Lay off the SUVs already
By Jeremy Schupbach jshoebox@mac.com
Fareed Zakaria’s Newsweek piece is well worth reading as an analysis of the foreign policy implications of America’s dependence on foreign oil. Zakaria, is dead on in his dissection of the problem, namely that our dependence on foreign oil is crippling our foreign policy. He argues that the money and energy being spent advancing our foreign agenda is nothing compared to the money and energy being pumped right back into the regions we are so rightly trying to change. We are frustrating our own agenda.
It’s a great piece, but then he jumps ship and blames SUVs. No kidding. So I’m going to help the guy out.
The solution to decreasing American dependence on foreign oil is not increasing government fuel mileage requirements. More efficient cars, solar energy, wind power and all the other green fads may very well have their place in the future. But right now, when “America’s foreign policy is being crippled” we don’t have time to convert to hydrogen.
The solution now is to expand capacity at home. Increase domestic oil production, build a few refineries -there hasn’t been a serious increase in production capacity since I was in diapers- and drill ANWR.
If we expand our domestic capacity we will be far less dependent on foreign oil, and a strong and secure home lead to a confident effective foreign policy, and that, Mr. Zakaria, is what leads to a “stable, peaceful and open world.”
The author can be reached at John@BackBoneAmerica.net
I think you’re mistaken to interpret Fareed Zakaria’s column as beating up on SUVs. The reference to SUVs is simply one part of the puzzle to lessen the death grip foreign oil has on this country. It is also silly and less than imaginative to simply increase domestic production. Doesn’t it make a lot more sense to just use less? Cutting demand by 20% would change the course of history. I am a conservative and although I have a deep love for the environment (having grown up in rural America loving the outdoors), I believe his approach (that I share) could be sold simply on a pragmatic basis. Simple programs, like one implemented in California to replace incandescent bulbs with fluorescents, improving gas mileage, changing pure petroleum diesel to 2% biodesel, or using solar water, PV and wind technologies would save hundreds of millions of barrels of oil a year. There is no good argument against it other than gluttony. The icing on the cake is that it would help OUR farmers, OUR manufactures and turn alternatives into power players in their respective industries, drop the price of oil by as much as half, move us towards energy independence, extend worldwide reserves, stabilize much of the world politically and on and on… It’s win, win, win ! So why don’t we? Call me cynical but it might just have something to do with the power of big oil. If you’re not as cynical, maybe as a whole we are just lazy and stupid (and need citizens to shoulder a little more personal responsibility !)
by Tim Koegel | Monday, Aug 29, 2005 | 11:51 amTim, I think you are right that SUVs are one part of the puzzle. But Zakaria does blame SUVs explicitly in his article.
There are a lot of components to building a strong energy policy- and I think that the simple programs you cite in your comment have their role, and I think that if Zakaria had concluded as much I wouldnt have picked on his article. It is, after all, a strong analysis of the effects of our oil dependence.
However, rather than critique our national consumption as a whole, he chose to scapegoat SUVs, which are a minor player in energy policy.
You are right that there are a lot of little things that can, and should, be done to conserve (and thus preserve). But we as a nation will never be able to reduce consumption enough to make a serious dent in our foreign dependence.
A serious energy policy would take into account conservation, including both alternative energy sources as well as increased domestic capacity.
My problem is not with conservation as much as it is with the ideology that makes alternative energy the holy grail, and “excessive” consumption the devil.
Zakaria missed a golden opportunity to highlight a sane vision of an America that a self sufficient energy plan, and instead turns his analysis into a run of the mill liberal attack on the Hummer.
by Jeremy Schupbach | Tuesday, Aug 30, 2005 | 8:05 pm