Conserve on Your Own Time

K-Lo proclaimed a "Dubya-Love Moment" over this answer to a question about why he doesn't support a federal energy conservation program at yesterday's press conference:

"The American people are smart enough to figure it out. They know the price of gas. They're already driving less and seeking smaller cars. I don't need to tell them; they can balance their checkbook."

This is pretty silly. When I go to National Airport, I take the Metro -- an energy efficient option. That's a personal decision I make based on assessing the relevant factors. But one of the relevant factors is that there's a Metro station near my house and another one right by the airport. And of course more people would live near the U Street / Cardozo Metro Station were there more housing units located near the U Street / Cardozo Metro Station which there would be if more residential density were legally permitted. And I would take the Metro to Dulles Airport if there were a Metro line that went to Dulles Airport.

The point being, of course we all make decisions that are relevant to our energy consumption. But the choices we make are affected by public policy decisions in dozens of different ways. To suggest individual action as an alternative to changing policy is to ignore the fact that different policies would produce different individual choices.

Comments

Ah, but Matt, you forget that funds used for highways, like for the defense department, are not "expenses" or "wasteful" whereas spending on public transportation is always a "boondoggle" and "subsidizing" others.

Posted by David | July 16, 2008 12:55 PM

You are expecting WAY too much from K-Lo.

Posted by theCoach | July 16, 2008 12:56 PM

But even more important is the fact that if we had instituted a gas tax long ago all of the money from high gas prices would be in U.S. coffers instead of the coffers of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela. That the president doesn't see this and the conservative nutjobs actually applaud him for his ignorance shows what an intellectually and policy bankrupt group the GOP has become. Also, if we had done this rationally it would have been gradual and not like this price shock now, which is much more disruptive.

Posted by Jason Scorse | July 16, 2008 12:56 PM

They're already driving less and seeking smaller cars.

Their remote, suburban homes can't hold their value and they're buying smaller cars ... from Japan.

Then again, when has Bush shown the kind of leadership it would have taken to plot a sensible energy policy that actually sees to Americans' interests?

Since K-Lo and Bush don't give a shit about this country, it's easy to pretend that sleeping on the job is some kind of virtue. Look! We left them to rot ... and they rotted!

U-S-A!!!
U-S-A!!!
U-S-A!!!
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 16, 2008 12:57 PM

Right. Which is why the Carter-era word "conservation" may not even be the word we want to use. It reeks of personal virtue. We should say that we're coming up with ways to help people save money.

K-Lo: "It is sad that our next president, whoever he is, will not think and say these things."

I'm wiping away a tear.

Posted by Ted | July 16, 2008 1:00 PM

A truly patriotic philosophy: Americans are so awesome that policy proposals are totally unnecessary!

Posted by Jake H. | July 16, 2008 1:00 PM

See, Matt, you trust the government. I trust the people

That's pretty much the full argument, with all theoretical rationale and supporting evidence, as it works in George Bush and K-Lo's heads.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 16, 2008 1:01 PM

While that quote is right up there as The Dumbest Remark by a Politician So Far This Week, but here is the big mystery . . .

Why does this foolish, mean, inarticulate, pouty little man inspire so much adoration from so many people?

Is it a pheromone he gives off? Even when he is obviously just mouthing something off-hand because he doesn't have a real answer, they still swoon over every word.

On the other hand, I have not yet figured out why milliions of people think Hilary Clinton has a screechy voice. For the life of me, I cannot distinguish her voice from any other female politician's, or her phrasing from any other middling skilled male or female official.

There is something about GW that turns some rational people into swooning teeny-boppers. Myself, even way back when I thought he might actually BE a compassionate conservative, I knew I wasn't going to vote a dullard like that into any public office.

Posted by Berken | July 16, 2008 1:06 PM

Even better: "We're building high-speed rail to give people more transportation choices and help them save money."

It's not conservation, or sustainable anything. It's choices that save money.

Posted by Ted | July 16, 2008 1:07 PM

Which George Bush was it who told us we're, "addicted to foreign oil" again? I forgotted.

Posted by trollhattan | July 16, 2008 1:07 PM

Aren't these the same folks that used to tell us the American people just wouldn't accept the lifestyle changes necessary for reduced energy consumption?

Anyway, yes, it would be nice if Lopez would bother to ask herself what alternatives Americans have to driving, seeing as how they are being forced to drive less by rising gas prices. But she is not that bright.

Posted by DTM | July 16, 2008 1:09 PM

I suppose it's inspirational to some that a retarded man was able to become president of the United States. But I sincerely hope it never happens again.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 16, 2008 1:10 PM

While that quote is right up there as The Dumbest Remark by a Politician So Far This Week, but here is the big mystery . . .

Why does this foolish, mean, inarticulate, pouty little man inspire so much adoration from so many people?

Is it a pheromone he gives off? Even when he is obviously just mouthing something off-hand because he doesn't have a real answer, they still swoon over every word.

