LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.Best Political Blog Winner, 2007 Webby Awards, People's Voice and Jury.   Dateline: Iraq - Anna Badkhen and Sarah Stillman on Assignment
 
May 18, 2008
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Reports

Arts & Culture

Digs
Inside the Data Mine

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Truthdig Bazaar
Ravens in the Storm

Ravens in the Storm

By Carl Oglesby
$16.50

more items

 
Reports

Climbing Out of the Oil Ditch

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Dec 11, 2007

By Marie Cocco

WASHINGTON—In 1975, we were “born to run” in more fuel-efficient cars, using supposedly much less gas than Bruce Springsteen’s archetypal adolescents did during their chrome-wheeled, fuel-injected escapes from the working-class towns he sang of on his mega-hit album that year.

The elongated Chevys of Springsteen’s lyrics are mostly gone from the roads, but the 1975 fuel-economy standards set by a Congress that was reeling from the political and economic fallout caused by the 1973 OPEC oil embargo remain. Little, if anything, about American life has remained unchanged over the past 32 years, except that we now use many more gallons of gasoline to drive larger SUVs and travel longer distances to work, while heating and cooling expansive new homes.

Still, the old fuel-economy standards lived on, protected by the auto industry, its unions and the oil industry, in obstinate partnership with their allies in Congress. But two signal political developments this year have changed the dangerous myopia that refused to acknowledge the environmental and national security threats from our unquenchable thirst for oil.

First was the election of a Democratic Congress, especially the turnover in the House, which brought younger lawmakers to office. To them, global warming is no unproved theory. It is a generational cause. They also came to political maturity as the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Iraq war ripped away the blinders—or should have—that for too long kept the nation oblivious to the security threat from overdependence on foreign oil.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Californian as attuned to the environmental threat as those who previously ran the House were to the pleadings of the energy industry, considers global warming to be a defining issue. In a remarkable display of political spine and tactical expertise, she finally forced Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., the longest-serving member of the House and the most ardent protector of the auto industry, to accept reality and vote for a tough, comprehensive energy measure that included raising the corporate average fuel economy standards (CAFE) from an average of 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

The second stunning political turn came at the White House, when President Bush announced he would back some version of higher fuel-economy standards. Only the Senate still seems comfortable in its role as an impediment to necessity. There, Republicans last week mustered enough votes to block the House energy measure from passage.

Yet remarkably, no one is willing to pronounce that we have taken another turn onto the dead-end street of outmoded energy policy. The consensus instead is that those aspects of the legislation Republicans find most objectionable—naturally, a rollback of tax breaks for the oil industry is among these—may be stripped out.

The giant leap that’s taken 32 years to prepare for, the tougher fuel-economy standards, may well pass on its own and even be signed into law by a president who has until now rejected both facts and common sense on climate change and energy policy.

“This would be a groundbreaking thing for the Congress to do,” says Michelle Robinson, director of the clean vehicles program for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Her organization estimates that raising the CAFE standards to 35 miles per gallon would save 1.2 million barrels of oil per day, or about half of what the United States now imports from Persian Gulf countries. “We all now look back on 1975 as a watershed moment. If we get this through Congress and Bush puts his signature on it, I think we’ll look back on this and see it as a really important step for the country.”

Well, at least a crucial first baby step. Former Vice President Al Gore, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on Monday for his insistent preaching about the danger of global warming, called upon the world to act with “the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war.” Gore, once a senator himself, knows too well that the chamber rarely rouses itself to such a pace. Its languor is most acute when it considers those topics on which the public good is measured against pressure from industry lobbyists and campaign donors.

The most we can expect from an energy bill is a belated acknowledgment that three decades are too long to stick with a mileage standard that drives us deeper into a ditch. Honestly, beginning the climb out would be quite good enough. 

Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at)washpost.com.

© 2007, Washington Post Writers Group

Jump to Comments

Advertisement


Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By bill jones, December 13, 2007 at 2:14 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

"the security threat from overdependence

“the security threat from overdependence on foreign oil”

Countries like Switzerland and Sweden don’t have a security threat “from overdependence on foreign oil”
it’s an economic problem. Nor does the U.S. The security threat comes from U.S. foreign policy designed to steal foreign oil.

Reply to this | Report this

By Howard, December 12, 2007 at 7:53 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

tax breaks to home builders... 30

tax breaks to home builders…
30 years ago I built a solar heated home, 680 sq ft of collectors in a roof pitched at 60 degrees. It worked. I built everystick of it myself. When it was finished I applied for the solar credits the govt told us we would be elegible for. I was told, by the govt that since I had done all the construction myself that I wasn’t elegible. In other words, if there wasn’t a middle man to make a profit you just wasted your time. As an aside to all this...it worked and worked damned good...until a tornado took it all off.

Reply to this | Report this

By SamSnedegar, December 11, 2007 at 11:23 pm #
(155 comments total)

I would have backed banning

I would have backed banning private automobiles long ago, but we are almost there anyway because owning, driving, gassing, maintaining, and insuring a car today is too expensive for most of us even as we refuse to admit it and go deeper into debt to keep on driving.

It won’t be long before this is all academic to the ordinary people of America because we will be spending what money we have on guns with which to steal enough to eat, and if we ever have a car, it will be one we hijack at the muzzle of our guns, and we won’t be using the car for pleasure, just for getting where there is food to steal.

Don’t look for politicians to “solve” any problems we will have, because they won’t and cannot. Our country, our states, our cities, and our families all are spending more than they take in, and just how long do you think that can keep up?

