LM: I’m tempted to pull a Bart Simpson with my last 250 words and write, “We need a new energy policy” forty-nine times and let it go at that. Really, if there’s one thing we need it’s a plan for the way we use energy and deal with high prices and greenhouse gases. For too long, we’ve hoped that “the market” would provide a policy, but that was really an abdication of government and popular responsibility. As late as 2006, the president’s council of economic advisers said that market forces would lead people to more efficient cars if necessary. But at car lots, consumers weren’t making a spreadsheet of potential costs; they were buying what seemed comfortable. (And everything about the politics and culture of oil in the U.S. urges complacency.) And now, far from letting market forces play out, we have the yucky spectacle of the president begging Saudi Arabia to put more oil on the market. Beyond screaming “we need an energy policy” from the rooftops, we also need to start cleaning up here—retime traffic lights to save gas, reduce the speed limit some days, help people tune their cars and drive to use less fuel, get insurance companies to reward those who drive less, use tax incentives to reward companies who help their employees carpool, retrofit long-haul trucks, etc.

Peak oil was for many years not a mainstream media issue, but one that thrived through books and Internet discussion groups. In addition to studying the science, the movement saw itself as against complacency. As the topic moved into the mainstream, the debate focused around the science and the date of peak oil (much as global warming debates focus not on the overall consensus but on whether scientists disagree), and the message the public got is that we can be complacent until there’s agreement on peak oil. Instead, we should have ditched the complacency. Repeat: we need an energy policy.

EW:The only disagreement with my colleague’s last position is that it is Lisa Simpson, not Bart, that when armed with the truth tries to show her fellow citizens of Springfield the light.

That being said, there can be no disagreement that this nation is without an energy policy and what is claimed to be a solid energy plan is little more than political cynicism for votes or campaign contributions. While it would be disagreeable to the average American, the gasoline wasted by driving at eighty miles an hour with one’s fellow motorists is one of the greater wastes of petroleum products known. It is not unusual to find that the fuel efficiency of any vehicle, SUV or compact, declines by four to five miles per gallon or greater once one crosses the seventy-five-mile-per-hour barrier. Considering that we have over 200 million vehicles in this country, we find that millions of barrels of oil are wasted for no other reason than to insure we arrive at our destinations six minutes early. Instead, we are told that ethanol is going to be our salvation, but so far prices for oil and gasoline have skyrocketed (also grain commodity prices), during a period when one would think this additional alternative fuel would be helping to relieve demand for oil based products.

Faced with similar problems thirty-three years ago, we passed meaningful legislation and everyone pitched in to resolve our energy issues. That took real leadership. Today, that’s something that is in shorter supply than $3.50 gasoline.

• 1
• 2