June 27, 2008
Kill the Gas-Guzzler and Declare Economic War Against Oil (Brent Budowsky)
Instead of fighting wars that become intertwined with oil, we should declare economic war to end our addiction to oil, and not fight unnecessary wars.
Make no mistake: If there is an attack against Iran, it would almost certainly trigger both a stock market crash, which could occur anyway after seven years of Bush policies, and a severe recession, or something worse.
Make no mistake: America has the power and strength to end our dependence on the oil economy and the gas-guzzler car. The problem is not only a lack of leadership but a leadership in exactly the wrong direction from Bush, Cheney and now McCain.
America needs a JFK moon-shot program to end our dependence on oil, but what we have is not JFK, but J.R. Ewing and a government that acts as though it is of the oil companies, by the oil companies and for the oil companies and the OPEC oligarchs and oligopolies who are their allies in the tyranny of oil.
America should mobilize to mass-produce a patriot car within five years that achieves 100 miles per gallon or runs on entirely gasoline-free fuels.
The next president should issue a call to action and moon shot-magnitude program to enlist all Americans to a new generation of technology, science and research leadership, similar to JFK reaching the moon within a decade.
Achieving these goals requires serious and dramatic policies, so rather than merely rant, let’s get serious:
First: The president-elect should host a summit including industry leaders, investors, and the great minds of American science and technology. They would develop a program to be introduced as S-1 and HR-1 in the new Congress and signed into law by Presidents Day 2009.
Second: The program would have a clear goal of achieving 100 mile-per-gallon or better cars within five years. It would create new public and private initiatives and incentives to promote solar, wind and geothermal energy and cutting-edge energy-conservation technology and business.
Third: The program should enlist and benefit all Americans and abandon economic theology of the left and right. It should include demand-side Keynesian proposals to benefit consumers and build economies of scale to mass-market new-generation autos and energy sources, with supply-side incentives to companies and investors.
Fourth: Let’s revisit capital gains. For new-generation cars, promotion of renewable energy such as solar, wind and geothermal, and to support cutting-edge conservation business, capital gains tax cuts make sense.
Let’s consider a two-year capital gains holiday for investors holding long-term assets in automotive companies that reach the 100 mile-per-gallon target within five years. We could add an additional one-to-two-year capital gains holiday, or an extraordinary employee tax credit, for companies increasing employment by 15 percent above current levels.
Capital gains tax reduction aimed at new-generation companies and products would create huge incentives for managers, dramatic benefit for workers, rich rewards for investors and the equivalent of a giant progressive tax cut for consumers saving major money through lower energy costs.
Capital gains tax cuts for next-generation business will create a new wave of jobs for workers who pay taxes, and economic growth from new-wave business that reaps huge energy cost savings for consumers and companies.
Fifth: A $5,000 tax credit for consumers who buy 100 MPG cars and tax credits for buying products such as solar energy, together with the creative use of government procurement purchasing power, would stimulate demand and accelerate progress.
Sixth: Create a new Civilian Conservation Corps to inspire young people, including grants for extra summer courses to study new-energy science and business, support research and education, and serve in the Peace Corps to help developing nations save energy.
JFK challenged and mobilized the nation to reach the moon. He did not go hat in hand to royal monarchs begging for oil. America did not surrender our security and prosperity to oligopolies, cartels, royal families and speculators putting profit ahead of patriotism.
When JFK pointed to the moon, it was big, bold, hard and daring — and we made it. America is a good, great, powerful nation. We can do it again by mobilizing our incredible ingenuity, talent, brainpower, entrepreneurial spirit and patriotic citizenry to set bold goals and surpass them.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 24 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Brent;
It is a good idea. I was talking to a gentlemen that is working on biomass fuels. Before gas went to 4 a gallon, investors was standoffish. Now with higher gas prices he is getting more inquries than he can handle and his plan is near implementation. High gas price hopefully will send us in a new direction away from fossel fuels but big oil is going to try to hold on to their markets and we'll see what happens. Could the increase in alternative fuel bring teh price of oil down? We'll soon find out.
Comment by Mike Coleman — June 27, 2008 @ 11:36 am
Brent, your post is spot on. It is unfortunate that many of us have been speaking these very same ideas for 30 years or more. Foresight can be painful and hindsight can be frustrating. Reminds me of when Ronald Raygun took the solar panels of the White House a short time after his inauguration. What a buffoon reagan was, as he made Carter look like a Thomas Jefferson.
