This is weird. Contrary to the expectations of everyone on the universe, the media has covered the gas tax holiday in a fairly substantive way. As a result, a slender majority of voters actually oppose the idea. Particularly on such an emotional issue, it’s somewhat remarkable and encouraging to see voters narrowly favoring the non-demagogic position.

Commentators, on the other hand, have been far less restrained, wildly over-interpreting the issue at every step.

A few blogger types have suggested that the gas tax pander permanently destroys the credibility of Hillary Clinton (and, presumably, John McCain) on the issue of climate change. There’s simply no way, the logic goes, that someone who cares about carbon emissions could ever come out in support of such a plan. This is plainly nonsense. Although the gas tax pander is deeply disappointing, the political calculation behind it is obvious. It in no way completely invalidates Clinton’s solid climate plan.

Others have suggested that voters’ failure to respond to the pander reflects a newfound maturity on the part of the electorate: American’s are finally ready to get serious about enacting a hefty carbon tax.

There’s clearly a heavy dose of wishful thinking going on here. The gas tax holiday created a fairly unique media event. It provided a sharp point of contrast between two members of the same political party locked in a high-profile contest. Moreover, both the simplicity and the sheer badness of the gas tax holiday idea allowed journalists to explain the underlying economics, rather than covering the issue as a he-said/she-said shouting match.

It’s certainly nice that, under these unusual conditions, roughly half of voters see the gas tax proposal for what it is . But climate change policy is a lot more complicated. There’s been dramatic movement on the issue over the past two years, but we’ve still got some distance to go.

Image by New York Times.

Tags: Climate change policy, Election politics, Gas tax holiday

| | | | |

Comments

1. Comment by Bob @ May 7, 2008 7 AM

I am against the gas tax holiday because we need the tax to pay for road upkeep and bridge repair. I do not see it effecting the carbon issue that much.

2. Comment by J. Appelbaum @ May 7, 2008 7 AM

Polls are, in my opinion, near useless, as you can influence the outcome simply in the way the question is stated.

Conducting a poll that simply says, “Do you favor lifting the gas tax” will generate many more ‘Yes’ responses, as it did here in my small town when it was posed in the local paper, versus one that states reasons why it would a bad idea within the question itself. This is what that NY Times poll suggested. If a poll was phrased with items from your “Like a holiday, except awful in every way” article (the Jonathan Alter comments), I feel it would generate MANY more saying ‘No’.

3. Comment by Eric @ May 7, 2008 7 AM

Personally, I think this is another example of Clinton’s willingness to do anything to get votes, disregarding the ethics or results of her actions. I am happy to see a clear distinction between the candidates. I think it is time for Al Gore to endorse Obama.

4. Comment by Gina @ May 7, 2008 10 AM

Personally, I am against the gas tax holiday because that money is needed and it seems to me that some other taxes would have to be raised in order to offset the loss of the gas tax. Perhaps the candidates are thinking American’s will only consider the short term effects of the “holiday” and ignore the possible longer term, huge, downside possibilities. If the gas tax was dropped for summer and people drove more it would increase the carbon emissions. How is that helping anything but oil companies? Also, isn’t it something how we get this “tax rebate” right before summer? Wonder if they thought we would spend it on vacations and traveling?

5. Comment by ian22 @ May 7, 2008 10 AM

I’m a McCain supporter. However, having an open mind even I can admit that the plan seems in hindsight like it is a poor one. There are are one of two scenarios one can surmise:

1. Either it was known that this would not help lower the price of fuel at the pump in the end and was simply McCain trying to look good and get votes from victims of high fuel prices

Or…

2. It was an idea that sounded good at first (I mean, logic would figure if you stop taking 18.4 cents out of the price of every gallon of gasoline prices would drop) but was not run by experts (economists) before being proposed.

I’d of course like to think that McCain had the best intentions (rather than political pandering) when proposing the idea. As president he would have a large pool of experts in his cabinet to run this kind of thing by which he doesn’t have as a presidential candidate. Besides, presidents don’t legislate. I have to think that this was John McCain the senator speaking, not John McCain the potential president. Either way, it sounds like it was a bad idea in hindsight.

I can’t excuse Hillary jumping on the bandwagon a week after economists had already pointed-out the flaws in McCain’s plan. What was she thinking!?!?!

6. Comment by J-M @ May 8, 2008 3 PM

The US needs a carbon tax as does Canada nationally. On July 1, British Columbia will impose North America’s first carbon tax on the province. Quite the opposite of what Hillory Clinton and McCain and the federal and provincial NDP north of the border are suggesting. The reason it is a good idea is because it puts a price on the use of carbon. Without a price, the burning of fossil fuels continues and climate change persists. We need fiscal incentives to discourage us from using fossil fuels and encouraging viable alternatives. The concept is similar to the balance that carbon offsetting is designed to encourage. As a revenue-neutral tax (also called “tax shifting”), the burden is placed on the act of burning carbon and investing that money into renewable energy projects or carbon reduction projects (so taxes are NOT increased). This, in combination with a cap-and-trade system are the best economic tools to discourage the release of GHG emissions into our shared atmosphere.

7. Comment by KJM @ May 11, 2008 1 PM

I agree with J-M. I feel that a combination of a carbon tax and cap and trade is needed. Cap and trade is primarily aimed at industry and utilities where as a carbon tax in any form will be paid by everyone that uses a fuel that emits carbon. This would hopefully encourage the american people, business and the government to work on a way to reduce if not eliminate our dependancy on fossil fuels. Hopefully it will also encourage our use of non carbon emitting renewable fuels, like solar and wind.