Thursday, September 21, 2006

Mandating lower fuel prices is neither environmentally nor economically sound

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano has a petition on her website to send to President Bush to ask him to ask Congress to take legislative action to mandate lower gasoline prices. This makes no sense. The best way to reduce dependence on gasoline and oil is for the prices to go up, not down. We're taxing imports of Brazilian ethanol from sugar in order to promote corn-based products raised in the U.S., at the behest of companies like corporate welfare pig Archer Daniels Midland--how about stopping that? The Economist has frequently argued (most recently in its issue this month on climate change) that the U.S. should follow Europe's lead by increasing taxes on gasoline as well as providing incentives to shift to alternative energy.

Ellen Simon, a Democratic Party candidate from Sedona running against corrupt politician Rick Renzi in Arizona's District 1, has "protecting the environment" on her list of issues, but she's also pushing Napolitano's "lower gas prices" petition. Why, Ellen? (BTW, thanks for the link to my Renzi/Hayworth post.)


Paul said...

It strikes me that Janet Napolitano supports terrorists. After all, the terrorists main source of funding is oil revenue so if the Governor wants to lower gas prices and generate more demand for oil, then she is in effect fund-raising on behalf of the terrorists. What kind of governor is that?

Lippard said...

Now that's also a pathetically bad argument, as bad than the argument that recreational drug users are supporting terrorists.

Can you provide evidence to support the claim that "the terrorists [sic] main source of funding is oil revenue"?