Comment by Lester — June 27, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
Brent, what if not the next President-elect but a current President Bush announces these initiatives right now with full support of Sen. McCain? Would Obama jump on board for the good of the country on this bi-partisan issue? How enthusiastic would Democratic leadership be in supporting this initiative? Given that Democrats are doing everything they can to limit the current domestic energy production, slow this economy to a standstill and do whatever it takes to help Obama win, I won't hold my breath.
Comment by Misha — June 27, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
These are of course great ideas, however, I don't like discussion mixing apples with oranges. Solarand wind impact electricity use, and not much of our oil use. The emphasis needs to be on high mileage vehicles and the fuel to run them. While I am all for solar, wind, and other clean electric sources, they really do not have much impact on the use of oil. Solar and wind have a great deal of impact on the climate change discussions. Make no mistake, we will need additional electricity IF we have more electric cars, and convert homes from oil to electric heat, but the most immediate need is to reduce the oil we use for transportation.
Comment by Al, KS — June 27, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
Futher…I am always wary of candidates who try to confuse the production of electricity with the use of oil. When they start talking about solar, wind, nuclear and equating that with reducing our use of oil, I just want to scream.
Comment by Al, KS — June 27, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
So, gas is $4 a gallon and we need to attack oil. Milk is also $4 a gallon, should we attack cows? Brent actually brings up the point that the government needs to offer guidance to the future. The private sector has already observed the opportunities and many auto manufacturers are moving there quickly and dropping the gas guzzlers. Personally, I like big powerful cars and will be saddened to see them go. But the market determines value, not the government. Every time the government calls the tune the public pays the piper. What we don't need is more taxes.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — June 27, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
Vespa scooters for everyone and a shot in the back of the head for anyone who rides something else. Let's go fully Marxist with a playful Italian touch.
Comment by Igor R. — June 27, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
RR;
When weare able to power our trucks and cars with milk, then your analysis would be spot on, however you premise is false and well as you. We drink milk, we do not use it to power our economy. I have often told you not to open your mouth unless you make yourself the fool, quit trying so hard.
Comment by Mike Coleman — June 27, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
Well, Brent, this is quite a plan! It's interesting speculating how each of the current candidates would sound, were they to announce such a plan. Which one would be likely to promote such a plan and which would have the American public "fired up" and "ready to go" to make the plan a success.
Comment by smilinjack — June 27, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Mr. Budowsky ~
Quoting you, "Make no mistake: If there is an attack against Iran, it would almost certainly trigger both a stock market crash, which could occur anyway after seven years of Bush policies, and a severe recession, or something worse."
I was in Blockbuster renting a movie last night which is around $4.00, the gas in my town is around $ 4.00/gal, and the lady behind the counter at Blockbusters told me how difficult it paying $4.00/gal of milk for her little children.
I put the movie back and gave my $4.00 to her.
This morning I sent $100. to my married daughter to help w/ gas so she and her husband would have a little extra when they take off for their one-week camping vacation w/ their two babies.
Iran or no Iran we are in a recession… And, a lot of people in this country are in a depression.
This is tough times for young families who work hard to make ends meet, who do the right thing and have little control of how much gas they use, or milk the kids require.
Thank you for all your ideas, Mr Budowsky. I hope the candidate who is elected executes your suggestions ASAP. In the meantime, people have to reach out and help each other. They wont ask - ya just have to figure it out - and give a few buck here and ther to every young person you know. Do this every day… They need the help.
Comment by JFK-HRC — June 27, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
I think you have a lot of great ideas…BUT…THERE IS NO TIME LIKE THE PRESENT. Factories, Buses, Cars, Commercial buildings, Heating units…THEY REQUIRE OIL…HECK…PLASTIC REQUIRES OIL.
I would like to see some type of synthetic oil made that is good for the environment. This business about 10 years to get oil converted into fuel is bull…say 2-3 years. Brazil makes us look like we are in 1st grade. What I think we need is "transition oil". The fuel that will allow us to economically fuel our cars, not depend on mid-east oil, and then go to biofuels. Your ideas cannot be implemented over night and if the price of oil does not come down we drill, get oil…supply increases..demand lessens and speculators go somewhere else to GUESS and make money.
