America's independent, non-partisan advocate for overburdened taxpayers.

 

Blog Contributors

Brandon Arnold
Vice President of Government Affairs 

Dan Barrett
Research and Outreach Manager 

Melodie Bowler
Government Affairs Intern 

Demian Brady
Director of Research 

Christina DiSomma
Communications Intern 

Jihun Han
Communications Intern 

Timothy Howland
Creative Content Manager 

Samantha Jordan
Communications Intern 

Curtis Kalin
Communications Intern 

Ross Kaminsky
Blog Contributor 

David Keating
Blog Contributor 

Douglas Kellogg
Communications Manager 

Sharon Koss
Government Affairs Intern 

Michael Liguori
Government Affairs Intern 

Richard Lipman
Director of Development 

Joe Michalowski
Government Affairs Intern 

Diana Oprinescu
Communications Intern 

Austin Peters
Communications Intern 

Kristina Rasmussen
Blog Contributor 

$7 Gas? No Thank You!



June 18, 2010

I've come to really appreciate and look forward to the Heritage Foundation's "Foundry" posts each day. They're interesting, informative, and, more importantly, in tune to current events long before they could even be considered as such.

This morning's piece was no exception. The author, Ben Lieberman, wrote on President Obama's response to the oil spill and mission to "repackage" energy climate legislation. You may recall that the House voted on its version of cap-and-trade last summer. NTU fought ferociously to defeat the tax-hiking, job-killing bill that ultimately stalled in the Senate. Why have members dragged their feet, you ask? Because the power of public opinion is often underestimated, and Congressional leaders are never likely to bring up such a contentious issue (just as unpopular as Obamacare) in an election year...that is, until the oil spill occurred. Now the Administration thinks they have a legitimate opportunity to move forward with their climate change agenda. Disguise it as an oil spill "relief" package! That's right, we're on to you.

According to Heritage, we could see an energy tax so high that it dramatically reduces demand for gas and electricity because we might not be able to afford them! In today's Foundry, Lieberman cites a Harvard University study that estimates the price of gas could rise to as high as $7-a-gallon:

"Now the president is repackaging cap-and-trade - again - as a long-term solution to the oil spill. But it's the same old agenda, a huge energy tax that will raise the cost of gasoline and electricity high enough so that we're forced to use less."

"The logic linking cap-and-trade to the spill in the Gulf should frighten anyone who owns a car or truck. Such measures force up the price at the pump - Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs thinks it 'may require gas prices greater than $7 a gallon by 2020' to meet Obama's stated goal of reducing emissions 14 percent from the transportation sector."

And while Obama claims less demand will simultaneously diminish the need for drilling, Heritage points out that energy will continue to be a "vital part of America's energy mix." Congress needs to explore and implement practical solutions, not a cap-and-trade bill that will kick our friends on the Gulf Coast while they're already down.

We couldn't afford $4 gas. $7 is simply unimaginable.


 

Comment on this blog

Nickname
Comment
Enter this word:

User Comments

Submitted by Zach at: June 22, 2010
Nevertheless, the plan would reduce petrolium consumption, and we have to do that as a nation. If your solution is to continue using gas at the current rate, you have no plan, and you are as guilty of "ignoring tomorrow" as anyone else. You are right--people would be able to afford less gas. As a result, they would demand better gas milage and public transportation. That's the whole idea. All you're saying is that you don't feel like giving up a comfortable (yet unsustainable) situation.