By adamantly refusing to do anything to improve energy conservation in America, or to phase in a $1-a-gallon gasoline tax on American drivers, or to demand increased mileage from Detroit's automakers, or to develop a crash program for renewable sources of energy, the Bush team is - as others have noted - financing both sides of the war on terrorism. We are financing the U.S. armed forces with our tax dollars, and, through our profligate use of energy, we are generating huge windfall profits for Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan, where the cash is used to insulate the regimes from any pressure to open up their economies, liberate their women or modernize their schools, and where it ends up instead financing madrassas, mosques and militants fundamentally opposed to the progressive, pluralistic agenda America is trying to promote. Now how smart is that?
The neocon strategy may have been necessary to trigger reform in Iraq and the wider Arab world, but it will not be sufficient unless it is followed up by what I call a "geo-green" strategy.
As a geo-green, I believe that combining environmentalism and geopolitics is the most moral and realistic strategy the U.S. could pursue today. Imagine if President Bush used his bully pulpit and political capital to focus the nation on sharply lowering energy consumption and embracing a gasoline tax.
What would that buy? It would buy reform in some of the worst regimes in the world, from Tehran to Moscow. It would reduce the chances that the U.S. and China are going to have a global struggle over oil - which is where we are heading. It would help us to strengthen the dollar and reduce the current account deficit by importing less crude. It would reduce climate change more than anything in Kyoto. It would significantly improve America's standing in the world by making us good global citizens. It would shrink the budget deficit. It would reduce our dependence on the Saudis so we could tell them the truth. (Addicts never tell the truth to their pushers.) And it would pull China away from its drift into supporting some of the worst governments in the world, like Sudan's, because it needs their oil. Most important, making energy independence our generation's moon shot could help inspire more young people to go into science and engineering, which we desperately need.
Sadly, the Bush team won't even consider this. It prefers cruise missiles to cruise controls. We need a grass-roots movement. Where are college kids these days? I would like to see every campus in America demand that its board of trustees disinvest from every U.S. auto company until they improve their mileage standards. Every college town needs to declare itself a "Hummer-free zone." You want to drive a gas-guzzling Humvee? Go to Iraq, not our campus. And an idea from my wife, Ann: free parking anywhere in America for anyone driving a hybrid car.
But no, President Bush has a better project: borrowing another trillion dollars, which will make us that much more dependent on countries like China and Saudi Arabia that hold our debt - so that you might, if you do everything right and live long enough, get a few more bucks out of your Social Security account.
The president's priorities are totally nuts.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Friedman on energy policy
Check out Tom Friedman's column today, No Mullah Left Behind. Some excerpts (with my highlighting in bold):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The only thing that is nuts, is the proposed solution to government corruption and moral deficiency is to give them more power to influence our lives. In some vain hope the new government will be benevolent. Second his entire premise is not realistic. Even if the USA achieved energy independence (I don't think it is as easy or cheap as claimed) China, Russia, and most of the developing world would still depend on fossil fuels. To maintain global and strategic influence the USA would still want to influence oil producing countries. Do you honestly think that if the USA didn’t use oil we would not be so heavily involved in the Middle East? Perhaps some people think we can ignore world problems if they don’t apply to us but realistically the USA would still want to influence the production and distribution of fossil fuels despite the fact we no longer depend on them.
The main difference being if we didn't consume the fuels ourselves we might be more likely to influence production in areas to cause economic disruption in those countries. Do you honestly think that if the USA didn't use oil and our naval currently controls all major sea shipping routes that China would be happy? That premise is INSANE, over night China would have to confront a massive security problem of the USA being able to undiscriminatly disrupt fossil fuel exports. That scenario would most likely accelerate Chinese naval building and increase the likely hood of China using military action to secure the necessary fuels it requires. As long as we have to use the same fuels we can only disrupt them so much. USA energy independence is a security risk to much of the world and IMHO would increase global military actions not stop them. Dependence on fossil fuels will continue until most major powers can safely and easily switch to alternative energy without drastically changing global and strategic realities. A global effort to stop fossil fuel consumption is possible but I doubt any of the major powers are willing to invest that amount of time and money. Additional no current global organization exists that could over see or support such a proposal. The UN can’t even run an “oil for food” program yet alone some global effort to change energy usage.
Steve
I can understand the point. As we spend our tax dollars fighting terrorism we endorse it by keeping them all employed. The reality is that there are many changes that have to be made in this country. Dont forget this isnt the first time a President has done what our current one is doing. President Lincoln quietly promoted trade between the northern and southern states during the Civil War. Many of his supporters critized him for these actions. They felt that the war could have ended much faster and easier if Lincoln had not allowed trade between the two. However this doesnt make it right. Just understand that it wasnt the first time.
America and the rest of the world is headed towards a serious problem. If we dont change the way we use our natural resources we will face extinction. At a time when we need to be engineering solutions to our problems we are choosing to look the other way, we are choosing to drive the ridiculous Humvee. If we continue to place America's trust in the hopes that the material world of the Humvees will sustain us forever, then we've already sealed our fate.
To a large extent I agree. Energy consumption is a huge problem but I don't think it can be fixed by wishful thinking. This topic is often addressed unrealistically by both sides. I honestly doubt any president could even begin to solve this problem. Most solutions go way beyond the bounds of government and encroach on an individual’s freedom. On the other hand more moderate and effective measures may lead to job and economic problems. If Bush set new pollution standards and American car manufactures lost profits, market shares, and jobs. People would be screaming he's destroying American jobs, manufacturing, and outsourcing cars. The political system in this country has managed to create such a huge catch 22 for leaders that almost any decision they make causes nothing but more problems. Like so many other problems governments simply don't have the ability to address them in any meaningful way. We would be better off with tax cuts and shelters to companies that can produce low emission cars and alternative energy sources. First 5 car manufactures to produce solely hybrid cars gets exemption from federal and state taxes for 15 years. I think you’d solve the problem much quicker this way.
Steve
I have to disagree with your comment that no President can even begin to solve the energy problems our country will be facing in the next twenty years or so. I think that any President can begin to solve these problems and that it is their Presidential responsibilty to do so. You are right, wishful thinking won't cut it, the whole system has to change. Of course this can lead to economic pressures and job loss to those already in these industries, but aren't we heading in that direction anyway? The job losses of these industries would not be great, for example, car manafactuers could just switch their medium. In reality this could even create more jobs.
You discussed in your first comment the problem with America's dependency on oil and fossil fuels, you wrote, "A global effort to stop fossil fuel consumption is possible but I doubt any of the major powers are willing to invest that amount of time and money. Additional no current global organization exists that could over see or support such a proposal" I'm sorry but I disagree with this statement. The United States is one of the few powers capable of supporting and spearheading such a project. If we would just start the ball rolling we'd get there, probably much sooner then we think. Instead of spending half the budget on military expenditures we could use that money to increase funding for these projects. I believe that President Bush can not solve the problem entirely but at least advance us in the right direction.
Sooner or later we'll be forced to make these descions anyway, lets make the right ones now.
Post a Comment