Our preoccupation with letting the free market determine our national energy policy is wasteful folly and not in the public interest.
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (7)
Two-thirds of the petroleum consumed in this country is used in transportation. Imagine if we doubled transportation efficiency and cut that two-thirds in half. Consuming 21 billion barrels of petroleum per year in the United States, we use 14 billion barrels in transportation alone - saving half of that would be 7 billion barrels per year.
Good article but his numbers are way off, the US uses more like 7 billion barrels a year, not 21.
- 1 vote
This is an important article and I have clipped it to Science and Technology.
- 1 vote
The road to energy conservation is through reducing an industry and displacing most of the population? Isn't that a bit on the drastic side.
He makes a point to mention the free market failing though as usual in these articles isn't actually sure what free market is. Ethanol is hardly a free market, it's steeped in government manipulation from corn prices on through production subsidies and all the regulation on the other end like required amounts in blends. Ethanol is one small step from government production, not a free market.
And the most amusing is the dire prediction that both the free market has failed and oil will be over $200 a barrel. Well which is it? If oil is scarce and price rises to over $200 a barrel then obviously the free market is working. If it doesn't then maybe it's failed but not both.
If we want to fantasize about what government can dictate then why not just go for broke, free unlimited power and room temp superconductors to boot. If the government can dictate innovation, why stop with paltry fuel efficiency doubling?
- 1 vote
Left to their own devices we would not have pollution control equipped cars,airbags or seat belts all deemed too expensive at one time by the auto industry. Competition works but so does regulation.
In the U.S. during WWII industry accomplished miracles of production and innovation but it was government that directed where that effort was to go. It worked then and it will work now but with a lot lighter hand than was required during the war.
The government regulation stifled competition by mandating equality across brands. Perhaps they were too expensive as opposed to consumer value it's hard to say since it was never tested. I think the market would have been there, instead we get the least the government can put in and that is enough to prevent a new company from having a niche to get into. We are left with the minimum regulated instead of the best of innovation. The dampening effect of government regulation is apparent in all industries they get mixed up with. Government does so/so when funding pure research, after that it's just a matter of the degree of loss not if it's a loss.
WWII productivity gains were due to many factors, large government spending can't be directly attributed to it. In fact the recent analysis of the Great Depression is the government spending of WWII wasn't as previously thought what ended it but rather higher labor participation (first time large numbers of women worked, and stayed working).
Government regulatory role is to prevent fraud, not to decide what value we should place on products.
Government's role is to protect the citizens from unethical business practices, monopolies and all enemies foreign and domestic.
The great depression was caused in large part by the lack of government regulation. Business loves to complain about government until the fit hits the shan and then they are the first to cry for government to bail them out. For instance when on 9/11 the planes flew into the buildings it was partly as a result of airlines refusing to secure cockpit entry but the fires had not yet burned out when the government checks were cut and flowing to the airlines.
Sorry Kyle but you are totally wrong when you say that the women stayed working. Yes they stayed in traditional women jobs(where available) but they were almost instantly moved out of the jobs they had assumed when the men went to war. Few complained as it was expected.
Value products any way you want Mr. businessman but you will provide safe products, you will not conduct your business in any way that adversely impacts public safety and the constitution does give the government the right to regulate trade. Oh, and we will tax you. signed The people.
- 2 votes
Actually, we hit $100 a barrel by 1988. That's if you factor in all the military budget that has been expended in the middle east to keep "Our Oil" under "Our Control". Its way beyond $200 now. Let's see, We've spent $470 billion so far in Iraq since 2003?
Hmm. WAY OVER $200 a barrel!
- 1 vote
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |



