Investigating oil giants would be good for putting their tremendous profits to better use, but strategically raising gas prices with driving taxes in markets where public and alternative transit is available and convenient would be smart, too.

Obama is right, but for a comprehensive plan for sustainable and independant energy without deprivation one must look to the Green Party candidates
GPUS EcoAction Committee's recomendation for the first 100 days.pdf
for more info on how to do this and much more, review our platform @
gp.org/platform.shtml

Ever since I first heard her talk, Clinton was more about blaming industry than making solutions. Of course I blame industry all the time, but I'm not running for president. We need a leader who is more focused on the solution than the source of the problem. Sure, oil companies make a ton of money and maybe shouldn't, but let's fix the problem of the fact they we are depleting the oil supply. Lowering prices will only cause oil to be used at current rates.

To pay the same for oil we either need to find a way to reduce the price (short term solution since it will continue to rise) OR we can create a society in which we use less oil (long term solution).
-Andy

While I agree with Obama over Hillary on this matter, Obama's statement doesn't go far enough, not as long as China is buying every barrel of oil it can get its metaphorical hands on.

Some presidential candidates have decided that Exxon is a symbol of what is wrong with America. Recent ads complain of Exxon’s 40 billion in profits as if Exxon is some evil entity. First of all, Exxon is not a person, it is millions of owners owning over 5 billion shares in their investment portfolios. Vanguard holds over 160 million shares for its clients, Fidelity over 100 million shares. Taking Exxon’s profits for hair-brained government schemes will just mean millions of people will have to work longer to accumulate their retirement assets. And, doesn’t return on investment count? 40 billion may not represent a particularly good return on the capital invested in the company (oil & gas make around 9% profit, afaik. Most other businesses are close to 20%). Size is not the issue, the percentage return is what counts.

And the government takes over 40 cents a gallon in tax, far more than the profit per gallon made by refiners. And the government doesn’t make any gas for you.

Hopefully voters will catch on to this sham. The last thing we need is government confiscating private sector profits and driving stock prices down. No help for our retirement and no help for the economy.

I agree with Tom at the NYTimes that the government SHOULD cut the subsidies they provide the oil companies, especially in light of their huge profits. How can we get Bush out of office early????

I know many people, my parents included, that the only way to change their poor consumption habits is to hit them where it really hurts, their pocketbook. Excluding a government tax is not the answer longterm. Just like sending a tax rebate is not a long term answer to the economy. We need to stop being a nation of impatient consumers. Good things do take time, however I am not willing to wait 10 or 20 years for more clean energy. Send email to your Senators and Representatives every day encouraging their support for clean energy.

Dropping federal taxes this summer, as Obama mentioned, would save a grand total of $20-$30 for the average family. This reflects poorly on Hillary since it's really basic math to figure out how much it would save people. Not only that, but it's a huge expenditure than goes toward rebuilding highways and maintaining roads that they'd be taking a chunk out of.

The only way we're going to ever again see lower prices overall in the US is if we reduce and remove oil from the equation. Gas affects not just the average family traveling, but ALL expenses in the US. Food, water, electricity, everything relies on oil. There is a larger problem here than $4 a gallon gas, and if our government doesn't start making leaps and bounds toward fixing it, it's going to break US.

yeah, clinton's plan is pretty silly. first off, congress would never vote for a repeal, even temporary, of the gas tax. its one of those few taxes that even republicans think is really necessary.

second, a bill heavily taxing exxon would never even make it out of committee.

and even if, by some tiny chance, both do get voted on and passed, exxon would just raise prices to make up for it and we'd be back to paying the same amount for gas.

besides which, has clinton put a bill before congress on this? i mean, she wants this moratorium this summer i assume, correct?

