the time to break silence
by Josh Sarpen
Published: June 28, 2008
On Tuesday, May 28th, over 1000 truckers from all parts of Great Britain lined up in protest on highway A40. These truckers took decisive action in the global war against skyrocketing energy costs. Just based on their sheer volume they were able to literally stop traffic, showing Parliament, as well as every other British citizen, that they were not going to accept high diesel prices sitting down. How can America, a country founded on principles of freedom of speech and assembly, be silent so far into the energy crisis?
I have been a proud NYC mass-transit user for the past six years, and yet the rising cost of gas frustrates me; and why? Because I feel few Americans are voicing any anger about the current situation. I saw a commercial the other day telling us that we can come together to solve our energy crisis, but the female narrator was so monotone and passive that I wasn’t sure if she was selling policy change or Ambien!
Across Europe, demonstrations are growing in both number and intensity. Fisherman in France, Spain and Italy are voting to strike and in Holland, truck drivers are also taking their case straight to Parliament. In Iceland, protests reached the boiling point when police in riot gear released gas (different type) into the crowd to try and quell the demonstration. Did I mention that this protest happened six weeks ago? In Bolivia, citizens have held demonstrations protesting the sale of natural gas to the United States, resulting in fatalities. (Though, I do not advocate protesting to the point of losing life.)
America is very slowly catching on, but so far it is not enough. Unions in Ohio made noise last week about the price of gasoline. According to the Sandusky register, “[A] handful of people protested, holding signs that read: ‘Tell McCain no tax cuts for big oil’ and ‘It’s time to turn America around.’” But where is everyone else? My understanding is that the advantage to unionization is that members come together in support of each other. The Ohio unions have the right messages, but we need people across all 50 states chanting them in order for politicians to divert attention from less important issues and take notice.
I’m no economic expert; however, I became suspicious of Big Business’ ability to influence oil prices on June 6th, when a Morgan Stanley analyst made the prediction that oil prices would surpass $150 before Independence Day. That one statement pushed the price of oil up $11 in just one day, shattering previous increase and price records. Is the market so volatile that just one statement can cause such panic? If a statement was made saying oil supply is meeting demand, would prices tumble by the same amount?
One case where people are making noise, albeit inappropriately, is in the U.S. automotive sector. In a desperate attempt to sell a few cars, the Chrysler Corporation is promising $2.99 gas for the next three years, effectively enabling America’s oil addiction. At the same time, the tactic moves some clunky, fuel-inefficient vehicles off their lot. A great idea if you’re a member of Chrysler’s marketing department; a bad idea if you’re anyone else?
GM, no stranger to marketing blunders, also announced earlier this month that it will air ads later in June citing the high price of oil and our need to use less of it. Which is ironic considering the fact that GM manufactures 25 SUV or truck models across their American brands and only a handful of hybrids. It would be impossible to know this for sure, but the auto giants may very well be spending more money telling consumers they are developing new technology than actually doing it.
American car companies can do better, especially when their back is to the wall. In fact, the term minivan came into existence in 1984 when Chrysler, fresh out of bankruptcy, debuted the Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager. They were rewarded with handsome sales and the position of category market leader for almost 20 years. Now it is time for American corporations to take control of the alternative-fuels sphere, where they have been involved for over four decades. (That’s right. It was American auto makers who first showed the hybrid engine to the Japanese in the ’60s.) In this election season, the American public needs to send a message to auto makers that the current business model must change.
Demand fuel efficient vehicles! Demand that our economy be weened off of oil and demand the necessary changes to our infrastructure! If corporate America won’t listen, then get the ear of your congressman. If he or she won’t listen, vote them out and find someone who will. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr, now is “the time to break silence.”
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
(11)
June 30th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Well the main reason your seeing these protests in places like Britain is because they are paying the equivalent of $9 per gallon for Gas. The reason is because the prices of gas is almost tripled in those countries due to over taxing. That’s really what’s being protested there.
Here in america though the taxes added to Gas are no where near as high. The price of gas is determined by the open market so there’s really nothing to protest, we just need to stop using so much of the stuff.
In fact the reality is that the hysteria over the price of gas is one of the biggets factors causing gas prices to sky rocket.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Changing demand is a nice idea that requires new technology etc. Supply, the other half of the equation, only requires that Democrats quit pretending like there’s nothing we can do to alleviate the crisis. ANWR is a tiny portion of Alaska. I’m sure the deer and the antelope will find somewhere else to play. As for as the OCS, the Chinese are drilling in over 300 sections of OUR OCS and the world hasn’t collapsed. An increase in supply will have the same effect on price as a decrease in demand. However, where on the demand side we have to wait for someone to create an economically viable substitute for oil that is immediately available, on the supply side all we need to do is drill. And it won’t be 15 years for the supply increase to come to market and affect price. It will take months to a couple of years at most. No other energy source can have such an immediate impact.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Sorry man but the reality is drilling in alaska won’t put a dent in the problem. It will be years before we could even start seeing and impact and when we do it would be minimal at best.
ANWR may seem like a desolate wast land, but it was set up as a national wildlife refuge for a reason. There are certain places in this country we want to make sure are not disturbed by the development of a strip mall or an oil rig. If there was a wood shortage would you recomend cutting down the great redwood forest? What if we found gold in Mt Rushmore would you rip that down? How about oil in the grand canyon should we destroy that too?
No, there are already decent solutions out there to eleviate the costs of gas prices, and there are more just on the horizon. Oil in America is like Nicotine to a smoker, you don’t get ride of an addiction to Nicotine, but continuing to smoke, you start wheening yourself off of it.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Between ANWR and OCS we could pull more oil than the Saudis have ever dreamed of. How could doubling or tripling the supply of oil not put a dent in price? I think your absolutely wrong on the impact. How about time?
All new sources of energy will take time to develop. What energy source is out there that won’t take time to develop?The argument against using oil because of the time-to-market issue is only logical if we have a susbstitute that will immediately step in oil’s place.
We don’t.
All fuels face a time to market issue. With every other source other than oil not only is there a time-to-market issue but a question as to whether or not anyone will purchase it once its brought to market. That second, most important issue is non-existent with oil. We know people will buy oil, we know we have enormous amounts of oil, we know if you double supply the price of oil tumbles. We also know that no one wants to drill the Grand Canyon, the Redwood Forest or Mt. Rushmore. Just some lonely tundra in Alaska that only land geeks care about and the middle of the ocean that is already riddled with Chineses drills.
I’m all for wheening ourselves off oil. Just give the market a viable substitute, and we’re good.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
you should check out the comments on the “Rich hippies are making me poor” article. I don’t feel like rehashing the same argument that is already taking place on that comment board. Essentially if you think we have triple the oil in Alaska and OCS your flat out mistaken. the facts don’t support it.
July 1st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
According to http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf, opening ANWR will lead to a $.75 dollar decrease on the low end and a $1.44 decrease on the high end. Throw in the OCS to boot and even on the low end that’s a hefty chunk of change I get to keep in my pocket. It may not be good for the environment but James has a point.