Is there a U.S. candidate with the backbone to do something about climate?

Back in February, I wrote about about what the U.S. presidential candidates' said about  mitigating climate change. At that time, McCain's proposals were the weakest while there wasn't much air between what Clinton and Obama proposed.

The question remained, however, about what each of the candidates, if they won the presidency, would actually do about climate change. Good climate policy will mean standing up to special interests and leading us through some potentially unpopular policy changes.

And we all know, that when it comes to politicians, there are those who will spend their political capital to help them do what is right and, on the other hand, there are those who will do what is wrong thing to help them win political capital. The question, when it comes to the issue of climate change, was which candidate was which type of politician.

Well, this week, it became clear.

As the New York Times said today in an editorial (with my emphasis):

Senators John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton have hit on a new way to pander to American voters: a temporary suspension of the federal gasoline tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The proposal may draw applause and votes from Americans feeling the pain of nearly $4-a-gallon gasoline. But it is an expensive and environmentally unsound policy that would do nothing to help American drivers... Fortunately, Mr. Obama has not caved to the rising calls for cheap energy and has refused to follow his rivals down this misguided path...

Joseph Romm, a progressive, who worked for the Clintons as acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy, writing critically of the gas tax on his blog, Climate Progress, says (again with my emphasis):

I write this post with some sadness. I would not have expected a major progressive politician who obviously cares about global warming to propose a gas tax holiday, which has no public benefits whatsoever, but at the same time undermines the entire rationale behind a national climate strategy that includes, as it must, a pricing mechanism for greenhouse gases. I try, however, to be as consistent as possible — and if such a proposal was cynical and hypocritical for Sen. McCain, it is equally cynical and hypocritical for Sen. Clinton. Kudos to Sen. Obama for opposing this absurd proposal — double kudos because it might cost him a few votes.

According to the Washington Post, meanwhile:

Harvard professor N. Gregory Mankiw, who has written a best-selling textbook on economics, said what he teaches is different from what Clinton and McCain are saying about gas taxes. "What you learn in Economics 101 is that if producers can't produce much more, when you cut the tax on that good the tax is kept . . . by the suppliers and is not passed on to consumers," he said.

Which makes the move by Clinton and McCain all the more cynical. While the measure will cost the federal government $9 billion and send entirely the wrong message on climate change, McCain and Clinton know as well as anyone else that oil companies won't pass the price break onto consumers but instead will pocket it.

They are paying $9 billion in our money, in other words, to make a false promise. They are trying to trick voters into voting for them.

Environmentalists said, according to the Post:

[that] stoking ire about the cost of gas undermines efforts to build a case for limiting carbon emissions, which could raise prices at the pump. "It sends a confusing message," said Kevin Knoblauch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "What's more helpful is if [politicians] help consumers understand that this isn't about near-term gas prices, it's about a comprehensive and smart approach to energy policies."

The sad news is that this whole mishigas is a first indication of how McCain or Clinton would treat the climate issue if they became president. The good news is that it is also and indication of how Obama would treat it.

PS You might also read Sam Stein's critique of the gas tax vacation at the Huffington Post.

Comments

[Recovering Food Waster]

So, are you saying that we won't see a penny of this price decrease?

[Meryn Stol]

It would be a good think if Obama would compensate the poor in some other way, i.e. by lowering their income tax. The poor are hurt the most by these high oil prices. The gas tax should be either increased or kept the same, certainly not lowered.

[Meryn Stol]

Recovering Food Waster:
What basically happens is this: Consumer price of gasoline lowers, so people will loosen up a little and drive more freely again. This means higher consumption, which increases wholesale demand for gasoline. This results in higher wholesale prices which raises the price at the pump. In the end, price at the pump will be lower than without the tax, but how much depends on actual market conditions.

[Colin Beavan aka No Impact Man]

@Recovering--
Read the links in the post. Analysts pretty universally say it is pure political pandering and won't help anyone.

