Belligerati

You wanted comments…

I understand most of the arguments that are laid out about how if the US does not buy the oil then someone else will and whoever that someone else is will be funding our "enemies". I have a couple questions.... (First fix your link to the state of the union from this year instead of from 2003)

1. Are we to assume that Bush was merely talking out of his ass when he made his state of the union address? I have often been faulted for declaring that Bush is talking out of his ass about things, but for him to come out and say that we are addicted to oil and that we need to change our patterns of behavior seems like he might have more information than we do or is this simply another case of him pandering for approval ratings?

2. Is it not a good idea to have our country working towards a cleaner source of energy?

3. At what point do we have to make a decision that is not purely economic about our use of oil versus the fact that it’s bad for the environment and expendable? (I have a feeling you will say never)

IH

1) He is worried about the money we supply to our enemies through the mechanism of paying for oil. Reducing the oil we buy might not reduce the amount of oil they sell, but it might reduce the money they get. Even if it does not (because demand by others grows faster than we shrink our demand) it will reduce the amount we give them, which might have some moral weight. But yes, I also think this is political pandering.

2) I'm not sure that whatever we'd replace oil with would be cleaner. Domestic and Canadian oil have their own environmental costs, as do Coal and nukes. Expensive hardware used to make hybrid vehicles may save on some oil, but that's money that can't be spent on cleaner fuels, filters on smokestacks, buying land to make public parks, and aid for the international poor. Which brings us to 3...

3) Economics is about recognizing opportunity costs. As a moral matter, man owns the earth and it exists for our sake. Nature has value only so far as it is a means for pleasing, testing, and advancing man. Within that context a clean environment (as well as many other environmental policies) has value, and reducing how much oil we use may be the best way to spend our money. But maybe it is not.
China is the source of almost 25% of the smog in California.
http://blogging.la/archives/2006/01/from_china_with_love_smog.phtml

Why use scarce resources to try to use less oil just to have the Chinese use more and dump the resulting pollution on us? Wouldn't that money be better spent on those who dwell in the dust or even on environmental issues where they would actually make a difference?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: