Offshore Drilling Proposal Solves Nothing

Today, President Obama announced a proposal to greatly expand offshore drilling in the United States. He has already received a good deal of flak, with environmentalists attacking him for leaving our oceans open to environmental assault by the oil industry, and conservatives arguing that this doesn’t go far enough to open our waters to reap the benefits of oil wealth.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Transit Cuts Are Bad Public Policy

Recently, Washington, DC increased its Metro and bus fares by 10 cents per ride, and more drastic fare hikes (or cuts in service) are expected in July. The New York MTA board just voted on a package of severe cuts, eliminating entire subway lines and substantially slashing bus service. I understand that these cities are dealing with budget shortfalls to the tune of $189 million and $400 million, respectively, but these issues should be dealt with on the city level, not on the Metropolitan Authority level, since all the authorities can do are increase fares and decrease service.

Instead, these cities, and all other cities facing similar budget woes, should look at transportation not as a luxury but as a priority. Here are the problems with attacking public transportation when fiscal times are tough:

1. Poor people will be disproportionately affected. Public transportation is usually an inelastic good for the poor, and increasing fares will only create greater economic burdens for them. Many cities have good subsidization programs for the poorest riders, but many people who cannot easily afford increased fares will have no choice but to absorb the increased costs.
2. Ridership will decrease. People who are on the fence between using public transport because it's cheap and good for the planet but aren't enthralled with its crowdedness, slowness, and sometimes inconvenience will likely err on the side of personal vehicles to avoid increased prices and worse service. This will only further decrease revenue for the transit authorities, exacerbating budgetary problems. Similarly, those who may have been on the fence about switching to public transportation will now have less incentive to do so.
   
3. Traffic congestion will increase. As more people eschew public transportation, more cars will be used, increasing traffic problems in cities.
4. Pollution will increase. As personal vehicle ridership increases, so will greenhouse gases, criteria pollutants, and other emissions. In an era where cities and states have begun to understand the desperate need to address environmental problems, this would be a huge setback to good environmental policy. And this is to say nothing of the increased dependence on foreign oil.
   

So what should cities do?

I've already made the case for a gas tax. Assuming these transit cuts in service and hikes in price are temporary, why not instead increase the gasoline tax, also ostensibly temporarily? This would put more of the burden on wealthy people who can afford to drive to work, increase public transportation usage, increase transit authority revenue, decrease congestion, and decrease pollution. This seems like a win-win-win-win to me. The only disadvantage is pissing people off who drive cars. But when they are contributing to so many social, economic, and environmental problems by doing so, isn't it a sacrifice worth making? Raise gas prices the same amount you would raise transit rides.

Alternatively, increase tolls. This will have many of the same benefits as a gas tax, though in cities other than DC it will more specifically affect those entering the cities in question, as opposed to everyone in the state (gas taxes are implemented on a state level; however, DC has the authority to instate its own gas taxes).

I realize none of these measures is politically popular, and no one wants to make anyone pay more for something so vital as transportation. But when push comes to shove, it shouldn't be public transit users who suffer increased burdens. People should be incentivized to use more public transportation so that transit systems can grow stronger, gain people's trust, and become the widespread, efficient, fast, clean, dominant means of human movement that they should be.

Images: DC Metro (American Architecture)

Astroturf Strategy Spreads from Health Care to Climate

As the House and Senate have been on August recess, their "town hall meetings"—largely focused on health care legislation—have been met with vociferous, angry, and even violent opponents of any reform. These right-wing conservatives, feeding off each other's anger as well as that of inflammatory media pundits, are taking a stand against what they see as a "government takeover" of health insurance, which they associate with the worst of evils, many comparing it to Socialism, or even Nazism.

Unfortunately, much of this contrived anger and fear is a result of irresponsible media neglecting to provide facts on what the current health care bills would actually change (the government would, in fact, not be "taking over" any insurance options, and there was never anything close to a "death panel" proposed, as ex-governor Palin had insisted last week). And much of it is simply the conservative Republican effort to derail Obama and the Democrats' platform in order to blame them for a slew of failures come 2010, and pick up Congressional seats (even if it does mean leaving millions of Americans without health insurance—a minor hitch to an otherwise noble plan).

But now, finding that this public, "grassroots" (or "astroturf," as some are calling it) outcry strategy is actually working—despite its largely uninformed, and sometimes clandestinely confederate perpetrators—the oil industry is planning to apply it to its opposition to climate legislation in the Senate.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) has written to its member companies asking them to "move aggressively" to stage dozens of anti-climate bill gatherings across the country, mostly in states with swing voters in the Senate. Greenpeace acquired the letter that API distributed, which outlines many of the same false arguments that have been plaguing the climate debate for months. At one point, the letter reads:

After hearing that Waxman-Markey-like legislation could increase the costs of gasoline to around $4 and lead to significant job losses . . . audiences changed their opinions on the bill significantly. Opposition to the bill within the policy influentials cohort grew 23 points, from 40% to 63%; with a 19 point increase in those who now “strongly” oppose the legislation.

What this letter fails to mention is that the $4 figure above comes from research by the Heritage Foundation, which asserts that gasoline will reach that price in 2035. That's 26 years away. And we just had $4 per gallon gas last year, only there were few fuel-efficient cars that found themselves immune to the hikes. I can guarantee that with functional climate change regulations, and more responsible consumer behavior, there will be an abundance of alternatives that will render such a gasoline price increase insignificant. But API doesn't give credence to these trivial details.

So now these astroturf groups—meant to look like regular citizen groups, but actually groups funded by corporations, trade associations, and lobbying firms—will have their voices heard much more readily than those they are impersonating.