Man…I'm not finding fault with you…what I'm saying is we need to use common sense.
By the time Congress (which I will suppose will be Democratic) vote on any of the above…I will be broke…there will be no oil for us…and the Mideast will have conquered most of Europe because we don't have to jet fuel to protect them or ourselves. Time is of the essense and oil is in our BACK YARD…DRILL…DRILL…DRILL.
AND MAKE IT MANDITORY THAT YOUR IDEAS ARE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME PERIOD AFTER WE ARE SELF-SUSTAINING AND CAN MAKE THE TRANSITION WITHOUT ENDANGERING PEOPLE'S LIFE SAVINGS WITH $50k autos
Comment by Carolyn — June 27, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
if speculation is truly to root cause of these increases follow the money. find out who can benefit the most I think the public would be shocked. Could this commodity be controlled by a government or group that wish for our way of life to be forever altered Could there be someone out there that would benefit from a world in recession? is 10 to 15% unemployment in the near future acceptable, work in Construction, Transportation Service Industries, Retail and Banking have already been wiped out. Who really benefits from the anemia dollar is it China or the EU or Some Islamic State could a group like one of them corner a commodity market such as oil.
Comment by ep — June 28, 2008 @ 8:59 am
How are those of us working full time and falling further behind each month going to afford car payments on one of those new 100 mile per gallon cars? The people least able to afford gas prices are also those who can least afford to buy a new car. And there are a lot more like me, than those that can afford a new car. We are the working poor who USED to be middle class. Every year our wages fall further behind what they were good for the previous year, so each year we work as hard (or harder) with more stress than the year before. And many of us are no longer employed full-time, and soon even fewer of us will be. And no one is truly addressing this problem. How will those of us that need the savings most, ever be able to get cars like that once they are created?
Comment by ByTheSeaWA — June 29, 2008 @ 9:32 am
Does this mean Al Gore and other phony global warming advocates will have to stop traveling in private jets? Those are real gas guzzlers.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — June 30, 2008 @ 7:42 am
Robert, not at all, this weekend Ahhnold traveled by private jet to talk about how we need to cut our addiction to oil. Let's drink to end alcoholism, let's eat for hunger and let's do what the Democrats want to do to this country for abstinence!
Comment by Igor R. — June 30, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
Brent and friends:
Get over the notion that we can keep driving private cars. It's time for crash programs in wind & solar generation and a commitment to rebuilding the rail grid.
You cannot save the suburban lifestyle.
Comment by mrBadExample — June 30, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
Change the subject - Confuse milk with gas simply because they both cost roughly the same. Change the subject - bring up Al Gore, and attack his attempts to improve the environment by attacking the common method of transportation.
Try discussing the subject, if you can.
Comment by mkochinski — June 30, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
Brent, you should be thinking RFK, Jr.
Here's my pick so far for the best article of the year.
RFK., Jr. spells out not only our energy future but a future that puts Americans to work and ends M.E. wars forever. The only thing stopping us is big oil and politicans who take their orders from big oil. (If we had listened to Jimmy Carter we could be leading the world in clean renewable energy. Let's listen to RFK Jr.)
http://rfkin2008.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/the-next-presidents-first-task-a-manifesto-by-rfk-jr/
Why is Bush blocking Solar development in this country:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-jacquot/nipping-solar-energy-in-t_b_109943.html
Comment by The Poster's Poster — June 30, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
mkochinski, Al Gore's attempts to improve the environment have as much validity as Hitler's attempts to improve racial composition: they were both widely accepted by earnest people in their time, both were based on faulty science, anybody who did not believe in them was branded public enemy, and they both ended in tragedy (well, in Al Gore's case, that's still in the future).
Comment by Igor R. — June 30, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
"America should mobilize to mass-produce a patriot car within five years that achieves 100 miles per gallon or runs on entirely gasoline-free fuels."
Great idea! The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles was actually started FIFTEEN YEARS AGO under then president Clinton. When Bush came to office, they just plain killed the program.
For one of the more bizarre stories about the Bush administration's war on America, read the article:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/11/05/071105crbo_books_kolbert
The sad thing is, we could have been leading the world with our clean, efficient car technology. Instead, we "elected" Bush the oil CEO and Manchurian candidate, to destroy our economy and wold standing.
It's truly a shame. One the bright side - people are now ready to face the truth, and turn things around.
