Interesting point you made there, B-Bob. Let me counter that the US has more cars than most countries thus consume (and buy) more oil. Couldn't we get it cheaper because we consume more of it?
Case in point, the last time the average price of gas went over $2 a gallon in California, there was a rush of SUV owners trading in for more gas efficient models.
There are people on this BBS much more qualified to describe oil economies than me (so maybe I shouldn't have made the point? ). But I spent some of my Xmas with this interesting fellow from England, and he was talking about the difference in prices, and the overall difference in car culture there. Some of the MPG's they can buy are astounding! So I'm sure many factors are involved, but I also feel that we as a people and our government as a policy-making body have repeatedly made choices that favor more driving and more luxurious automobiles. There's an entire system in place that gives us "affordable" petrol. It will be very difficult to change before we start simply running out of the supply.
Of course, I use more gas in my Altima in a week than my Dad uses in a month in his Tahoe. I guess that by not having a Tahoe myself, I'm "conserving" in a way. But by making the choice to live in a large city where a long commute is necessary to get where I need to go, I'm using more gasoline than my father who lives in a much smaller city and has a very small commute. Plus, many of these smaller SUVs get mileage as good as (if not better) than sedans, coupes, etc. Perhaps the message really should be "Choose automobiles with better mileage" rather than demonizing SUVs themselves, especially since there has already been so much complaining about SUVs in other areas that this may just seem like piling on and be tuned out. Americans are a rebelous lot. I wonder if demonizing automobiles that people quite obviously like will end up making them more attached to their SUVs. Will it be too long before we start having to pry SUVs from people's cold, dead hands?
Just a few points... 1. TJ's article says basically 'what would be next? Talk about our big houses and all the energy they use?' Well, uh, yeah. If we wanted to NOT be in conflicts abroad to protect our access to oil, we would need to cut our oil consumption or replace it with something else. If we DON'T want terrorists attacking us because we are IN those conflicts to protect our access, we will have to cut our consumption or replace it with something else. And I say this as an indisputable hawk who has no problem knocking on Saddam's door. However, I support those actions because I don't think the US public is realistically going to make those changes yet, no matter how small. The responses on this board prove me correct. Until then we will continue to pay blood from those actions. It is undeniable. In addition, nothing in the article comes anywhere close to denying the legitimacy of the linkage between high wasteful fuel consumption and our oil importation and the problems is causes. Saying 'well other stuff uses lots of oil too' does not do that. 2. Someone said fuel consumption had nothing to do with Osama, it was because of our troops in Saudi Arabia..... HELLO? Our troops would not be there if oil was not a concern. Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait if oil was not so important. The idea that there is no link between oil and the Al Queda style terrorism is silly. 3. SOME people may, because of their jobs or family (maybe), have actual arguments for driving an SUV. Just as some people have reasonable cases for trucks etc. But no where NEAR the actual number of SUV owners DO. Hence they are contributing to our oil dependency just as those who run their air conditioners with their windows open, and that heat their big ass houses when they need neither the heat (not home) nor the house (size). 4. SUVs are a good target precisely because the ratio of those that need them to those that own them is so low. This is not a threshold argument (SUVs are the lynchpin to our oil dependency), it is a linear one (the more oil we use the more threats we have from securing that oil - and so we should at least cut out the waste - which linearly decreases the risks). This is not an argument to 'go back to living in teepees and eating berries (although berries are good for you). This is an argument to at least stop being ridiculously wasteful when it costs lives. Our lives. Does it mean Osama is 'right' or 'just'? No. But the linkage is undeniable. 5. The argument that we are not to blame but 'multinational corporations are' is facetious at best. We buy it. We use it. If we didn't they wouldn't. The argument that oil companies employ people is not a denial of the linkage, its an impact comparison. TJ is saying people's jobs are more important that those lives lost in the WTC, and more important than the soldiers lives we send to protect our supply of oil. I am willing to accept that impact on the level it is necessary until we can find an alternative energy source. I do not think we should be willing to flippantly accept it, even flaunt it, when it does have real impact on whether people live or die.