On the other hand, I have not yet figured out why milliions of people think Hilary Clinton has a screechy voice. For the life of me, I cannot distinguish her voice from any other female politician's, or her phrasing from any other middling skilled male or female official.

There is something about GW that turns some rational people into swooning teeny-boppers. Myself, even way back when I thought he might actually BE a compassionate conservative, I knew I wasn't going to vote a dullard like that into any public office.

Posted by Berken | July 16, 2008 1:12 PM

I like the idea of trusting the American people, but in practice there's a problem. The American people are pretty dumb. Nobody can say that in public of course; the press talks about "low information" voters and consumers, but the politicians and business leaders can't very well call Sam and Sue Suburbia feckless idiots and expect to keep raking in the dough. 200 years of easy natural resource exploitation has given much of the population the idea that stuff just happens by magic and there's no problem so big a marketing department can't solve it. That's sort of the essence of the free market ideal, magic and marketing. Crazy.

Posted by RoboticGhost | July 16, 2008 1:13 PM

Berken: 30% approval, and 16% right-track, are not *so* many people.

But I still confess myself mystified. All I can figure is that they like him because he looks like exactly the kind of guy the effete liberals would probably hate. That would explain why he did even better in 2004 than in 2000. Turned out they were right.

Posted by Ted | July 16, 2008 1:15 PM

Berken,

Bush rewards people who express adoration for him. So, to me it is not exactly surprising that during his time in control of the GOP, people who express adoration for him have worked their way up into high positions throughout the formal and informal hierarchies of the Party.

Posted by DTM | July 16, 2008 1:17 PM

I've relegated picking on K-Lo to the same category I put picking on some outrageous thing some college student did, somewhere: unfair mockery of someone who doesn't know any better and can't defend herself.

The problem Bush is demonstrating is that he has no fear of the voters on the conservation issue. He basically knows that the people aren't going to force him to face any consequences for his failure to save them money by helping them reduce their dependency on oil. By contrast, people fear that Bush and the rest of the government might screw them over.

Posted by Tyro | July 16, 2008 1:20 PM

MY says:

When I go to National Airport, I take the Metro -- an energy efficient option.

Unless you're just going to the airport to pick someone up, this is probably part of a larger transaction--an airplane flight--that has a HUGE carbon footprint.

Let's face it, Matt. Your jet-setting ways mean you use more carbon per year than an average SUV-driving soccer mom. You are a glutton and a rapist of Mother Earth.

Posted by qed | July 16, 2008 1:21 PM

I listened to the press conference where Bush made these statements and it was not in regards to policy, but in regards to a question about him using "the megaphone of the presidency" to encourage conservation. He felt given the rising cost of things that people could figure it out. Just to clarify.

Posted by Alvin | July 16, 2008 1:25 PM

Of course, Bush is dumb. But he's said much dumber stuff. The basic point here is true: if something costs more, people will use less of it. Therefore, if you want people to use less of something, raise the price. It's a much more direct and effective way of reducing consumption that wearing a sweater and hectoring them to consume less. Of course, I doubt Dubya would see the implication, that it would be good for us to raise gas taxes if we want to conserve energy.

Posted by too many steves | July 16, 2008 1:28 PM

Ted, I think Bush represented wish fulfillment for a lot of people: lots of people wish they were born rich and lazy and weren't forced to think so darn hard. Then they could hang around and clear brush and watch baseball all day.

Posted by Tyro | July 16, 2008 1:30 PM

It is a dumb remark in the sense that the US does need a real energy policy (as politically untenable as that seems to be). The reality is that any politician who tries to do it is going to get slaughtered. It is the purest form of falling on a grenade. You would never be able to satisfy anyone with a realistic solution. Its never green enough for some or cheap enough for others. As far as the transportation bit goes, it is worth reminding the readers (and writers) of this blog that not everyone has access to public transportation (and never will, given the size of their communities). There is a world outside DC and other major metropolitan areas. We call them states and there are about 40 of them where public transport is irrelevent. Another interesting fact is that these states also have a say in the election of the president of the US. Many argue that they have too much of a say. Either way, they have to use cars every single day. No choice. Public transportation can and should be improved in the major cities and I would love to see a national rail system that was worth a damn and could compete with air.

The other irritating thing about this topic though is the same thing I get hit with from Europeans. They like to make fun of Americans for not having a passport, etc. I gently remind them that our country is the size of Europe and many of us don't feel the need to go anywhere else. We have enough to see in our lifetimes. It is valuable to see other countries to me, but I can respect the fact that others may just want to travel their own country. No worries. My point is, comparisons to France and Germany and the UK for a rail network are hardly valid. Compared the the US in terms of the number of miles of track that need to be built, it's like building a great rail network for Missouri and screw the rest. Things have to be kept in perspective.

My secret hope is that one of our future presidents launches a huge program like this, though. A huge public works program of infrastructure investment for the 21st century and beyond. Lots of jobs, public and environmental benefits, and something to pass on to the next generation. If only we weren't involved in so many expensive wars, maybe we could do something like that.

