Ron Paul was pretty cool on the Daily Show as career Republicans go. If nothing else he seems straightforward and believable. The devil’s in the details, however, and Paul’s the sole sponsor of a new bill that smells all wrong to me. H.R. 2415, the Affordable Gas Price Act (full text from Thomas) aims to reduce gas prices at pretty much any cost. That’s a problem for me, as I think we burn way too much fuel here in the U.S., and making it cheaper just ain’t gonna help.
Goals such as these just seem like a really bad idea to me:
Sec. 3. Termination of restrictions on oil and natural gas development on Federal lands.
Sec. 4. Limitation of suits under National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Sec. 6. Suspension of fuel taxes on highway motor fuels when weekly United States retail gasoline prices exceed benchmark.
This sort of silliness only makes any sense in a world where you refuse to acknowledge any of the evidence on climate change. Pretty much as bad as raising your hand at a debate as a creationist in my book. I wasn’t particularly expecting to vote for a Republican in ’08, and that’s one more I can cross off my list.
Ron Paul is the leading advocate for industrial hemp in Congress and recently cut the ribbon for a huge biodiesel plant down in Galveston. He’s not as bad on the environment as you’ve made him out to be.
I understand where your coming from, but it’s a very faulty argument, and this is why. The less money you make, the greater the cost of gas effects you. In fact, the poorer you are, the less likely you are able to afford to live closer to metro areas, meaning you are more likely to commute. I don’t think I have to explain this as it is pretty obvious that it’s a regressive tax.
Now, using your same logic, I can make the argument that being AGAINST gas price reduction makes sense ONLY in a world where you believe that poor Americans should pay a significant regressive tax on gasoline and that you believe this doesn’t have a direct effect on their quality of life.
Doesn’t make much sense does it? Your argument ignores every other consideration except climate change. My argument ignores every consideration except the effect on the working poor.
Do you see the problem? We can’t make arguments in a vacuum where we only concern ourselves with one particular problem (even if we believe that problem is the most important).
High gas prices are a treatment, but they’re not a cure. The world’s consumption of fossil fuels is going to increase and increase dramatically in coming decades. High gas prices are only a small speed bump. If you want a cure, you need a cost competetive alternative energy source and that’s where your efforts should be focused.
I applaud Congressman Paul for working to reduce the burden on working Americans at the gas pump.
It seems to me that this is more about relying less on oil from the Middle East, giving us a way to stop occupying their lands, and therefore the ability to get entirely out of the Middle East, not just end one wat.
The tax cap would stop Washington from profiteering on gas price hikes. Remember, they make more tax money when the price is higher, and Paul is a believer in a small Federal government.
Ron Paul would stop federal subsidies to corporations, which would cause gas prices to rise, thereby making the development of alternative fuels economically feasible, and attractive to the free market.
Look at the corruption inherent in the fossil fuel market, largely due to government intervention. Why on earth would you want them to start dabbling in the alternative fuel sector?
I noticed you happened to **skip** right over any critique of the 20 or so other candidates running for presidency. If you’re so hung up on Ron Paul and his views about gas prices, I’d LOVE to read what you’re going to write about the other candidates.
Your credibility as a political critic would have been more reliable if you had started from the bottom and THEN worked your way UP to Ron Paul.
Let me help you… the other candidates are all in favor of letting the corporate-owned Federal Reserve banks continue to illegally suck about 20% out of every one of your paychecks. This money never once went toward anything other than the pocketbooks of these private bankers.
So, if you like handing out checks to wealthy people every time you get paid — think about writing a check for say $200 every time you get paid, and then sending it off to John Rockefeller — then please, continue to ignore the Federal Reserve and Ron Paul’s desire to get rid of these people’s influence.
Wow – the Paul supporters are out in force! Well done!
A general comment: I’m not claiming here to have done any sort of in depth analysis of Paul’s campaign or his position on a broad range of issues. My point is merely that he is the sole sponsor of a bill that (to me) only makes sense if you have your head deeply in the sand about the current environmental crises.
That doesn’t mean I don’t applaud his support of industrial hemp and biodiesel, the kissing of babies, or the role of good Texas BBQ in making this country great. It just means that I have a major concern based on this concrete legislative proposal that would probably be sufficient to prevent me from casting my vote his way. It’s interesting that none of the comments make reference to any specifics of the bill, but do generally appear to have campaign pamphlets close to hand…
I also don’t indicate anywhere that my two paragraphs were intended to include an analysis of the massive field that is currently assembled. I doubt, in fact, that I’ll bother any such analysis; if done well such a thing would fill volumes and require far more time than I have. I’m not shooting for “credibility as a political critic”, merely commenting on some of the odds and ends as they drift by.
