dead armadillos

9.14.2005

I hereby nominate Robert Samuelson for President. The man is always spot on, always saying precisely what needs to be said and precisely what our Parliament of Whores can never manage to say. Today, it's the price of gas:

What this country needs is $4-a-gallon gasoline or, maybe, $5. We don't need it today, but we do need it over the next seven to 10 years via a steadily rising oil tax .... Government needs to foster a market for fuel efficiency. The tax should be introduced gradually -- paralleling tougher fuel standards -- and, perhaps, tempered if global oil prices rise sharply .... It's not a national tragedy for someone to trade an Expedition for a Taurus.

He also notes that GM, Ford, and Chrysler are "the least prepared for change." You can say that again. As soon as the increasing price of gas and decreasing hybrid prices turn the cost / benefit math into a no brainer, Honda and Toyota will beat GM with a stick because of their long head start with hybrid technology. And GM deserves to shrink into oblivion for poor planning and worse execution. Free market, baby!

I have to take issue with one thing Samuelson says:

Barring huge oil discoveries or technological breakthroughs, "energy independence" is another myth

Nukes! Build nukes. Build lots of nukes. Then build some more nukes.

The only "technological breakthrough" we need is how to break the code on convincing the good people of Nevada it's OK to let us bury our left-over nuke doo-doo under one of their mountains. Geez, it's not like they're using all their mountains for something else. Why can't we have just one?

Previous post on nuclear power & fuel cells here

¶ 11:36 PM

Comments:

Think things through. You laud a free market ("Free market, baby!") just after praising the idea of the government coercing citizens into buying autos that require less fuel by raising taxes.

The government should not be in the business of deciding what cars we should drive. Have more faith in yourself and your fellow citizens to determine what is best for ourselves.

# posted by Anonymous : Thursday, 15 September, 2005

Faith in my fellow citizens to all drive Hummers, so my daughters can still be dealing with the Wahabis 30 years from now? Methinks not.

As Samuelson says: "Government needs to foster a market for fuel efficiency"

Why does government need to foster a market for fuel efficiency? Because:

1) It's important (see Wahabi comment above) ... and

2) The market is doing a pretty shitty job of it currently

That's what the role of the government in the marketplace is SUPPOSED to be, to incent a chunk of the economy towards a societal good (fewer Wahabis) while still letting the market run things (as opposed to Dennis Kucinich, for example)

I realize that in the polarized Republican/Democrat political universe we (you) live in, mentioning government and the market in the same blog post represents some crazy mix of naivete and hypocracy. But this is Dead Armadillos, baby, home of a flaming moderate, where such blasphemous talk is permitted!

but thanks for the comment anyway ... cheers ;-)

# posted by J.D. : Thursday, 15 September, 2005

What do you think would happen if everyone drove a "hi-bred" vehicle. Yes, less fuel would be used, but prices of that fuel would still be high. As for as the fuel shortage in '73, it was a man-made shortage as it is today. Greedy people just making more money. Everyone wants to be as rich as Bill Gates.

# posted by Anonymous : Friday, 16 September, 2005

Had to get in on this, buddy. Try reading The Bottomless Well. It should make for interesting reading for you.

Here's the deal. The fact is the more efficient something becomes (ie hybrid cars) the result is a wash or INCREASE in consumption not less. Think about it, our cars are more efficient than our folks cars, but you're not suggesting that we actually consume less gas now than back then, are you?

A hypothetical: if I offered the public an SUV that got 35 mpgs the result would probably result an increase in SUV sales as the gas mileage is comparable to a smaller car. Even if there were smaller cars that got 50 most families would forgo the smaller car in an effort to get more space and comfort in their ride.

If you buy this scenario, where is the savings in gas? You might see a small decline in you personally, but more people will buy those SUVs because they are "fuel efficient." Overall, gas consumption won't go down, it'll probably go up.

As far as making gas more expensive, it seems to me that you are giving the bad guys even more power. The problem is whether public or private dollars are spent in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico or the Tar Sands of Alberta the fear is that even if we can pump it out of the ground at $30 a barrel OPEC will just open the spigot even more and can match or beat that price and with increased demand from India and China we're stuck. Better to drive the price DOWN. The How is the quandry...

Hope all is well....

Grahammer

# posted by The Grahammer : Friday, 16 September, 2005

Sorry dude, I'm not buying any of that left coast math you're selling. I think high gas prices = higher average MPG = less reliance on OPEC

For what it's worth, though, I still think you're the coolest guy in our high school class

# posted by J.D. : Monday, 19 September, 2005

Wow, if you think I'm the coolest guy in our high school class you need to look in the mirror, my friend, but thanks for the kind words.

As with most things there are compelling arguments on both sides and no one knows what the future holds.

Agree to disagree on this one...

TG

# posted by The Grahammer : Tuesday, 20 September, 2005