Quitting The Oil Addiction: Leave CAFE Alone
A lot of my friends smoke. And every so often one of them will say ‘I’m trying to cut back’ or ‘I’m trying to quit’. People tend to see them as similar actions. I don’t think that’s really the case, though. Quitting involves completely severing the chain of nicotine addiction. ‘Cutting Back’ merely means you make the chain a bit longer, but ultimately leaving you just as tethered as before.
Furthermore, someone who’s already cut back will have less reason to quit than someone who’s still got the chain-smoking thing going on. The person with a pack a day habit spends a lot more money, is more short of breath, has uglier teeth and skin, and just in general feels the ill effects more than the guy who grabs 3 or 4 ciggies a day. In other words, the guy with the stronger habit has that much more incentive to quit.
Let’s compare this with the oil situation. Typically, the Evil Party is calling for more restriction and regulation. Taxes, tarrifs, credits, in general more regulation, and, most stupidly, higher CAFE standards. For those of you who don’t know what those are, basically, car companies have to maintain a minimum fleet-wide fuel economy average or be heavily fined. The higher the CAFE standards, the fewer gas guzzlers and the more fuel efficient cars they have to sell.
This in turn means that we get more miles to the gallon and that all else held equal we spend less on gas each year. In turn, gas prices will drop as demand does. We’re ‘cutting back’ on our oil addiction. It’s interesting to note that despite the higher-than-ever gas prices (I’m too young to remember the 70’s/80’s mess), our expenditures on gas relative to the entire household budget are actually lower. Which are why complaints are surprisingly few despite the near-doubling of prices in some areas.
The Evil Party wants us to cut back ever further. This won’t change the fact that our entire infrastructure centers around oil, it’ll merely mean that our infrastructure centers around slightly less oil than before.
And furthermore, just as in smokers, it’ll actually reduce our incentive for moving off oil. The lower prices are, the less likely we are to pursue alternative technologies. Corporations won’t research it, consumers won’t be interested in it. As an example, hybrids from Honda and Toyota had record sales this past month. I’m not a fan of hybrids in general (they don’t work), but it does serve as a perfect illustration. They’re being pursued because they’re thought of as an ‘alternative’ (even though they aren’t). Do you think they’d be snapped up with such fervor if gas prices were half of what they are now?
Technologies like ethanol, biodiesel, and fuel cells will remain under-explored and under-utilized because we’ll ahve no reason to go for it. Promising methods like biomass ethanol production (rather than corn fermenting) won’t be pursued. Ethanol, subsidized or not, would be less competitive with $1.50 gas rather than $3 gas, especially in its infancy as technology, distribution, and other aspects of supply were still maturing.
Believe it or not, short term expensive gas is a good thing. It’ll put the hurt on us. And, like all animals, we’ll attempt to eliminate the source of that hurt. Which’ll mean weaning ourselves off oil.
Interesting twist on this issue. Yet another illustration of why the Evil Party is basically unhealthy for America.
Not that the Stupid Party is any significant improvement.
Comment by hoody — June 5, 2006 @ 9:13 am
Try explaining all of this to the bleeding hearts I work with that whine about the poverty-stricken people who have to pawn their stuff in order to afford gasoline. They’re scientists that are supposed to know that anecdotal evidence proves nothing (”But, but, but… it was in the newspaper!”). I’ve given up trying.
Comment by jan — June 5, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
[...] Why is this a bad thing? Surely if you’re spending less and using less gas, that means you’re reducing your dependence on foreign oil? Not exactly. You’re reducing the degree of dependence, but not the nature of the dependence itself. All you’re doing is drawing it into a longer, more protracted affair. It’s a bit like a heavy smoker compared to a more moderate one. Paradoxically, the guy with the two pack a day habit would actually be more likely to quit. Why? Because he feels the costs more. It’s much easier to make the decision to stop smoking when you spend $10 a day on the habit, cough up a liter of black gunk every morning, and can no longer get to your mailbox without feeling winded. [...]
Pingback by Higher CAFE standards will harm alternative fuels - Homeland Stupidity — June 6, 2006 @ 8:24 pm
[...] One of my favorite examples of this is the push to raise CAFE standards. It sounds simple, doesn’t it? Raising fuel economy standards will mean we’ll need less gasoline for the same amount of commuting and travel, which would mean a reduction in our . But, because of reduced demand, prices would drop. Less gas at a lower rate would mean that we’d be spending less on gasoline, and therefore we’ll have less incentive to turn toward alternative fuels such as ethanol or biodiesel. [...]
Pingback by OK so I’m not really a cowboy. » Meddling Tends To Backfire — July 13, 2006 @ 2:38 am
[...] I covered both points 3 and 6 in Quitting The Oil Addiction: Leave CAFE Alone in which I compared quitting oil to to quitting smoking, and in a piece I did for Homeland Stupidity. [...]
Pingback by OK so I’m not really a cowboy. » More CAFE Malarchy — August 9, 2006 @ 2:42 am
bath rug
Intresting information about bath rug.
Trackback by bath rug — February 19, 2007 @ 9:22 am
Women are not, are fairly portrayed in the media
Comment by lesbain video — February 27, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
gloryhole grass seed 15
Hi! http://asczuboo.info/864_0.html . Thanks!
Trackback by gloryhole grass seed — June 7, 2007 @ 11:53 am
nuclear weapons 53
Hi! http://rddosniu.info/641_0.html . Thanks!
Trackback by nuclear weapons — June 7, 2007 @ 11:56 am
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! ohobwiwwzseb
Comment by xqnnitzspi — July 6, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
kupobebagecn
nice post
Trackback by kupobebagecn — August 3, 2007 @ 1:19 am