The opportunity presented by high gas prices

The American public has two reliable reactions to fluctuating gas prices. When they go up, people get mad at the president. When they go down, people buy giant, gas-guzzling SUVs — the better to get angry about once prices inevitably rise again.

The link between presidential approval and gas prices isn’t as strong as it once was. As with almost everything else, Donald Trump appears to have broken the mold here as his numbers stayed roughly the same no matter what was happening, attempted coups included. But in general, inflation, with gas prices the most visible sign, is bad news for incumbents.

Consumers also reliably change their buying habits based on prices. Historically, higher gasoline prices increase the demand for smaller vehicles with better fuel efficiency, with the inverse true, as well. We’ve seen that effect play out in Connecticut, as high gas prices and free bus rides have affected commuter behavior.

It stands to reason that encouraging these trends could have some benefits. High gas prices discourage driving, and can even influence land-use decisions, which are the No. 1 factor behind our car-centric culture that requires so much driving to begin with.

The problems are twofold — the first, as mentioned, is that voters are likely to punish whoever is in charge when those prices go up. The second is that people on the edge economically pay a heavy cost as prices rise.

A nationwide advocacy group thinks it has the solution.

Citizens’ Climate Lobby, which has chapters around the nation including in Connecticut, is “laserfocused” on its signature policy, local members said in a recent meeting. The group is pushing a carbon fee and dividend proposal, though backers like to call it a “cash back” plan to emphasize that regular people would get something out of it. It’s been introduced in the past two sessions of Congress, giving supporters hope for its future enactment.

The idea, supported by many economists across the political spectrum as well as environmentalists, is to put a real price on carbon. Today, of course, we pay for gasoline (that’s what those big numbers outside the station signify), but the many downstream effects of burning fuel, including pollution, congestion and negative health outcomes, are not priced into the transaction. Instead, society as a whole pays the price.

These are what economists refer to as externalities, and CCL wants to increase the cost of carbonbased fuels to account for them. The twist is that the extra money would then be returned to the general public — that’s the cash back part — in the form of a dividend. Studies show that people with the greatest needs would get most of their money back, while those who contribute the most to climate change would pay the most. Gas would cost more, but not everyone would feel the pain, and everyone would convert to a cleaner future.

It’s a great idea that seems particularly ill-suited to the current moment.

Members of the local chapter count themselves lucky that representatives like Jim Himes have shown support, but the plan hasn’t made it out of the House. Then there’s the Senate, which, as readers of this column might know, is terrible.

The problem there isn’t Republicans, it’s the West Virginia coal magnate who not-so-secretly runs Washington and appears disinclined to support a climate plan. And beyond that, few people are likely to vote for a plan to raise gas prices when it’s already $5 a gallon.

That doesn’t mean giving up. The stakes are too high for that.

But there’s a good argument that more meaningful environmental action — as in, the kind that isn’t destined for futility — is at the local level, especially when our congressional delegation doesn’t need convincing on climate bills.

The housing debates that have roiled Hartford the past two sessions have brought the issue of zoning to statewide attention. Not only are environmentally minded voters taking notice, many are realizing that what they had assumed was the green path — the one that sets aside forests and fields out of reach of development — is in fact contributing to our problems by encouraging sprawl.

We shouldn’t focus on stopping development. We just need to do it smarter, and nothing is better for the environment than density, even as it is prohibited in the vast majority of Connecticut. Changes to land use must be a top focus, and there’s been some movement in that direction, even if the results are slow to arrive.

Connecticut is a suburban state. Most of us produce emissions every time we leave the house, even in an electric car. If we could change that equation, something that will only happen with state action, the benefits would be enormous, and could be a model for other states.

Keep pushing nationally, then, but understand that the window is closing, and may have closed for the foreseeable future. November is around the corner, and it is not looking promising for environmental advocates.

There is meaningful work to be done at home.