Energy Star: Greenwashing at It's Worst?

Under the federal stimulus bill, $300 million will go to rebates for consumers who buy Energy Star products. In theory, a great idea--trading in energy guzzling appliance "clunkers" for more energy efficient ones. But are they? Maybe not. The EPA and Energy Departments have a small problem with accountability. Apparently manufacturers are certifying the energy savings of their products with little oversight. According to a Time article:

The Energy Department admits it doesn't properly track how and when manufacturers put Energy Star labels on products. The labels' ratings, which are supposed to indicate a product's energy efficiency, were "not accurate or verifiable," according to the agency. In other words, products that are supposed to save you money, and that are supposed to minimize environmental impact, may in fact do neither.

The Energy Star label is one of several "innovations" that are supposed to make consumers' lives easier—but in fact complicate them because the technology is flawed and misleading. The outcome is that unsuspecting consumers can and do get ripped off.

The NY Times explains that the Energy Department has poor oversight over the Energy Star ratings system. In many cases, the manufacturer—and the manufacturers alone—are responsible for testing and evaluating their own products. That's like letting junior high students decide what grades they should get on their report cards. From the Times:

While the Energy Department requires manufacturers of windows and L.E.D. and fluorescent lighting to have independent laboratories evaluate their products, the report said, companies that make refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers, water heaters and room air-conditioners, which consume far more energy, can certify those appliances themselves.

MoveOn This If You Want Wind and Solar Power

MoveOn asked that bloggers like myself post this request:

It's 2009. Democrats have ample majorities in both houses of Congress. President Obama campaigned on the promise to tackle climate change and boost our economy by investing in clean energy.

So why on earth is Congress considering an energy bill that:


- Would weaken current law, repealing President Obama's authority to crack down on dirty power plants, and
- Doesn't actually require the creation of new solar or wind power? (The Union of Concerned Scientists has concluded that the clean energy standards won't make power companies produce more clean energy than is already in the works.)

Why? Because Big Oil and Coal have teamed up with conservatives in both parties, and they've been successful in weakening the bill.

These are major flaws, but the bill has a lot of really good provisions, too. The key thing is that Congress can still strengthen it—if there's a public outcry. But we don't have much time: Congress is expected to vote on this bill in less than three weeks.

Can you sign this petition to Representative Dave Loebsack today? Eighty thousand MoveOn members have already signed. We need to double the number of signatures by Wednesday—that means we need 41 more signatures in Iowa City. MoveOn members will personally deliver this petition to many congressional offices the next day. Click here to add your name:

http://pol.moveon.org/cleanenergy/o.pl?id=16315-6809943-.UfG2ax&t=4

The petition says: "We need a stronger energy bill to fulfill Obama's vision of a clean energy economy. Congress should strengthen the clean energy standards and restore Obama's authority to crack down on dirty coal plants."

Congress must change the energy bill to require power companies to produce more clean energy for America. Wind and solar create more than twice as many jobs as coal and oil.3 And Congress needs to hold polluters accountable by restoring President Obama's current authority through the EPA to crack down on global warming pollution from power plants.

The Union of Concerned Scientists analysis finds that the current version of the clean energy standard "won't require utilities to use any more renewable electricity than...would be generated as a result of state renewable electricity standards already in place and the recently enacted stimulus package."4


If we just sit back, we'll miss our chance to go big with wind and solar—and we'll lose the jobs those industries would create. Big Oil and Coal will keep getting billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. And President Obama will be powerless to stop more than 100 new dirty coal plants, which will crowd out the clean energy growth we need to boost our economy.5

There are some good parts of the bill, but these are significant problems. As the Sierra Club's Carl Pope writes, the bill establishes strong long-term goals for cutting carbon pollution and very strong energy-efficiency investments, "but in its present form, it won't do all that's needed. The oil, coal, and dirty-utility interests...were able to prevent enactment of President Obama's much bolder vision...Yes, they will try to kill the green-jobs recovery in its cradle, and yes, they will try to block our clean-energy future."6

Please urge Rep. Loebsack to fight for a stronger energy bill. Clicking here will add your name to the petition:

http://pol.moveon.org/cleanenergy/o.pl?id=16315-6809943-.UfG2ax&t=5


Thanks for all you do.

