Last updated: May 16, 2009
May 10, 2009
In 2007 senator Barack Obama had the following to say about energy independence in his statement on Latin America:
As it relates to our country’s drive toward energy independence, it does not serve our national and economic security to replace imported oil with Brazilian ethanol. In other words, those who advocate replacement of US-based biofuels production with Brazilian ethanol exports however well intentioned they may be, are both misunderstanding our long term energy security challenge and ignoring a valuable foreign policy opportunity. The U.S. needs to dramatically expand domestic biofuels production, not embrace a short term fix that discourages investment in the expansion of the domestic renewable fuels in industry.
Some would say this is already very close to the definition of nonsense. Energy independence may just as well mean diversification of energy supplies, it does not necessarily require producing all fuel domestically. By far the biggest problem with oil was always that it cannot be grown everywhere. It's on this simple fact that OPEC cartel is based with all implications for US energy independence and not on the fact that the US does not produce all of its oil domestically. Given that ethanol can be produced from sugar cane just as well as, and even better than, from corn, and that sugar cane can be grown in a variety of countries, the US energy independence would be probably better served by encouraging imports of sugar cane ethanol from South America and elsewhere. But then why should things be done the easy way? President Obama is not a man who is afraid of difficulties.
As to the valuable foreign policy opportunity, Brazil's president Lula looks more and more pissed off by Obama's approach to energy independence. Brazil does not know what to do with its ethanol surpluses and president Lula put a lot of time and effort into trying to convince the US and Europe to open their markets for Brazilian ethanol. In fact, such an energy alliance based on combination of US technology and ethanol production in the third world could indeed create a huge foreign policy opportunity by rechanneling billions of dollars from Arab Sheikhs and Russian oligarchs to farmers and ethanol producers in the same Latin America. This could literally save some countries and even make president Lula happy. But as we said, the easy way is not an option. Never mind that given the tremendous enthusiasm for Obama in the third world, it's only fair that it's now made to pay the price for the protectionist leanings of the new US administration.
Anyway, a few days ago Barack Obama has upped his crusade for energy independence by resuming bullying US domestic oil producers.
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer - Thu May 7
Obama budget rescinds oil, gas industry tax breaks
. . .
In the budget statement, Obama said the tax breaks, which are expected to save the oil and gas industry more than $26 billion over the next 10 years, are "unjustifiable loopholes ... costly to the American taxpayer and do little to incentivize production or reduce energy prices."
Responding to the Obama budget priorities, Barry Russell, president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, complained, "We can't tax our way to energy independence."
For a president who was lately so busy burying his country under a pile of several trillions worth deficits and debts, this was quite an outbreak of fiscal conservatism. However, the fact remains that US oil is not cheap and repealing tax breaks can lead to increased imports of foreign oil. It's hard to predict the exact impact of such a step on the price, but US dependence on foreign oil will certainly increase.
This is not to say that the tax breaks cannot be eliminated without adversely affecting US energy independence. There is a very simple and efficient way of doing this - tariff on oil imports. Hit the oil imports with a tariff sizable enough and then the tax breaks can go without endangering energy independence. Of course, president Obama said it's a bad idea to raise taxes on people under recession, but such a tariff is revenue positive, never mind $26 billions saved in tax breaks. The government can use these to refund the taxpayers for any losses. Incidentally by tolerating a moderate increase in the price of gasoline, the administration can provide alternatives energies with a competitive advantage over carbon fuels. And this without losing a penny in tax breaks or subsidies. But again why to do things the easy way, when there is a hard one? Let alone that unlike Obama's many other ideas this one has a good chance to, god forbid, work and actually make America more energy independent.
So how good are Obama's chances to enhance, or better hurt, the prospect of energy independence for America? Well, it may be that not everything is lost, but this has hardly anything to do with Obama and his fantasy world, but rather with possible advances in relevant technologies. Mascoma, for example, was recently reporting a major breakthrough
in cellulosic ethanol technology. Mascoma says it's no longer years away. If true, these are good news indeed since by now it's only God or technology that can save the US and its energy independence from this raving lunatic.Last updated: May 16, 2009The Great Committment of President Obama
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: April 7, 2009
I am really encouraged by President Obama’s commitment to clean energy and combating climate change. I just have three worries: whether he has the right policies, the right politics and the right official to sell his program to the country. Other than that, things look great!
Source: The New York Times
Here is another one in my long series "The case for fuel tax". I believe that a massive revenue neutral gas tax holds a tremendous potential to address not only almost all major challenges facing America and the West in the first half of the 21st century. Such a tax has a potential to change the world. Here I am going to examine the tax's effect in the most immediate term. For analysis of the tax's long term implications, see my earlier posts on the subject.
