What a Maroon (The Hidden Tierney)

John Tierney is a dolt. OK, that might be shrill and not so nice. But I can't really come up with anything else when I read the intro and conclusion to his latest column, Burn, Baby, Burn (for Times Select subscribers' eyes only):

Before I unveil my plan for energy independence, let me explain what's wrong with everyone else's.

The problem with Americans is not that we're addicted to oil. As soon as oil becomes more trouble than it's worth, we will sensibly stop putting it in our cars. Until then, our problem is that we're addicted to politicians with plans for energy independence, like the Advanced Energy Initiative introduced by President Bush in his budget yesterday.

[...]

When something finally comes along that's cheaper and more reliable than oil, no national energy plan will be necessary. Capitalists will be ready to sell it to eager American drivers. For now, the best strategy is to buy gasoline and stop worrying that it's sinful or dangerous.

When you hear politicians calling you an addict and warning that you'll be cut off, try my plan for energy independence. It's modeled on the Daily Affirmation of Stuart Smalley, that recovering addict and devotee of 12-step programs (whose creator on "Saturday Night Live," Al Franken, will probably be horrified).

After you fill up your tank, twist the rear-view mirror so you can gaze at yourself. Repeat these words: "I'm good enough, I'm rich enough, and doggone it, people in the Middle East like my money."

What is with "conservatives" today and their decidedly wanton desire to profligately spend our coffers and expend our resources? I'll admit that oil is the heart of our economy and that we don't have much of a true, sociatal-wide solution right now to replace it. But if we leave it up to just market forces to decide what our next energy source will be, it will be too late--from both a global warming and a peak oil point of view.

More on the flip...

: : : : : : : : : :

Back to the column:

What exactly is so wrong with burning oil? The best argument is that it contributes to global warming. But so does burning coal and other fossil fuels. The fairest and most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be with a carbon tax on all fossil fuels.

But the advocates for energy independence want to do more than just regulate emissions. Since Jimmy Carter put on his cardigan sweater and declared saving energy "the moral equivalent of war," politicians determined to wean us from imported oil have been hectoring us with bogus arguments:

The well is running dry. Government planners have a long history of overestimating the future cost of oil and underestimating the cost of their pet alternatives — which is why we keep burning oil. The government should finance basic research, not pick winners and losers. If there's a better alternative to oil in the near future, don't expect it to be glimpsed by the politicians now doling out subsidies to energy corporations and the corn farmers who vote in the Iowa caucuses.

Agreed. The government should be spending more and spreading the funds widely to drive research to come up with as creative and cost-efficient solution as possible. I haven't seen any evidence that government has necessarily chosen one singular path at this point.

America needs insurance against "oil shocks." Insurance doesn't make sense if the premiums cost more than the disaster. Mandating fuel-economy standards saved gasoline and made Americans a little less vulnerable to a spike in oil prices, but the rules led to smaller cars and an additional 2,000 deaths per year in highway accidents from the mid-1970's to the mid-1990's, according to the National Research Council.

So, a return to smaller, more fuel-efficient cars would mean more blood on the highways? And SUVs are safer?