Oil: Would Americans prefer to conserve it or fight for it?

[demzilla]

The suituation: Gas prices are going up, with another jump expected due to damage to refineries by Hurricane Katrina. And this is the year when demand is expected to outstrip supply worldwide -- peak oil, here we come. Opening the petroleum reserves will be like giving an addict one more fix to tide him through the next day, but it is not a long-term solution.

Yet the gas-guzzling, big-veicle-loving public never feels more indignant than when gas prices rise. (Yes, I know oil companies are making obscene profits, so there may be some legitimacy to their anger.) But let's face it, the American public, like spoiled children, seem to regard unlimited use of oil as a birthright.

Politicians, with the notable exception of one-term President Jimmy Carter, have tended to respond in such times by donning their Santa Claus suits and trying to band-aid over the problem. So far, their asses have been saved by new oil field discoveries that, according to most respected oil analysts, aren't a practical solution anymore. And who can blame the politicos for not providing real leadership -- how would most Americans react if told that the era of easy oil is over and that something like rationing might have to be made permanent one day?

Meanwhile, there is one region of the world where oil is sitting in the ground, and where we have troops on the ground. Is occupying the Middle East a solution (albeit somewhat temporary) to our gas problems?

That leads to a question:

Would Americans be willing to change their habits and conserve, invest in public transportation, drive smaller hybrid vehicles, and pay higher gas taxes to be used to fund new technologies and public transportation infrastructures?

Or would Americans prefer to maintain the status quo at all costs, bully nations from Venezuela to the Middle East, send troops to "protect our interests" with "acceptable losses," and pay the same higher gas tax, only this time disguised as military spending?

Our future may depend on how we, as a nation, answer this question.

[napi21]

1. I think they'd rather have schentists finding alternatives!

I'd bet the only people who wouldn't accept some alternative fuel are those who own oil wells, refineries, or oil stock!

I sure wouldn't care what I put in my tank, as long as it didn't damage my engine, and the price was realistic.

I actually wish I had a deisel. Wouldn't mind my exhaust smelling like french fries. It's sure better than the smell right now!

[welshTerrier2]

2. my question to Wes Clark and "Three Days of the Condor"

Here is an extract of a question I posed to Wes Clark today on the TPM Cafe ... the main point being made here was: "Ask the people" ... a major influence on my reflections on this issue came from the movie "Three Days of the Condor" (see below) ...

From my Wes Clark question:

"Perhaps those on the right might even argue that the acquisition of oil, even through the use of warfare, is in "our interest". But if that is the real reason this war is being prosecuted by this administration, and I believe it is, such issues should be put before the American people for their consent. I, for one, do not approve of such conduct especially where the benefits seem to accrue to commercial interests and not the interests of the American people."

From "Three Days of the Condor" (http://www.un-official.com/threedaysofcondor.pdf)

Higgins: It's simple economics, Turner ... There's no argument. Oil now, 10 or 15 years it'll be food, or plutonium. Maybe sooner than that. What do you think the people will want us to do then?

Turner: Ask them!

Higgins: Now? Huh-uh. Ask them when they're running out. When it's cold at home and the engines stop and people who aren't used to hunger ... go hungry! They won't want us to ask ... They'll want us to it for them.

What is killing our country and will eventually destroy us if we don't change our foolish use of fossil fuels is that there is no national discussion on issues like this ... I really don't know what the majority of Americans would decide to do when the crisis arrives ... What I do know is that if we aren't proactive, if our "leaders" don't make this issue a central part of the national dialog and if we allow corporate greed to define our country's energy policy, our values, i.e. the values of the American people whatever they are, will never be reflected in our policies.

There will be the most dire consequences should we fail to act proactively. If we wait for "peak oil" and let commercial interests be substituted for the national interest, our way of life will be severely disrupted. We need to demand more responsiveness from our "leaders"; we need to be more active ourselves ...

[jbane]

3. Well, we are allready doing both...

We're fighting for it in Iraq and now that gas is going up hourly, the middle class soccer mom SUV driving crowd is going to be forced to conserve.