Once again short sighted poiticians, seizing on an opportunity to look good to the voting public, are making asses out of themselves. Mrs. Clinton is doing nothing but pandering to the simple minded who hear only "tax holiday" and "lower your gas price" and are so panicked at the thought of having to give up their gas guzzling SUV that they will jump at any chance to save a few pennies. Our politicians and world leaders have to stop worrying so much about putting out the right sound byte in order to get elected and worry more about sustainable solutions that will have a long term benefit not only to the United States but to the Earth as a whole. As we can all see this truly is now a world crisis and we all have to be smart enough to realize that. Stop thinking short term people. Start thinking a few generations ahead.

In an age when our infrastructure is crumbling and collapsing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge) the LAST thing we need is lower gas taxes. These taxes are what pays for (about half of) roadway maintenance. If we stop paying these taxes, our roads will get even less funding!

What we need is HIGHER GAS TAXES so that we can build and maintain roads, bridges, sidewalks, bike paths, etc. in a proper fashion that is suitable for a supposedly first-world nation.

Also, if we have a gas tax holiday, the oil companies will see a void (in cost of gas) raise their prices to take over that $0.18 decrease and then when we realise what a dumb-ass mistake we made in having the holiday...we'll have to reinstate the tax raising gas prices even higher than they were.

Seriously, in what paradoxical parallel universe is this a good idea?!?

Tripe and circumstance, people. This whole boondoggle is a red herring. The Prez even sez that Anwar will make a difference if we only look there. His own energy people say it's about a penny a gallon, over 10 years out. I would say he's skating on thin ice to try to finish out his term, but his ice has done melted so he's trying to walk on water now. 2 will get you 10 he's impeached before Thanksgiving anyway.
By the way, Exxon's CEO just resigned over the corp's sponsorship of environmental counter-science. In other words, "the science is still unresolved" on climate change (a familiar phrase from that camp) is so because they paid to keep it that way. He thought the money would be better spent on alternatives research.
The sooner we say oil is a done deal, the sooner we change our energy paradigm. Early implementation of inevitable circumstance implies foresight, not fatalism. We don't have to wait for it to run out, so we should minimize debate about what's left.
We need to go way past conservation and efficiency (important but preliminary) and focus on transition.
Oil has had it's day, but we shouldn't languish in it's twilight while the gauge approaches E with fond remembrances and coulda shoulda woulda's. Those who spend too much time in the past sacrifice their present, those who spend too little sacrifice their future.

Suspending the gas tax will not only mean that our roads won't get fixed but for the few that do will mean, yes, more borrowing. Which inevitably leads to inflation and a lower dollar... which means higher oil prices.

Some people are confused as to the price of the gas tax... it's 18 cents a gallon (18.2 cents, iirc). For most people that's roughly $2 to $3 a fill-up. Meaningless.

On a whole though, we're talking 100 million cars on the road filling up everyday. It's estimated to be a 30 BILLION DOLLAR LOSS for the economy. It'll only make the economy worse. Much worse.

The way we can lower oil prices is to get ourselves out of Iraq and simply turn our attention to alternative energies.

I'm with neither candidate: plug-in electric cars from sustainable energy sources or NO cars at all. Forget this hybrid facade.

- BUT -

Please understand the bias in this survey. You have posted a quote from Hillary Clinton that is one of three short term, act-now solutions. Her longer term solutions include heavy investment in alternative modes of travel (bike/ped/transit) and a robust plan for reducing dependence on automobiles.

- PLEASE -

This is not the first time a slanted article has been written by Treehugger (gee I wonder who is going to get the overwhelming vote in this one??).

While I haven't decided who I'm voting for, I'd really like to see my favorite blog be green, not yellow, journalism.

No way! What we need is a gas holiday!

What we need is for the politicians to say, "Tired of high gas prices? Well don't buy gas. Take the bus. Take the train. Take the subway. Ride your bike. Walk. Move closer to the city you actually work in. Live in the city where you work. Cut your commute. Demand more fuel efficient cars. Demand alternative fuels. Carpool. Quite your bitching. Stop waiting for the government to solve your problems. Take action! Nothing's stopping you. Get off your duffs and do something about it!" Of course we'll never hear a politician talk like that.

