For years, the SUV has served as a particularly potent symbol of American consumption and excess; it seemed to be fueled on hubris alone, considering our willingness to persist with such maddeningly inefficient vehicles used for such ill-suited purposes. I'll never forget rolling into Home Depot one day, and seeing a new, blinged-out H2 with the vanity plate "8 MPG." Oh, dear driver, haven't you heard- do not taunt the automotive gods?
Well, consider that thunder called down from on high. By now, you have surely heard that
GM is downsizing production of SUVs in the face of widespread consumer migration (panicked flight?) to more efficient vehicles. Plants will be closed, positions will be eliminated, and stunningly, the Hummer division is likely to be spun off from the GM marque, if anyone can be found willing to take on that albatross. In effect, GM is stating that the business model of large, inefficient vehicles is no longer a viable way to do business in this new landscape. Rapidly losing market share to more fuel efficient vehicles, particularly those from overseas, GM has taken a look at the marketplace and reached a painful conclusion. According to CEO Rick Wagoner, "These higher gasoline prices are changing consumer behavior and rapidly," said Wagoner. "We don't think this is a temporary spike or shift. We think it is permanent."
That is a major leap, and a huge realization by one of our largest automotive companies. There will always be a niche in the market for SUVs and pickups, but that's just it- a niche. The days of pickups and SUVs lining the nearest big-box parking lot are numbered.
And so we turn to Washington for guidance in these tough times.
President Bush, rock us with some wisdom. How can we escape this potential death knell for unrestrained gasoline consumption, that which underpins our whole economy and serves to exacerbate these economic strains we all suffer? How will we navigate our way from here?:
Bush, reaching back to the earliest days of his administration, resurrected GOP demands for new drilling in the Alaska wilderness, fewer restrictions on oil refineries and other measures aimed at lowering fuel prices through higher production.
Sigh. Members of Congress, what say you?
"Only President Bush could allow Big Oil to write our nation's energy policy," said Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) responded, "It's clear that, on the production side of the equation, this new majority is not interested in doing anything."
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and tit-for-tat makes the whole world complacent. And all the while, oil companies are making record profits while crying out for greater refinery capacity and access to domestic oil reserves.
This, to me, seems like a lot of old solutions to new problems, new realities and unavoidable truths. The elephant in the corner that no one, not Congress, the Administration, or the two men vying to lead the next one, want to step up and accept responsibility for the fact that energy consumption in the US is out of control, and drastic measures need to be undertaken to alleviate the pressure. We need leadership to focus the on the issue that Alternatives Must Be Sought, and the systemic problem of energy consumption will not be alleviated by any of the whole rack of half-measures dreamed up by those in power. Not gas-tax holidays, not clean coal, not CAFE rules that take effect in 20years, none of that.
We talk a lot about increasing supply to match demand. Why not approach it from another angle? Why isn't there serious discussion on
reducing demand? As the article states, while increased coal capacity creates more greenhouses gases, and nuclear plants create lethal waste, the only byproduct of "negawatt" projects are increased wealth. While there are several problems with large-scale energy reduction efforts, there are still huge opportunities for investment and profit by companies positioned to take advantage. Reducing demand through projects such as LEED construction standards, appliance efficiency, and urban planning innovation are a start. Not more, not less- a step in the right direction.
No one wants the economy to be torn to shreds in a rapid switch to alternative energies, so if that is the case, we had better get started on that switch now, while it can still be palatable and advantageous. Let's start with reducing our demand on a large scale, more than just using better lightbulbs or EnergyStar refrigerators. Keep going with that, and don't take the easy way out. This does not mean switching out Saudi oil for Louisiana Coast oil or oil shale from Utah- just another band-aid. Let's take this energy effort all the way. Let's not run up to the edge, screech to a stop, and convince ourselves that we've done all we can do. Let's see this one through.
It's been said before, so all that means to me is that I don't have to find the link here- but it's time to cut the subsidies to oil companies and send that money to investing in a new energy infrastructure. Wind, solar, tidal, you name it, we need a much more diverse portfolio. Subsidize the development of hybrid or clean cars that actually fill the needs of American customers- vehicles that can do the work on the farm, or haul our goods cross-country, and keep them affordable for the common man and woman. Your Prius is not up to the task. Furthermore, it's time to put some kind of financial incentive on reducing energy consumption at the home, municipal, or state level. Yes, by 'incentive' that might mean 'disincentive.' That's how it works.
As it were, we actually have a case study to draw from. I originally wrote about this on my
other blog, but
the city of Juneau, Alaska recently had some severe power difficulties. After avalanches severely hampered the ability of power companies to send electricity to the city, rates rose sky-high. With enough forewarning, residents of Juneau were able to cut their power consumption by 30%.
In one week. The entire city. Encouraging, to say the least, and it speaks volume to the abilities we have to reduce consumption with the right incentives.
Think about the money to be made on all these possibilities. Think about the kind of investment that is possible,
even for those rooted in the old energy economy. This is how we have to view the problem- not even as a problem, but a grand opportunity to preserve and enhance our way of life. It's not about limping along to the next season, hoping that supply will stay stable, and the economy will allow us to keep doing things as they have always been done. The world is changing far too quickly to count on that. It's about finding a new way to live, and a new way to organize our economy. If we do it right, we will all win.
We just need to shut up, face up to it, and try. Shall we?
However, it was not to be. Columbia residents' levels maxed out at 57% of the levels of males in New York City, for example; observe the graph at the right for more detail. Most stunning is that Missouri men came from different backgrounds and lifestyles, were of varied ages and professions, and were both long-term and short-term residents of Columbia.