@Meryn--
Again, if you read the links, Obama has some ideas that would help let off some financial pressure, but they are not a summer tax vacation.

All the best,
Colin

[Rhea]

I can't imagine ANY president being able to stand up to the pressure from the gas and oil lobbies. We need enormous changes in this country if we are going to survive. I spoke to a wind power expert a few weeks ago and he said that, in his opinion, if the U.S. sold off its strategic oil reserves and used the money to build an alternative energy infrastructure, that would be a road to survival. Anything short of that and we will still suck the easily excavated oil dry. Prices will rise precipitously, people will drive less but all transportation powered by fossil fuel will skyrocket in price. Driving a car will become prohibitively expensive. People who depend on a car to get to work will suffer. Nations will battle for the remaining fossil fuel. And so on.

[stomv]

Recovering:

If the gas tax goes down 18 cents in the summer, price might go down about 3 due to gasoline being relatively inelastic in the short term.

So, you save 3 cents a gallon -- less than $0.50 a fill up.

Why isn't that a good deal? Well, the US doesn't just take the gas tax revenue and burn it. Instead, it uses that money to build roads and bridges. No gas tax revenue, and our already troubled infrastructure falls further behind it's repair and maintenance schedule.

Want to give some price relief? Reduce demand. How could tUSA do that? Spend money on mass transit, offer zoning changes to allow higher density near public transit and mixed zoning to allow shopping, working, and living in the same neighborhood, invest more in bike facilities, sidewalks, and trees to make walkable neighborhoods more attractive, continue to ratchet up CAFE standards, and build more alternative power generation [and work to reduce electricity demand] in grids that use oil to generate electricity, namely New England, Hawai'i, and the Gulf Coast states.

Reducing demand for gasoline will soften the price. We can't do that overnight [well, we could reduce about 5-10% if we'd all fill up our tires properly, take the golf clubs/books/etc out of the trunk, make sure our air filters are clean, combined trips, and eased up on the gas and brake]. We can make consistent, thoughtful investment to reduce demand for gasoline over the span of years. This kind of visionary investment -- one that doesn't yield immediate rewards but will benefit the "next generation" -- is essential, and would start reaping rewards within a few years.

[Andy]

Great post Colin. I was wondering if you were going to make comments about candidates as positive or negative since I think the previous ones were not favoring either of the Democrats.

I could probably find some answers by reading around a bit more, but I haven't come across what Obama's plans to actively come up with solutions to many of the problems yet. While it's great that he's not on board with the gas tax holiday, what steps might he make regarding gasoline prices and consumption?

I'm voting for Nader, because to me a democrat is still someone more concerned about money than our environment. Personally, it doesn't matter to me if Nader is not electable. I want to vote for the person that I feel has the best answers, and I shouldn't be persuaded to voe democrat just because they have a chance of getting in office. I think if we somehow got out of that issue, many more people would vote and run for the green party, especially in local elections.
-Andy

[Greenpa]

One thing adult voters really should come to grips with- is that for an official to do anyone any good- first- they have to WIN an election.

Over, and over, and over- history has shown us that idealists willing to clearly state their unequivocal ideals- cannot be elected.

They make too many of the voters too angry. If any of the candidates came out and said "I'm going totally green, as fast as possible"- that's pretty much a sure recipe for disaster. Part of that effect is the certainty itself- it comes across as "smarty-pants-holier-than-thou" and does not sell well.

They have to carefully walk a line in the middle somewhere. Have to. None can afford to toss away votes by just casually ticking some sector off.

It speaks well for the intelligence of a candidate when they show that they understand that. This is the real world- this is the one you have to work in. Pretending you can wave a wand and change it all instantly on election day is astonishingly stupid.

So- you have to read between the lines, if you want to guess where they stand. Voting records help- take into account their constituency at the time of the vote.

Should it work this way? It would be nice if it didn't, and people could just say exactly what they think.

