Politics and Economics Headlines - 16 August, 2005
by Staff
But let's stop for a moment amid our fear and embrace it. Let's stand still and wonder how we can turn this oil-mad conundrum on its ear and use it to our benefit. What if we, as Californians, put a huge tax on gasoline, and the federal government followed suit, and so did all the other states? I mean a significant tax, say $6 or $7 a gallon. Make gasoline cost $10 a gallon at the pump. Ouch. Suddenly that SUV costs 240 bucks to fill up. Scary to think about, and what a horrible thing that would be, right? But let's follow this for a moment and look at the repercussions. With the tax money from gasoline flowing into the state's coffers, suddenly little pesky problems like schools, mass transit, bridges, highways and police officers all go away. For the first time in decades, both the state and federal finances are in order. Fewer cars on the roads mean less stress on resources such as police and fire departments, as well as highway-repair crews. ...we will be paying 8 or 10 bucks a gallon soon enough, much sooner than you might want to believe. The question is whether we want to pay ourselves or Exxon/Unocal/Shell/OPEC/fill-in-the-blank. The plan to become less dependent on gasoline, to remove the rope around our neck held by the oil- rich companies and countries, must be authored by ourselves, and waiting until the price of gas is $10 a gallon makes less sense than collecting that money now, and building a society where we know our neighbors and walk to the store, just as we did way back when.
The federal government wants to extend leases on 36 offshore tracts between Oxnard and San Luis Obispo so that oil companies can turn them into working oil fields. State officials and environmental groups have been fighting the plan on several fronts. Friday's ruling by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken came a day after the California Coastal Commission raised official objections to the same federal plan. The judge's ruling at a hearing Friday in Oakland came as a surprise to federal officials, who scrambled for clarification.
Neither Republican nor Democratic leaders want to see derricks dotting the coast. There isn't much oil out there. State agencies, local leaders and environmental groups are ready to rumble at the first sign of a drill bit. The topic is a complete nonstarter for public decision-makers and the average California resident. Why, then, is the White House continuing to push an idea with all the appeal of a dead gull? The state's Coastal Commission was left scratching its collective head last week as it voted unanimously to oppose federal plans to extend offshore oil and gas leases.
With Bolivia’s recent uprisings, their enormous gas reserves, and a presidential election on the way, this questionable activity could pave the way for a U.S. intervention. Rumors of Al Qaeda training grounds near Paraguay may also work to the Bush administration’s advantage as it makes a case for military operations in the region.
So, when the government and a CEO tell me that the sale of what was once BC Gas to Kinder Morgan, a Texas company in the pipeline business, is a great deal for me, knowing the sources, I ask: How?
BHP Billiton, an Australian energy giant and leading contender to build a liquefied natural gas processing terminal off the California coast, has hired a lobbying group overseen by George David Kieffer, a Los Angeles lawyer so trusted by Schwarzenegger that the governor asked him to help recruit staff for the administration. He also has served as a personal lawyer to the governor's wife, Maria Shriver.
"It has a rather large effect on the public's mood about the economy, especially among lower-income households," he said. "It directly reduces their spendable income, because they are not able to conserve their use of gas very easily -- their trips to work and to the store." Only about a third in the poll said they think President Bush is handling the nation's energy problems effectively, while almost six in 10 disagree. When asked whom they blame most for the rise in gas prices, people were most inclined to blame the oil companies, followed closely by politicians and countries that produce oil. |
news by category
- Resources
- Regions
- Related Issues
featured content
- Authors
- Dan Allen
- Cecile Andrews
- Sharon Astyk
- Megan Quinn Bachman
- Albert Bates
- Ugo Bardi
- Dan Bednarz
- Rebecca Burgess
- Sarah Byrnes
- Molly Scott Cato
- Kurt Cobb
- Dave Cohen
- Erik Curren
- Lindsay Curren
- Andrew Curry
- Herman Daly
- Kris De Decker
- Rob Dietz
- Charlotte Du Cann
- Rahul Goswami
- John Michael Greer
- Nate Hagens
- Richard Heinberg
- Øyvind Holmstad
- Rob Hopkins
- Robert Jensen
- Brian Kaller
- Frank Kaminski
- Paul Kingsnorth
- Amanda Kovattana
- Ellen LaConte
- Gene Logsdon
- Kathy McMahon
- Asher Miller
- Bill McKibben
- Rick Munroe
- Tom Murphy
- Andrew Nikiforuk
- Dmitry Orlov
- Christine Patton
- Damien Perrotin
- Dave Pollard
- Joanne Poyourow
- Barath Raghavan
- Wayne Roberts
- Stuart Staniford
- John Thackara
- Gail Tverberg
- Tom Whipple
- More authors...
- Publishers
- ASPO-USA
- Civil Eats
- Climate Progress
- Culture Change
- Energy Bulletin
- Fernand Braudel Center
- Feasta
- Nourishing the Planet
- Oil Depletion Analysis Centre
- On the Commons
- OpenDemocracy
- OpenEconomy
- Post Carbon Institute
- Shareable
- Solutions
- The Daly News
- The Oil Drum
- Shareable
- TomDispatch.com
- Transition Milwaukee
- Transition Voice
- Yale Environment 360
- Yes! Magazine
- Media Publishers
- Reviews
- Web chats
The Post Carbon Reader
A must-read collection by some of the world’s most provocative thinkers on the key issues shaping our new century. Buy now and receive a 20% discount.