It's interesting that Friedman has by now changed the tactic and started arguing that incremental and delayed implementation of carbon tax can be just as effective
as an immediate tax. This is absolutely correct. The purpose of such a tax is to shape anticipations, immediate economic incentives matter less. I was actually making a very similar point here
. However, since then I have changed my mind as I came to be believe that an immediate and massive gas tax introduced by means of a tax swap can immediately benefit US taxpayers and the economy. It's precisely now, during recession, that such a tax reform should be considered. Here is why.
The standard microeconomic theory of tax incidence
holds that regardless of where a tax is collected, unless we are dealing with totally inelastic supply or demand, tax burden is split between producers and consumers. Here is a graph illustrating this way of thinking.Source: Wikipedia
I provide here a modified graph. The original retail price of gas is $2 to gallon. A $1 gas tax is imposed. The retail price of gasoline rises to $2.5 per gallon. The loss is split evenly between producers and consumers, but the government fully refunds the consumers by repaying them back $1 collected on each gallon. According to this graph, such a tax swap ends with redistribution of wealth between consumers and producers benefiting the former.
In terms of wealth redistribution this means taking dozens of billions of dollars from oil producers and putting them straight into the pocket of US consumers. And when we are talking about oil producers we are talking very much about Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members. Of course, there exists an issue of demand elasticity
, widely claimed to be pretty inelastic when it comes to carbon fuels, against the global energy market which for smaller nations should appear as absolutely elastic
on the supply side. However, practical experience and common sense can easily send these two arguments packing.
For one, the recent experience shows that the demand for carbon fuels in the US is elastic enough with the breaking point somewhere between $3 and $4 per gallon. This was amply evident a couple of years ago when sells of hybrids and flex engines shot up. In those states that took matters into their hands the impact was even more dramatic
with tax revenues collapsing as a result of collapse of demand for carbon fuels. Two, the US is no marginal oil consumer and producer. It accounts roughly for one quarter of global oil consumption and even more in terms of oil imports. It's twice as much a swing oil consumer as Saudi Arabia a swing oil producer. Of course to cut oil consumption is absolutely not the same as to cut production. Nevertheless, any move in US oil inventories tends to send the price of oil in the opposite direction.Oil ProductionOil ConsumptionOil ImportsSource: Nation Master - Energy Statistics by country
It's easy to the see from these three charts by how much the US is more a swing energy consumer than Saudi Arabia is a swing energy producer. While there may be a certain validity to the claim that demand is inelastic, in practical terms it only means that consumers take a loss equivalent not to 50% of a possible tax, but say 70%-80%. On the graph above this would be expressed as the retail price stabilizing at $2.7-$2.8. Given that taxpayers should be fully refunded for this loss through a tax swap, they just benefit less from the reform, but they still benefit, they don't lose. Ironically, it also means that for the gas tax to benefit the taxpayer most, it should be massive enough to put maximum pressure on the price.
America's irrationality on everything related to taxes is amply demonstrated by Friedman, Krauthammer and other supporters of the gas tax themselves. Instead of clumsily arguing that gas tax does not hurt so much, they should blatantly tell their compatriots to have mercy on themselves and let themselves to save a few dollars at the expense of oil sheikhs. For the US the gas tax is a bit like skiing. America should overcome its deeply ingrained fears by taking a plunge. It should do the opposite of what its natural fear dictates it and throw itself into it.
Some people may say that it's not right to manipulate markets, in particular, manipulating them in such ways that discourage markets from more productive modes of production. Without starting a debate about the religion of free markets and whether the markets are so sacred that they should not be manipulated, I would dismiss this whole argument as irrelevant. I have already dealt with this point here
. To put it short, it's the current system that manipulates the markets. The gas tax is more like demanipulation. It's corrective and not manipulative.
Of course, the current administration has its own reasons for shunning any discussion of gas tax. For starters, Obama has repeatedly stressed his non-partisanship and called on both parties to work together. So it's only natural that he is now pushing for the cap and trade scheme that's not only absolutely unacceptable to the Republicans, but is hopeless with large chunks of his own party too. Two, Obama claimed that it's not right to slap taxes on the middle class in recession. That's why the tax swap, immediately beneficial for taxpayers, was dropped in favor of what so many, and probably correctly, suspect of being a hidden tax. Finally, gas tax is a simple and effective way to cut on oil consumption and reduce US dependence on foreign oil, but this cannot be said about the cap and trade program. For Obama this is sure yet another point in favor of the cap and trade. In short there is a certain failure here to follow public declarations with a correct practical decision. Otherwise, I tend to agree with Thomas Friedman: Obama's commitments are truly impressive. Things look great. All that's missing is only right policies, right politics and right officials.
Labels: Biofuels, Cap and Trade, Ethanol, The Arab OIl, The Case for Fuel Tax