But that world is a fantasy. Think of your own life. Do you dare say EXACTLY what you think, all the time, to everyone? Spouse? Boss? Neighbors? Not if you want to survive.

[becky]

this gas tax holiday idea paints the clearest picture yet of the character of the candidates, especially for green minded voters. as far as i'm concerned a very clear and marked divide has just been struck.

[Eric Roston]

This is a key question, and there are two answers that occurred to me, depending on how I read it, hinging on the words "backbone" and "something."

Read literally, I think the answer is probably yes. We're in campaign season, so while McClinton is trying to out gas-tax each other now, once the election is over, it's possible, if not likely that the momentum (mostly) in the Senate now will spill over into the House, we'll get a carbon bill on the president's desk and he or she will sign it. There's even a scenario in which President McCain, though his green bona fides have been questioned a lot lately, moves on global warming before a(nother) President Clinton, because a Dem president and legislature would turn to health care before anything else (not necessarily a bad idea). It's widely expected that we'll get if not a law, a very serious climate bill in the next Congress.

On the other hand if I read "something" in Colin's question to mean, "something that would really help," then the answer is no. Partly, the answer is no because there is an abyss between what scientists say needs to be done to avert catastrophic climate change, and what economists and politicians are willing to even think about quietly to themselves. Spinelessness abounds in the face of geophysical reality. Joe Romm at Climate Progress has been very articulate on how large this gap is, and what it would take to fill it.

So in short, two answers: (1) Probably; (2) No.

[Anne]

I'll propose a gas tax holiday -- Carpool every day to work and save half your gas bill. You get every penny!

[Diane Gandee Sorbi]

I was glad Obama didn't cave and jump on the ridiculous summer gas tax suspension idea. Clinton and McCain are telling people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. They need to hear that we are at peak oil. They need to hear that things are only going to get much worse if we don't all come together and make big changes soon. Yes, people are hurting from the price of gas, but this is just the tip of the melting iceberg. And unfortunately Greenpa is absolutely right. Any candidate who told the whole truth and nothing but the truth would be unelectable. Sad, but true.

[arduous]

Colin, Why is this a HUGE deal, yet Obama's vote for Bush's energy policy or his pandering to Illinois coal is okay?

Honestly, I am very disappointed in all three candidates, and don't think either of them have much backbone when it comes to energy issues. But come on. The gas tax is hardly as big a deal as Obama's vote for Bush's energy policy.

[Susan Och]

Here's Obama's Energy policy

And Here's Obama's position paper on the environment.

There's a lot to read, and a lot to ponder. I keep wishing I could hear a question about cap-and-trade vs. carbon tax instead of all this nonsense about who goes to church where, who bowls better, and who can down shots of Crown Royal. But maybe downing shots of Crown Royal is an ethanol statement??????

[Leslie NW]

How could Clinton and McCain resist - they get strokes from the people who think they are going to get a break at the pump, and strokes from the oil cos., refiners, distributors, and finally gas station owners (maybe) who will actually get the extra money. By the time it gets down to the everyday Joe there will be nothing left, that is certain. And, of course, even if there was, lowering the price of gas is going in the wrong direction - gas is really extremly cheap, we need to be paying $10-$20 a gal. to effect the changes we need in order to evert a societal collapse, or worse an environmental one. But no politician could lobby for that at this point - the American public will have to believe first that the situation we are in is dire, and then be willing to face change and probably hardship to make the changes necessary to avert disaster - I hate to be cynical, but I have my doubts about that, I hope I am wrong.

[Leslie]

It seems that the weakness in our democratic process is the voters' lack of say on how our tax dollars are spent. Maybe there should be referenda on things like whether money should be spent on alternative energy or whether it should be spent on a war. Why should corporate lobbyists have all the influence on appropriations? The corporations pay for influence and pass the cost on to consumers.

Bad system. Which candidate will change it?