I’m glad I’m old and will die soon; I had the best world ever in my day, and now I am seeing the results of profligacy and stupidity, and I am far too cynical to suppose that there even could be a reversal, let alone one in time for me to take advantage of it before I go.

Reply to this | Report this

By Enemy of State, December 11, 2007 at 6:59 pm #
(183 comments total)

The very timid CAFE increase

The very timid CAFE increase could still not happen. The public has been sold not only on cars that are much bigger than necessary, but that motoring is for thrills, not transportation. Quite a bit of very successful marketing must be undone before we can change our wasteful ways.

If you are interested in PeakOil the folks over at the OilDrum have a pretty good blog on it:
http://www.theoildrum.com
They’ve been trying to spread the word for years.

mary: I’m at a bit of a loss as to what a “hot water holding tank” is, care to full me in?

I’m of mixed opinion about WalMart. They are trying to push energy efficiency (beyond stupid solar powered signs). Whether it be for the right reasons, or simple greenwashing, they are in a position to force positive change on the economy. I had read a couple of months back that they were going to start requiring their major suppliers to submit carbon audits. And if we can get them to sell only energy efficient appliances, rather than simply cheap junky ones a serious improvement in energy efficiency could happen. (btw: I still don’t like them, and rarely set foot in one).

Reply to this | Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, December 11, 2007 at 4:11 pm #
(2932 comments total)

Quote: "...global warming is no

Quote: “...global warming is no unproved theory. It is a generational cause....”

The answer is public transport. Fix some other problems as well and it will be safe and convenient to use, too, uhh.

Reply to this | Report this

By jackpine savage, December 11, 2007 at 9:19 am #
(704 comments total)

Although fuel injection has been

Although fuel injection has been around since the earliest days of the internal combustion engine, it did not have widespread adoption by American manufacturers until the late 1970’s, partly in response to emission standards of 1975.  But that’s besides the point, Ms. Cocco’s thesis is not harmed by the fact, and it does sound better than “carburetted escapes”.

Sorry, i guess you can take the boy out of Detroit, but you can’t take Detroit out of the boy.

35 mpg by 2020 is a step in the right direction, but it is still a load of foot dragging hogwash.  The automotive industry is horizontally integrated to the extreme.  Part bins are shared across the globe, and if you strip away the outside, a great many cars made by different companies are actually the same basic components.  So if cars made for Europe and Japan/Korea can achieve high mileage, so can American cars.

All of the technology exists already, and a four cylinder Toyota Camry already breaks the 35 mpg rating.  The auto companies cry that the consumer wants power, but even that need not be sacrificed.  The Wankel cycle works well, loses less energy to mechanical drain, and has fewer components (and has lately been improved); Mazda can generate 190 bhp from a 1.3 liter engine...drive nice, sip gas; push the pedal down, go like hell.  Subaru uses horizontal opposition, which means less energy wasted fighting gravity.  And a production diesel Jaguar can do the Nurburgring in under 10 minutes. 

There is no reason why every massive truck that we love so much should not be diesel (and all diesel engines can be run on bio-diesel, as that was the intent of Mr. Diesel).  And most family sedans could be as well.  The Big Three have a host of other options at their fingertips, they choose not to employ them.

It turns out that what was good for GM was not good for the nation, or even GM over the long-term.  Both are in roughly the same shape for roughly the same reasons.  But the nation is giving GM another 13 years to accomplish something it can already do, and if it would have done it a long time ago, it wouldn’t be second best to Toyota today.

Reply to this | Report this

By rudyspeaks, December 11, 2007 at 8:59 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Missing point: The people who

Missing point: The people who make policy (the energy companies) don’t care how much or little oil we get from the Middle East, they simply want CONTROL of all of it.  Morris Berman’s “Dark Ages America” gives a concise 100 years history of our dealings there, Greg Palast has limned how Iraqi oil is targetted by these corp.s to stay in the ground. America’s mandated MPG, while worthwhile for global warming, pollution and $ savings should never be confused with why we’re in the Middle East

Reply to this | Report this

By G.Anderson, December 11, 2007 at 7:53 am #
(249 comments total)

Few people in America seem

Few people in America seem to understand that the days of oil are over. The concept of peak oil is not well known by many, but when we reach peak oil in another year or two it will be obvious, that not only the end of the automobile is near, but that our world is undergoing a profound change.

Prices for gas will never go down and quite soon they will reach the level that Europeans pay, and could go as high as $7.50 per gallon.

Cities like Los Angeles cannot exist under those conditions.

Even today, people in the west are having to decide between gas to get to work or food to feed their families.

There are several good articles on Peak oil I suggest that everyone read them to prepare themselves for the future.

Reply to this | Report this

By mary, December 11, 2007 at 5:47 am #
(197 comments total)

There are many changes we,

There are many changes we, the average person, must do to curb our lust for oil-based products, not just fuel efficient vehicles.  Let’s start by getting rid of those awful plastic grocery bags.  How about eliminating hot water holding tanks, and convert homes from oil heat.  And the biggest bang of all, stop spending your hard earned dollars at Wal-Mart. I can only imagine how much less oil we would use just by closing down these huge energy-sucking buildings with all their china made goods.  You would be surprized how easy it gets once you make the effort to avoid this store.  Instead of tax breaks to the oil companies, how about tax breaks to home builders for developing energy-free homes.  As voters, the only way we will see any change will be when we demand our legislators change our energy policy.  This should be the most important security issue of our time…

Reply to this | Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!






Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox

Privacy Policy

 
Click here to advertise with Truthdig
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
Robert Scheer's new book offers first-hand insight into the presidential mind
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.