Posted by JAB | July 16, 2008 1:31 PM

The Republican party is very disfunctional. The failure to institute a tax on gasoline highlights this. Sure, oil companies were able to make more money selling oil at higher prices. But for the country as a whole, the vast wealth transfer from the US to Saudi Arabia far outweighed these benefits. If we had instituted a tax on gas 20 years ago, we could have kept the price of oil on the world market a lot closer to the extraction cost. The extra cash flowing to the US government could have been used to fund more tax cuts for rich people and benefited a wider swath of American elites.

The reason why this didn't happen is two-fold. First, the people running the Republican party are not actually smart enough to figure this out. Second, it's not about helping elites generally. The Republican party is essentially about patronage politics. So Cheney is happy to funnel money to his friends at Halliburton, even if the wealth transfer is incredibly inefficient and costs other elites potential wealth.

Posted by mpowell | July 16, 2008 1:33 PM

MY says:

When I go to National Airport, I take the Metro -- an energy efficient option.

Unless you're just going to the airport to pick someone up, this is probably part of a larger transaction--an airplane flight--that has a HUGE carbon footprint.

Let's face it, Matt. Your jet-setting ways mean you use more carbon per year than an average SUV-driving soccer mom. You are a glutton and a rapist of Mother Earth.

Posted by qed | July 16, 2008 1:40 PM

Unless you're just going to the airport to pick someone up

Like pick someone up pick someone up or like Larry Craig pick someone up?

Posted by Jake H. | July 16, 2008 1:48 PM

Like Alvin I understood the question to be more like "People listen to you. Why not ask them to sacrifice?" rather than "You're the presidend. Why don't you do something about getting people to drive less?" The distinction, of course, is that if the question was the latter then all of Matt's responses would be exactly right. And yeah, the Administration should have put a lot more into building mass transit infrastructure during their eight years.

Still, if the question was the first, and I think it was, the president was technically right. People are smart enough to buy less of things which become more expensive. Still, that doesn't also mean that the government can't ask for specific action from the people. The government asked people to buy war bonds during WWII. President Bush asked Americans to go shopping after 9/11 and to go shopping again after they got their stimulus checks this year. And of course, every politician asks the populace to go vote for them because the politician believes they can do the best job in the position.

Asking people to do things for the country is nothing new, it's just that the President doesn't like telling people to do *less* of something. Asking them to go spend money they might not be able to afford in the long run is fun, but asking them to walk when they'd prefer to drive is a real bummer.

Posted by MosBen | July 16, 2008 1:54 PM

Matthew writes,

And I would take the Metro to Dulles Airport if there were a Metro line that went to Dulles Airport ... The point being, of course we all make decisions that are relevant to our energy consumption. But the choices we make are affected by public policy decisions in dozens of different ways.

Your support for public policies to increase the energy efficiency of cars is clearly at odds with your desire for a large-scale shift from driving to using mass transit. Since cars already provide vastly more of our transportation than transit, even a small increase in the efficiency of cars is likely to have a far greater effect on shaping individual choices of transportation mode than a huge expansion of transit. A new metro line to Dulles airport would have a minuscule effect on the overall share of driving vs. transit, whereas even a small increase in the average fuel efficiency of cars would reduce the relative costs of driving vs. transit for hundreds of millions of Americans.

But one of the relevant factors is that there's a Metro station near my house and another one right by the airport. And of course more people would live near the U Street / Cardozo Metro Station were there more housing units located near the U Street / Cardozo Metro Station which there would be if more residential density were legally permitted.

You don't know that. Simply allowing more housing to be built obviously doesn't mean that it would be built or that there would be enough demand to make it economically viable. Considering that the amount of vacant housing in the District is increasing, your claim above is highly dubious.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 1:56 PM

Like Alvin I understood the question to be more like "People listen to you. Why not ask them to sacrifice?" rather than "You're the presidend. Why don't you do something about getting people to drive less?" The distinction, of course, is that if the question was the latter then all of Matt's responses would be exactly right. And yeah, the Administration should have put a lot more into building mass transit infrastructure during their eight years.

Still, if the question was the first, and I think it was, the president was technically right. People are smart enough to buy less of things which become more expensive. Still, that doesn't also mean that the government can't ask for specific action from the people. The government asked people to buy war bonds during WWII. President Bush asked Americans to go shopping after 9/11 and to go shopping again after they got their stimulus checks this year. And of course, every politician asks the populace to go vote for them because the politician believes they can do the best job in the position.

Asking people to do things for the country is nothing new, it's just that the President doesn't like telling people to do *less* of something. Asking them to go spend money they might not be able to afford in the long run is fun, but asking them to walk when they'd prefer to drive is a real bummer.

Posted by MosBen | July 16, 2008 1:56 PM

Well, Bush called upon us to do more shopping and travel after september 11th, so he has no problem making patriotic calls for Americans to get together and help out in a time of crisis.

Posted by Tyro | July 16, 2008 1:57 PM

We call them states and there are about 40 of them where public transport is irrelevent. Another interesting fact is that these states also have a say in the election of the president of the US. Many argue that they have too much of a say. Either way, they have to use cars every single day. No choice.

This is simply false. Most Americans already have the choice of using transit instead of driving. They choose to drive instead of using transit because driving is much faster, much more convenient, much more comfortable and much more flexible. Outside a few old, densely populated cities with highly centralized employment centers transit is not and never will be competitive with cars for the vast majority of trips. Even if you could spend trillions of dollars to build subway or light rail lines along every major street in every major American city, driving would still be more attractive for the vast majority of trips for the vast majority of people.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 2:10 PM

"Let's face it, Matt. Your jet-setting ways mean you use more carbon per year than an average SUV-driving soccer mom. You are a glutton and a rapist of Mother Earth."

Right. Soccer moms NEVER, but NEVER fly anywhere.

Posted by ERM | July 16, 2008 2:10 PM

Like Alvin I understood the question to be more like "People listen to you. Why not ask them to sacrifice?" rather than "You're the presidend. Why don't you do something about getting people to drive less?" The distinction, of course, is that if the question was the latter then all of Matt's responses would be exactly right. And yeah, the Administration should have put a lot more into building mass transit infrastructure during their eight years.

Still, if the question was the first, and I think it was, the president was technically right. People are smart enough to buy less of things which become more expensive. Still, that doesn't also mean that the government can't ask for specific action from the people. The government asked people to buy war bonds during WWII. President Bush asked Americans to go shopping after 9/11 and to go shopping again after they got their stimulus checks this year. And of course, every politician asks the populace to go vote for them because the politician believes they can do the best job in the position.

Asking people to do things for the country is nothing new, it's just that the President doesn't like telling people to do *less* of something. Asking them to go spend money they might not be able to afford in the long run is fun, but asking them to walk when they'd prefer to drive is a real bummer.

Posted by MosBen | July 16, 2008 2:14 PM

Like Alvin I understood the question to be more like "People listen to you. Why not ask them to sacrifice?" rather than "You're the presidend. Why don't you do something about getting people to drive less?" The distinction, of course, is that if the question was the latter then all of Matt's responses would be exactly right. And yeah, the Administration should have put a lot more into building mass transit infrastructure during their eight years.

Still, if the question was the first, and I think it was, the president was technically right. People are smart enough to buy less of things which become more expensive. Still, that doesn't also mean that the government can't ask for specific action from the people. The government asked people to buy war bonds during WWII. President Bush asked Americans to go shopping after 9/11 and to go shopping again after they got their stimulus checks this year. And of course, every politician asks the populace to go vote for them because the politician believes they can do the best job in the position.

Asking people to do things for the country is nothing new, it's just that the President doesn't like telling people to do *less* of something. Asking them to go spend money they might not be able to afford in the long run is fun, but asking them to walk when they'd prefer to drive is a real bummer.

Posted by MosBen | July 16, 2008 2:17 PM

"The Republican party is very disfunctional. The failure to institute a tax on gasoline highlights this."--mpowell

Uh, there is a federal tax on gasoline. Do you mean raise the tax on gasoline? And the Democrats are just as dysfunctional when it comes to gas policy. A big part of the solution toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and U.S. dependence on foreign oil, encouraging mass transit, and generating alternative sources of energy is to keep gas prices high. Yet when gas prices are high, who are the first ones screaming and yelling about how awful it is? Democrats.

Posted by Claudius | July 16, 2008 2:23 PM

Uh, sorry for the billion posts. I got the internal server error, which I understand is so common, and hit refresh, which I assumed would just take me back here. My bad.

Posted by MosBen | July 16, 2008 2:26 PM

How would it sound if Bush said "if you don't like the price of gas then drive less".

The kind of question he was asked was lazy and dishonest. I personally don't want any advice from Bush nor would I listen to it.

Posted by An Outhouse | July 16, 2008 2:30 PM

It is a dumb remark in the sense that the US does need a real energy policy (as politically untenable as that seems to be)

I don't remember whether it was in 2000 or 2004, but I distinctly remember GWB whining in a debate about how his Democratic opponent "didn't have an energy policy." Never mind that Bush's energy policy was "whatever gets the biggest profits for my oil buddies," but at least at the time Bush thought that the country ought to have policies related to energy. Now I guess it's only effete urban elitists who want something as intrusive as a "policy" on energy.

Posted by Adam Villani | July 16, 2008 2:32 PM

Berken: "Why does this foolish, mean, inarticulate, pouty little man inspire so much adoration from so many people?"

birds of a feather flock together

Posted by raft | July 16, 2008 2:46 PM

I would happily vote for a candidate with no national industrial "policies." The ones they come up with are usually worse than just butting out would have been.

Posted by too many steves | July 16, 2008 2:48 PM

This is the question that was asked:

"Q Mr. President, understanding what you say about energy supplies being tight and the debate over energy, which has gone on for years and will continue long through the campaign and into the next administration -- one thing nobody debates is that if Americans use less energy the current supply/demand equation would improve. Why have you not sort of called on Americans to drive less and to turn down the thermostat?"

