Democrats take a step forward
Several Democratic House members have proposed the PROGRESS Act, an act designed to reduce America's energy consumption. Most of what the bill would do would be create regional energy strategies, help fund research into alternative-fuel-powered cars, increase the biofuels infrastructure (which increases the economic viability of biofuels) and promotes public transit and commuter rail. These are laudable goals (and I am proud that my local Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) is one of the sponsors, along with Steny H. Hoyer (MD), Rep. John Dingell (MI), Rep. Jim Oberstar, Rep. Mark Udall (CO), Rep. Stephanie Herseth
(SD), Rep. Adam Schiff, and Rep. Rush Holt), which will create long-term benefits to the economy while lowering energy consumption. What is missing, unfortunately, are short-term plans to reduce energy use. The two biggest policies that could be implemented immediately to reduce energy use would be to increase the CAFE standards (governing average fuel economy across an entire company's line of automobiles) and to increase the gas tax by $0.50 per gallon. The former would be more politically acceptable, as the sales of large, gas-guzzlers has fallen (although the big automobile manufacturers would fight it), and more equitable in spreading the costs. The latter would be effective (raising gas prices higher would increase pain, particularly for low- and moderate-income people who have not seen wages rise much in the past 5 years), but could be most effectively implemented by targeted tax credits to these income groups and not increasing the tax, but committing to a price floor at $3.00 per gallon. The only major cost of implementation would be to ensure that oil companies do not continue to charge $3.00 per gallon if oil prices fall. Both of these programs will bring much more short-term energy reduction, but also be complementary with the PROGRESS Act by encouraging people to switch to alternative fuels and use public transportation more often instead of driving. While I commend the sponsors of the PROGRESS Act, if they want the act to be more effective in the short-term the two policies I outlined above would be essential.
(SD), Rep. Adam Schiff, and Rep. Rush Holt), which will create long-term benefits to the economy while lowering energy consumption. What is missing, unfortunately, are short-term plans to reduce energy use. The two biggest policies that could be implemented immediately to reduce energy use would be to increase the CAFE standards (governing average fuel economy across an entire company's line of automobiles) and to increase the gas tax by $0.50 per gallon. The former would be more politically acceptable, as the sales of large, gas-guzzlers has fallen (although the big automobile manufacturers would fight it), and more equitable in spreading the costs. The latter would be effective (raising gas prices higher would increase pain, particularly for low- and moderate-income people who have not seen wages rise much in the past 5 years), but could be most effectively implemented by targeted tax credits to these income groups and not increasing the tax, but committing to a price floor at $3.00 per gallon. The only major cost of implementation would be to ensure that oil companies do not continue to charge $3.00 per gallon if oil prices fall. Both of these programs will bring much more short-term energy reduction, but also be complementary with the PROGRESS Act by encouraging people to switch to alternative fuels and use public transportation more often instead of driving. While I commend the sponsors of the PROGRESS Act, if they want the act to be more effective in the short-term the two policies I outlined above would be essential.
posted by Biafra27 at 9:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home