noxeos

I know commenting in your own journal is taboo, but there is a good discussion going and I'd like to point something out.

I was looking in terms of SUVs and pick-up trucks for a while too before I realized that oil is used in almost every industry to manufacture products. Private vehicles probably cover a small percentage of the overall oil used. Diesel trucks use tons of oil, as do manufacturing plants, or atleast the workers going to and from the plants daily. I've connected the American idea of materialism and consumerism with this increased demand on oil by associating it with increased production in factories and America's shipping backbone, the diesel truck (as well as intercontinental cargo ships). Imposing taxes on SUVs and light trucks will certainly help (which is unlikely because of the auto industry and oil industry lobbyists), but it won't solve the problem. The only solution I see to the problem is to reduce the overall consumerism of the US. Basically, we need to slow economic growth while encouraging technological growth. I am definately a federalist because I see the federal government taking the largest part to regulate these industries within the US to force them to be more effecient, which reduces the strain on the labor force. It still does not get rid of the fact that these US companies operating in China are making China the second largest consumer of oil, which is mostly to feed American materialism because these good manufactured in China are being sent back to the US for our own use. Again, the federal government needs to step in and regulate this foreign trade to reduce consumerism within the US. Tax the hell out of it. This is very unlikely to happen with current federal government because republicans tend to be free trade. I know there are serious reactions from foreign governments from increasing international tax, but it is a good way to reduce the overall consumtion of goods within the US. Not just SUVs and trucks, tax the hell out of all imported goods.

We need someone in the federal government that can see the US needs to reduce it's demand on oil. A oil-money backed Texan isn't the right man to do that. Yes, our military is probably our best hope to reduce the demand on oil because it has put in a large contract to purchase fuel cells to power it's next generation of military vehicles. This research and manufacturing going into the fuel cells will help drive the technology to the average american. I believe I heard analysts say we will be converted to fuel cell technology by 2015. I think we can convert sooner, but a hydrogen fueling infrastructure is not yet in place (even though hydrogen can be created in abundance in your backyard from solar energy). Back to the point, there needs to be a new party that gets rid of big-business lobbying (since when can businesses voice their opinion in a democracy?), and has an agenda of increasing the federal government's ability to regulate industries within the US. From healthcare, education, manufacturing, etc.

And the statement about not reducing our need for oil? Tell that to the 1,400+ american families that have lost sons/daughters/brothers/sisters. I don't agree on a war that was motivated by a Texas ideology of securing a supply of oil, especially when I feel a personal connection to that demand for oil because I have been taught my whole life to be materialistic and a good little consumer which has increased that demand for oil. There is a lot of waste in this society that is unneeded and can be reduced without having a significant impact on the quality of life of the average american.

[Edited on Jan 31, 2005 1:21PM]