For once I agree with Bush...
...however I don't think he was being completely honest with the statement that I agree with. During his State of the Union, Bush talked about the United States being dependent on Middle East oil. This statement, in principle, is pretty much correct. However, he doesn't really propose a reasonable solution besides drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWaR). So here is my thought on a possible solution. I do realize, however, that there are major issues with my solution as well, and hope that I will get some opinions on this idea.
I was thinking about some type of rationing program for gas. Hear me out before you tear it apart. What if we could limit the amount of gas a person could use every month? The government could set some semi-arbitrary amount based on average gas consumption and then create some type of card system where you had to swipe the card before operating the pump. I think this could force some people to make some decisions about how they use fuel. For example, owners of cars that have bad gas mileage would have to control their usage. Maybe they would have to get a new car that uses less gas. This, I think, would mostly effect people that could actually afford gas-guzzling SUVs like Excursions. Also, some may have to turn towards public transportation. If the number was set so that people with short commutes (30 miles or less) could still fit in under the ration as long as they weren't driving ecologically unfriendly cars. Maybe you could buy gas past the ration limit, but with a huge tax added that would go towards improving public transportation.
Problems?
Well, I think people might say that there are some pretty serious technological requirements to carry this out, but they were able to ration during WWII and that was over 60 years ago. I would like to think that we could conquer this issue.
Are we invading people's rights by limiting their ability to buy gas? I argue no. The government has the right to regulate commerce and, although I think it stretched the power, I think it is possible. State and federal governments already regulate fuel through taxes and emissions regulations.
Wouldn't this limit large families who need large cars? Sure, but they could be compensated through tax credits or something like that.
Wouldn't this create some kind of black market on the ration cards? Yeah, I really don't know about this one.
How would you decide who gets the ration? Maybe per car. Not per person since this may not limit actual usage. However, they figured this out in WWII as well, so there must be a solution.
In any case, this is just a random thought that I was having and would love to hear other people's thoughts on the issue.
I will argue that Bush really does not want us to cut usage, but just wants more profits to his oil buddies. I don't think his solution would at all be considerate of the environment except by coincidence. Without oil problems I don't think we care about the middle east so much. There are similar issues with democracy in Africa, and I think nuclear weapons are a farce as an issue. We don't complain about India or Israel or France having nukes. I know Iran is considered a greater threat, but is it really fair to say that some countries get to use nuclear power and others do not? I don't know. This is where I go a little further left than usual, but it seems clear to me that some rules apply to only countries that we do not agree with politically.
Yeah, so there it is. Just a Tuesday rant I guess.
Posts
3 comments:
I actually meant to talk about commerce. My idea would be to allow companies to apply for special cards that give them a higher allowance. This could also involve the buying and selling of rations much like the buying and selling of pollution rights. Realistically this should be far less complicated than the current tax system.
Its such an easy answer to force car companies to raise MPG standards. Whats the downside? I guess you wouldn't get to own the new H3 that gets 7 mpg? I agreed with Bush as well when he talked about energy independence through alternative fuels, but its too little too late. After 9/11 Bush had a golden opportunity to win the hearts and minds of Americans by saying that with a little hard work, we'd be energy independent and out of the Saudis pockets in 10 years. Like Kennedy did with the moon. Its an old argument I know but a valid one I think. The billions of dollars we've sunk into the Iraq war could have gone to research into alternative fuels. And better public transportation systems. We CAN be energy independent we are just so obsessed with what we drive taht we don't have the will to change. Alternative fuels are coming either way, when the oil runs out, and it will, the only way to avoid World War III will be alternative fuels sources.
And yes, when you have a country full of people that riot and burn things over cartoons in a newspaper, you have the right to say "no nukes for you!". This is where I swing right. I think if I were president, the minute the Iranians removed the cameras from thier nuclear plant, i would have gone on TV and told them to get everyone out of the plant because the f-16's are on thier way. Who would stop us? Oh but wait, we can't piss off the saudi's because I want my H3!
"After 9/11 Bush had a golden opportunity to win the hearts and minds of Americans by saying that with a little hard work, we'd be energy independent and out of the Saudis pockets in 10 years."
That is assuming that Bush and his family weren't best friends with the Saudi royal family, which they were.
Post a Comment