[Jessica]

I hate to burst everyone's bubble here, but its foolish to believe that any politician can do anything about gas prices. Gas prices are the way they are because of peak oil production. True, the gas companies are still making a profit off of their product, and the most anyone can do is to force them to cut or eliminate their profits, but thats not going to change anything in the long run. The price of oil is going to continue to rise as production continues to fall, until eventually it requires one barrel of oil to produce the energy to mine one barrel of oil, and then oil becomes an energy sink and all production will stop. Then there will be no more oil for human consumption. It will be physically impossible to mine it. We will use more energy pulling it up than we will get out of it.

The problem, I think, is that no one really understands what peak oil is. If they did, they wouldn't be expecting politicians to fix it anymore than they expect politicians to fly or to fight zombies. It seems more likely that they would be able to do the latter.

What we need to do is start building up the infastructure to replace oil, because thats our only other option.

If you are really interested in learning what peak oil is I highly recommend the books by Kenneth Deffeyes, although you could go strait to the source and read M. King Hubbert's orgional theory of peak oil production. I think Deffeyes' books are much better for the common man's understanding. Or (not to toot my own horn) I blogged about it yesterday.

What is wonderful about this post, really, is that it points out that a gas tax vacation won't even do anything to cut prices temporarily. Its just basically giving our tax dollars strait to the oil companies. Gee, thanks, thats where I want my tax money going.

[Rebecca]

Perhaps if gas does indeed go up to $4 per gallon then maybe local communities and citizens can do their part by urging their council members, mayor, and etc to get more bike lanes, better public transportation with more stops or whatever, and people to walk more. Then perhaps that whole obese epidemic that has been hitting the US particularly hard will no longer be an issue. Forget the federal government they for the most part seem to have their heads up their arses.

[GreenMike]

I am soooo disappionted in Clinton. This gas tax vacation is a typical republican idea. The fact that she goes along with it speaks volumes about her and her policies. Does she really think the American public is stupid enough to believe this would do anything? I think not. I think this is the beginning of the end for Clinton. If people want to save 18 cents a gallon, try traveling 65 instead of 75 on the freeway. It will do the same thing.

[James Chen]

Anne ("carpool") has the right idea. Why you all just drive less? I drive less than 10 miles a week now. All of the savings goes straight (or should I say stays) in my bank account. No subsidies, no taxes, no laws needed. Practice what you preach, and you'll be richer for it, in more ways than one.

[zach @ Pennywise]

I have a feeling that any attempt to decrease the demand for gas will decrease the demand for cars (already a depressed market in the US) and send further jobs overseas.

While I *am* an uber-environmentalist, I think that we're missing what "the establishment" is fearing. . . which is their pocketbooks. We can't just go and take that money out of their hands, we have got to create new economic activity. If they don't want to get in on the action that *we* create, then that's their fault. I fear, however, that there's just not as much money in being truly environmental. That's why it's taking so long to make the switch.

[Vicki]

Sonny Perdue initiated a tax holiday on gas a year or so ago and we DID see a differnce at the pump. Lower prices did NOT change our driving habits. We still drove to work, the grocery store, etcetera. We didn't fill up and go crusing around the countryside for the hell of it. It's all well and good for you guys to call for higher taxes or no tax holiday - but apparently you don't live in areas where there is no public transportation and our vehicles are the ONLY transportation we have. My husband cannot bike 50 miles to and from work. I can't bike to the grocery store and transport groceries for a family of 5. I can't bike to the feed store to buy feed for our horses. Yes, we need alternative sources of fuel - but we also need to take advantage of what we have in the ground in our own country that liberals vote against drilling for. We also need more refineries - and again the Dems are voting against that. I'm really tired of the idea that we are all wasteful and if punished enough we will change our ways. That is not the case for many of us and higher oil prices are hurting us. I don't think that wishing to hurt citizens of this country is the way to further your agenda.

