I really do wonder about the clash of ideologies inherent in the green movement. I'm just about old enough to remember America's transition from seemingly boundless self-confidence and optimism (retro-actively captured by Donald Fagen's masterpiece The Nightfly) to cynicism, doubt, fear and self-loathing (typified by Buffalo Springfield's "Stop, hey what's that sound"). Automotively speaking, what greater contrast could you have than the bold, brash, befinned Cadillacs of the '50's vs. today's Kremlin-style DTS? But the wider point perplexes. Are we really supposed to be the generation that turns it back on conspicuous consumption in favor of social responsibility? While I am, at heart, a minimalist, I find the idea of peak oil and global warming and don't drive an SUV or a Ferrari 'cause you're killing my child, your child, everyone's children to be somehow antithetical to the American way. I know that the 50's weren't a lot of laughs for a lot of people, and that "the American way" as described revolts many people, but is it really so wrong to celebrate conspicuous consumption? While some– and I'm thinking Tesla here– capture the public imagination with a "cake and eat it too" solution, I'm not so sure we can have it both ways. Nor am I sure I can give up the things I love for the greater good. Just sayin'.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
somehow antithetical to the American way.
Unfortunately, the American Way went from self-reliance to, “We’re spending our kids inheritance!” to, “I’m in debt up to my eyeballs!”.
Unless you’re in a monastery the entire idea of trying to reign in “consumption” is idiotic. As anyone who’d ever understood economics can tell you, people have unlimited needs. They always want more, and when you give them what they want, they find something else to want. That’s deeply ingrained in our DNA and it’s the only reason we climbed out of the trees; that’s how humans are.
Ragging on people for consumption is a stillborn message that won’t work. The only reason people work is so they can consume. The entire reason an “economy” exists is to satisfy peoples’ need to consume stuff.
If these dumb greenies were a lot wiser they’d look for ways of redirecting peoples’ tastes to conspicuously consuming things that don’t emit carbon (or whatever is aligned with their harebrained interests).
For example, look at the disappearing youth of Japan. Apparently it’s as uncool to own a car there now as it is to reproduce, and so Japan domestic car sales are falling like an anvil. But they ain’t being frugal, they just spend ruinous amounts of money on cellular phones and service instead.
We try to control consumption of many things, presumably to benefit the public at large. One must register a gun in most places as a means of controlling consumption to responsible persons. Licit drug consumption is controlled via prescription. Controls of illicit drug consumption are attempted legally, but seem only to create a more efficient and better organized distribution network.
So if a reduction in fuel consumption appears to benefit the public interest, it is probably easiest to do so economically, as happens in the EU and most countries. Where the price of fuel increases, the appetite for more fuel-efficient transportation also increases. Other more arcane controls are likely less effective.
While I think that people should be able to drive whatever they damn well please, I find it ridiculous that both light trucks and SUV’s were given a pass from laws which controlled the lowly automobile. Worse yet was the law that made it uneconomical for a small business owner to buy anything but a vehicle with a GVW in excess of 6000 pounds; the one-year tax write off amounted to a U.S. Government subsidy of vehicles which are generally mediocre as transportation, although they do offer other benefits. But there should be little doubt that the proliferation of heavy passenger vehicles owes a great deal to the unique status afforded by law and less to their towing or passenger-carrying abilities.
If we assume that our venture in Iraq is largely a means to assure us of future fuel supplies, it stands to reason that it be paid for not by public debt, but through a surcharge on fuel. “Green” or not, surcharging the cost of fuel with the cost of war would likely reduce fuel consumption. Not likely to happen, however…
I’d like to think that, at some point in our nation’s history, the “American Way” meant something more than the freedom to accumulate consumer products that make us feel good about ourselves, and a sense of entitlement to same regardless of the consequences to other people.
Don’t get me wrong, that’s fun too, but can we stop pretending it’s a freaking religion already?
[[warning: peak oil post]]
RF: “..I find the idea of peak oil ….. somehow antithetical to the American way.”