And the saddest part is that the targeted Senators, even though they will likely be mindful of these charades, will still be affected by them. Instead of taking a strong stance against artificially engineered rallies and pervasive lies, many Senators will ultimately bow to the pressure exerted upon them—and fueled by the media, who report not on facts, but on spectacles.

If the public were fairly informed about issues like health care and climate change, the debate would be completely lopsided in favor of a comprehensive overhaul of policy on both fronts. But well-endowed corporations, ratings-driven media, and Senators susceptible to being weakened with lies and bought with contributions, are playing no part in helping to accurately educate voters. And those frightening realities of our modern democracy could end up dismantling some of the most important legislative initiatives in our history.

Images: Violent town hall meeting (The National), API Presdient Jack Gerard (flickr), Senator Arlen Specter at a town hall meeting (Philly.com)

The Case for a Gasoline Tax

An op-ed by Eric Grunebaum in yesterday's Boston Globe eloquently outlines some of the most compelling arguments for a gasoline tax, specifically in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, such a tax has already been defeated twice this year in the Massachusetts legislature, and debate continues to roil over whether a gas tax or a hike in highway tolls would be more equitable.

Let me add one more argument to the article linked above. As urban sprawl becomes a bigger and bigger problem throughout the country (and the world), we need to be rethinking the way we develop, which is inextricably tied to the way we get around. Residents of western Massachusetts are bemoaning a gas tax, arguing that they will be unfairly impacted, as they will not be able to take advantage of the public transportation alternatives that easterners have at their disposal. However, maybe this sort of "inequity" is part of the solution to some of our biggest problems.

I would contend (with no empirical data) that a vast majority of the people who live in western Massachusetts, and other such areas relatively far from urban centers, are not farmers. While farmers need to be far away from cities to make a living and contribute to society, most who live in rural areas do not need to. Now I'm not going to be exceptionally radical here and argue that no one should live outside of a 20 mile radius of a major city, but I will argue that as long as you are living far away from an area that has access to public transportation, you should still have to pay a higher fare for gasoline, along with those who do have access to an alternative.

I don't see this as a punishment for suburban and rural dwellers, but rather as an incentive to live near trains, buses, and subways, and therefore push society to build upwards rather than outwards, and smartly rather than regressively. At a forum of urban planners that I attended last week, one of the members of the panel called for a $0.50 per gallon gas tax, a political unreality to be sure, but one that would no doubt help to decrease the insatiable sprawl that has been creeping through our untouched lands for centuries.

A Times article from a couple weeks ago discusses emerging suburbs that strive to eliminate the use of cars, a feat that seems daunting and perhaps impossible in today's fast-lane society. But towns like Vauban, Germany may just be the paradigms that we need to look to for a guide to modern planning and transportation strategies. And a gas tax, while not a singular solution, is a good place to start.

Images: Gas prices (good.is), exurban sprawl in Florida (Brittanica), Vauban, Germany (New York Times)

Gas is Cheap Again. Drill Baby Drill can wait.

Now is the first time since the oil crisis of the 1970s that there has been so much bipartisan support for weaning the United States off foreign fuels, and reaching ever-appealing “energy independence.” Democrats tend to want to realize this goal by focusing primarily on conservation, efficiency, and alternative fuel sources. Most Republicans talk about all of these methods as well, but don’t think it will be enough. John McCain during the campaign, for instance, spent a great deal of time talking about the widespread need for more nuclear power plants, “clean-coal” plants, and stressed the importance of drilling for more oil within and around United States territory. Sometime in August, it seemed, the “Drill Baby Drill!” chants were starting to ring across the land.

Thank goodness. There is a surefire solution to energy independence that doesn’t involve relinquishing our massive Ford Expeditions and Hummers. If we just open up new sites for oil extraction off our coasts, we will begin to offset our oil imports (which currently account for two-thirds of US consumption), while also saving money on our gas bills. …Right? Well, most “Drill Here, Drill Now” chanters during the election season seemed to be ignoring the economic analysts’ reports that asserted that we wouldn’t see gas prices drop—due to the new rigs—for several years.

Still, election seasons are election seasons. And the Democrats, delightful opportunists that they are, hopped on board the drill train, lifting an offshore drilling ban to prove to constituents that they too cared about gas prices. But wait! Now, thanks to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, gas prices are at their lowest points in years, and all those conservation measures that people were starting to carry out without government prodding—buying efficient cars, taking public transportation and biking, taking fewer unnecessary car rides—are gradually falling by the wayside. SUV sales are up once more. And it seems that all that talk about drilling is off the table—for now.

And then there’s the Big Three. You know, the car companies asking for $34 billion from the government (read: taxpayers). Wait, but why are Honda and Toyota not going bankrupt? Perhaps because instead of clinging exclusively to “all-American” big ol’ trucks and marketing them heavily, they invested at least a bit in more compact, efficient cars that have brought most auto business to them over the past year or so. And only now—as part of their rescue plan—do Ford and GM talk about investing seriously in plug-in hybrids, battery technology, and other efficiency measures.

What should government do? Raise gas taxes now, while they’re so low. The Federal Government should even put a floor on gas prices so that people don’t go flocking back to the Hummer too. Invest revenues from gas taxes in public transportation, research and development, and alternative energy. It’s going to take a while to make the transition to alternative fuel vehicles, so let’s start with vehicles that use much less oil than those we have now, and then once cars are running mostly on electricity, make the switch so that the backup engine is running on cellulosic ethanol or fuel cells. Going forward, we need to stop thinking about drilling and start thinking about real, long-term, innovative solutions that will keep jobs within our borders, create new jobs, cut pollution, and actually wean us off foreign oil.

Photos: Oil rig (Wikipedia), Hummer (Hummerreports.com), Plug-in Prius (Autospectator.com)