Other approaches - and their shortcomings
A number of solutions have been proposed to move the United States toward new fuel sources.  Unfortunately, I do not believe that any of these proposals are both adequate to address the problem and fair to United States citizens.  Here is a summary of some of these proposals:
1.    Increased funding for research into new, cleaner technologies
The concept behind this plan is that by developing new technologies such as wind, solar, fuel cells, or biofuels we can provide new alternatives to today’s technologies.  Unfortunately, the current price of energy from these technologies is higher than the price of energy from existing fossil fuels.  Undoubtedly, with continued research, the price of clean technologies will continue to decrease.  However, we need to dramatically change our current energy production now, not in 5-10 years.  So, while increased funding for research is important and should be pursued, more must be done.
2.    Subsidies for new technologies
In this solution, clean technologies are given an advantage over fossil fuels using subsidies from the government.  Examples include rebates for hybrid cars (which burn less gasoline), subsidies for farming corn to produce ethanol, and rebates for solar panel or windmill installations.  The problem with these solutions is that they circumvent the market by favoring a particular technology.  It should not be the government’s job to decide which fuel sources are best – conservatives and liberals both agree that the market makes better choices than “big government.”
3.    Gasoline tax
The purpose of a gasoline tax would be to more accurately reflect the “true” cost of gasoline.  Currently, the environmental and national security complications of gasoline consumption are not accurately reflected in the price.  Instead, we all get what economists call a “free ride.”  An appropriately sized gasoline tax would allow the people and businesses to make their own choices, whether they be simply driving less, purchasing a more efficient vehicle, carpooling, or simply making no change and paying the tax. The government itself would not be dictating the best solution.  There are also drawbacks to a gasoline tax.  Perhaps most importantly, it would be hardest on the poor, whose gas purchases are larger portion of their expenses.  Additionally, another tax would perhaps only exacerbate the size of “big government,” which many feel is inefficient.  Of course, a tax only on gasoline would do nothing for the environmental harm caused by burning coal and natural gas.
 
Back