Looking at this comparison by Reuters of the presidential candidates’ energy and oil policies, it is clear that Senators Obama and Clinton are proposing more aggressive legislation than McCain.Nonetheless, the good news is that all three candidates have significantly more pro-environmental policies than the current administration. So at least we know some change is on the way.Whether it will be enough to make a difference, we shall see.
Some of the highlights of the comparison:
On gas prices:
McCain and Clinton want to suspend the federal gas tax this summer.
Obama wants to temporarily stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The widely covered political story on Monday was about a speech Sen. McCain gave in Portland regarding global warming.In the speech, McCain attempted to distinguish himself from George Bush’s approach towards the environment by stating, “I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges.”Some of McCain’s specific policy proposals include: mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions, the implementation of a cap-and-trade system, and promising to engage China and India diplomatically to encourage international environmental efforts.
While it is clear that McCain is significantly more pro-environment than the majority of his fellow Republicans (he was the only Republican candidate to be in favor of emission limits and was also the co-sponsor, along with Sen. Lieberman, of one of the early Congressional attempts to implement a cap-and-trade system), he has still received substantial criticism for his environmental voting record, and recently, along with Sen. Clinton, proposed the “lose-lose-lose” policy of repealing the federal gas tax during this summer’s driving season.If he is really going to convince pro-environment voters that he is a real pro-environment candidate, he may have to ramp up the requirements in his proposed legislation, and will definitely have to work on his consistency (as does Sen. Clinton).
… And more on the lose-lose-lose of the McCain/Clinton gas tax proposal:
First “lose” = it would likely be ineffective, as the oil companies will probably just raise prices to make up for the spread.
Second “lose”= but if effective, it would remove an incentive to drive less and use mass transit more.
Third “lose” = it would remove a major source of revenue which is needed to fix our aging transportation infrastructure.
Apparently gas prices have finally reached some sort of tipping point, as public transit ridership numbers are growing at the fastest rate in at least a decade.While public transit ridership has been slowly growing over the past several years (with a 2.1% growth last year), it is predicted that average growth will reach 5% or more this year, as high gas prices and a slower economy drive more commuters on to public buses and trains.
Denver, which recently began work on a major public railway expansion, has seen ridership numbers increase by 8% compared to last year.And for the first time since 1991, the federal Energy Department predicts that Americans will consume less gas this year than last.
Evidence is slightly mixed in Los Angeles, but appears to indicate that the roads are clearing a bit, while public transit use increases as well.
This is all good news for proponents of mass transit and confirmation that political opportunists who have advocated the lifting of federal gas taxes (while also espousing their pro-environment credentials) are completely off-base.Unfortunately for McCain and Clinton, even if all mainstream economists are uniformly wrong in their belief that any tax reduction will be met with an equivalent increase in prices by the gas companies, (and that their policies therefore would result in a lowering of gas prices), they would be releasing the recent pressure that has led to this increase in public transit ridership and decrease in road congestion.
If we have, in fact, reached some sort of tipping point with gas prices and transportation, then the policy proposals from our leaders should be “how can we take advantage of this shift in daily behavior,” instead of “how do we reverse it by trying to lower gas prices?”This is an opportunity and we, as a society, need to take it.
Yesterday, Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan indicated on MSNBC that he didn’t trust economists’ analysis that cutting the federal gas tax will not lead to an equivalent lowering of gas prices. It seems McCain and Clinton have committed themselves so deeply to this populist, anti-”elitist” position that there will be no turning back from it.
The New York Times had an article about the anticipated effects of impending federal carbon emission regulations on big energy companies.Since all three remaining presidential candidates support emission regulations, such controls are assumed to be inevitable.Consequently, Wall Street has begun compiling data on which power companies are likely to excel and which are likely to fail under this regulatory scheme.
Interestingly, nuclear power plants are expected to benefit greatly from these controls, since their primary waste is solid instead of gaseous.Additionally, since natural gas plants emit 40% less carbon dioxide than coal, they too will likely benefit.
According to the article, the consulting firm Innovest rates the following energy companies as the most likely to succeed under a carbon regulatory regime: FPL Group, PG&E, and Con-Ed.The least likely to succeed, due to their minimal attempts to reduce emissions, are: Allegheny Energy, the Southern Company, the Ameren Corporation and the Scana Corporation.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly received better marks on the scorecard than John McCain for 2007.According to the LCV, there were 15 key environmental votes before the Congress in 2007.McCain missed every one of those votes, thereby receiving a 0 from the LCV.Obama received a score of 67 out of 100 and Clinton received a 73.(The LCV considers a missed vote the same as a vote against an environmental issue.)McCain’s lifetime LCV score is 24%, Obama’s is 86% and Clinton’s is 87%. (more…)