With the lowest gas taxes outside of OPEC countries (where oil production is typically nationalized anyway), you have less reason to complain than anyone.

The problem is that you're living in a house of straw and your hurricane candle just went out. You can choose to sit around and debate what to do about it, or you can get out now.

Wow, if this poll doesn't show who's favored by the green community I don't know what will.

Use less oil to bring the oil crisis to a close; what a novel concept. Go Obama!

I agree with Mike Gravel: we need to set up an infrastructure of mainly solar and wind, but other renewables, too, in order to get off of carbon in ten years.

Now, what other presidential candidate is going to say that? Maybe Nader and McKinney, but Obama is in the pocket of the coal industry and the nuclear industry. He wants to greatly expand both.

www.gravel2008.us

Both need to stop moving from one topic to the next in the same moment. This is why nothing gets complete e.g. cleaning your house if you do it in order ITS CLEAN!! If you cant multitask nothing is completed! Neither has proved great multitasking skills. Or maybe Bill need to move to Russia until the election is over and we need to remember CHURCH and STATE is separtate!! God help us (pun) if a rep. is elected. Well we do know the only topic will be WAR!!!!!

If you want better environment, then support for Hillary over Obama would be the way to go. Why? Her idea of allowing private causes of actions against OPEC for anti-trust violations - extra-territorial applicatoin of US law - would probably create a spike in oil prices by OPEC higher than we can imagine. The resulting economic slowdown, manufacturing drop-off, diminished transport and automobile usage, would certainly mean less energy consumption. So, uh, yeah, Hillary.

"We want jobs no matter what, we want jobs no matter what!" Well, sure, but corporate earnings are being transferred back to the parent abroad. "We want cheap products, we want cheap products!" Well, sure, but your cheap products are coming from a country without little labour regulation, and that controls its currency - and to who, as a result, we're already a borrower of unbelievable levels. The same focus on short-term fixes apply to energy and environment. So long as we keep just individual-interest aspects as the barometer for our country's and society's health, we'll continue on from sickness unto death.

Hillary, Obama, and McCain are all about saving Americans money now. That's fantastic and wonderful, but it doesn't address the issues: we'll destroy our environment and our long-term economic prospects so long as we can save money and live large. They really want to help consumers AND the environment? Don't give a tax break, but take out the equivalent and put it towards research of ***renewable*** minimally polluting green technology.

I would NEVER want him elected, but the only major candidate who had the dongles to make this a central issue - whatever his motivation - was, ironically, Huckabee. Energy independent in 10 years is impossible, but at least he made it a central theme.

I am SO sorry for a posting longer than War and Peace, I just couldn't help myself!t!!

I think they are both right. We need to take away from the oil companies and use less oil. This way we would be helping ourselves and the environment.

If only Kucinich would have had more exposure.
I don't support the gas-holiday at all.
We're paying for our inaction and hopefully this will teach us that inaction doesn't pay at all and the longer we put it off, the more we'll pay.

I agree the gas companies need to loose their tax cuts and make them pay the taxes at the pump. The price of gas doesn't just effect our autos. It effects our water, food and other areas of our lives. It has been most noticeable at the pump and for food.

I want to see the gas companies taxed on money not used for research. Why am I having to pay for a few people to have a nice stock portfolio.

Obama says we need a congressional investigation! He made this comment during a congressional investigation. Wake up son.

Congress can investigate all they want. Obama doesn't want a price freeze on the price of gas and the gas companies taxed.

Clinton wants the gas companies to pay the taxes, without freezing the prices. Guess who will pay the taxes either way. You got it! We all will.

I want to install solar panels on my home. Duke Energy wants me to get an extra $10K insurance on my home. They will not send me a check each month for what excess is given to them to use. I will get a credit. No where does it mention if I never use their energy again.

We need to take our country back from big business. This country is being held hostage by them. We don't negotiate with terrorists and kidnappers so why do we negotiate with companies that hold us hostage and make us worry about how we're going to get to work and feed our families?