Part 3: The Complete Idiot’s Guide to The Politics of Oil

“SMALL MINDEDNESS WILL FOREVER THWART BIG DEEDS”

Two methods of conservation, consistently employed, would save Alaska, a natural gem, from oil exploration, drilling and large scale degradation, irreparable damage and ruin (Please read Part 2 for context).

But because the conservation methods are linked to how North Americans use and view automobiles and light trucks they will surely fail without much public education and government intervention and policy.

And do we have time to wait for many people to slowly ‘come around’ to the value of conservation of fossil fuels?


[“Alaska - a rare national treasure”: photo link]

I read the following recently in the book ‘The Complete Idiot’s Guide to The Politics of Oil’:

The U.S. transportation sector is 95 percent dependent on petroleum today, with transportation consuming 67 percent of the petroleum used in the United States. Getting off this petroleum diet is crucial to stem the growth of imported oil, remove the chokehold that foreign oil exporting countries have over the U.S. economy, and to create a cleaner environment.

(My home country, Canada, is one of the aforementioned ‘foreign oil exporting countries, world-famous for its Alberta tar sands, wild roses and seemingly endless supplies of dirty oil).

An early attempt was made in the U.S. to get off the heavy petroleum diet after the 1973 oil embargo. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program (CAFE) was enacted that year and required car manufacturers to increase fuel efficiency in passenger cars and light trucks.

According to a 2002 report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) CAFE contributed to increased fuel economy, i.e., ‘gasoline consumption would be 2.8 million barrels per day higher today if the law hadn’t been enacted, which represents about 14 percent of today’s consumption level.’

In other words, some legislation works.

The book went on to say ‘that technologies exist today that could further significantly reduce fuel consumption... these technologies are being introduced in Europe and Japan, where the cost of gasoline is higher ($4 to $5 per gallon), so there is a greater financial incentive to cut back on fuel usage.’

But, due to cheaper oil, (these technologies) ‘have not found a major market in the United States (read Canada as well), as automobile manufacturers wait for changes in the economy, regulations, and consumer preferences.’

So, in North America, governments wait, manufacturers wait... and consumers waste.

I read as well that ‘the NAS study did identify some potential downsides to fuel efficiency. It reported that fuel efficiency has deprived new car owners of some things they value, such as (-- wait for it --) faster acceleration, greater carrying or towing capacity, and reliability, because of the reduction in size and weight of vehicles.’


[“Tricked up Civic may not be what we’re looking for here”: photo link]

As I wrote above in the first few sentences, ‘two methods of conservation, consistently employed, would save Alaska... but because the conservation methods are linked to how North Americans use and view automobiles and light trucks they will surely fail.’

Many, many North Americans will pit Alaska (among other beautiful places) against stronger government legislation and faster acceleration.

Alaska against trailering.

Alaska against hauling broken cement to the dump in a wider bed.

Alaska against regular maintenance of a smaller vehicle.

Small minds will win the day.

***

Stay tuned for Part 4: The Complete Idiot’s Guide to The Politics of Oil

.