–Anna, Michael, Joan, Noah and the rest of the team

Sources:
1. "Bill Needs Strengthening to Guarantee Necessary Carbon Reductions, New Green Jobs and Consumer Benefits, Science Group Says," Union of Concerned Scientists, May 14, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51475&id=16315-6809943-.UfG2ax&t=6


2. "EPA urged to act on climate, not wait for Congress," Associated Press, May 18, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51479&id=16315-6809943-.UfG2ax&t=7


"American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009," Library of Congress, May 15, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51482&id=16315-6809943-.UfG2ax&t=8


3. "Green Recovery: A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy," Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, September 2008
http://www.peri.umass.edu/green_recovery/

4. "Bill Needs Strengthening to Guarantee Necessary Carbon Reductions, New Green Jobs and Consumer Benefits, Science Group Says," Union of Concerned Scientists, May 14, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51475&id=16315-6809943-.UfG2ax&t=9

5. "Stopping the Coal Rush," Sierra Club
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51483&id=16315-6809943-.UfG2ax&t=10


6. "So How Good Is This Climate Bill, Anyhow?" Sierra Club, May 22, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51478&id=16315-6809943-.UfG2ax&t=11

Two kinds of Energy Vampires

Well, you knew it had to happen. The Senate part of the stimulus bill is outfitted with $50 billion dollars by the vampires in the coal industry so that it can create coal liquification plants which are actually more energy inefficient and much larger contributors to global climate change than petroleum refiners. Andrew Hug over at Environment Iowa needs everyone to act to let our Senators Grassley and Harkin to know that we don't want it.

Then, on the homefront, we all have our (silver) crosses to bear with our own energy consumption. Take a gander at this short video from Good magazine , it is eye-opening.

Energy and Climate: A Comparison Worth Considering

In the end, people who are undecided should consider where folks stand on the issues that matter most to them. Grist does a good job of showing the differences between Barack Obama, John McCain, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr on energy and climate policy. Good job Grist.

Energy Insecurity in South America

Not that we need more energy insecure issues to think about, but with recent pipeline sabotage in Bolivia impacting the natural gas production there, leaders in South America are scrambling to find diplomatic solutions to worsening conditions within this energy rich nation. Despite a highly popular leader (leftist/populist leader Evo Morales recently was given a confidence vote by 67% of Bolivians), Evo Morales has been treading thin water with leaders of the natural gas rich eastern region of the country, who are afraid that they will have to contribute to a social security program for workers over the age of 60 and more afraid that their stranglehold on production land will be endangered by the left-leaning government.

Evo Morales is locked in a bitter standoff with right-wing opposition governors who are pushing for autonomy. This has led to insurrection in parts of Bolivia leaving at least 30 protesters on both sides of the conflict dead.

Brazil, the most populous nation in South America, is dependent on Bolivia to supply about half of its natural gas needs and has had that supply cut in half by Bolivia's decision to close crucial pipelines last week.

More from the NY Times.

McCain-Palin's Oil Slick

According to non-partisan group FactCheck, Sarah Palin inflated the energy contribution of her state when she was interviewed by ABC.

In the exchange, the Alaska governor misstated a basic fact about her state's energy production:

Palin: Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

It's simply untrue that Alaska produces anything close to 20 percent of the U.S. "energy supply," a term that is generally defined as energy consumed. That category includes power produced in the U.S. by nuclear, coal, hydroelectric dams and other means – as well as all the oil imported into the country.

Palin would have been correct to say that Alaska produces just over 14 percent of all the oil produced in the U.S., leaving out imports and leaving out other forms of power. According to the federal government's Energy Information Administration, Alaskan wells produced 263.6 million barrels of oil in 2007, or 14.3 percent of the total U.S. production of 1.8 billion barrels.

But Alaskan production accounts for only 4.8 percent of all the crude oil and petroleum products supplied to the U.S. in 2007, counting both domestic production and imports from other nations. According to EIA, the total supply was just over 5.5 billion barrels in 2007.

Furthermore, Palin said "energy," not "oil," so she was actually much further off the mark. According to EIA, Alaska actually produced 2,417.1 trillion BTUs [British Thermal Units] of energy in 2005, the last year for which full state numbers are available. That's equal to just 3.5 percent of the country's domestic energy production.

And according to EIA analyst Paul Hess, that would calculate to only "2.4 percent of the 100,368.6 trillion BTUs the U.S. consumes."