The veracity of peak oil can’t be a function of your life-philosophy. A finite resource is being consumed; eventually demand will outstrip supply, at which point the price will rise inexorably (at least until it’s no longer economic to bother with). Much simplified, but it makes sense to me. Of course we might switch completely to other energy sources before we peak, but what would cause us to do that?
Arguments against peak oil seem (to me at least) to be of the “But you said it was going to happen last year, but it didn’t, so the whole idea is wrong” variety. We don’t assume that monetary theory is all rubbish, just because we can’t predict the rate of inflation in two years time.
“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.” (Nils Bohr)
[[/warning: peak oil post]]
cheers
malcolm
Go Big Red!
(Me, Class of ’91, Mech E.)
malcolmmacaulay: I don’t think anybody disputes that oil reserves are finite. The dispute is the prediction about when that finiteness will become evident. The great economic historian Julian Simon’s work The Ultimate Resource describes the strongest argument against peak-anything theory. In short, no resource is ever truly exhausted, because human ingenuity always has and always will increase the efficiency of its production and find substitutes. The ultimate resource, therefore, is labor.
Your use of the word “inexorably” really serves to answer your own question. As oil becomes more scarce, its price will gradually and noticeably rise, increasing the incentive to find alternatives. Thus, by the time oil runs out completely, which will be by no means a sudden occurence, we will in fact have completed obviated its use.
Viewing “peak oil” theory as the idea that the wells will one day run dry and the economy will chug to a halt is a prime example of the Malthusian fallacy of discounting future innovation.
NoneMoreBlack: “The dispute is the prediction about when that finiteness will become evident. The great economic historian Julian Simon’s work The Ultimate Resource describes the strongest argument against peak-anything theory. In short, no resource is ever truly exhausted, because human ingenuity always has and always will increase the efficiency of its production and find substitutes. The ultimate resource, therefore, is labor.”
I hope my posting didn’t suggest that I think oil will just “run out” and innovation will cease. That’s obviously not going to happen, as you say.
Also I agree that historically there haven’t been serious/significant peaks of any resource, which wasn’t taken care of by new ideals, new ways and new resources.
However, history may not be a good guide to the future. And if we are going to see a nasty peak, then oil/gas is an excellent candidate. It runs much of the world economy (transport, heating, agriculture, fertilisers etc) and demand is going to increase sharply (India, China et al).
Innovation and constraints (CO2 etc) may save the day, but we certainly have the pedal-to-the-metal, so if there’s a wall around the next corner, there could be nasty smash.
[[end of peak oil post]]
cheers
Malcolm
Unless we manage controlled fusion, the only naturally available substances with the energy density to replace fossil fuels are the radioactive ores that power nuclear fission reactors. Once the peaks of NG and oil become clear, I think our fearless leaders will override the obvious safety concerns and sink a lot of tax revenue into nuclear plants. Whether or not nukes are a real solution there is much money to be made both building and decommissioning them. Same goes for ethanol, wind, solar, waves.
In short, we’ll try anything before conservation.
Even without serious economic motivation people are developing alternatives to oil. I believe this is because there still does exist that drive in people to do something no one else ever has or better than anyone has regardless of the risks. I think this is an important driving force in the development of geen technologies and yet also in our desire to have huge SUV’s/big Macs/McMansions.
malcolmmacaulay: I think I misread your tone slightly; I didn’t mean to put any arguments in your mouth. Sticking to this one, however, I don’t see any empirical reason to believe that oil is going to pan out any differently from any other resource. Even today, vast reserves are being explored and groomed for extraction that were considered impossible even 10 years ago, due to a combination of new technology and high energy prices raising the incentive for discovery. As much as 2/3rds of the world’s reserves of oil, for instance, are held in tar sands and shale. Even if there is some kind of instantaneous, permanent worldwide increase in demand for petroleum, prices will simply rise to ration it until such a time as we can tap new reserves which previously were inviable.