Anyway, Posner's blog fails to address several issues which I find crucial in determining what the US should do regarding consumption and production of oil. The author neglects important information that significantly discounts his theory. He writes
that increase is in turn primarily the result of rapid growth in demand for oil by China (now the world's second-largest consumer of oil) and India, a growth that has outpaced supply. The notion that this represents a crisis--that the world is running out of oil--is ridiculous
But the G7 have admitted they have no definitely figure of how much oil is left. Posner cannot make that claim, when scientists have been saying since early this century that peak oil is approaching and the world is indeed burning oil faster than it is producing it. There are too many unknowns about oil reserves and the growing demand from India and China. Which brings up another flaw in Posner's argument. The US emitted more carbon dioxide than any other country in the world last year. I would place the term "crisis" on that. And there's no way around the fact that our oil consumption (SUVs, long-distance transportation of goods, high energy use in homes and businesses) is the cause. Most estimates claim that 40-50 years of oil consumption are left. That is true. Although this has been the case since the 70s, many sources say that the years remaining figures are finally about to drop. Peak oil is not a leftist theory, its not an unfounded idea like Posner's (that there's no oil crisis). Ask a scientist, not an economist.
So even if Posner's unfounded claim is true, we need to look also at the other aspects of the oil crisis. The environmental effects, the effects on low-income consumers, the implications for reform. We need to look at sustainable energy sources, such as the renewable giants of WIND, SOLAR, BIOMASS. We need to implement more efficient and user-friendly public transit systems. We need to use our bicycles more, and we need to look toward purchasing more locally produced goods to cut down transportation. Its important to think purely economically, as Posner does. Its even more important to include socially and environmentally-oriented issues into the discussion.
In addition, Posner claims
Many consumers would prefer to drive less (substitute public transportation, telecommute, car-pool, move closer to work, etc.) than to buy a more expensive car that gets better gas mileage
Okay, this is not pure fact. If I were in the position of buying a car, where in fact I soon will find myself, I would much rather get a fuel-efficient car. Move closer to work? That is simply not an option for some people due to high costs of living in urban areas, ties with family and friends, and many other reasons. I live in a city that has a good public transportation system, and I use it. But that is not the final answer. I often have to travel distances that extend beyond the bus or train's limit. That is the case for many, many people. We can walk or bike to work or school. We can use the bus to go to a friend's house. But there comes a time you need to get outside the city and this is where fuel efficiency is important. Why is Posner opposing advocacy for cars with high fuel efficiency? Its ridiculous! The more we start buying, the less expensive they will be. So lets make the investment now and rely less on gas, save some money for ourselves at the pump, and drive cool hybrids! Meanwhile, lets walk, bike, ride the bus or train, and turn off the lights when we can. Deal?
I agree with this author about global warming and traffic congestion. Lets drive less. Just please, don't knock the fuel efficiency. Word. I am very encouraged by his attention to global warming and its roots in increasing oil production, partly because of my environmental and habitat concerns. So yes, high gas prices will drive consumption and production down, but let's think about those who can't afford these immense pump prices and must drive. Sometimes its not a choice, especially for those earning small incomes and taking the most beneficial job which might involve driving far distances. This guy's a professor, though, and probably has neither of those concerns.
And Posner does mention huge profits for the oil companies, but justifies their "obscene" profits as a short term result of high gas prices. He says they will level out in the long run. I believe this, but it doesn't make it ok for Shell Oil and BP to record their biggest profit margins Ever. While consumers' wallets and purses are hit. Hard. Maybe I stress this too much (see my earlier post about oil and such), but I'm a currently-broke college kid who must drive from time to time even though I try to walk or bike as much as possible. Cars should have much better fuel efficiency standards, regardless of whether it has a delayed effect. We need to think about the long term, and changing efficiency standards, along with joining the Kyoto Protocol (which is an entirely different story. But it is not okay to be the only industrialized nation refusing to take part). See today's NY Times article in which it is reported that Bush himself could increase these standards. According to Democrats in Washington, Bush is fighting "tooth and nail" to avoid doing so. Let's hope that's not true. Bush had publicly admitted America is addicted to oil, and perhaps he could follow through on his promise to reduce gas prices and dependency by encouraging automakers to make more efficient cars, higher prices for the consumer notwithstanding. It's got to be better than 3+ a gallon.
No comments:
Post a Comment