Palin didn't make clear whether she was talking about Alaska's share of all the energy produced in the U.S. or all the energy consumed here. Either way, she was wrong.

And John McCain was off the mark too.

Sen. John McCain has also has used this inflated, incorrect figure. On Sept. 3, McCain told ABC News' Gibson:

McCain: Well, I think Americans are going to be very, very, very pleased. This is a very dynamic person. [Palin's] been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply.

McCain repeated the false figure more recently, in a September 11 interview with Portland, Maine, news station WCSH6.

Footnote: When we asked the McCain campaign where the 20 percent figure came from, we were referred to the Web site of the Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc, a group that says it promotes development of Alaska's natural resources. It states:

Alaska Resource Development Council: Alaska's oil and gas industry has produced more than 16 billion barrels of oil and 6 billion cubic feet of natural gas, accounting for an average of 20 percent of the entire nation's domestic production.

Look What Got Slipped in the New Energy Reform Act

Congress will come back from summer recess, and immediately consider energy legislation. These bills, which would allow offshore oil drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf as a supposed response to high gasoline prices, also contain massive taxpayer subsidies for the nuclear power industry.

Introduced a month ago, the “New Energy Reform Act of 2008” has not yet been put in legislative form and still lacks a bill number. The plan is sponsored by such bipartisan pro-nuclear Senators as Republicans Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as well as Democrats Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

The subsidies – ranging between $87 billion and $166 billion would pay for: increasing the number of Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff to expedite new reactor licensing; authorizing “risk insurance” for nuclear utilities if the startup of their new reactors is delayed for any reason; training nuclear workers; supporting the re-establishment of a U.S. industrial infrastructure for manufacturing large nuclear components such as reactor pressure vessels; and building a demonstration radioactive waste reprocessing facility. An expansion of federal loan guarantees for new reactors would leave taxpayers on the hook for up to $160 billion if nuclear utilities default on loan repayments.

A ironically named companion bill led by Republicans in the House, the “Americans for American Energy Act of 2008” (HR 6384), would: subsidize radioactive waste reprocessing; fast-track the opening of a reprocessing facility; remove congressional oversight on Yucca Mountain dumpsite spending; block consideration of radioactive waste from new reactor license proceedings; grant tax breaks to nuclear component manufacturers; fund nuclear engineering scholarships; support nuclear workforce expansion; and award cash prizes for new ideas on how to store radioactive wastes. This bill could give $120 billion of taxpayer money to the nuclear industry.

Our View: It’s ironic that massive subsidies for nuclear energy – which claims a place among climate change solutions – have been slipped into a bill promoting off-shore oil drilling. It is clear that the nuclear power industry – the most subsidized in the energy sector over the past 50 years – is less interested in climate change than in using that real crisis to carve out for itself another giant slice of the federal funding pie. This money is wasted on nuclear energy when micro-power and nega-watts are dramatically outcompeting nuclear power in the marketplace according to the Rocky Mountain Institute analysis, “The Nuclear Illusion.”

What You Can Do: Call your two U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative right away: call (202) 224-3121 to be patched through to your Congress Members. Urge them to block any legislation that would further subsidize the nuclear power industry, and to support renewable and efficiency solutions to our energy and climate crises. Organize your friends, families and co-workers. We must light up the Capitol switchboard.

(Source: Web: www.beyondnuclear.org Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abandon both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic.)

Why Are the Democrats So Anti-American Energy?

Virginia Foxx, a Republican congresswoman from North Carolina asked a great question during a press conference held yesterday "Why are the Democrats anti-American energy?" Apparently being "anti-American energy" means not allowing oil companies carte blanche to open up the ANWR to oil and gas exploration or the outer continental shelf to deep sea oil exploration.

So why are the Democrats so "anti-American energy"?

- Perhaps the Democrats don't believe that existing American oil and gas fields are all in play, i.e., in production. EIA (Energy Information Administration) data shows that domestic production of oil has decreased from the 1980's to about half the level today. The main reason?-- the relative low cost of foreign produced crude oil.