Now some specific responses:
Zack: I agree entirely that high gas prices are in many ways regressive, and that is unfortunate. I wouldn’t advocate higher gas prices in a vacuum or for their own sake. Anything like that has to be part of a comprehensive energy and transportation policy, something which has been sadly lacking in this country. Paul’s bill, however, doesn’t appear to be part of a comprehensive policy that addresses these issues in a manner that supports more environmentally sensible and sustainable behaviors on the part of corporations or individuals. If his desire to lower gas prices was tied to things like support for public transport, local production and distribution, etc., etc., then it might make some sense. As it stands, though, the bill works to maintain an unhealthy and ultimately unworkable system through maintenance of absurdly low gas prices (much lower than pretty much anywhere else on the planet), without any proposals that would help us reduce our unhealthy reliance on fossil fuels in the first place.
AngelaTC: I certainly agree that the current federal supports for the current petroleum based energy system is unhealthy and unfortunate, and I’m all for cutting corporate welfare (this is one of the things that I liked about Paul). That does not mean that we as a society (through our governments) don’t have a key interest in protecting our environment from rapacious practices like strip mining coal in Kentucky and West Virginia. Paul’s bill (which is all my post was about) reads like a man who wants a box of toothpicks asking that the government allow loggers to cut down the last redwood. There no long term vision (either socially or environmentally) in the details of the bill that I can see, which makes it hard for me to envision him as President.
Jeremy: Indeed I have not written lengthy critiques of any of the candidates. My post was primarily about a single bill, and what it said (to me) about its sole sponsor (who happens to also be a candidate for the Presidency). Even if I was was going to undertake an analysis of all umpteen candidates, I’d have to start somewhere, and it seems that Paul’s as good a place as any; it’s certainly hard to see how I’d somehow be more “credible” if I’d avoided Paul until last. And while I think the role of the Federal Reserve is an important issue, it was hardly the point of my post. Further, a search for “Federal Reserve” on Paul’s campaign site turns up only two references, and neither says anything remotely like what you’re suggesting, so it’s a little hard to respond in a way that focuses on Paul’s policies and platforms.
Listen – ask yourself, will any of the other candidates with their massive coffers full of industry lobby money actually work to eliminate subsidies, level the playing field, and let alternative energy compete in a free market?
Obviously there is only one answer to that question. RP in the whitehouse would be the kind of political pressure such as Congress has NEVER seen … to end the shortsighted crap and start letting things work themselves out.
Global Warming is an abstract, it’s not solveable by this country, you need ALL countries. Ergo, I advocate attacking POLLUTION as a purely health issue; we should be using cleaner tech because dirty tech KILLS PEOPLE. As a geologist, I know that the earth hasn’t always been this cold, as well – so a lot of this global warming stuff is HYPE, and to what end? To get people moving in whatever direction the government thinks is best. Gimme a break – these are the same guys who start wars for oil, we’ve gotta get rid of them and start thinking for ourselves and DOING for ourselves what’s right, and just.
Sure, you’re level playing field idea all sounds well and good, but there’s no reason to believe that simply deregulating the industry would somehow make it all better. One of the central problems with both energy consumption and the generation of pollution is that huge disconnect between the price we pay at the pump or till and the true associated costs in things like disposal and pollution clean up. At the moment, any price I pay for disposal and pollution clean up are highly delayed and indirect.
I pay a monthly trash bill to the city, for example, but it’s fixed and completely unrelated to how much trash I actually set at the curb. If we all generate our full quota of trash every week instead of just half then that will cost the city more to process, which ultimately leads to a higher trash bill from the city. But I don’t connect that bill to my purchasing or recycling behavior since the act and the consequence are likely months if not year apart.
The problem’s even worse with gas purchases. We don’t include the costs of the pollution we generate in the price at the pump. That ends up in our local, state, and federal taxes, if we pay for it at all. So again, there’s no connection between my behavior and the consequences, and it’s hardly a surprise that there’s not much incentive to alter my consumption.
As for your little bit about pollution, I’m certainly fine with attacking pollution as a health issue as well as an environmental issue. But to deny human caused climate change is sticking your head in the sand, and to suggest that somehow it’s the government that’s “hyping” climate change. The evidence is coming from the scientists and in the U.S., at least, the government has been little but obstructionist.
My experience is that scientists rarely start wars for oil, and that Cheney and Halliburton executives are equally unlikely to appear on telly warning of the dangers of global climate change.
Global warming is NOT something the government should deal with. The rewards for fighting global warming are distributed to the entire world, while the costs of waging that war are levied upon the countries that choose to fight it. Unless we have a world government, which thankfully we don’t, then there’s no point waging an extremely expensive campaign to solve a global problem. It just doesn’t make economic sense.
