This should be passed into law right now
I am, to be clear, an abolitionist on the residential automobile. The kind of society we need to create is a radical, almost incomprehensible reversal of Jeffersonian America.
Long-term, there is no other way, and long-term is a lot shorter-term than we would like to think.
Never the less, there are some obvious shorter-term alleviations that we should be able to force Congress to pass right now. In an email, Set America Free writes,
The way to break OPEC’s stronghold over our economy argues Robert Zubrin is for Congress to pass a law requiring that all new cars sold in the U.S. be “flex-fueled,” capable of running on any combination of gasoline or alcohol fuels: Such cars already exist - two dozen different models of flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) are being produced by Detroit’s Big Three this year - and they only cost about $100 more than identical models that can run on gasoline only. But this constitutes only about 3 percent of the new-car market. Within three years of such an Open Fuel Standard, there would be 50 million cars on American roads capable of running on alcohol fuels. Under those conditions, fuel pumps dispensing alcohol would be everywhere - creating, for the first time, an effectively open market in vehicle fuels, and competition for OPEC oil.
14 comments
It sounds like you are an absolutist on statism, actually.
Ron,
I am a social-democrat, yes. I do not trust a consumer. market driven economy to solve this and other issues, correct.
Do you disagree? Do you believe that this issue can be solved by a free market, Ron? In the off chance that oil really is limited and/or is destroying the earth as far as human habitation is concered, what do you suggest we do, Ron?
Hmmmm, I talked about such cars with my environmental researcher bro yesterday. Those cars are common in Brazil, but they cut down the rainforest there to grow the plants needed for producing the alcohol and the production of that alcohol sets free some poisonous gas that’s way worse than CO2. He thinks that as far as the environment is concerned, those cars should be abolished totally.
Sarah/froylein,
I agree, but we need to start passing laws curbing cars. The public needs to feel that the automobile is a problem. Law after law needs to be passed, until we reach the understanding that we need: enough awareness and acceptance of what we are facing to impose martial law on the roads and to destroy suburbia as we know it.
DK, I wholeheatredly agree with you. Over here you’ve got to pass a law on environmental impacts of cars when you take your theoretical driving test. Then again, we’ve got the safest and closest-knit railway system in the world, but the fares are high enough and the stops at smaller places (like mine) infrequent enough for cars to be competitive and more convenient. Polls show that German car drivers will not cut down on their driving habits if a litre of petrol (that’s less than a quart) cost 5Euros.
got to pass a test*
We should be wary though of replacing regular cars by ones that may even be more harmful.
Sarah/froylein,
Your brother is correct. Biodiesel is a false savior for a desperate mindset.
We’ve managed to sell people on the idea that all we need to do to fix “the problem” is release ourselves from the need for imported oil. But that’s just a smokescreen because no one really wants to hear that we do, in fact, have to radically re-think our idea of what it means to live in the 21st century. Until we can wrap our heads around this concept, we’re going to be stuck on the idea that we’re merely a technological advance away from redemption.
If only.
You should read some Julian Simon, DK.
The avid flight from freedom into the hands of fascism and embrace of despairing and depressing views is astonishing, but not surprising. Such things have been heard before at the heights of previous societies by those without the will to resist the temptation to give up and in the end as the impulse to fail to resist what is seen as inevitable though it may be no such thing, becomes the greatest ally of decay and decline.
You’re missing the point like so many others. The problem is not that people are free to drive where they like and buy what gasoline they may afford, but that the economy of the power source versus its use is changing towards a very bad imbalance. If titanium were a penny a pound it might be more widely used, but it isn’t a penny a pound is it. The economics of its use versus the need don’t match up.
The problem to be solved is: we need a power source for motor vehicles which is comparable in cost per mile traveled with today’s carriage capacity or costing even less.
The first problem in conceptions which hinders solution to the above is that we think of gasoline as a fuel and not as an energy storage medium. Ultimately, the fabric of the universe at creation was so high, that much of it was tied up as matter. When some of that matter fuses in stars, it releases energy. This energy was absorbed by organic lifeforms on Earth millions of years ago and since then compressed and condensed by simple pressure and temperature producing chemical changes to make oil.