As is obvious, Matt's critique of Bush's answer--and the cheerleading for Matt's critique above--is ridiculous. A question about a "federal energy conservation program" might occasion the sort of response Matt suggests, but that wasn't the question.

Posted by Thomas | July 16, 2008 2:52 PM

Right. Soccer moms NEVER, but NEVER fly anywhere.

I doubt they fly as much as Matthew. And unlike Matthew, they don't seem to be constantly bitching about global warming and how we all need to reduce our carbon footprint. Maybe next time he's planning to go to a shindig in Los Angeles, Aspen, Chicago or Austin Matthew should make the sacrifices in his own comfort and convenience that he is exhorting others to make and take Amtrak or a Greyhound bus instead of flying. Or simply not go at all.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 2:58 PM

Mixner, you ignorant slut. The important point is to create more friendly alternatives for methods of transport for which their are applicable alternatives.

Which, weirdly, you keep ranting against around here.

Posted by Tyro | July 16, 2008 3:02 PM

Of course soccer moms fly less than MY. They don't have trust funds.

Posted by etypay | July 16, 2008 3:17 PM

Tyro, you monumental fool. There are already alternatives to flying. Including the alternative of not travelling. If Matthew is not prepared to make the sacrifices in time, comfort, convenience, or the prospects for his career that using those alternatives would require, he shouldn't expect other people to either.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 3:28 PM

This post reflects the left/right divide pretty well:

Left: Government knows best, we'll solve your problems

Right: Individuals (in the aggregate), left to their own devices, will come to the right conclusion.

We want Freedom; Matt wants equality

Posted by James Robertson | July 16, 2008 3:36 PM

The question is important to include. Bush was not asked why he hasn't supported transit projects, not asked why he hadn't raised the gas tax, not asked his opinion on alternative energy. He was asked why he hadn't called upon the American people to conserve energy. To that specific question, he gave this answer:

"The American people are smart enough to figure it out. They know the price of gas. They're already driving less and seeking smaller cars. I don't need to tell them; they can balance their checkbook."

If you want to refute that, go look at a metric that captures changes in energy use, driving behavior, automobile purchases, etc. and see if the American people are conserving without the president "calling on them" to do so. I suspect Bush is correct and that conserving behavior is already happening in response to the only "calling" anyone really hears, the price signal.

Your objection to his comment is a non sequiter.

Posted by Vail Beach | July 16, 2008 3:39 PM

Jim-Bob, as you are so quick to point out about your own neighborhood, you lack any alternatives. People in your neighborhood AREN'T ABLE to come to any different conclusions. The right wing wants to prevent people from having other options, the left wants to provide those other options.

The right offers the economic straitjacket of conformity as a cover for their authoritarianism and love of squalor in the public infrastructure. The left offers options.

Posted by Tyro | July 16, 2008 3:46 PM

The actual question wasn't how it was described at the Corner. It was "Why have you not sort of called on Americans to drive less and to turn down the thermostat?"

Bush's answer wasn't exactly right, but it was close. The correct answer was "a President who would tell the American people to respond to high prices by buying less should get kicked in the nads."

Posted by Mario | July 16, 2008 3:55 PM

Tyro,

The right wing wants to prevent people from having other options, the left wants to provide those other options.

No, the left, as represented by people like you and Matthew, wants to spend large amounts of other people's money, in the form of regressive taxes, in order to build and operate hugely expensive transit systems for which there is no demand, in the hope that the demand will magically materialize after the money has been spent.

And, hilariously, at the same time you're proposing to spend untold billions of dollars on transit systems for which there is no demand, you're also proposing to make driving more attractive by promoting more fuel-efficient cars, which will have the effect of reducing demand for transit even more. Apparently, you're oblivious to the self-contradictory nature of your position.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 3:58 PM

This post reflects the left/right divide pretty well:

Left: Government knows best, we'll solve your problems

Right: Individuals (in the aggregate), left to their own devices, will come to the right conclusion.

We want Freedom; Matt wants equality

Posted by James Robertson | July 16, 2008 4:03 PM

Individuals (in the aggregate), left to their own devices, will come to the right conclusion.

Individuals, left to their own devices, will pay more attention to American Idol and what their neighbors are up to than whether their lifestyles are injurious. That would require consideration, research, and analysis. Not exactly our people's strong suits.

This highlights the primary problem I have with the right, trusting people to make rational decisions in the aggregate. I don't think individuals are rational, let alone a mob of them. The free market is a great way to sort out what sorts of television shows people watch and what sort of crap to stock at Wal Mart, but pretty lousy at supplying long term solutions to complex problems. That requires government. Good government.