Global warming is ultimately something that concerned citizens should deal with on a voluntary basis, not be forced to address via government regulations.
we simply don’t know enough about the potential costs of global warming on our quality of life and economy to warrant extremely costly proposals to deal with it, proposals which we don’t even know will solve the problem.
whoa, this seems more of a philosophical debate than an environmental issue. Deregulation is the absolute BEST way to solve any and every problem. granted the market is not always as fast as a dictator. but the market is always more fair and the market is blind. Dictators and regulators are swayed by votes, bribes, and other backhanded shenanigans. the market cannot be bribed, or bought, or voted on. in a regulatory world, one mistake at the top screws it for everyone. in a FREE society and FREE market, one mistake here doesn’t effect the people over there, free markets and free societies balance the load of mistakes, whereas regulation and dictatorship puts the burden on a minority group. usually the poor. We’re talking long term here. sure you may get what you want in one day with a vote in Washington. but as time goes by you realize just because they voted it doesn’t mean it happens, and just because it sounded right, doesn’t mean it actually worked. Free Markets work, but they don’t pander to anyone, so you can’t claim any praise for anything. I guess pride is the main driving force behind regulation, you get to hear the people clap because you did something big (and then when everyone forgets about it, and someone digs it up, they realize it never did any good)
Also, one other thought, government is the biggest polluter, government is number one, and government has repeatedly failed to follow their own regulations, and ailed to clean up their own messes, even under court order. the largest government polluter would be the industrial/military complex. The only thing that will help the environment is a Free Market, and Free Society, and a small government.
I wish people could get it through their heads that criminals do not follow the law, make all the laws you want, but good people don’t do bad things in the first place. so all you do is criminalize the criminals, but you never solve the problem. anyway, I could rant for hours, but there are some great books and essays on these topics, if you’d like I can send you some links and you can see the other perspective.
Tom:
Remind me to never be in a leaky boat with you. I’d hate to not bother helping bail because it aids you as well, especially if you couldn’t lend a hand at the time for some reason. Just wouldn’t make economic sense. Of course the fact that we would both drown as a result is a little unfortunate, but hey, that’s the breaks, eh?
Red herring much? What would it even mean to “force” citizens to deal with climate change? My primary point is that the current economic structure obscures the connections between choices and consequences, and Paul’s proposal would only make this worse. Any reasonable approach to free market economics requires that people have to have reasonably complete and accurate information if they’re going to make good economic decisions. Too much of our current structure warps that information, so people make decisions that seem reasonable in the short term, but have nasty long term consequences. Continuing to artificially deflate gas prices just confuses people about the real cost of their choices.
A nice proof by insufficient imagination. Sure, we don’t have all the details, but neither does medicine, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore everything doctor’s tell us. We had no guarantees going in regarding either the efficacy or the specific side effects of my father’s cancer treatment last year. It wasn’t easy, and there are still issues to be dealt with, but he’s still alive and appears cancer free. Not a bad gamble in my opinion.
I’m always amazed by these arguments that somehow doing good for the environment has to be an economic disaster. I would think that building wind turbines that provide small businesses and communities a chance to play a role in local power production would be a good thing, both economically and environmentally. Why does switching from incandescent to fluorescent (and turning the lights off when you leave a room) constitute an economic crisis? Where’s the disaster in taking the bus or walking or carpooling instead of driving solo in a great big vehicle? Humans have the capacity to be enormously creative given the right incentives. Let us reduce the amount of mud mixed into the incentives and see what wonderful things people come up with as a result.
John:
Thanks for the complement. I only wish it were true.
I’m not going to repeat everything I’ve said above, ’cause it’s not clear that people are actually reading it. I never said anything about regulation or de-regulation. Red herrings abound. Whatever free market system you propose or support, however, has to come with clear and reasonably accurate information, and that ain’t true now. Thus the system is skewed, and reducing the regulations ain’t gonna fix that.
What?!? So if, in a free society and a free market, I poison a community’s water supply with heavy metals, no one else suffers? And the fact that the rich can buy expensive designer bottled waters, while the poor remain dependent on “corporation tap” doesn’t shift the burden any? Nope, not at all…
Look at who got out of New Orleans when Katrina hit, and who got left behind. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that climate change will hurt the poor the worst. They’ll be the least able to move, change their circumstances, acquire scare resources, cope with medical consequences, or deal with changing economic conditions.
Huh?!? The stats on this are pretty clear on this, and the major sources of green house gases are things like power production and transport, and “the government” (whatever you even mean by that) isn’t a major producer in either of those things. (I certainly agree that things like de-commissioned military bases represent a nasty environmental problem, but that’s another red herring in the context of fuel consumption and climate change.)
Where did I ever say I wanted to criminalize anything? I’m hardly suggesting that we arrest people for leaving the bathroom light on – it would be an ineffective and ultimately unenforceable law. But I strenuously support the idea that people be charged a fair rate for the electricity to drive that light, one that includes the costs associated with waste disposal and pollution so both they and the energy producers can make rational economic choices.