Whoops:
Steven Chu, the Nobel laureate scientist who is President-elect Obama’s choice to be energy secretary, said in testimony prepared for his Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday that high oil prices were a threat to the economy, backing away slightly from statements made in his last job, as director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, that gasoline prices should be higher.
Here is the story. Technically speaking, all of his words are correct and do not contradict each other. Still, if he can't get appointed for favoring higher gas prices, and in a honeymoon period at that…well…you see where this is headed.
Nah, he’s just being safe. This is the only period when his job is at risk, so this is when he makes noises about oil prices and the economy. It’s not clear that this is headed anywhere but where it already was, namely, an energy policy focused significantly on the carrot of subsidies and the “green future” rather than the stick of taxation, with however a cap-and-trade system with full rebate of all revenues. Or something like that.
I’m sorry, but did I miss the part where we gave this person the power to set oil and gas prices? Isn’t that kind of exaggerating what it means to be energy czar?
Based off the last few months, it seems that the economy itself is affecting oil prices far more than the other way around.
A gas tax CAN be sold to the public, and the way to do it is to sell it as a way to stablize gas prices in the long-term, gain energy independence (whatever that really means), and do something about global climate change. You couple it with tax cuts that apply to everyone who earns a wage (or employs people), and it should be a relatively simple exercise.
And so since Obama is obviously smart and politically savvy, and yet since he’s already punted on at least 4 major things he promised during his campaign, we can only conclude…?
i think he’s just being safe too, and he’s throwing a bone to the congressmen. think of the negative campaign ads if supported higher gasoline prices!
“Senator XX voted to confirm Steven Chu. Steven Chu wants to raise your gas taxes…and so does Senator XX.”
Very Nice article, digg it!
I just finished watching the hearing[1], and I was a little disappointed with the number of times that Dr Chu escaped from tough questions by saying that DoE will develop the technology to make our current behavior sustainable (sequestration of coal emissions, nuclear waste, biofuels). Unfortunately, he did not advocate massive permanent anti-carbon incentives to spur private investment, but instead spoke mostly of what research the DoE can hand down.
But I do think that the Matthew Wald of NYT irresponsibly gunned for attention regarding gas prices, and he encouraged confusion between the absolute costs of fossil fuel (which would ideally be high) and the rapid changes of energy costs (which should be low). Chu carefully spoke only of price shocks in his prepared statement. As for long-term costs, he actually addressed questions by Sen. Corker (94 min.) and DeMint (110 min.) about implementing the cap and trade system, saying that he wanted typical household fuel costs to remain steady as the fuel becomes more expensive but appliances become efficient.
[1] Prepared statement and full webcast:
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=a71a3a1f-a497-7c36-a9f4-b4b37844f1fb
Mr. Dewey:
You are correct that the concerns offered about independence are chimerical. However, there is evidence to believe that the effect on vehicle miles traveled would be considerable. High gas prices have had a much more dramatic effect on miles traveled than any times of economic weakness.
Supporters overstate the case, certainly, but if you’re going to have some source of government funding, a gas tax is among the better ones.
It’s because most oil is imported and we have monopsony power
We have monopsony power? LOL. This is right up there with your definition of price discrimination, Student.
High gas prices have had a much more dramatic effect on miles traveled than any times of economic weakness.
Yes. Now, why do we want to reduce miles traveled? The ability to travel is a concrete measure of wealth. What is it about you Big Brother types who want to destroy the things that nmake us wealthy? Maybe some of you would be happy to live in a world where a bicycle or donkey-cart limits you to traveling (and consuming products made) in a ten-mile radius of where you are born, but I’m not interested in going back to that world.
I repeat, why do you want to make us poorer?
Waiting until oil becomes so expensive no one can afford it is not the solution.
Why not, Anti-Me? Necessity being the mother of invention, and all that. Better to focus today’s mental energy on immediate problems, and not on trying to solve far-removed potential future problems long before it is necessary to do so. And since when was being pro-wealth and pro-mobility “ideological”?
One day, probably sooner than many think, oil will no longer be the marginal transportation fuel of choice, but certainly not because there is no oil left in the earth. Peak rock-oil is about as relevant as peak whale-oil.
Comments on this entry are closed.