Energy hogs rule
Elites love to pig out on energy.
Dateline: Monday, January 21, 2008
"We use 30 percent of all the energy... That isn't bad; that is good.
That means we are the richest, strongest people in the world and that we
have the highest standard of living in the world. That is why we need so
much energy, and may it always be that way."
— US president Richard Nixon,
November 1973
Things have changed since Nixon proudly proclaimed America the world's
biggest energy guzzler. Or have they?
Since then, the world has woken up to the stark reality of climate
change and the role played by human energy consumption.
But this has had surprisingly little impact. Today, George W Bush –
and Stephen Harper – pay lip service to energy conservation, while
doing little to actually reduce US and Canadian energy consumption,
which remain among the highest per capita in the world.
Unlike truly unpopular policies like the GST, cuts to social
spending or fighting in Afghanistan, Canadians actually support the goal
of tackling climate change.
This is often chalked up to government reluctance to force unpopular
changes on the public. We're told that while Canadians are concerned
about global warming, they'll balk at paying carbon taxes, as advocated
earlier this month by the National Round Table on the Environment and
the Economy.
This sounds plausible, but is it really the case? Would carbon taxes be
any more unpopular than the GST, which an earlier Conservative
government insisted on ramming through, despite overwhelming opposition
from Canadians?
Similarly, the Liberals implemented extremely unpopular cuts to social
spending in the 1990s. Today, the Harper government seems determined to
continue fighting in Afghanistan – with the support of only 17 percent
of Canadians, according to a Strategic Counsel poll released last week.
Ironically, in the case of climate change, there's little evidence the
public would even be resistant. Unlike the GST, cuts to social spending
or fighting in Afghanistan – all truly unpopular policies –
Canadians actually support the goal of tackling climate change.
It's not even clear that the changes would have to impact the public
that negatively.
Auto manufacturers say that tough fuel efficiency requirements would
force them to spend more, pushing up car prices by thousands of dollars.
In fact, auto manufacturers are constantly spending large sums on
improving engine technology. The question is where they apply these
technological advances.
As David Friedman of the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists
has noted, unless the law demands more fuel efficient cars,
manufacturers will squander these technological gains, applying them
toward producing ever more powerful engines for ever larger vehicles.
"We'll be seeing 18-wheelers that accelerate like racing cars."
Yet Ottawa seems ready to follow the foot-dragging of the Bush
administration, which won't require tougher fuel economy until 2020,
resisting the more stringent deadlines set by California.
The real resistance seems to be coming not from the public but from
powerful interests that have much riding on the maintenance of the
energy status quo – most notably oil companies and auto manufacturers.
The public – particularly young people – seems to have grasped that
the kind of global piggery celebrated by Richard Nixon is not only
inherently ugly but carries the seeds of our own destruction.
But this ultimately involves letting go of a goal that is the very
centrepiece of modern capitalism – ever-increasing consumption.
Like the band on the Titanic, some in our political and corporate
elites seem determined to go on pumping out the old tunes, even as sea
waters rise all around us.
