Riding an ineluctable economic trend could be great politics
We’ve discussed this issue previously. Given the meteoric economic rise of China, higher growth in India, and declining domestic production, among other factors, the price of oil looks like it will continue to remain high in real terms for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, much of the immediate economic benefit of these higher prices are destined for countries that are our rivals or enemies. Why not ride these twin waves in a parallel to the Space Program of the 1960′s. Instead of a Man on the Moon, why not total energy independence by 2020? Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek lays some of this out, but doesn’t go as far as we would:
Rising oil prices are the result of many different forces coming together. We have little control over some of them, like China’s growth rate. But America remains the 800-pound gorilla of petroleum demand. In 2004, China consumed 6.5 million barrels of oil per day. The United States consumed 20.4 million barrels, and demand is rising. That is because of strong growth, but also because American cars—which guzzle the bulk of oil imports—are much less efficient than they used to be. This is the only area of the American economy in which we have become less energy-efficient than we were 20 years ago, and we are the only industrialized country to have slid backward in this way. There’s one reason: SUVs. They made up 5 percent of the American fleet in 1990. They make up almost 54 percent today.
It’s true that there is no silver bullet that will entirely solve America’s energy problem, but there is one that goes a long way: more-efficient cars. If American cars averaged 40 miles per gallon, we would soon reduce consumption by 2 million to 3 million barrels of oil a day. That could translate into a sustained price drop of more than $20 a barrel.
This doesn’t have to be a Castor Oil program, not at all. In fact, it should be sold in conjunction with a comprehensive program for higher domestic oil production, more coal and nuclear, etc. But it should be sold as an American Dream, and have a big public face, with scholarships, aid to the US auto industry, a big focus on science and engineering, and a war element: the defunding of terrorists.
No one can name a thing in the recent big energy bill, except maybe for more ethanol. Big deal. Yeah, that’s a plan to rally around: more ethanol! Well, if it were for drinking maybe so. But what a waste on the part of the Bush administration, in addition to every non-ultra-Green-Democrat incumbent. Imagine being much freer of our nasty entanglements with the often primitive and dangerous cultures of the oil-producing world. Imagine sticking it to them economically. What a lovely thought — and it would be based on government’s simply riding an economic trend that is already there, like it or not. It seems to us it would be a nearly free ride for an imaginative candidate, since everyone hates the situation we have now.
UPDATE
Peter Maass has a related piece in the NYT Magazine, and the debate on the issue we address appears to be livening up. Good.
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:53 am
One problem would be that those 54% SUV owners vote (I didn’t say think). Also , someone has to solve the weight/fuel efficiency/safety problem first. Meaningful mass transit is over with in a day and age of terrorists bombs. My little Chevy pick up with its adequate 4 cyl. gives me 28 m.p.g. on the highway and tows my little aluminum boat quite well. What happens to those who tow those double decker fiberglass monsters that clog the rivers,bays and lakes of America? Their owners vote too.I often wonder just how much fuel would be save if we took out those four way stop signs and looked for turning many of our stop lights into yellow blinking instead of the gas-guzzling stop then go red.