It's the Consumption

CNN.com posed a question to readers yesterday: "As gas prices soar higher and higher, Washington has rolled out a number of proposals to ease the pain at the pump: a $100 rebate check, delaying deposits to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, increased fuel efficiency, alternative fuel research and more. What do you think the U.S. should do to address the problem, both immediately and down the road?" This morning, while reading yesterday's responses, I observed that however well meaning and intentioned the comments were, not one person was suggesting that our voracious appetites might need to be curbed. That perhaps it's a drastic change in lifestyle that is merited.

So I fired off a response. But as soon as I pushed the send button, CNN changed their daily focus and I've yet to see where today's responses ended up. So I'm posting my response here.

What should the U.S. do to address the problem? We should be strongly encouraged to change the way we live. To make a lighter footprint on the planet. But hey, that would hurt the economy. Better to go shopping or fly to Disney World and keep believing that there will always be enough resources, crude or otherwise, to satiate our increasing appetites.

For instance, many well meaning people believe that ethanol is the answer.
But according to Wikipedia:

"Today the US Gas usage is approximately 360,000,000 U.S. gallons per day. 28.8% of the US surface area (~ 685,000,000 acres) would be required to grow the biomass required to produce enough ethanol to cover current domestic US gas demand. The US currently has 455,000,000 acres of arable land. There are currently about 80 million acres of corn planted in the US (~40% of the world's supply)."

(So...to support our 360 million gallons a day habit with ethanol, it'd take 685 million acres--almost 30% of total US surface area--of our arable land. And we only have 455 million.)

A $100 rebate check (attached to a bill that would open up drilling in ANWR) is asinine. Yes, increased fuel efficiency (technology that already exists and is in wide use in Europe but is discouraged here) and research into alternatives is important and necessary. But more importantly, we need to change the way we live.

Regime change, yes. But which one?

Let's use a few nuclear weapons to smash yet another country and her people, ostensibly to keep them from being able to use nuclear weapons, ostensibly to keep the world safe from nuclear threats and a potential new "Hitler"...

When are we, in this country, going to acknowledge the absurdity and threat to the world--and ourselves-- that our government has become... and rise up and overthrow it?

The Iran Plans
Seymour M. Hersh--The New Yorker

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”