Friedman on Energy
I've long been a fan of Tom Friedman's calls for decreasing our energy dependence through technological advances and increased efficiency. In his column today, Friedman takes on the new energy bill, skewering it for the big juicy pork shishkabob that it is. "While [the bill] contains some useful provisions," Friedman writes, "it also contains massive pork slabs dished out to the vested interests who need them least - like oil companies - and has no overarching strategy to deal with the new world."
More: "[The bill] doesn't really touch the auto companies, which have used most of the technological advances of the last two decades to make our cars bigger and faster, rather than more fuel-efficient. Congress even rejected the idea of rating tires for fuel efficiency, which might have encouraged consumers to buy the most fuel-efficient treads.
The White House? It blocked an amendment that would have required the president to find ways to cut oil use by one million barrels a day by 2015 - on the grounds that it might have required imposing better fuel economy on our carmakers."
Friedman calls for a strategic approach to energy policy, rather than using the "energy bill" as little more than a grab-bag for industry lobby groups. He adds another call, perhaps even more important: imagination. As I've probably written here before, I have absolutely no doubt that car manufacturers could come up with more energy-efficient vehicles if they put their minds to it, or even come up with ways to utilize new technologies as they are developed.
Government should reward imagination, not stagnation - and, to steal Friedman's phrase, our energy policy should indeed be more than 'the sum of all lobbies.'
posted by JBD @ 11:44 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
As someone once said: "Follow the Money"!! Until the auto makers see the public moving away in large numbers from the gas guzzling big vehicles, and toward fuel-efficient cars; the auto industry will not move. And, with profits at an all-time high, the oil companies are very happy, thank you!! Bottom line: it is going to be a long while before we see a change in the status quo.
I agree with Phil S. that American car buyers bear a lot of the responsibility for the auto makers building bigger and bigger vehicles. But, the government can help by giving incentives for more fuel-efficient cars. It's like the recycling issue. You have to make it easy for consumers to do the right thing. And it doesn't hurt to make a hybrid seem "Cool". Don't ask me how though; I am very uncool.
Why is it that we blame auto makers for providing what American consumers want- namely, bigger vehicles? Americans weren't suckered into buying SUVs or trucks for the past 15 years- they went after them greedily. I'm tired of the hackneyed notion that unscrupulous advertising agencies trick us into making bad choices- whether it's high fat foods or big fat vehicles. Serve us up another Hummer!
Lest there's any confusion about the previous comment, many of the energy choices we make are insane. But our economic system is designed to be extremely responsive to our every want and whim. We create our energy demands and resist efforts to conserve.
cakreiz, I think you are missing Friedman's (and Jeremy's) point. The point is not to blame auto companies for providing what the market demands. They are appropriately acting in their own self-interest. They are corporations, that's what they're supposed to do.
Rather, the point is that the government should be spending its (theoretically) limited resources in such a way that it encourages responsible uses of energy.
No one denies the national security and long-term economic imperative of reducing our consumption and importation of energy. Certain private interests - oil, automakers, sugar - stand in the way precisely because they are acting in their own self-interest. They are acting as they should.
When there is a conflict between private interests and the national interest (as there seems to be here), our elected officials should always side with the latter. With this energy bill, they have once again chosen the former. They are not acting as they should.
The blame here is on the politicians, not the corporations.
Trac- I was focusing on the 2 comments that preceded mine- not on Jeremy's post or Friedman's comments. I agree with you that the lack of government leadership in this area is astounding. My only caveat is along the same lines... our politicians are pretty responsive to voter desires. It's difficult to imagine Americans electing politicians who require conservation- when there are those offering the 'painless' alternative of cheap oil.
my bad, cakriez. That's why I get for skimming over part of the thread. :)
It's true that a politician's job is to respond to the voting public. (I'm one of those that doesn't consider "populism" a dirty word.) Just as I wouldn't expect Congress vote against their local interests, I suppose I should not be surprised when the President simply chooses what's popular.
But I don't think there is a more clear-cut case of a conflict between the national interest and populist inclinations than in the area of energy policy. In my mind, this is one of those areas that requires executive leadership. Just as Clinton persuaded his reluctant party to embrace free trade, so must Bush be willing to persuade the country that independence from foreign energy is absolutely vital to our long-term national interest.
Being "principled" is supposedly one of Bush's greatest assets as a leader. I would like to see some principle here instead of mere pandering.
Let me clarify my comment then because it was not my intention to come off as blaming the auto makers. The reason the American companies are rolling out SUV after SUV is because that is what the consumers are buying. As Tractarin said,they are acting in their own self-interests. That's what businesses do. Consumers are not making good choices when it comes to fuel economy. American attitudes toward fuel-efficiency have not changed even after an energy crisis. This is where the government could use incentives for consumers to buy more fuel-efficient cars. As far as the making it "cool" comment, I wasn't talking about Big US auto maker's marketing departments. Their money is in advertising for trucks and SUVs because that is all they are selling. The point I was making was that we should be starting trends in our own communities for responsible fuel usage. But, we need the incentives. Trying to boost consumer awareness alone won't solve the problem. If that were the case, then it would have been solved 30 years ago.
It's difficult for me to understand why the public doesn't see the connection between our cheap gas dependency and our ME problems. ???
Post a Comment
<< Home