So we know that there are other power sources, as this one was invested by another before it. Now we need to find another way to make an energy storage medium which outputs energy in a similar way with similar efficiency or better and cost as well.
I know enough of science and technology to know that millions of years of sunlight followed by millions of years of decay, compression, and chemisrty is a very inefficient method. I don’t know how yet (I’d be able to buy the Internet if I invented something to replace gasoline off the cuff) but I see no technical limitations in physics to efficient energy transformation and storage.
Certainly not enough to despair and throw my support behind a statist response like using the powers of the government to harass the people out of their cars.
Oh yeah, the second problem in conception is the obsession with simple chemical reactions, namely combustion. Our own bodies consume tremendous amounts of energy originally solar in origin through an easily understood chain. There’s no real bar in physics to engineering… “techno-organic” machines to feed on complex organic chemicals and power vehicles. Perhaps multi-legged vehicles. Robohorses. Centipedes.
Use your imagination.
But don’t throw it away.
Take a look at this article. Sure it’s internal combustion, but remarkably efficient and smart.
http://www.fastcompany.com/mag.....ssiah.html
I still remember when people looked forward to a life of plenty and hope. If I have anything to say about it, the idea won’t die out.
suitepotato, all is well and good with finding new and more efficient ways to generate energy, but every release of stored energy, by definition, has repercussions. Naturally, some follow the laws of physics, but others are political, economic, environmental…
The way I see it, we’ve become a culture that deserves our liberties, dammit, our hard-won rights- don’t believe me- it’s right there in every SUV commercial! But we make the mistake of assuming that liberty is license, and it’s not. Just because we can do something does not mean that we should. Just because we have the technology within our grasp to ensure that every American can drive their car as much as they damn please doesn’t make it the good and right thing to do.
Lives of plenty and hope sure are fun, but they’s what got us into this trouble in the first place! We don’t have the right to squander our resources, even if we did buy them fair and square (carbon off-sets, anyone?)
suitepotato,
Have you considered being Obama’s running mate? I propose that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but you seem knowledgeable (maybe more so that him) and uplifting enough! Still, even as a religious messianist who believes that a literal Deus ex Machina will (and must) save us all, I am extremely pessimistic about the future of this country. I truly do appreciate your optimism and efforts, and was roused by a bit of hope. If you can help address this thing that’s been bothering me, then you’d have my vote for whatever office you want to run for:
You said that; “Such things have been heard before at the heights of previous societies by those without the will to resist the temptation to give up and in the end as the impulse to fail to resist what is seen as inevitable though it may be no such thing, becomes the greatest ally of decay and decline.”
Has there ever been a great society, world super-power, towering civilization, that hasn’t declined in wealth and greatness so much, that the later generations weren’t merely mongrelized versions of their grandparents? DK- you’re a history guy, do you know of one? If not, then why, Suitepotato, are you so confident that we’ll be it? Maybe it is just the natural cycle of civilizations, and we should just accept it and try to adjust accordingly. I hope I’m wrong, and you’re right. I have to remind myself sometimes, ani maamina, ani maamina, just to veer away from despair.
People better at math than me have calculated that it would take every square inch of arable land in the US to provide biofuels for every family to keep a personal automobile. Frankly, we need to relocalize food production far more than we need gas. Peak Oil isn’t going away, no matter how much people think they are entitled to own a private automobile - and the government will have to strictly ration gasoline for ambulances, fire, police, garbage, border patrol, food transportation, and other necessary civil services long before there is any real danger of “running out” of oil - because government can’t just continue paying prices that are soaring through the stratosphere. At some point, they will have to step in an cause a demand destruction to lower the price and make sure long-term availability for civil services, and the absolutely most effective way to do that is to ban personal automobiles. It’s not “if,” it’s “when.” If anyone is not situating yourself to deal with that reality now, then I feel sorry for you. The writing is on the wall. Government needs affordable gasoline, and the only way to do that is make sure you don’t get it.
Ahavah,
All very logical and rational. I hope we do find some way of practically implementing it all. It’s feasible if you live in a city, but as somebody who lived in a rural state without a car, I can tell you that eradicating the personal automobile will make functional living in such places nearly impossible. I can’t picture a system of public transportation in these places that would fix that, since they are so spread out. Maybe I’m just not being creative enough though.
Leave a Comment