- Perhaps the Democrats believe that American consumers may be ahead of Republican politicians in terms of what to do about energy use. Canada's Globe and Mail reports "the U.S. Department of Energy said yesterday that oil demand in that country recorded the biggest drop in 26 years in the first half of 2008, falling by an average of 800,000 barrels a day from the same period a year ago. For the world's biggest energy user, it was the steepest decline since consumption tumbled during a recession in the early 1980s.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), meanwhile, confirmed that the U.S. consumer is starting to shun travel in an effort to cut costs. The IEA now expects a combination of high crude prices and a slowing economy will lead to a 3.1-per-cent decline in U.S. oil demand this year followed by a 2-per-cent drop in 2009."

The Street reports "Last week's inventory report, released Wednesday, Aug. 6, estimated that oil consumption during the four-week period ending Aug. 1 fell 20.1 million barrels, or 2.6%, relative to the same period in 2007. Consumption for the week ending Aug. 1 was said to have dropped 4.1% year-on-year."

If these market lovin' Republicans stick to their belief in the marketplace, the cumulative effect should be that gas prices decrease as usage decreases.

- Perhaps the Democrats believe there is more than one kind of energy that can run cars and trucks and stimulate the economy in the long-run. And perhaps they believe that throwing open the flood gates to drill of fossil fuel is not in the long-term interest of the US as other technologies will be forced by the market to be brought online at a faster rate. Flex-fuel cars, hybrids, electric cars will come on the market as the pent up demand for fuel-efficient vehicles elevates.

- Perhaps the Democrats don't believe that BP, Exxon-Mobil and other oil companies will just sell the newly produced (and subsidized by us no less) "American" oil to only US consumers (unless the Republicans are now willing to sponsor a bill to nationalize oil companies?}. These multi-national companies are likely to sell "our oil" to China, India or any number of growing economies as to us.

- Perhaps the Democrats recognize that this is an opportunity to change energy policy direction in an effort to retrack our technology production, reduce global greenhouse gases and perhaps keep the planet a sustainable environment for humans to live in for a long time to come.

Perhaps a better question to ask is "Why are the Republicans so hell-bent on pushing for drilling in these sensitive areas, when the critical need is to find alternatives to existing fuels?"

Fear-Based Energy Policy

There is significant evidence that tells us that global climate change is real and sufficient science to safely say that human beings have had much to do with it. But, even if man were to be totally devoid of responsibility, there is ample evidence that shows that greenhouse gases, e.g., the particles of carbon dioxide per million, have increased and there are actions that could reduce or, at worst, not allow the level to increase.

Add to this that oil production, has already peaked (or will peak by 2020) due to the limited potential for future finds and increased demand. Whether this is true is certainly debatable, but in all cases, the production for oil slips precipitously by 2050.

The hopeful person would see this as an opportunity to introduce new energy technologies, increase those technologies that already are known to work, and reduce those technologies that contribute to CO2/greenhouse gas increases. At the very least, it should be an opportunity revisit public energy policy for long-term solutions, rather than short-term political gains.

However, in reality, economic forces and politics that are "fear-based" are in place. These are the voices that say that we can't possibly replace an oil-based economy with clean, renewable energy--and certainly not in ten years, as Al Gore is famously promoting. These voices also tell us that we must dig for oil everywhere we can to be spared the disaster that not doing so will surely rain down on us. Even those who are playing both sides of the fence, like oilman T. Boone Pickens, who has said that the current energy situation is not one we can "dig our way out of" is promoting natural gas as a car fuel, despite the continuing problems that methane (aka natural gas) would bring in the form of greenhouse gases.

The voices of true laissez faire/let the market work harbingers do not want to allow public policy to interfere with the invisible hand (which effortlessly guides the economy to cause change as economic forces declare). However, is anyone sincerely willing to play Russian Roulette with the survival of humanity? Is anyone truly Malthusian enough to wait for the invisible hand of economic forces to thin the herd?

And what of the transitionalists, like Pickens, who say that we need to transition away from fossil fuels and that natural gas, for one, is an important transitional fuel. If we don't move in this way, the argument goes, we will plunge our economy into a disarray that we can not hope to recover from.

But is it true, particularly if we accept that the type of renewable-based energy programs could be in place in ten years, that such a transition is necessary? In other words, if we only pursue the renewable energy path, would we be worse off in ten years than if we chose the path of gradualism and, perhaps, slow the trajectory for energy redevelopment to a more "reasonable" timetable?

The answer is yes only if we are talking about the world economies as static. Perhaps gradualism would be better than doing nothing in this unreal case. However, with the economies of Asia booming, particularly in India and China, the increased output of greenhouse gases put us--the global "us"--in real danger. So, the answer has to be no. Transitionalism will not a good use of time nor resources.

