BCT Editorial – 12/24/08

This page was last updated on December 25, 2008.

Energy boost; Editorial; Beaver County Times; December 24, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “Fate of ethanol plant shows how oil prices hurt alternative energy.”

In summary, the Times is bummed about lower oil prices because they make alternative energy sources less attractive.

Toward the end of the editorial are the following two paragraphs.

“Breaking the oil price/alternative energy link means keeping the price of oil high, artificially if need be. One way to do that would be to impose a tax on oil anytime the price of a barrel fell below a certain level, say $80 or $90 a barrel.

“This would sustain high oil prices, which would encourage conservation — car pooling, using mass transit, buying fuel efficient vehicles, etc. — while the tax revenue could fund research and development of alternative energy sources. It also would establish the certainty that investors need.”

First, note the Times is speaking out in favor of yet another tax. Whether it’s a new tax or an increase of an existing tax, Times editorials speak out in favor of them almost without exception. The only exception I recall was when the Times agreed the rates for Pennsylvania’s Corporate Income and/or Capital Stock & Franchise taxes were too high relative to other states.

Second, and more important, did you notice the editorial listed no downside to artificially high oil prices? The editorial fails to note this action would drive up the price of all forms of energy, not just oil-based energy. Prices for energy generated by coal, hydro, natural gas, nuclear, et cetera would rise in response to the new “market” price established by the taxes imposed on oil. It’s basic economics many of us learn in high school, yet the editorial ignored this ripple of its proposal.

The editorial didn’t explain how forcing us to pay above-market prices for energy (even if it were “only” for oil-based energy) would help our economy and wouldn’t encourage more businesses to move their operations overseas. Did the Times forget our businesses compete with businesses operating overseas that would not have to pay U.S. prices for energy? Does anyone want to bet the response to the effects of the Times proposal would be addressed with more leftist proposals?