Montgomery County, MD Green Party Blog

This is the third one of Friedman’s editorials on energy. He takes the Bush administration to task for their failure on energy issues.

You can read the first one here, and the second one here.

No More Mr. Tough Guy
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: February 8, 2006

I’ve always thought Dick Cheney took national security seriously. I don’t anymore. It seems that Mr. Cheney is so convinced that we have no choice but to be dependent on crude oil, so convinced that conservation is just some silly liberal hobby, that he will never seriously summon the country to kick its oil habit, never summon it to do anything great.

Indeed, he seems determined to be a drag on any serious effort to make America energy-independent. He presents all this as a tough-guy “realist” view of the world. But it’s actually an ignorant and naïve view — one that underestimates what Americans can do, and totally misses how the energy question has overtaken Iraq as the most important issue in U.S. foreign policy. If he persists, Mr. Cheney is going to ensure that the Bush team squanders its last three years — and a lot more years for the country.

Listen to Mr. Cheney’s answer when the conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham asked him how he reacted to my urgings for a gasoline tax to push all Americans to drive energy-saving vehicles and make us energy-independent — now.

“Well, I don’t agree with that,” Mr. Cheney said. “I think — the president and I believe very deeply that, obviously, the government has got a role to play here in terms of supporting research into new technologies and encouraging the development of new methods of generating energy. … But we also are big believers in the market, and that we need to be careful about having government come in, for example, and tell people how to live their lives. … This notion that we have to ‘impose pain,’ some kind of government mandate, I think we would resist. The marketplace does work out there.”

What is he talking about? The global oil market is anything but free. It’s controlled by the world’s largest cartel — OPEC — which sets output, and thereby prices, according to the needs of some of the worst regimes in the world. By doing nothing, we are letting their needs determine the price and their treasuries reap all the profits.

Also, why does Mr. Cheney have no problem influencing the market by lowering taxes to get consumers to spend, but he rejects raising gasoline taxes to get consumers to save energy — a fundamental national interest.

Don’t take it from me. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard, who recently retired as chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, wrote in The Wall Street Journal on Jan. 3 about his New Year’s resolutions: “Everyone hates taxes, but the government needs to fund its operations, and some taxes can actually do some good in the process. I will tell the American people that a higher tax on gasoline is better at encouraging conservation than are heavy-handed [mileage standards]. It would not only encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient cars, but it would encourage them to drive less.”

Mr. Cheney, we are told, is a “tough guy.” Really? Well, how tough is this: We have a small gasoline tax, but Europe and Japan tax their gasoline by $2 and $3 a gallon, or more. They use those taxes to build schools, highways and national health care for their citizens. But they spend very little on defense compared with us.

So who protects their oil supplies from the Middle East? U.S. taxpayers. We spend nearly $600 billion a year on defense, a large chunk in the Persian Gulf. But how do we pay for that without a gas tax? Income taxes and Social Security. Yes, we tax our incomes and raid our children’s Social Security fund so Europeans and Japanese can comfortably import their oil from the gulf, impose big gas taxes on it at their pumps and then use that income for their own domestic needs. And because they have high gas taxes, they also beat Detroit at making more fuel-efficient cars. Now how tough is that?

Finally, if Mr. Cheney believes so much in markets, why did the 2005 energy act contain about $2 billion in tax breaks for oil companies? Why does his administration permit a 54-cents-a-gallon tax on imported ethanol — fuel made from sugar or corn — so Brazilian sugar exports won’t compete with American sugar? Yes, we tax imported ethanol from Brazil, but we don’t tax imported oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or Russia.

“Everyone says we need a new Marshall Plan,” said Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy expert and the author of “The Case for Goliath.” “We have a Marshall Plan. It’s our energy policy. It’s a Marshall plan for terrorists and dictators.”

How tough is it, Mr. Cheney, to will the ends — an end to America’s oil addiction — but not will the means: a gasoline tax? It’s not very tough, it’s not very smart, and it’s going to end badly for us.

Despite opposition from some of their colleagues, 86 evangelical Christian leaders have decided to back a major initiative to fight global warming, saying “millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors.”

Among signers of the statement, which will be released in Washington on Wednesday, are the presidents of 39 evangelical colleges, leaders of aid groups and churches, like the Salvation Army, and pastors of megachurches, including Rick Warren, author of the best seller “The Purpose-Driven Life.”

“For most of us, until recently this has not been treated as a pressing issue or major priority,” the statement said. “Indeed, many of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that climate change is a real problem and that it ought to matter to us as Christians. But now we have seen and heard enough.”

The statement calls for federal legislation that would require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through “cost-effective, market-based mechanisms” — a phrase lifted from a Senate resolution last year and one that could appeal to evangelicals, who tend to be pro-business. The statement, to be announced in Washington, is only the first stage of an “Evangelical Climate Initiative” including television and radio spots in states with influential legislators, informational campaigns in churches, and educational events at Christian colleges.

Click here for link.

See http://www.maketradefair.com/en/index.php?file=issues_dumping.htm on the difference between free trade and fair trade.

Everybody talks about globalization; nobody ever does anything about it. The world labor market looms over every horizon with its promise of cheaper goods and lower pay. The public is skeptical, rightly, about the benefits of globalization, but the process of harnessing it, of writing enforceable rules that would benefit not just investors but most of our citizens, is hard to even conceive. And so globalization is experienced by many Americans as a loss of control. Manufacturing moves to China, engineering to India; que sera, sera .

Click here for link.

More than half of the terror suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay have not been accused of committing hostile acts against the United States or its allies, two of the detainees’ lawyers said in a report released Tuesday.

Compiled from declassified Defense Department evaluations of the more than 500 detainees at the Cuba facility, the report says just 8 percent are listed as fighters for a terrorist group, while 30 percent are considered members of a terrorist group and the remaining 60 percent were just “associated with” terrorists.

Click here for link.

Actually, the headline overstates what the Government is doing…

Amid concerns that global warming is melting away the icy habitats where polar bears live, the federal government is reviewing whether they should be considered a threatened species.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Tuesday that protection may be warranted under the Endangered Species Act, and began a review process to consider if the bears should be listed.

Click here for link.