Environmental and energy policy issues may not be on the front burner for the 1996 presidential elections - they represent a veritable minefield of dangerous issues - but they will play an important role in the shaping of the United States economy in the immediate years to come. They already are: the sudden upswing in gasoline prices this spring has the candidates scurrying for cover. It is populist politics time. President Bill Clinton is announcing intentions of repealing a 4((/gallon tax increase that he signed into law as a compromise in 1993; presidential hopeful Senator Majority Leader Bob Dole is attempting to deny the 10(/gallon increase he had proposed in '93 - and reposition himself on the side of decreasing taxation as well. Neither leader is speaking in terms of policy; both are practicing "reactive" politics. They are also practicing inappropriate, short-run economics: demand for gasoline is relatively inelastic in the short-run (Howe & Rasmussen, pp. 19-20). The changes proposed in Washington, then, will not appreciably affect the immediate problem - and, if there is a long-run decrease in gasoline prices, it will be for reasons related to decrease in demand, a natural market force relationship, and not a cosmetic tax cut (Howe & Rasmussen, p. 25). Nevertheless, this situation illustrates the point of this brief essay: for the United States to grow as an economy, comprehensive and long-run programs must be established and pursued regarding energy, environmental and economic policy.
One consideration that must be considered is the fact that the United States government is, in fact, footing the bill for the energy resources utilized in this country - at least in terms of those resources that are generated within national borders. For the purposes of this paper, we will concentrate upon those only, since the U.S. land mass and economy are so extensive. It is recognized that, in the global economy of which we ...