Firstly, from most of the things I have read about gas prices, higher gas prices are likely to become the norm rather than the exception. As oil field reserves around the world peak, oil production (and consequently gasoline production) is stretched to its limits, and as global demand continues to rise, prices will naturally continue to rise. And so any recent drop in gas prices is probably temporary and we will probably see $3 gas again soon enough. Interestingly, by buying these fuel-inefficient vehicles consumers will help to drive demand back up which will probably help to send prices back up to where they were, and higher.
Secondly, Bush is right when he says that American dependence on foreign oil is bad. The combination of our voracious appetite for oil and relatively high international oil prices contributes to volatility in the international system. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, for example, would not be in the position of power and influence that he is if it weren't for all the money Venezuela is making from high-priced oil exports to the US. I don't think Hugo Chavez is really very dangerous for the United States, but he is certainly one of the most vocal and charismatic champions of the anti-American sentiment around the world.
Along this same point, but perhaps more crucial, is the relationship between US demand for oil, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. When I first heard the argument, "we are in Iraq because of oil," I thought it sounded like conspiracy theory. But in my political geography class last semester my teacher spent several class periods giving us a pretty sound explanation of why Iraq and our demand for oil are related. I am not capable of eloquently reproducing that argument here, but the basic jist of it is that Iraq and Iran have the fourth and third largest conventional oil reserves, respectively. By invading Afghanistan which has no real interest for the US other than a strategic location, and by invading Iraq which has large oil reserves but low production due to depleted infrastructure from international sanctions, the US is surrounding Iran.
I know, it sounds like total conspiracy theory, but I think it makes sense. Sure, the US rhetoric regarding all three of these countries has been mostly about security, humanitarian aid, terrorism, and those elusive weapons of mass destruction, but then you have to ask yourself, if it were really just about these things, then why did we go first to Iraq which appears to have been telling the truth when they said they didn't have WMDs (and it appears they didn't have any ties to Al Qaeda either), when North Korea on the other hand has been very clear about its intentions to build WMDs? Well, one possible factor is that North Korea doesn't have any oil. Or why don't we go into Sudan, a hotbed for international terrorists as well as the site of perhaps the worst current humanitarian disaster in the world (with the exception of Iraq, perhaps)? Well, Sudan doesn't have much oil either.
So why would the United States go to such great lengths to invade Iraq and surround Iran? Well, probably to help ensure cheap oil for the US so that Americans can drive their big trucks and SUVs. Until recently it was enough for the US to simply maintain their cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia, but in the face of rapidly increasing demand from countries like China and India, in combination with declining oil reserves, it's going to take a much more hands-on approach by the US to keep oil prices low. Of course, if we didn't USE so much of the stuff then this wouldn't be such a big problem for the US. But don't tell the US public this; instead let them keep driving their land yachts because they like to sit high off the road and have a commanding view of the vast American landscape...
Speaking of the landscape, that's the third reason why this news is so disturbing. You don't have to be a climatologist to be able to understand that global warming is real, is coming fast, is our fault, and will probably have disastrous consequences. In fact, you probably don't even need a high school diploma to be able to understand it. Sure, the movie The Day After Tomorrow had a lot of hyperbolic Hollywood entertainment packed into it, and global warming probably won't have quite such dramatic effects, but it still should have made people think. And then there was Al Gore's great movie An Inconvenient Truth, which I still think everyone in the world should see, that spelled it out clearly and accurately. Unfortunately that movie lacked the Hollywood action necessary to lure most American movie-goers. So if simple economics aren't enough, and international security isn't enough either, and not even saving the planet from an unprecedented climatic disaster is enough to make Americans drive more efficient cars, then I don't know what is.
Actually, it seems like simple economics is the most powerful tool here, it's just that as this article claims, Americans have amnesia, and they probably lack foresight too. If we could keep gas prices high enough long enough, maybe Americans would finally start to think differently. Or perhaps if they went high enough then alternative energy sources would become economically viable. So as much as I loved getting change back from my $20 on a full tank of gas a few years ago, I think that in the long run high gasoline prices are actually a great thing, but dang it America, why do you keep buying those gas-guzzlers?
I've heard all the reasons for why people claim to like these behemoths:
- "I like to sit high so I can see over everyone" -- You wouldn't have to sit so high if everyone else didn't drive them too.
- "I like how safe I feel in a big vehicle" -- Big vehicles are more dangerous to other drivers, and most small cars these days are just as safe. Actually, because small cars handle better and are more maneuverable, in a way they are actually safer!
- "I need to be able to haul lots of _______" -- This is only true in a few cases, most of the time you just end up driving yourself and perhaps a passenger or two around town looking for a Starbucks and a gas station. When you do need to haul lots of passengers and their gear, just take two cars! And if you need it to haul around your large family, then that's a different problem because the world population is also getting too big and so you shouldn't even be having that many kids anyway, unless they're adopted I suppose. Also, while you are busy hauling all your stuff around in your big truck, I'll be hauling ass right past you in my speedy little Mini and I'll be getting over twice or perhaps even three times the fuel economy as you too.
- "I like how powerful they are" -- Whatever, trucks and SUVs are slow. Even the fastest ones are still not that fast by fast-car standards.
- "I like they way the drive" -- Again, you are wrong. They handle like mush.
I love a rumblin' tumblin' gas-guzzlin' V8 engine as much as the next red-blooded American, but it's just irresponsible to drive those things all the time as a primary mode of transportation. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Hopefully technology like that shown in this video can become mainstream:
At the bottom of that Fortune article, there is a link to another article about how obesity also increases fuel consumption. That's a rant for another day though...
1 comment:
I heard a piece on NPR today about college Republicans and how vocal they are in this election. I hope you are saying all these things to everyone you know, not just on your blog. And don't forget to VOTE!
Post a Comment