The best case is for an agreement to be drawn between the mega-economic states to make the 10 year plan work and to provide resources and incentives for it to happen. If we believe that the US can't do it alone, we must diplomatically join the forces that already see the benefits of working cooperatively.

Unfortunately for the USA, an election year gambit by the Republicans (and frankly, some Blue Dog Democrats) says we need to do more drilling and to bring the cost of oil down for the next ten years, which plays to some voters' fears that we cannot "do nothing" and be able to take care of ourselves and families. As we have learned the hard way, voters do not like change if it affects them in the wallet. It is sad how the public can be "feared" into war over oil, but can't be "feared" into preventing it by changing our habits where it comes to oil consumption.

Gordon Gecko of "Wall Street" fame may have believed that "greed is good", but that's not a lie we can afford to believe any more than we can afford to be led by fear tactics.

House Passes Bill aimed to Move US From Oil to Alternatives

The House approved $18 billion in new taxes over 10 years on the largest oil companies Wednesday as Democrats cited record oil prices and rising gasoline costs in a time of economic troubles.

The money collected would provide tax breaks for wind, solar and other alternative energy sources and for energy conservation. The legislation, approved 236-182, would cost the five largest oil companies an average of $1.8 billion a year over that period (or approximately 7.8% of net income), according an analysis by the Ways and Means Committee. Those companies earned $123 billion last year.

Senate Democratic leaders said they would put the bill on a fast track and try to avoid a Republican filibuster.

The White House said the bill unfairly takes aim at the oil industry. President Bush is expected to veto the legislation if it passes Congress.

Culver Calls for Green Government

From the Sioux City Journal

Gov. Chet Culver Thursday issued an executive order which requires and promotes energy-saving practices in state government buildings.

"I believe state government can and must be a model for greening Iowa's homes, schools and businesses," Culver said.

Culver will tap Office of Energy Independence Director Roya Stanley to oversee the Green Government Steering Committee, which will organize the eco-friendly initiatives.The new committee will offer modifications for existing state offices to make them more green, while ensuring all future state government structures meet efficiency standards, Culver said.

Members of the committee also will audit state buildings and offices for energy efficiency to establish baselines. Green thinking will be applied to many aspects of state government, from cleaning supplies to lighting systems, Culver said. State employees also will be encouraged to reduce their fuel consumption by promoting carpooling and the use of biofuels, Culver said.

"We need to get in the habit of applying best practices to our daily routines," Culver said.

How about promoting mass transit and bikes too?

Iowa Has 2025 Energy Vision

From the Gazette

Iowa's energy czar issued the state's first-ever plan Friday to achieve energy independence by 2025 using a mix of proposals that included setting emission standards for new cars sold in Iowa, expanded use of renewable fuels, increased energy efficiency and conservation efforts, and benchmarks for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Gov. Chet Culver called the goals outlined in the plan "ambitious, yet attainable."

In issuing the legislatively mandated annual report, Roya Stanley, director of the newly created Iowa Office of Energy Independence, said it marks a "new era of state leadership in energy transformation" that establishes "bold and achievable" goals that build on Iowa's environmental and economic strengths.

"Preserving our links to the land and natural resources will be fundamentally important in this new era," Stanley wrote in the 36-page report. "We need to conserve our water, air and soil while developing our energy resources for the future."

According to report data, Iowa's energy bill topped a record $10.1 billion in 2004 and was "well over $11 billion" in 2006 due primarily to a heavy reliance on imported energy sources and price spikes for petroleum and natural gas. The plan, viewed by Stanley as "an adaptable tool," spells out options and strategies to be used to cut the state's consumption of energy, lower dependence on foreign energy sources, reduce use of fossil fuels and dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions.

To that end, the report recommends that Iowa join 16 states that have adopted or are considering adopting California-style emission standards for new passenger vehicles sold in Iowa, although it did not specify what those first-ever benchmarks would be. The plan also proposed to set standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 through multiple strategies.

Other recommendations call for incenting energy providers to increase the use and supply of renewable energy and to direct them to increase energy efficiency efforts. Other tools could include implementing and enforcing energy codes to improve efficiency of existing buildings and new construction and rewarding those that exceed the requirements.

