Fools Continue to Rush In...

It's no longer the late 1950s. Maybe it's time that U.S. energy and automobile and planning and development policies reflected changing times.

I don't know what it is with the Examiner and their system for choosing op-eds to run. I just wrote about Sam Staley's piece.... today's paper has a foolish piece advocating against increasing CAFE requirements. CAFE requirements have to do with average gasoline usage efficiency for various types of cars manufactured and sold in the U.S. See "Changing CAFE standards will worsen the gas crisis."

If vehicles get better mileage they use less gas (in theory anyway, because as mileage efficiency increases, people tend to drive more).

Since a majority of the oil consumed in the U.S. is imported, this contributes to balance of payments deficits.

Because a majority of oil imported into the United States comes from destabilized nations, being dependent on these resources puts the nation at economic and political risk.

Furthermore, the commitment of military and foreign policy resources to protect access to (relatively) cheap oil costs the United States a great deal of money and personnel. The cost of the Iraq War is roughly $200 million/day, or $6 Billion/month. And this is only part of the military cost expended relating to protecting oil supplies.

They write:

The U.S. economy was built in large part on cheap transportation, and every sector of the economy suffers when transportation costs rise. So it is clearly in our interest to keep these costs down — whether by providing cheaper fuels or by getting more from the ones we use.

A better way to decrease energy dependence and improve the economy is to encourage technologies that improve vehicle efficiency — without sacrificing safety or limiting vehicle utility.

All businesses want to be encouraged. But they never want to be required.

The U.S. economy is addicted to oil. Truly. The nation's land use and development paradigm is centered upon automobility and deconcentrated land use.

As long as the cost of driving is severely subsidized, people will make personal decisions that are economically rational at the micro level but economically irrational and unsustainable at the local, regional, state, and national level and counter to the economic and political health of the nation.

Rothbard and Rucker are wimps. Why not express some guts, and advocate for higher excise taxes on gasoline, significantly higher, because what could be better signals to automobile manufacturers and consumers to (1) use better technologies; or (2) drive less; or (3) drive more efficient vehicles; or (4) not to drive at all, but use transit or walk or bicycle to get to work; or (5) baring that, at least carpool, by charging something like $5 or $6 per gallon of gasoline?

And the additional money raised could pay for the cost of roads--which are subsidized to the tune of 40% from general funds--or for the military or for the medical care of returned injured soldiers, who are being blown up so that people like David Rothbard and Craig Rucker will suffer less when they drive their cars...

I am not a graphic designer. So I lack the skill to produce a fake ad with the slogan "Put a dead soldier in your tank."



The new Springfield interchange, above, features 50 ramps and bridges. Cost: $676 million. Photo: Rich Lipski, Washington Post.