http://www.newsweek.com/id/193499/page/2
Despite all the fuss about growing demand for this scarce resource, the price of crude oil has gone lower and lower over the past 200 years, writes Ruchir Sharma, head of emerging markets at Morgan Stanley Investment Management. "This long-term price decline is due mainly to the constant discovery of new fields and greater energy efficiency, making nonsense of the idea that the world is rapidly running out of oil."
Very interesting article that attempts to look beyond the trees, at the forest as a whole. It makes a lot of grounded points and observations, based on history, trends and common sense.I'm not saying there should be no interest in green technology. But perhaps the energy hysteria, coupled with the hype for green, are being artificially inflated in this country. If this article has any merit (which it certainly seems to have) then perhaps the way to lower our energy costs immediately, and for the long term (even without relying on this article), is for us to open up oil exploration and processing, as well as consider relying more on our other traditional fuels, while providing incentives and not penalties or government mandates (such as prohibiting oil drilling, regulating fuel efficiency, legislating cap and trade) to develop newer, more efficient technologies.
On top of these arguably ill-advised bailouts, in the face of the monumental new debt that our government now wants to impart on us for all sorts of social programs, the least they can do is try to relieve the financial pressure elsewhere, and not choke the goose completely.
And on the heals of that article comes this:
ReplyDeleteSmall Cars Get Poor Marks in Collision Tests
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,515516,00.html
Sure they're more efficient. And they're more affordable. Some may say the Smart car is even cute. But they're tin can death traps on American roads. We all know this.
We make automobile purchase decisions based on our personal factors, whatever they may be. The safety factor, in some measure, is just like buying insurance: You can choose to pay less for less coverage, and assume more risk, or pay more and get better coverage. I may be willing to buy a more expensive, larger car that is less feul efficient because I will be putting my little girls in it twice a day to drive them to and fro, and want the peace of mind that we will be riding in a solid car. That's my choice.
Yet here, again, the government is forcing the industry (via auto standards) and the consumer (via fuel/energy control and pricing, as well as taxes) into these death traps.
In a seemingly inexhaustible stream of examples, I say again: This is NOT the government's role. They can educate and advise the public; they can regulate safety; but they should not manipulate consumer choice.
I want to make a few comments. If we were all driving small cars the SUV hitting you would not be an issue. I like the zipcar model where you pay per use. The discovery channel had a concept of an electric stackable car that runs on electricity. This would address a few issues: No need to buy a car, pay insurance, etc. Eliminates the car as a status symbol, I know this sounds a little socialistic but what the heck. At a time when car companies are struggling and people are trying to deleverage it seems like an opportunity, however complex it may be.
ReplyDeleteAs far as oil goes, I don't know about global warming but one thing is for sure, car emissions pollute the air and smell bad and are harmful, we can all agree with that. I'm all for getting rid of the internal combustion engine.
The timing right now is tough, too bad these issues were not addressed when times were better. Squandered opportunities?
"The safety factor...is just like buying insurance: ...pay less for less coverage, ... or pay more and get better coverage. I may be willing to buy ...larger car that is less feul efficient because I ...want the peace of mind that we will be riding in a solid car. That's my choice."
ReplyDeleteThat analogy breaks down when your peace of mind is paid for by other drivers [or pedestrians] killed or injured by your inattention while talking on the phone, or your inability to see children crossing in front of you.
1) I'm not sure how that analogy breaks down when it comes to the safety of MY family.
ReplyDelete2) Even inattention on a bicycle can kill both the rider and a pedestrian, so I'm not sure that works here, either.
But I appreciate the effort.
1. The analogy breaks down when providing for the safety of your family, costs the lives of others [collateral damage]. There are many ways of providing for the safety of your family on the road other than driving around in a truck. The extra margin of error given by the asymmetrical mass of vehicles involved in crashes is too easily spent on aggressive or inattentive driving, and the cost is paid by the lighter vehicle.
ReplyDelete2. You can see how the difference in the effects of inattention, between a GM Yukon and a bicycle, argues for operating the smallest practical vehicle.