The plan also calls for accelerating the infrastructure development and use of renewable fuels for all transportation in Iowa, including greenhouse gas criteria for air permits issued by the state Department of Natural Resources, setting energy efficiency standards and practices for public buildings and vehicles, require energy audits and efficiency retrofits for existing state-owned buildings, challenging Iowans to take individual responsibility to increase conservation and efficiency habits, and create ways for state employees to reduce their travel miles via telecommuting, ride share and public transit.

"It is our goal to make Iowa the national leader in energy efficiency, and sustainable energy," Culver said. "Since taking office in January 2007, we have made great strides toward this goal.

"We have announced plans for the nation's first cellulosic bio-refinery, we have made renewable fuels more accessible to Iowans by opening more E85 pumps across the state, and we have dramatically grown the wind energy industry throughout the state, by recruiting and attracting new turbine manufacturers, and wind energy producers to Iowa," he added.

Republicans Block Energy Bill To Protect Big Oil's Interest

From CNN

Senate Republicans blocked a broad energy bill Thursday because it included billions of dollars in new taxes on the biggest oil companies.

Supporters say the bill would move the country away from gas-guzzling cars and toward nonfossil fuels.

Democratic leaders fell one vote short, 59-40, in getting the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster. Democrats said they would strip the taxes from the legislation to move the bill forward.

Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he hoped to get the revised energy package approved later in the day, including the first increase in automobile fuel efficiency in three decades and massive increases in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel.

He said we will "eliminate the tax title."

Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky predicted the revised bill would be approved with wide bipartisan support.

The legislation, if passed by the Senate, would have to be voted on by the House, which a week ago approved legislation that included the $21 billion tax increases with revenues marked for promoting renewable fuels and energy efficiency.

But Senate Republicans stood firm on opposing the tax increases, which they said would guarantee a veto by President Bush.

McConnell chided Democrats for pushing a "massive tax increase" that he said "they knew would never be signed into law" because of the president's opposition.

Reid countered that the Senate shouldn't back away from the needed tax measures "just because the president doesn't like it."

"We must begin to break our country's addiction to oil," Reid said.

John Edwards Speaks On Energy and Global Warming

Watch Edwards address League of Conservation Voters. He was first candidate with a plan that was endorsed by environmental groups and the first to state honestly that we need a sustained effort to address both Global Warming and alternative energy.

Thomas Friedman Column is Genius!

If you have a few minutes, read this Tom Friedman column and then ask yourself--why aren't we doing this?


Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Two dates — two numbers. Read them and weep for what could have, and should have, been. On Sept. 11, 2001, the OPEC basket oil price was $25.50 a barrel. On Nov. 13, 2007, the OPEC basket price was around $90 a barrel.

In the wake of 9/11, some of us pleaded for a “patriot tax” on gasoline of $1 or more a gallon to diminish the transfers of wealth we were making to the very countries who were indirectly financing the ideologies of intolerance that were killing Americans and in order to spur innovation in energy efficiency by U.S. manufacturers.

But no, George Bush and Dick Cheney had a better idea. And the Democrats went along for the ride. They were all going to let the market work and not let our government shape that market — like OPEC does.

You’d think that one person, just one, running for Congress or the Senate would take a flier and say: “Oh, what the heck. I’m going to lose anyway. Why not tell the truth? I’ll support a gasoline tax.”

Not one. Everyone just runs away from the “T-word” and watches our wealth run away to Russia, Venezuela and Iran.

I can’t believe that someone could not win the following debate:

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE: “My Democratic opponent, true to form, wants to raise your taxes. Yes, now he wants to raise your taxes at the gasoline pump by $1 a gallon. Another tax-and-spend liberal who wants to get into your pocket.”

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: “Yes, my opponent is right. I do favor a gasoline tax phased in over 12 months. But let’s get one thing straight: My opponent and I are both for a tax. I just prefer that my taxes go to the U.S. Treasury, and he’s ready to see his go to the Russian, Venezuelan, Saudi and Iranian treasuries. His tax finances people who hate us. Mine would offset some of our payroll taxes, pay down our deficit, strengthen our dollar, stimulate energy efficiency and shore up Social Security. It’s called win-win-win-win-win for America. My opponent’s strategy is sit back, let the market work and watch America lose-lose-lose-lose-lose.” If you can’t win that debate, you don’t belong in politics. More