Juliet Eilperin has an article in today’s Washington Post which outlines the risks inherent in campaigning on a platform to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In a nutshell, calling for changes which cost consumers money (at least in the near term) is not the best strategy to win votes.
From the piece:
According to energy expert Tracy Terry’s analysis of a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, under the scenario of an 80 percent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels, by 2015 Americans could be paying 30 percent more for natural gas in their homes and even more for electricity. At the same time, the cost of coal could quadruple and crude oil prices could rise by an additional $24 a barrel.
I don’t know if Ms. Terry has been paying attention to energy prices lately, but they’ve been increasing at a faster rate than that, without any new regulations. Frankly, this is a reason I’ve been ambivalent towards imposing an additional carbon tax to reduce emissions. Nature is in the process of imposing its own “tax” as energy supplies fail to keep pace with demand. Oil is poised to rise above $100/barrel and beyond. How much can we expect drivers to shell out? Do we really want to add another tax as gasoline rises to $4 or $5 a gallon? At some point you have to worry about the impact high energy prices will have on the economy. This is a more immediate problem which I think Democratic candidates should be focusing on.