• 3 minutes Will Iron-Air batteries REALLY change things?
  • 7 minutes Natural gas mobility for heavy duty trucks
  • 11 minutes NordStream2
  • 10 hours U.S. Presidential Elections Status - Electoral Votes
  • 30 mins GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES
  • 2 days Australia sues Neoen for lack of power from its Tesla battery
  • 20 hours Evergrande is going Belly Up.
  • 1 day Europeans and Americans are beginning to see the results of depending on renewables.
  • 15 hours Is China Rising or Falling? Has it Enraged the World and Lost its Way? How is their Economy Doing?
  • 15 hours Monday 9/13 - "High Natural Gas Prices Today Will Send U.S. Production Soaring Next Year" by Irina Slav
  • 8 hours Oil Price: does the security vacuum in the Middle East spook investors?
  • 8 hours Is the Republican Party going to perpetuate lies about the 2020 election and attempt to whitewash what happened on January 6th?
  • 1 day Ozone layer destruction driving global warming
  • 4 days Forecasts for Natural Gas
Irina Slav

Irina Slav

Irina is a writer for Oilprice.com with over a decade of experience writing on the oil and gas industry.

More Info

Premium Content

Soaring Gasoline Prices Could Cripple Biden’s Energy Agenda

President Joe Biden’s prioritization of the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy has drawn a lot of attention since his first day in office when he killed the Keystone XL pipeline. Not all of this attention has been flattering, with the oil and gas industry quick to voice its concerns about the course the White House is taking in energy.

And then Biden asked OPEC+ for more oil.

The now-notorious call by the U.S. president on the world’s largest oil producers this summer was actually his second one since taking office. In both cases, the reason was to keep prices at the pump low enough to keep people content. Which, the Houston Chronicle’s Chris Tomlinson said in a recent column, is akin to running on ice.

“Anyone who says we can switch to clean energy without raising the price for fossil fuels is a fraud, or in this case, a politician,” Tomlinson wrote, noting one of the many simple but often painful truths that politicians in power often face: you can make all the green energy promises in the world, but if you let the price of gasoline rise beyond a certain level, you start losing voters, and for a politician, this is much worse than carbon emissions.

The link between gasoline prices and a president’s chances for re-election—or his party’s success in next year’s midterms—becomes even more important than usual during times of economic turmoil, and although the U.S. economy has been booming this year, a slowdown has already begun, inflation worries are running high, and a shortage of everything continues to plague virtually all industries.

What the Chron’s Tomlinson calls “antipodal energy policy” is an interesting conundrum: trying to reconcile the interests of the environmentalist lobby while keeping regular Americans calm with low gasoline prices. It is also a conundrum that has no solution. One or more parties will lose because this is an either-or situation. You cannot have an energy transition to renewables without making fossil fuels more expensive—or letting the market make them more expensive—and you cannot keep gas at the pump cheap without environmental consequences caused by its wide use.

The Wall Street Journal’s Ted Nordhaus and Morgan D. Bazilian called this a “welcome hypocrisy” in a recent analysis, noting it was an inevitability. It is also not specific to the U.S.—people are sensitive to gas prices across the world even if, at the same time, many of them are as sensitive to climate change issues. Eventually, sensitivity to prices tends to trump environmental sensitivity.

“In the U.S., strong majorities of the public say that they support action to address climate change, but that support generally collapses when pollsters place a price tag on those actions,” Nordhaus and Bazilian wrote, recalling the Yellow Vest protests in France a couple of years ago when the government tried to levy a carbon tax on fuels and eventually dropped the idea.

This juggling act Biden is currently performing in the U.S. along with many of his counterparts across the world highlights perhaps the biggest problem with the energy transition: the price tag.

In his column, the Chron’s Tomlinson notes that for all his talk about energy transition, Biden has yet to make oil producers pay for the pollution that their products generate. If he did, they would immediately pass these additional costs to the consumers. And this, in turn, would mean an 18-percent price hike at the pump. And it would cost the president his approval rating.

The WSJ’s Nordhaus and Bazilian recall how attempts by the Democrats to put a price on pollution via a federal BTU tax in 1994 and a cap-and-trade program in 2010 may have well cost them their congressional majority in the elections that followed these proposals. The BTU (British thermal units) tax would have made all fossil fuels more expensive. So would have the cap-and-trade scheme, which is effectively a way to create a market for emissions, as the EU has done. And Americans, like people in every other country, do not want to pay a lot for gasoline, even if it pollutes the air they breathe.

This running on ice on the part of politicians who, on the face of it, appear to want to both eat their cake and have it, too, highlights the challenges that the energy transition is facing. Even in Europe, where people already pay more for gasoline than Americans, there is a certain threshold beyond which they would start getting disgruntled with the energy policies of their governments. Disgruntlement often leads to protests, and politicians dislike protests. The juggling act continues with questionable success.

Perhaps the gas price problem could become less prominent if the EV revolution lives up to its promise. However, EVs also use energy, and this energy also has a price. As demand increases, with more EVs on the road, electricity will inevitably become more expensive. That’s when the Bidens of the world will have a real problem on their hands. 

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:


Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage





Leave a comment
  • George Doolittle on September 09 2021 said:
    The USA needs not a single barrel of oil going on a decade now....not that the USA will be crying about the current price of all energy product at the moment...which obviously includes coal, natural gas, renewables such as geo-thermal etc.

    You would think Greater Washington DC would have a problem starving the Nation's Capital into oblivion but this would be a denial of that ahem *PECULIAR* History ahem.

    Long $unp Union Pacific Railroad
    Strong buy
    Let's see how much the entire State of Pennsylvania really loves these hyperinflating Fuchs indeed.

Leave a comment




EXXON Mobil -0.35
Open57.81 Trading Vol.6.96M Previous Vol.241.7B
BUY 57.15
Sell 57.00
Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News