Posted by RoboticGhost | July 16, 2008 4:16 PM

RoboticGhost, the point is, individual Americans don't have to decide "whether their lifestyles are injurious." People respond to incentives. High gas prices are an incentive to consume less gas. Therefore, people will respond to higher gas prices by consuming less gas. The market isn't "rational" in the sense that it always reaches some totally awesome decision, it's "rational" in the sense that people, in the aggregate, tend to respond to the incentives they're given. The job of policymakers is to structure the incentives differently, if they want to encourage behavior that's different from what the market is encouraging (for example, higher gas taxes if gas is cheap and people are using too much of it). In this case, the market incentives are leading to reduced gasoline consumption, so the policymakers just need to keep their hands off of things.

Posted by too many steves | July 16, 2008 4:24 PM

Let them eat cake on the imaginary train.

Posted by ferd | July 16, 2008 4:26 PM

Right: Individuals (in the aggregate), left to their own devices, will come to the right conclusion.

Yeah, baby! Now just wait until me and my neighbors get that street sized nuke plant fired up, develop our own solar panels, create an efficient windmill for the home, create a way to store locally generated power in a battery in the basement, and build electric cars that go over 200 miles between charges.

Yep, we'll get right on that.

Posted by LFC | July 16, 2008 4:30 PM

Mixner, why is it all one or the other? People will drive and more efficient cars will help. People can and will take public transportation if it's there. The two modes will complement each other Unfortunately your brain, like most winguts, only sees black and white. You sit there and criticize, you'd prefer the country to continue on it's disastrous course as long as you get to score your little points in blog comments with your oh so witty "i got you" remarks. Like most of the right, you're devoid of new and original ideas. I bet you thought the stimulus checks were really going to fix the economy, right?

Posted by central square | July 16, 2008 4:31 PM

Individuals, left to their own devices, will pay more attention to American Idol and what their neighbors are up to than whether their lifestyles are injurious.

Those terrible Americans!

Question: When did you stop believing in democracy and free enterprise? And when will you have the courage to come out for the totalitarian alternative you are so clearly aching for?

I'm sure Pinochet thought certain lifestyles were "injurious." Who gets to decide? I suppose you think I should be comfortable if it's you and not Pinochet, but I don't see a difference just because you think you have nobler intentions.

Posted by Vail Beach | July 16, 2008 5:00 PM

Mixner, why is it all one or the other? People will drive and more efficient cars will help.

Exactly.

If we could magically double average automobile fuel economy tomorrow morning, it's highly unlikely Americans would spend 100% of this dividend in the form of more driving. This is especially true the larger our cities grow, and the worse traffic gets.

Unfortunately your brain, like most winguts, only sees black and white.

Oh, I rather think Mixner sees shades other than black and white. But black and white are the two that he feels best advance his rants, er, arguments.

Posted by Cherrypixner | July 16, 2008 5:02 PM

"central square"

Mixner, why is it all one or the other?

It isn't all one or the other. But if you want people to shift from driving to using mass transit, you have to increase the cost of driving relative to the cost of using mass transit. Given how much people value the speed, convenience, comfort and flexibility of driving, you'll need to make driving significantly more costly to induce a significant shift from cars to transit. Obviously, subsidizing and promoting more fuel-efficient vehicles will tend to have the opposite effect. It will make driving more attractive by reducing fuel costs.

Unfortunately your brain, like most winguts, only sees black and white.

Unfortunately, your brain is so dysfunctional that you seem incapable of understanding that market share is a zero-sum game. Mass transit has already declined to a pathetic 1% of total passenger-miles. Making it cheaper for people to drive is likely to erode that share even further.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 5:08 PM

In this case, the market incentives are leading to reduced gasoline consumption, so the policymakers just need to keep their hands off of things.

Not exactly. It's certainly possible -- I suspect highly likely -- that we'll see much lower oil prices in the not-too-distant future as the balance of supply and demand shifts. Now, I'm not talking about the long term, where all the experts seem to unanimously agree the world's prospects for increasing the production of oil aren't up to the task of satisfying future demand. I'm talking medium and short term -- say the next five years. My point is, if Americans can purchase gasoline for $2.84/gallon in 2013, they'll almost certainly do so in significantly greater quantities than they're doing now.

Rather than "keeping their hands off things" policymakers need to put a floor under the price consumers pay for energy through the use of increased energy taxes (ideally phased in gradually and slowly to take account of current economic conditions). Alternatively, we can continue to enjoy more of the highly disruptive, economically ruinous, periodic energy shocks that accompany energy price volatility. The one we're having now is great fun, doncha think?

Posted by Quintal | July 16, 2008 5:17 PM

cherrypixner,

If we could magically double average automobile fuel economy tomorrow morning, it's highly unlikely Americans would spend 100% of this dividend in the form of more driving.

Any significant decrease in the cost of driving relative to the cost of using mass transit is likely to cause a shift away from transit and in favor of driving. I thought your goal was to get people to leave their cars at home more often and use transit instead. But apparently you'll be satisfied merely to prevent transit from dying out completely. Talk about modest objectives.

Posted by Cherrypixner is a moron | July 16, 2008 5:18 PM

Rather than "keeping their hands off things" policymakers need to put a floor under the price consumers pay for energy through the use of increased energy taxes (ideally phased in gradually and slowly to take account of current economic conditions). Alternatively, we can continue to enjoy more of the highly disruptive, economically ruinous, periodic energy shocks that accompany energy price volatility.

