OPINION: Energy Madness

In response to soaring gasoline prices, Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton have proposed a summer gas-tax holiday-suggesting that motorists will save 18 cents per gallon as a result. That would be a tiny fraction of the dramatic increase in gasoline prices over the past few years, and there's little reason to expect that the oil companies that receive the tax break would even pass it on to consumers.

The net result, according to some economists, would be an increase in the profitability of U.S. oil refineries and a further decline in the fiscal health of the U.S. government.

At a time when even President Bush acknowledges that the United States is addicted to imported oil, it is discouraging to see presidential candidates offering just another quick fix rather than a cure for this signature American illness. The very low U.S. tax on gasoline (by international standards) is in part responsible for getting the country into today's disastrous energy predicament. Reducing those taxes further would only make that problem worse. And by adding to budget deficits, it would further undermine the dollar, contributing to additional oil price increases.

With oil now costing more than $110 per barrel and gasoline prices exceeding $4 per gallon in many parts of the country, it is popular to blame rising energy demand in China and India for the run-up in prices. Americans should instead look in the mirror. Last year, the United States consumed twice as much oil as China and India combined. In per-capita terms, U.S. oil use is 12 times the level in China and 30 times the level in India. And, unlike in the United States, only a tiny fraction of the oil use in these countries goes to personal transportation.

Instead of lowering gas taxes, U.S. political leaders should be proposing strong policies to reduce oil consumption and to boost the development of renewable energy sources. Tighter fuel-economy standards, increased investment in public transportation, and incentives for energy-efficient hybrid and electric vehicles could make a big difference-and are long overdue.   

If the next president continues to treat the country's energy problems as a short-term political opportunity rather than as a major national challenge, the U.S. economy-and the nation's global leadership-will continue their steep downward slide. Oil production is now declining in many of the world's largest producer countries, including the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, Venezuela, and the United States. A recent analysis of global oil trends by CIBC World Markets predicts that world oil demand will outrun oil supplies over the next few years-and that $200 oil and $7 gas may be within sight.

It's been wonderful to see the unprecedented attention that this year's crop of presidential candidates has devoted to global warming and energy security. Their many tours of wind turbine factories and solar power installations have signaled their intentions to break from the energy status quo. But unless these same leaders are willing to make the tough choices-and to sometimes tell voters the inconvenient truth about their energy ways-the next president will face an even more dire predicament than the current one does.

Christopher Flavin is president of the Worldwatch Institute, an environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C.