Blaming the Buyer
EDITOR’s NOTE: This post has been pulled up, for newer posts scroll down.
During last year’s State of the Union Address, President Bush, feigning boldness, declared that America has a problem. In laying out his energy plan for the year, the president declared that America “is addicted to oil.” Al Gore, certainly the most prominent of the climate change champions, often echoes the very same idea. I have never liked this blame the buyer first argument. One reason is that it simply stinks of arrogant limousine liberalism, not to mention elitism.
Secondly, the argument is a poor one. Americans have no more of a predilection for oil than they did for the horse and buggy two-hundred years ago. What Americans are in fact addicted to is driving to work, heating their homes and putting affordable clothes on their kids (yup, we need oil for that, too). Those monsters!
Because of this, I can’t help but wince when I read stories like this one . John Edwards has decided to wage war on the SUV, declaring that it’s time for Americans to make the “sacrifice” by giving up their Sports Utility Vehicles. Now, I understand that SUVs are a cancer on our highways. I agree that they are gas guzzling eyesores that take up too much space and probably make our roads less safe. However, I find it incredibly naïve to place the onus, and the blame, on the American consumer.
After all, it was Congress that enabled consumers to get hefty tax breaks in exchange for purchasing the SUV, incentivizing the pubic to purchase them instead of the more sensible and environmentally friendly hybrid automobile. It was GM, again at the behest of the oil industry and the federal government, who killed their own electric car models for the sake of the more gas-dependent SUV. Observe which vehicles received the most advertising dollars, and then check out which industries did the most pocket lining on Capitol Hill. There are in fact automobile companies out there building alternatives to the combustible engine, although they face an uphill climb in the battle for subsidies.
Cost should not be an issue. When it comes to energy and transportation, government tends to absorb much of the upfront costs anyway. Governments take the hit when building nuclear power facilities, and government bails out and subsidizes (respectively) transportation industries like airlines and railroads because they are deemed an essential public service.
This shouldn’t be dumped on the consumer, because the consumer will buy what is available and affordable. If we want to see a change in consumption patterns, it doesn’t begin with the American family, it instead begins with Congress and their willingness to invest in environmentally responsible energy and transportation alternatives. The entrepreneurs are there, but they need our help.
The biggest sacrifice shouldn’t come from the consumer, but rather, from the campaign coffers of our elected officials.
(Cross posted at my blog )
Edwards, Gore, et. all need a bumper sticker that simply says
Hypocrite
As soon as they give up their energy demanding homes and their gas sucking jets (not to mention their SUV’s) Then I’ll listen to what they have to say.
Until then, I’ll continue in my pretty darn frugal 40 MPG car.
Edwards’ campaign is becoming a series of bumper stickers each more zany than the last—a comedy screenwriter couldn’t come up with a more witless incarnation of hypocrisy and stupid explanations.
Fortress Fund consultancy to learn about poverty, while pocketing a half-million for less than a few hours a week? For less than a year? And then investing $18 million? And then “finding out” that Fortress is foreclosing on mortgages in N.O.?
EDITED BY MvdG: no personal attacks and insults like that allowed.
It would be nice if, when politicians discuss oil use, they actually show us some facts and figures about how oil is being used. SUVs may be wasteful but I suspect that they actually don’t cost that much in terms of oil.
Not exactly in favor or liberated women, are we?
Excellent article, Jason.
Add in the list of what Americans are addicted to: food grown with petroleum derived fertilizers.
Add in the list that Congress has tinkered with and then blamed American consumers for the results: subsidizing corn and putting tariffs on sugar so that food manufacturers use high fructose corn syrup in nearly every produce- then blame consumers for obesity and rise in diabetes (sure, there’s blame to go around there- we should eat less processed food and exercise more- but it’s difficult and expensive to buy food without this crap in it; I’d estimate I’m spending 25% more on groceries by trying to avoid all HFCS and hydrogenated oils).
Also, Congress tinkering with health insurance to put tax advantage on employers for buying insurance for their employees while not giving individual consumers the same tax break for buying private insurance, has led to some of the problems with our healthcare costs today (and with portability of insurance since it has become so tied to employment).
Congress should consider taking this part of the hippocratic oath to heart: First, do no harm.
Yeah, we use oil in just about every facet of our lives. This “Americans are addicted” junk is a cop-out.
Oops, sorry Kevin- not sure how I missed your byline and accidentally attributed the story to Jason.
Probably because you agree with the post?
Kevin: “Americans are addicted to oil” is just another nice slogan. Seemingly, slogans have replaced actual arguments in the poltical debate in america. Such slogans should be ignored. What is true, however, is that since oil is used for so many things, it is important to find something to replace it at least partially with.
Also - one hears all the candidates speak these days about energy independence. However, I read recently that complete independence is simply not doable. They, the politicians know this, but say it nonetheless because doing so will result in more votes.
That’s another one of those problems these days, isn’t it?
However, we can have energy diversity, and we simply aren’t trying hard enough because we allow one industry to put a sleeper hold over our government.
The only addiction is right here in DC, which is why I get angry when these fakers start telling Americans what they need to do.
True - but their addiciton isn’t to oil, but to power. Money is a means to get power, oil is a means to get money.
Seemingly?
Christine–A bit OT, but the link between obesity and HFC (attributed to the glucose/sucrose ratio) is very questionable.
Really, Tom? I have seen stuff that was fairly damning about the links- based on the glycemic index and how you’d expect that to affect metabolism, as well as evidence of pretty good correlation of obesity and diabetes with the shift to HFCS in our food supply.
Christine–
I’d heard that HFC really isn’t much different than table sugar. It could be that it’s an increase in sugar, not specifically HFC, that’s increasing obesity and diabetes.
Given where you’re from, I wonder if you should be focusing less on sugar and more on fats—don’t y’all put bacon in your green beans and use lard in baking?
Getting really OT here…
If this article is correct we could have energy dependence pretty soon and very cheaply.
Er, independence!
LOL, Tom, what you probably don’t realize is that I’m a Jersey girl who grew up in NJ, CT and then New Orleans…then moved to FL and then to GA.
I’m a third generation Polish American, so the Southern cooking isn’t the problem. Instead I’ve had to lay off of the pierogis, kielbasa and babka…not to mention having fewer slices of “pie” (pizza), fewer heros/grinders/subs/po-boys, and fuggedabout the fried shrimp, jambalaya and beignets.
But yeah, finding healthy food in restaurants here is a bit of a challenge too. Fortunately I take my iced tea without sugar (most of the su-way-ut tea here could induce a diabetic coma).
Do you know Kevin Smith?
So I remember from my time in NC. Perhaps some ethnic restaurants would have healthier fare? Assuming they have some where you are?
Anyway, to get back on topic, mikkel is right that these “enhanced geothermal systems” do have potential to provide energy without CO2. But I’ve heard that they could increase the risks of earthquakes AND they’d have to be abandoned after 30-40 years when the rock below cools off.
Really 30-40? I thought it was more like 80?
For once I literally know no more than what the article says. But I did the math and they are talking about a nuclear power plant’s worth of energy for $10 million. For that price I really don’t see why they don’t just express build a few in the middle of nowhere and see how it works.