This is a gross mischaracterization and you know it, Hayes. Supermac34 was the one who brought up this issue, although you may be trying to prove this statement true through a linkage between oil/terror/middle east. I haven't even chimed in on this argument, with the exception of posting someone else's article. Not a single one of my opinions have been shared in this thread. What I would claim, and I think you would agree with, is that consumers' decisions are not going to change in America anytime soon. We are accustomed to a very high standard of living, and our political structure would make it virtually impossible to impose radical changes to this (i.e. B-Bob's gas price analogy). Is it worth a war (or threats of a war) to defend our quality of life? Yes.
T_J boils this down very nicely, IMO. It may be that, if most people agree that our standard of living is worth waging war, that we will be at war for much of the century ahead. I hope I'm wrong. I think you have to paint a line, above which lies a standard of living that is not worth going to war. Keep in mind we're talking about standard of living versus necessary death for a large number of people, some of them Americans.
America is the greatest country that ever was and is. How do we end the hostility towards us? The answer of course is that everyone, I mean everyone on earth be equal. Everyone drives the same kind of car, own the same kind of house, makes the same kind of money, governed by one body. Sounds a lot like one-world government to me.
When you post an article you ARE its advocate, unless you are saying you were posting to show the ridiculousness of its assertions. I'm not sure why this is relevant to this issue of whether or not the SUV ad is incorrect in its linkage of oil consumption with terrorism. I would agree that the American consumer does not WANT to face the realities of what oil ACTUALLY cost. Maybe ads like this will change that. I agree it won't happen overnight, but I disagree with anyone who says it won't happen eventually. Oil is finite, and so the weaning of our society off of oil is INEVITABLE. How fast or slow we transition depends on how many people continue to entrench the 'whatever' culture. Until then we will continue to have to pay blood for oil. What does 'quality of life' mean? Does it mean you have to have an SUV to have a normal American standard of living? The answer is NO, you do not. And that (drumroll) IS THE POINT OF THE AD.
And in the nineteenth century the sun never set on the British Empire, and everyone thought England was 'the greatest country that ever was and is'. Grandiose claims are inaccurate and help you not one jot against any of these arguments. Everything I've read from Hayes in this thread is right! My god! How did that happen?
You're never going to win a battle against consumer preference. If people prefer SUVs, you can be sure they will continue to buy them. The way to solve this is to simply raise the vehicle fuel standards in this country, but unfortunately, the oil companies are against that.
So are the actual people who vote. The reason standards won't be raised is because people want to drive SUVs without the extra cost, and it's too hard to change consumer preference like you said. Why does it always have to be an oil conspiracy?
Duh. The whole point of my post was not that I 'dislike' it. It was that every great country or empire thinks it's the greatest country or empire that ever was... and then, inevitably, it falls. Nothing is permanent. Complacency is your mortal enemy. And wind generators are a really good idea. Major, consumers can be 'trained' to choose other things. In World War II people accepted rationing, they collected foil for the war effort, they sacrificed for the greater good. Why is that such an unfashionable idea now?
I think people are really worried about "stimulating" the economy these days. If anyone stops spending and starts saving money the economists have a heart attack. I think they are wrong, your example is a good reason. I don't know if it would help the middle east though, there will still be lots of oil over there and they will still fight each other for it. If the US leaves then I think Saddam will just invade Saudi Arabia.
So are the actual people who vote. The reason standards won't be raised is because people want to drive SUVs without the extra cost, and it's too hard to change consumer preference like you said. Why does it always have to be an oil conspiracy? It's not a conspiracy - it's a pretty clear cut & dry thing. There was a fuel-standards bill in Congress and proposed by the previous administration. Oil companies lobbied against it, both in Congress and in the energy bill discussions with the administration. The administration energy policy almost wholely reflected the oil company goals. The dots are fairly easy to connect. Fuel standards can be raised massively -- as they have been in the past -- at very little long-term cost to consumers (higher car costs, lower gas expenses), but it would mean using less gas. Now you take a stab -- who would be against this?
Major, consumers can be 'trained' to choose other things. In World War II people accepted rationing, they collected foil for the war effort, they sacrificed for the greater good. Why is that such an unfashionable idea now? It's a lot easier to convince people to do something when their livelihood is threatened -- WW2 affected their sons and daughters -- than do something for less concrete reasons (environmental protection, war on terrorism). I doubt you could convince people that they should buy a car instead of an SUV to help win the war on terrorism. The connection is way too flimsy.
