Energy Policy

It's this: "Fuck if I know, but if someone can build a better mousetrap, I'll give them lots of money."

That's not an energy policy; that's a game show.

First of all, giving a $300 million prize for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars sounds nice, but the companies that are likely to do it are already working on it, because they stand to gain huge financial profits far exceeding $300 million, should they succeed.

Secondly, $300 million is nothing -- nothing -- compared to the $4 billion per-year tax break McCain has proposed giving to the 5 biggest oil companies (including $1.2 billion for Exxon Mobil alone) -- companies which have absolutely every disincentive to see such a battery work.

Finally, McCain is no friend of alternative renewable energy:

* McCain voted against, and Obama voted for, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which, as USA Today noted, contributed to a dramatic increase in wind power generation: "The U.S. wind power grew 45% in 2007, the sharpest rise since the 1980s, as developers responded to a federal tax credit, a growing number of state renewable energy mandates and global warming concerns, the American Wind Energy Association said Thursday."

*  In 2006, John McCain voted against a renewable energy tax credits including a 2006 proposal sponsored by Senator Jeff Bingaman that included a four year extension of the production tax credit.  In addition, McCain supported the filibuster of the 2007 energy bill that sought to extend the production tax credit to 2011. 

*  McCain has repeatedly voted against renewable energy mandates, including a measure to require that renewable sources be used to produce at least 10 percent of the electricity sold by electric utilities by 2020, and a measure to require refiners to use 8 billion gallons of renewable fuels each year, by 2012.  He also supported an effort to delay renewable fuel mandates and to allow states to opt out of the mandates.

*  McCain has repeatedly opposed measures to provide tax credits to encourage investment in renewable energy technologies.  For example, in 2007 he supported the filibuster of energy legislation that sought to have revoke $13.5 billion in tax cuts for the five largest oil companies and instead provide tax incentives for solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, wave energy and other renewable sources of energy. McCain was the only Senator to miss the vote on the bill, but his staff noted that he did, in fact, support the filibuster that eventually killed the proposal.

Obama is right, speaking about McCain's gimmick today:

“After all those years in Washington, John McCain still doesn’t get it...  I commend him for his desire to accelerate the search for a battery that can power the cars of the future. I’ve been talking about this myself for the last few years. But I don’t think a $300 million prize is enough. When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn’t put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win — he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people. That’s the kind of effort we need to achieve energy independence in this country, and nothing less will do. But in this campaign, John McCain offering the same old gimmicks that will provide almost no short-term relief to folks who are struggling with high gas prices; gimmicks that will only increase our oil addiction for another four years.”

Bush Pusher

Tom Friedman is right:

Two years ago, President Bush declared that America was “addicted to oil,” and, by gosh, he was going to do something about it. Well, now he has. Now we have the new Bush energy plan: “Get more addicted to oil.”

Actually, it’s more sophisticated than that: Get Saudi Arabia, our chief oil pusher, to up our dosage for a little while and bring down the oil price just enough so the renewable energy alternatives can’t totally take off. Then try to strong arm Congress into lifting the ban on drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

It’s as if our addict-in-chief is saying to us: “C’mon guys, you know you want a little more of the good stuff. One more hit, baby. Just one more toke on the ole oil pipe. I promise, next year, we’ll all go straight. I’ll even put a wind turbine on my presidential library. But for now, give me one more pop from that drill, please, baby. Just one more transfusion of that sweet offshore crude.”

It is hard for me to find the words to express what a massive, fraudulent, pathetic excuse for an energy policy this is.

Yup.  Friedman goes on to explain how Bush and the Republican Party are opposed to H.R. 6049 — “The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008,” which extends for another eight years the investment tax credit for installing solar energy and extends for one year the production tax credit for producing wind power and for three years the credits for geothermal, wave energy and other renewables.

As Friedman says, wind energy and solar energy are here -- they are available now, unlike drilling in ANWR and other places, where we wont see any oil (and even then, not that much of it) for years, maybe decades.

But Republicans -- and that includes John McCain -- have been fighting the bill, having lined their campaign coffers with generous contributions from oil companies.

So why are we in the energy dilemna we're in?  Now you know.

Gas Information

As a public service, I've set up a separate page on this blog giving information about gas prices -- including the cheapest gas prices in the Winston-Salem area within the past 24 hours. This link will be permanently available on the right hand column.

Enjoy.

An Open Statement Opposing Proposals for a Gas Tax Holiday

Here:

In recent weeks, there have been proposals in Congress and by some presidential candidates to suspend the gas tax for the summer. As economists who study issues of energy policy, taxation, public finance, and budgeting, we write to indicate our opposition to this policy.

Put simply, suspending the federal tax on gasoline this summer is a bad idea and we oppose it.

There are several reasons for this opposition:

First, research shows that waiving the gas tax would generate major profits for oil companies rather than significantly lowering prices for consumers.

Second, it would encourage people to keep buying costly imported oil and do nothing to encourage conservation.

Third, a tax holiday would provide very little relief to families feeling squeezed.

Fourth, the gas tax suspension would threaten to increase the already record deficit in the coming year and reduce the amount of money going into the highway trust fund that maintains our infrastructure.

Signers of this letter are Democrats, Republicans and Independents. This is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of good public policy.

And then it's signed by over 221 economics experts and professors.

Gas Tax Holiday Argument Not Being Bought By Public

Well, well, well.  Who knew?  McCain and Clinton thought they could pander and buy votes by proposing a gas tax holiday over the summer months.  Doesn't look like the winning side, as people kind of understand that it is a quick fix to a larger problem, that doesn't put much many in people's pockets anyway.  [UPDATE:  No economist agrees with Hillary, but she pooh-poohs them a la George Bush.  Ex-Labor Sec. Robert Reich comments:

"In case you've missed it, we now have a president who doesn't care what most economists think. George W. Bush doesn't even care what scientists think. He rejects all experts who disagree with his politics. This has led to some extraordinarily stupid policies. I'm not saying HRC is George Bush. And I'm not suggesting economists have all the answers. But when economists tell a president or a presidential candidate that his or her idea is dumb -- and when all respectable economists around America agree that it's a dumb idea -- it's probably wise for the president or presidential candidate to listen. When the president or candidate doesn't, and proudly defends the policy by saying she's 'not going to put my lot in with economists,' we've got a problem, folks."

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.....]

NYT polls the gas tax issue. How remarkable. It's almost as if the press' unusual decision to make some effort to cover the issue in a substantive way led to a better-informed electorate.

McCain's Gas Tax Holiday Plan

As a clear campaign ploy, McCain has proposed a gasoline tax “holiday” during the summer driving season.  Basically, it means that federal taxes will be cut from the cost at the pump, thus making gas cheaper.

Senator Clinton has endorsed a similar plan.

Good idea?  Nope:

But economists and energy analysts say it would have little impact on mitigating the rise in gasoline prices. In fact, it could lead to the opposite result.

The federal gasoline tax represents a flat fee of 18.4 cents a gallon nationwide. With gasoline currently averaging $3.39 a gallon, the tax represents a mere 5 percent of today’s pump price. While that’s not trivial, consider that gasoline prices have more than doubled since 2004.

The problem is that lowering gasoline prices at the pump would encourage more consumption. So in the long run, it would push prices up.

***

“You don’t want to stimulate consumption,” said Lawrence Goldstein, an economist at the Energy Policy Research Foundation. “The signal you want to send is the opposite one. Politicians should say that conservation is where people’s mindset ought to be.”

Mr. Goldstein said that instead of freezing the federal tax, the government should help lower-income populations pay for gasoline.  It would be cheaper and benefit those households that need it most.

Unlike McCain, Clinton's plan also includes taxing the big gas companies, to make up for the lost revenue (which is used to make the roads better through the National Highway Trust Fund).  Problem with that is that the gas companies will just pass on the cost to consumers, and therefore, we won't be saving anything.

The problem with rising fuel prices can't be fixed with a bandaid like a "gas tax holiday" (which will only save you $25 to $30 bucks this summer anyway).

The only true solution is long-term, and it involves raising minimum MPG on cars, and conservation policies (car pooling, etc.).  That's part of the Obama plan, and it's the only one that makes sense.  Unfortunately, it's not a politicallyt expedient as those proposed by the other candidates.  Hopefully, however, people won't be lured by the dollar sign they think they're seeing.

Wish I Lived Near Wilmington

N.C. Gas Station Sells Gas For 35 Cents A Gallon:

Deshauna Canty is never in a good mood after filling up her Lincoln Navigator.

But she was all smiles today when she swiped her Visa credit card to pay after gassing up her sport utility vehicle.

Why wouldn’t she be? Gas was 35 cents a gallon.

Canty was among hundreds of people who found temporary relief from $3-plus gasoline prices today after an employee accidentally set the price at 35 cents at the Kangaroo Express station at 17th Street and Wellington Avenue, employees said.

The trouble started about 9 a.m. today when an attendant at the BP station punched in 35 cents instead of $3.35 for premium-grade gasoline, said employee Shane Weller. The mistake wasn’t noticed until about 6 p.m., when crowds jammed the pumps and caused traffic jams on nearby roads, Weller said.

By that time news of the low-priced gas had spread like wildfire through e-mail and word of mouth, he said.

Canty heard about the price from her children’s baby-sitter and filled up her Ford Taurus earlier in the afternoon, she said.

“I wasn’t sure if it was true, but I decided to come out here and check it out,” Canty said. “I didn’t have anything to lose and everything to gain.”

After spending a fraction of what she usually pays for fuel for her Taurus, she returned around 6 p.m. to fill up her sport utility vehicle.

Filling up her Navigator usually costs Canty close to $100, but at Thursday’s price it would only cost her $9.80 for a full 28-gallon tank.

Venus Mitchell passed a dozen gas stations after driving from a Market Street shopping center to take advantage of the prices, she said.

“A lady came up to me in the parking lot and told me that gas was 35 cents so I hopped in my car and drove,” said Mitchell from her late-model Oldsmobile.

But Mitchell didn’t make it to the pump before employees switched the prices back.

“I’m a little disappointed because I’ve never paid 35 cents for gas,” she said.

In 1972, the year before the Arab oil embargo, gasoline was selling at 36 cents per gallon, according to a Cato Institute report issued in 2006. Taking inflation into account, that 1972 price would still only be $1.86 a gallon.

Station employees discovered the pricing error after calling their district manager to inquire about changing the price of gas as a way of stemming traffic, Weller said.

“People had been coming in all day stiffing us, not telling us nothing,” Weller said. “They knew something was wrong because regular gas was still $3-something a gallon, and when have you ever known premium gas to be lower than regular?”

After the price returned to normal people continued to flood the gas station, hoping to take advantage of the low the price.

Wilmington police arrived about 6:30 p.m. to help deal with traffic and control the crowd.

There were no reports of accidents or incidents of violence, New Hanover County 911 officials said.

Weller said he doesn’t know what will happen to the employee who typed in the wrong price.

He also isn’t sure how the gas station will deal with money lost from the gas sales during the 10-hour mix-up.

“What can you do?” Weller asked. “There’s nothing illegal about being immoral, but I just don’t see how people could do that to us.”

Mitchell said people didn’t mean any disrespect. They were probably looking for some relief, she said.

“Gas is high these days so I really can’t say I blame them,” Mitchell said.

Vampire Drain

You might not be aware of this, but many of your electrical appliances cost you electricity even if you don't use them -- even when they are "turned off".

Often these "off" appliances are in "passive mode" (i.e., the clock on your microwave) or in "standby mode" (A VCR waiting to record a show).  And being in those modes uses power.

A good graphic by Good Magazine shows how much this can cost you per year.

The biggest culprit?  Your plasma TV.  Even if you never "turned it on" to watch it for an entire year, it would still run you almost $160 per year in electric bills.

Something to think about if you want to go green....