Gas prices fact check: Six ideas in Congress, but can they work?

Soaring gas prices have also shown a consistent and significant ability to push members of Congress over the deep end. Here's the experts' take on 6 ideas floating through Congress.

7. The silent problem

REUTERS/File
A worker updates fuel prices at a gas station in Wuhan, China earlier this year.

So what’s holding America back from a sensible public discussion about gas prices? In a word: impotence. The United States doesn’t hold the keys to its energy future. China and India do.

“We have to always remember – and its hard for Americans to remember this – but we’re competing in a world oil market,” said Chris Knittel, a professor of energy economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

For example, Republicans talk of opening the Arctic Natural Wildlife Refuge to development. But estimates suggest its yield "would be about 1 percent of world supplies on a per-day basis. That’s going to have a minuscule effect on prices, maybe it reduces prices 2 percent,” he says.

Even if the US boosted production by 50 percent, “that’s maybe a 10 percent reduction in prices. That’s not going to make Americans happy,” Professor Knittel says.

As AEI's Mr. Green points out, nearly 2 billion people in India and China will move up the economic ladder during the next several decades, bringing with them middle-class lifestyle expectations and attending hikes in energy usage.

“The long-term trend is there” for massive increases in long-term oil demand, Green said. “One person’s problem is another person’s blessing. The Chinese and the Indians want cars and mobility and would like to develop as economies.”

Americans, standing as the world’s largest economy and enjoying outsized influence in global affairs, aren’t used to being dependent on the actions of other nations.
  
“The markets we typically worry about are not global in nature,” Knittel said. “We’re not used to thinking in this world market mentality.”

7 of 7

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.