The Skinny

see also background & facts, pro & con, links

What's Up

Gas prices have been on a roller coaster - with peaks of $3 a gallon - over the past few years. Inflation-adjusted prices never reach the highs of the 70's (or as high as European “petrol”), but that’s cold comfort to US families and industries that can be highly sensitive to the price of gas. The energy bill Congress passed into law in 2005 by most accounts did little to bring down gas prices (although it did give ethanol a boost), while efforts in 2006 made even less headway. With the dems taking over in '07, promises were made to increase gas-mileage standards and push for more alternative energy, but congressional gridlock could keep reforms at bay until '08.

What the Debate's About

There are two debates – one on short term solutions and the other the long term. In the immediate future, the question is how to prevent crude oil and gas prices from rising and causing damage and uncertainty on important sectors of the US economy. The long term debate is on how to deal with the possibility that demand for oil is growing faster than supply; as the world keeps using more oil, and the oil industry has a hard time keeping up, the pinch for oil may keep squeezing harder.

A theme in both the short-term and long-term debates is America’s “dependency” problem; all sides generally agree that much of our oil headache comes from the fact that over half of our oil is not home grown, leaving our economy at the mercy of foreign oil markets. Broadly speaking, there are two ways to tackle our dependency – one, to raise the supply of energy at home (Republicans lean this way) – the other, to lower our need for energy in the first place (more of a Democrat way of thinking). A different strategy is to better secure our access to foreign oil, whether through diplomacy or other means.

In the short to medium term Republicans are usually gung-ho about tapping into more oil at home, in particular the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a hot button issue with environmentalists who say ANWR should be strictly hands-off. But even some Democrats warm to the idea of opening up off shore reserves or more frequently using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to ease spikes in gas prices (advocated by Kerry in '04, but nixed by Bush except in cases of emergency, like Katrina). Another policy, popular among everyone except economists, is anti-price gouging legislation which would fine gas companies for taking advantage of energy crises by hiking prices.

Long term solutions are more complicated; most agree – although they will not happily admit this – that while energy independence is a goal worth working toward, it won’t come easy because we simply use a ginormous amount of oil.

To increase the supply of oil, the Republican Party advocates lowering environmental restrictions on home oil production and refining (the process of making crude oil usable), providing tax incentives for energy development, as well as opening Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drill for oil. To decrease demand, the Democratic Party prefers stricter fuel efficiency standards and more investment in technologies that will reduce America’s dependence on oil.

There are two points both parties agree on. First, they both see the need to convince foreign nations (particularly in the Middle East) to pump more oil and better meet demand, although neither present a clear picture on how they would do so. There is also agreement that the US should promote the development and use of alternative energy sources, from corn ethanol to hydrogen fuel cells to renewables like solar and air power. But, again, there's not total consensus on how much to spend to promote alternative energy.

Where Things Stand Now

In 2007, democrats promised wide ranging reforms from stricter gas-mileage standards to mandates for alternative energy use, but a final bill is still in the making.

Updated November, 2007

Did we miss something, let some slant slip in, lose a link - or do you just have something to say? Drop a line below! In the spirit of open dialogue, cJ asks you keep it civil, keep it real and keep it focused on the message, not the messenger. See our policy page for more on what that all means.