Huh? Energy price volatility is a matter of supply, demand, speculation and other market factors. Increasing energy taxes won't eliminate those factors, it'll just make energy more expensive.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 5:27 PM

Mass transit has already declined to a pathetic 1% of total passenger-miles.

Not a particularly useful metric. You'd most likely get much different results by simply asking people what transport mode gets them to work. Naturally the passenger-miles metric favors the automobile, because the fools in the exurbs of Columbus and Atlanta (you know, the people with the 150 mile round trip commutes) drive to work in their Explorers. The huddles masses taking the bus or subway from their city neighborhoods to their downtown offices have much shorter commutes. The point is, a non-trivial share of Americans -- certainly far higher than the one percentage point figure frequently touted by Mixner -- opts for public transportation to get to work and school. And public transportation systems nationwide are seeing a boom in ridership far in excess of population growth, so, contrary to Mixner's absurd rantings, transit's share of the America's commute looks certain to grow.

Posted by Cherrypixner | July 16, 2008 5:30 PM

Right: Individuals (in the aggregate), left to their own devices, will come to the right conclusion.

Curious how that doesn't apply for Jim-Bob Pisspants when it comes to Iraq, no? For that, he's a fan of our-government-knows-best.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 16, 2008 5:41 PM

Huh? Energy price volatility is a matter of supply, demand, speculation and other market factors. Increasing energy taxes won't eliminate those factors, it'll just make energy more expensive.

Um, Mixner, obviously an increase in the percentage of the consumer price of a gallon of gasoline that goes to the government (as opposed to Harry's Texaco or ExxonMobil, Inc.) will reduce price volatility. Do you really not understand why this is so? Or, to put it another way, the price of gas has doubled for most Americans in the last xyz months. It hasn't for the Dutch. Now do you get it?

Posted by Quintal | July 16, 2008 5:43 PM

Question: When did you stop believing in democracy and free enterprise?

I didn't. However, in order to function properly, democracy requires an informed electorate and free enterprise requires educated consumers. That is not what you find in America today. Big problems, like a war or global warming or oil dependence are not things the market alone can address even if everybody was up to speed. The market, which is not really 'free' in the sense most people think it is, is an important tool. But somebody has to wield it. That somebody is supposed to be the American people in the guise of the representative government we elect. The problem is that the government is a little too representative of the American people, who believe a great many curious things for no particular reason.

Most curious to my mind is how short term payoffs should be the long term investment strategy regarding our capital resources. Granting oil vouchers, building more highways to relieve congestion, crossing fingers in hope technical advances will keep the party going, and other suggestions one hears from the right seem less sound than diversifying and solidifying public infrastructure. Leaving matters overmuch in the hands of our Corporate Suburban Golfer Brigade is having an effect almost too painfully obvious to point out right now and global warming, oil addiction, etc... scare me much more than the Banking Shenanigans Crisis. Enough with band aids and faith in the market. Faith is for children and the dying.

Posted by RoboticGhost | July 16, 2008 5:44 PM

Cherrypixner,

Not a particularly useful metric.

Why not? What "more useful" alternate metric do you propose, and why do you consider it more useful?

You'd most likely get much different results by simply asking people what transport mode gets them to work.

For commuting, transit's market share is about 5%. Are we to understand you're concerned only about commuting, and that you don't really care about driving vs. mass transit for any other type of travel? If not, then obviously you need to consider non-commute trips as well as commutes.

Naturally the passenger-miles metric favors the automobile, because the fools in the exurbs of Columbus and Atlanta (you know, the people with the 150 mile round trip commutes) drive to work in their Explorers.

Er, only a tiny fraction of commuters have such long commutes. Are you proposing to replace those drives with 150 mile round-trip commutes by bus or train?

The huddles masses taking the bus or subway from their city neighborhoods to their downtown offices have much shorter commutes. The point is, a non-trivial share of Americans -- certainly far higher than the one percentage point figure frequently touted by Mixner -- opts for public transportation to get to work and school.

Those "huddles masses" are a tiny, and falling, fraction of all commuters. People and jobs are moving out of cities and into suburbs. And if these "masses" of city-dwellers already have short commutes and convenient transit options, they obviously don't represent a large unsatisfied demand for transit that would justify large-scale spending on more transit.

And public transportation systems nationwide are seeing a boom in ridership far in excess of population growth, so, contrary to Mixner's absurd rantings, transit's share of the America's commute looks certain to grow.

No, a few public transportation systems have experienced recent increases in ridership in response to the recent rapid increase in gas prices. These increases represent only a minuscule fraction of all travel. Transit authorities, faced with rising fuel costs of their own, are struggling to meet this increased demand, and are raising ticket prices and cutting back services to try and cope. Meanwhile, demand for more fuel-efficient cars is also surging. Toyota can't make Prius's fast enough for the people lining up to buy them. As people transition to more fuel-efficient cars, their incentive to switch from driving to using transit, or to continue to use transit rather than switch back to driving, diminishes.