[zach @ Pennywise]

^^ Change.

I guess the other 6 billion people are just luckier than you (an absurd thought!)? Or perhaps they're just placing other things first? Perhaps your great great grandparents generation had some kind of magic that allowed them to survive without SUVs and Americun Idolz and the jobs that were 50 miles away?

Total frickin' cop-out and it's a horrible excuse. You may not be able to live sustainably now, but to simply say "I can't because .. . (insert blank here)" isn't an option. It's a little like saying you're going on a no-food diet-- it's absurd. Stop it with the excuses.

What would it take for people to change? You've had a year of the noimpactman project and decades of environmentalists and an entire world history to model yourself after. You don't *have* to be some pot smoking, tree hugging hippie to do it. Hells bells-- I'm a pro-business, average joe, can-do guy; I *try*, and I have a plan to modify my lifestyle to make it more fulfilling. And you're a liar if you say that the 50 mile drive is worth it every day. No job is worth that. Apparently the planet that your 5 children will inherit isn't worth it to you either.

Think. Try *something*

And stop insulting the 5 billion (yes BILLION-- that's more than 10 times the population of the United States!) by saying that you don't have the *ability* to not drive 50 miles. Most people would love to feed themselves on a piece of land no bigger than your backyard; perhaps your neighbor's as well.

"Can't". Stop telling *this* crowd what you "can't" do something that you *must* do. You make it sound like it's an option. You know less about what you "can't" do than countless others who've been in your shoes and *have* made the necessary adjustments (and are living quite well on moderate to lowere incomes. . . with families. . . and house payments. . . and every other excuse anyone can think of).

Simply put, you're wrong. You not only *can*, but you *will* change your habits. Again, what's the necessary price? $5/gal? $8/gal? (<--the current European price). Not only will you change your habits, but if you don't do it now/soon, you'll be wasting this opportunity to pocket some of that gas money in savings. You want to tell this crowd you "can't" do such and such because of this or that reason-- we all know they're just excuses because we all used to be that way. You'll be able to find an alternative, else how the hell did people SURVIVE UP UNTIL NOW??? I guarentee you that you *will* change-- how much money you choose to save over your peers in the process of changing, and how much of a "victim of circumstance" you feel like is up to you.

But don't. . . *ever*. . . say you "can't".

[Susan Och]

Vicki, I also live in a rural area, and I know how most of the usual suggestions fall flat in our situation. But it's also clear that is we don't figure out new ways of doing things, the price of energy will eventually drive us from our homes.

I learned to drive less. I also bought a Camry to replace the minivan. Turns out a Camry also fits five people, with lots of trunk space, and it has a removable roof rack if we need it. Once I learned to leave a little earlier, I could drive a little slower. Turns out driving 55 instead of 70 and easing up on the gas and brakes does save money, oops, I mean gas.

I was lucky enough to have a new feed store open close to home, but I was working on getting together with neighbors and buying feed by the pallet load, delivered. I belong to a food buying club and cook from scratch. We grow a garden and keep a few chickens so we don't end up toting home that much in groceries. We make it a point to buy most of the rest at local groceries even though the price is a little higher. Those are the businesses that we depend on when the snow and ice storms come and driving 30 miles is out of the question. If we don't shop there in good times, they won't be there for us in hard times.

If you are forward thinking, resourceful, and flexible you can figure out how to use less gas. Or you can blame "liberals", "Dems" or some other group for your shrinking paycheck and disappearing options. Your kids are learning how to live from watching you, so you might as well set a good example.

[judith]

You can feed a family of 5 by going to the store on your bike. You do what I just did for the first time today. You purchase a bike trailer and carry the groceries home in it. I bought $130 worth of groceries, and could have carried twice the volume had I needed to. It is so liberating. I will be able to adapt this trailer to make it a stroller (a Bell), so if I don't want to ride on a windy day I will be able to walk for the groceries. Cheers!