By the way, these technologies already exist … all would take is a president who's goal was to support them instead of bury them …
Comment by Jonathan — June 30, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
Wow, Johathan, I love that 117th amendment to the Constitution that states "the right of the Big Three to get billions from the government for really high mileage cars shall be absolute". That evil, evil Bush, oh why does he hate this country so?
And even so, the wonderful project Bush killed must've been SO close to production, and now with those high gas prices it's a slam dunk to mass-produce them like hotcakes. Or is he threatening the Big Three with horrible retribution if they don't pay homage to his oil buddies?
Comment by Igor R. — June 30, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
Down here in Texas, T Boone Pickins is investing his commodity profits to own Wind Generation down here. He could become the world's first trillionaire. OK he's THE WINNER for what thats worth.
Comment by The Old Hippy — July 1, 2008 @ 2:31 am
Igor,
Why are you attacking me? The facts speak for themselves. In 2001, an oil CEO became president. His administration killed off a plan to create efficient cars. The price of oil quadrupled. It's hurting a lot of Americans.
Read the article. Read the book. Do some research. Do some math - how much does this technology cost, how much does it save? Then, maybe you can make a coherent argument, rather than making up amendments to the constitution.
(And seriously, are you suggesting that Bush limits himself to operating within the constitution?)
Do you think the article is fabricated, for instance? That there never was such a program? That it's not possible to make efficient cars? I have no idea what you're actually getting at …
Essentially, they were going to make the super-Prius, long before it came out. It would have been an great success - you can huff and puff all you want, but the last I checked, Ford sales were down 28%, and Toyota was on top.
Regardless, if you don't think that the government should support research and technology that benefits America, that's your right.
But I can't help noticing that you're spreading your views using, uh, the Internet … which came out of a government research project (from DARPA), and was supported by government funding (though military and academic institutions) throughout most of its infancy.
Why not rant against the Internet, then? Same basic idea. Why is it that car research touches such a nerve?
Despite your view on the federal government, they spend tens of billions a year on research, for things like science and military (not to mention education). This money for the car research was a very, very small fraction of that, and would have been repaid many times over.
BTW, I took a 400 mile trip this weekend in a car that got over 50 miles to the gallon, using regular gas. Turbo + diesel extends this type of technology quite a bit (though I don't really have room to go into why here - check the Internet if you're curious!).
So I don't understand why you find the goals for the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles so improbable, or why you're so rabidly against it. A lot of people LIKE the idea of driving efficient cars!
You don't have to take my word for any of this - just wait a few years. These cars (highly efficient turbo diesel hybrids) are coming out regardless - Bush just pushed it back, and insured that the Japanese, rather than that Americans, would be leading the technology.
The biggest thing bugging me about the Bush admin and their mindlessly angry followers is the "No we can't" attitude. Your comments seem to suggest that it's just not possible for America to make better cars. I heartily disagree. I have much more faith in the talents and skills of our country than that … I just think that we're waking up from a bit of a dark age here, that's all …
—
for those of you just joining us, we're discussing the article / book:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/11/05/071105crbo_books_kolbert
Comment by Jonathan — July 1, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
Renewable Energy Manufactures/suppliers should use their own product to manufacture.
The manufacturers’ of Solar Panels and other forms of renewable energy with related support products manufactures/suppliers - should have at least the decency to practice what they preach what they market to the public.
That would be the best marketing approach I can think off.
If they believe in the product they manufacture/sell, they should utilize it to its fullest potential.
It will give the manufacturer the actual experience of utilizing the product on a daily basis, view and experience any shortcoming or improvements that are needed, implement the improvements and capitalize on that revision to improve the product and its performance.
This will instill confidence in the public to purchase the product.
Jay Draiman, Energy Analyst
PS
As with any new technology, PV will become more efficient, cheaper and cleaner to produce. In order for this to happen we (Governments / NGOs / Individuals) need to invest more time and money into making PV viable, e.g. through increased incentives, regulations, technical standards, R&D, manufacturing processes and generating consumer demand.
Just like the automobile industry, the manufacture used its own product.
Over the years the automobile industry and technology has evolved from the early 1900 to what it is today the year 2008.
I predict that in 10 years the automobile we know today will change drastically for the better, with new fuel technology and other modification that will improve its scales of economy and features.
Comment by Jay Draiman — July 18, 2008 @ 1:56 am