Posted by Cherrypixner is a moron | July 16, 2008 6:03 PM

Um, Mixner, obviously an increase in the percentage of the consumer price of a gallon of gasoline that goes to the government (as opposed to Harry's Texaco or ExxonMobil, Inc.) will reduce price volatility.

Um, it may reduce price volatility measured as a share of price but not measured as a monetary change of price. And the costs of economic disruption resulting from the higher total energy cost caused by the increased tax may obviously exceed any benefit it may produce from reducing volatility measured as share of price. How's Britain doing with its $9/gallon gas?

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 6:18 PM

"Quintal"

Or, to put it another way, the price of gas has doubled for most Americans in the last xyz months. It hasn't for the Dutch. Now do you get it?

Er, since the price of gas doubled for Americans, it has almost doubled for the Dutch too. And the monetary price of gas for the Dutch has increased by almost twice as much as it has for Americans. As of Monday, Americans were paying $4.34 for a gallon of gas. This is double what they were paying in March 2005. The dollar increase is about $2.17. Over the same period, the price of gas in the Netherlands increased from $6.38 to $10.16. That's an increase of $3.78.

Perhaps you would rather pay an extra $3.78 instead of an extra $2.17, but I doubt most people would.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 6:35 PM

Leaving matters overmuch in the hands of our Corporate Suburban Golfer Brigade is having an effect almost too painfully obvious to point out right now and global warming, oil addiction, etc...

I disagree. The free market is especially suited for dealing with these issues. The more complex the issue, the more you should respect (not have faith in) the workings of the market.

Among the very best applications of the free market is to knowledge. The people aren't as stupid as you claim they are. However, education is not an instaneous process. Al Gore keeps declaring the debate on global warming to be over, but the public wants to hear more. They are naturally skeptical, not stupid. But instead of addressing objections to the theory forthrightly, the environmental movement gives lectures that sound suspiciously circular in their logic. I'm personally persuaded, but my head hits the desk when I hear the patronizing rhetoric from environmentalists that substitutes for argument.

That said, the public is more than ready to embrace an environmental imperitive when they are properly convinced. The evidence of that is everywhere you shop and in the proliferation of recycling opportunities. We don't need a green dictator. We need smarter environmentalists.

Posted by Vail Beach | July 16, 2008 6:47 PM

roboticghost,

Granting oil vouchers, building more highways to relieve congestion, crossing fingers in hope technical advances will keep the party going, and other suggestions one hears from the right seem less sound than diversifying and solidifying public infrastructure.

As you have already been informed numerous times:

1. The potential benefits in reduced energy consumption and reduced pollution through a shift from cars to mass transit would be at best small and probably non-existent or negative. Even today, transit buses are less energy efficient than cars, and transit rail is only moderately more energy efficient. The typical car of 10 or 20 years from now will most likely be more energy efficient than both buses and trains.

2. All the low-hanging fruit for transit has already been picked. The old-style cities with high population densities and compact central business districts and retail developments that are most conducive to transit (e.g., New York, Chicago, Boston) already have extensive transit systems. Trying to provide transit systems of remotely comparable benefits in new, sprawling, decentralized cities where most of the nation's population growth is occurring (e.g., Los Angeles, Phoenix, Houston, Las Vegas) is not remotely feasible practically or economically.

3. The long-standing trend is towards greater sprawl and decentralization of homes, jobs and infrastructure. Old-style, transit-oriented cities continue to lose population. New-style, car-oriented cities continue to gain population. More and more jobs are moving from cities to suburbs. More and more people are telecommuting. More and more shopping and dining is moving from city centers to suburban malls. These trends all favor more car travel and less transit travel.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 7:13 PM

K-Lo hath the manner of a big fat tool. Methinks her numerous and noxious farts verily corrode the fabric of her sagging desk-chair.

Truly, not a soul would look askance if Rush should faint of a surfeit of Oxycontin, but K-Lo should shave her blockish head and hold forth in his stead.

Posted by St. Thomas Aquinas | July 17, 2008 1:58 AM

The long-standing trend is towards greater sprawl and decentralization of homes, jobs and infrastructure./i>

Yes, fifty years must seem like a very long time to those still living with their parents. American sprawl: yet another thing younger than John McCain.

Posted by not a fool with an inbred underbite | July 17, 2008 3:10 AM

Your support for public policies to increase the energy efficiency of cars is clearly at odds with your desire for a large-scale shift from driving to using mass transit.

Shorter Mixner: as a good conservative I usually hate good ideas, but I always hate two good ideas that work hand-in-hand.

Posted by seeker6079 | July 17, 2008 6:46 AM

Seeker,

You really can't see that when the energy efficiency of cars increases, people will have an INCENTIVE to drive more and use mass transit less?

This isn't about being conservative or not, as much as you want it to bring that into it.

Posted by AndrewF | July 17, 2008 7:21 PM