But the whirling numbers on gas pumps across the nation must still be disconcerting sight to the GOP. Poor John McCain. It isn't his fault, is it, that the price of a barrel of oil is at an inflation-adjusted all-time high? Many factors contribute to the price of a gallon of a gas, and we all have our favorite suspects. Republicans like to blame environmental regulations that restrict drilling for oil and supposedly inhibit the construction of new refineries to formulate gasoline in sufficient quantity when demand spikes. Democrats prefer to target price-gouging oil companies.
But record-breaking crude-oil prices are probably the biggest variable in the equation, and American presidents simply don't have the power to wave their arms about and get the spot price for West Texas Intermediate light crude to drop. George Bush tried. Last Wednesday he asked OPEC to pretty please increase production and relieve some of the pressure. OPEC said no. Does anyone think McCain (or Clinton or Obama) would have any more success? They'd be just as well off asking middle-class Indians and Chinese to refrain from trading in their bicycles and scooters for brand-new four-door sedans equipped with GPS locators and satellite radio. Forget it.
The most pathetic part of the political spectacle likely to unfold throughout the rest of this election year will be the sight of candidates tripping over themselves to tell us how, if elected, they will lower gas prices. Putting aside the question of whether that would be a good idea even if it were possible -- after all, there's no better way to get people to drive less and buy fuel-efficient cars, or to direct capital investment into developing alternative sources of energy, than to have the incentive of high gas and oil prices -- the fundamental problem remains: Oil is a commodity whose price is set by global forces of supply and demand (and possibly some help from energy trader speculation). Even OPEC has a hard time these days maintaining its target prices for a barrel of oil. The only thing an American president could do, in the short term, is release some of the oil stockpiled in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and most market watchers believe any ensuing price change would be temporary, if it was even noticeable.
On the other hand, American presidents can certainly make things worse: Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter tried price controls and rationing. George W. Bush invaded Iraq and handed over national energy policy to Exxon. But making things better is a substantially more difficult challenge.
Sure, some things can be done. Fuel-economy standards can be further tightened. The less gas we consume, the less it hurts our pocketbooks. Unregulated trading of energy derivatives can be made more transparent to give regulators a better chance at reducing market speculation and preventing hedge fund operators from gaming the system and driving up prices. It makes zero sense to be giving oil companies subsidies and tax breaks aimed at encouraging exploration when the price of a barrel of oil is at an all-time high. That should be incentive enough. The money saved would be better spent cushioning the impact of high gas prices on working-class people for whom transportation costs make up a disproportionate share of the daily budget.
But lower gas prices? Don't be silly. If the next administration is serious about tackling climate change, as all three remaining candidates for president claim to be, some form of carbon tax or cap-and-trade system that penalizes the production of carbon dioxide will be put in place and likely result in higher energy prices, not lower.
Which leads to us smack-dab into a paradox. If history teaches us anything, it's that doing the right thing on the environment will likely result in the speedy ejection of whoever occupies the White House when the next election rolls around. Americans just don't like higher gas prices.
About the writer
Andrew Leonard is a staff writer at Salon.
Story finder (3 ways to search Salon)
Salon Directory (browse by topic)