George Will sarcastically notes that the fuel-efficient-car-of-tomorrow boosterism is moot now that gas is cheap again:

The two best-selling vehicles in America this year are large pickup trucks (Ford F-Series and Chevy Silverado). In February, Toyota sold 13,600 Tundra and Tacoma pickups and 7,232 Priuses. It sells the Prius at a loss, which it can afford to do because it makes pots of money selling pickups. Has the Car Designer in Chief, a.k.a. the president, considered the possibility that what he calls “the cars of tomorrow” will forever be that?

The American car-buyer likes big cars, regardless of fuel-efficiency. If the president wants Americans to move away from gas profligacy—a position that seems to be politically popular—he might suggest raising the Federal gas tax to make fuel efficient cars more financially attractive. Though I think this is a wise idea eventually (raising taxes right now in a recession is unwise), I still hold that a Congress bowing to popular will (as it typically should) will handily defeat any such proposal.

The public may agree with statements that the country is too dependent on oil, but its behavior suggests the complete opposite.  The Obama energy agenda may not be as popular as he might think.

Thomas Friedman in the NYT is back to his usual environomics finger wagging:

It baffles me that President Bush would rather go to Saudi Arabia twice in four months and beg the Saudi king for an oil price break than ask the American people to drive 55 miles an hour, buy more fuel-efficient cars or accept a carbon tax or gasoline tax that might actually help free us from what he called our “addiction to oil.”

Friedman forgets is that our democratically elected president is simply representing the wishes of the American people, who steadfastly demand cheap oil.  No candidate has offered to raise the gas tax because they know that to do so would be touching a third rail of politics, “elite opinion” be damned.

Friedman further laments the Bush administration:

The failure of Mr. Bush to fully mobilize the most powerful innovation engine in the world — the U.S. economy — to produce a scalable alternative to oil has helped to fuel the rise of a collection of petro-authoritarian states — from Russia to Venezuela to Iran — that are reshaping global politics in their own image.

Though I don’t doubt the wisdom of developing such industries, it will only be possible with higher gas prices, as the demand for alternative fuels will necessarily increase.    Unfortunately, high gas prices are politically unpopular.

Friedman may be right about what energy policy shifts are needed, but his opinions are not going to go over well at the polls.  Not everyone can afford a Prius, Tom.

All three candidates have promised the impossible: to cut greenhouse gas emissions and to lower the cost of gasoline.

McCain wants a gas tax holiday from Memorial Day to Labor Day. His rationalization is that the slight savings would encourage consumer spending. He also avers that such boosted spending would bring about economic recovery to offset losses to the Treasury. Yeah right.

The Clinton and Obama camps have added an anti-corporate flare to their equally populist proposals, promising gas tax reductions to be compensated by a “windfall profits” tax on “Big Oil,” the Democrats’ favorite bogyman.

But what about the environment? Any gas tax reduction incentivizes consumption of gasoline and thus the production of greenhouse gases. Cheap gas, often mistaken for being listed in the Bill of Rights, is entirely antithetical to curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Like President Bush’s belief that Americans need not sacrifice one bit to pay for war, the Democrats believe Americans need not sacrifice one bit for clean air or to reduce CO2 emissions. They prefer to shift the burden to “Big Oil” and the auto companies, whom they demand to produce more fuel efficient cars. Candidate resort to rhetoric demanding in increase in the CAFE standards, expecting the auto companies to deliver.

Sadly, raising mileage standards is unlikely to reduce emissions anytime soon. Blaming mileage standards does, though, provide politicians with convenient political cover as they shift the burden of environmentalism to car companies. This is unwise for several reasons.

First, raising mileage standards takes years and does nothing to address the emissions of existing vehicles.

Second, the moment a president signs a bill mandating high standards, the auto industry’s lobbyists will shift into top gear, lunching and golfing in full force to dull the bite of any CAFE legislation either by obtaining extensions or all-out waivers.

Third, a high-mileage vehicle, though emitting less CO2 per mile, can still emit an overall large amount if driven frequently.

The simplest and most effective solution is also the least politically popular: increasing the gas tax to act as a carbon tax. This would immediately reduce greenhouse gas emissions since gas consumption would decline as the price rose. However, while the Democrats like to bash the Bush administration for doing precious little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they know that the public would not tolerate any intentional increase in gas prices.

Though the president displays a weak commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, his aversion to Kyoto and other initiatives is more honest than the Democrats’ double-talk. He states correctly that the nation is neither willing nor prepared to pay the economic price of reducing emissions. This is true.

Too many Americans believe they are entitled to cheap oil and Democrats and Republicans have long realized that these people vote. Half of Americans live in suburbs, which are notorious for their car-dependency and whose very existence is due largely to cheap gas and free highways. Are the people who drive to the store, to school, to work, to the mailbox—everywhere!— going to appreciate paying $7.00 per gallon? Not likely.