Whom The SUV’s Help
posted by Frank Pasquale
I was recently listening to a podcast of Peter Singer at the University of Chicago Law School. He recounted a story about a 2001 press conference with Ari Fleischer, where the President’s spokesman was asked if the administration would ask Americans to “change lifestyles” in order to conserve. Here’s the answer:
That’s a big no. The President believes that it’s an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one.
Now the blessings of our liberty are subsidizing some of the most repressive regimes on the planet:
[About] $700 billion a year are flowing to the world’s oil-exporting countries [due to recent price rises]. Two of those nations — Iran and Venezuela — may be better able to defy the Bush administration because of swelling oil revenue. . . . .Russia, the world’s No. 2 oil exporter . . . . is trying to reclaim former Soviet republics as part of its sphere of influence. Freed of the need to curry favor with foreign oil companies and Western bankers, Russia can resist what it views as American expansionism.
Might the great oil wealth redistribution lead to the end of knee-jerk libertarian defenses of SUV’s? Or is there some Schumpeterian “creative destruction” story to be told here, whereby the short-run costs speed the development of transformational energy technologies? I’ll believe the latter story when I see real venture capital money behind it.
Photo Credit: Hugo Chavez, Dictator of the Month.
November 10, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Posted in: Economic Analysis of Law, Environmental Law
Print This Post
Responses (9)
Maryland Conservatarian - November 10, 2007 at 1:55 pm
“Or is there some Schumpeterian “creative destruction” story to be told here, whereby the short-run costs speed the development of transformational energy technologies? I’ll believe the latter story when I see real venture capital money behind it.”
…that mirrors my sentiment that I’ll be more impressed with all the liberals/progressives and their incessant call for a more socialized health-care system when they quit what they’re doing, go back to school, study medecine and then provide said health care at a price we can all afford.
…and thanks for your reference to Joseph Schumpeter – he and Milton Friedman are the two greatest economists of our times; that Keynes is more widely known than Schumpeter is a disgrace
KipEsquire - November 10, 2007 at 2:23 pm
So let me get this straight: Much of the world’s oil is controlled by nations with radically anti-libertarian governments, most of which were in large part created or supported, intentionally or negligently, by our own anti-libertarian policies and which implement and exploit anti-libertarian barriers to freely competitive markets to enrich themselves.
And all of this is, somehow, the libertarians’ fault?
Real lawyerly thinking there.
Frank - November 10, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Kip, the libertarian fault here is to advocate letting everyone buy as big a car as they want, without internalizing reasonably foreseeable externalities. Anyone who’s serious about curbing authoritarian petrocracies has to acknowledge that it was anti-regulatory policies that let SUV’s become such a dominant part of the US auto-fleet. Keith Bradsher’s book High and Mighty tells the whole story.
Moreover, as I’ve frequently blogged here, the rise of bigger cars on the road is not something that can be combatted by “changing norms” or persuasion. As more people get SUV’s, the remaining cars are more vulnerable. It’s an arms race.
mutakhalef - November 10, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Thanks for this post, but this isn’t news, right? We’ve been externalizing the costs of our lifestyle for a long time and cry foul when the externalities come home to roost. And, is the Chavez regime really one of the most repressive on the planet? He’s no democrat, but Venezuela might have avoided him by spreading their wealth a bit more equitably.
Frank - November 10, 2007 at 3:39 pm
mutakhalef: i suppose it is old news, but Singer’s talk really put the extent of the problem in perspective in an interesting way.
As for Chavez; here’s a nonpartisan take:
http://onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/05/18/05
Maryland Conservatarian - November 10, 2007 at 5:04 pm
“Moreover, as I’ve frequently blogged here, the rise of bigger cars on the road is not something that can be combatted by “changing norms” or persuasion.”
I’ve long believed that the Left is willing to give the general populace a chance to be persuaded to do the right thing but only up to a point; if the unwashed don’t take the hint and see the wisdom of a certain policy – as defined by the progressives among us – then the correct policy will just have be imposed….ahh the mantra of the Left: “Trust us – we know what’s best for you”
mutakhalef - November 10, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Frank, thanks for your response. I will have to listen to Singer. I did hear the On the Media report on Chavez when it came out. I think it paints a complicated picture of his regime/presidency and the points of power in Venezuela. I do not want to be an apologist for him as many on the left are — and I am wary of populism — but I think it’s a similar mistake to dismiss him without accounting for his appeal and the real needs this appeal is related to.
Brian Miller - November 11, 2007 at 12:23 am
the libertarian fault here is to advocate letting everyone buy as big a car as they want
Actually, this is hilarious.
The entire problem we have, with relation to oil, is not a libertarian problem, but a socialist one.
One reason why large cars sell well is, well, people want safe vehicles.
Socialists have long advocated “safety regulations” and “emissions regulations” that are in conflict with each other. On one hand, they want cars that one can drive at 65 MPH into a concrete wall, after flipping it several times down a steep bank, and walk away from without even a sprain.
That requires lots of airbags, crumple zones, safety systems, bigger brakes, etc. — which add weight. Lots of weight.
On the other hand, they also want cars that get 85 miles per gallon. Which cannot generally be done without taking weight *away.*
At the same time, they want cars that are “family cars” and that accomodate the average 4 to 6 person family.
So basically, the left has been demanding that the laws of physics be broken — cars that are super rugged, spacious and capable of carrying a family around, yet are also small and fuel efficient.
It doesn’t work that way.
You have a few options:
1) Large cars that are safe — like SUVs and minivans — which get 20 to 25 MPG.
2) Small cars that do poorly in high-speed crashes — yet get great mileage — like most compact cars on the market.
3) Medium cars that aren’t spacious enough, aren’t powerful enough, and that have middling safety regulations that get middling mileage (most cars out there today).
4) Spacious large and light cars with lots of space, great mileage, and poor safety.
The problem isn’t that libertarians have advocated “letting people buy the cars they want” — it’s rather that socialists such as yourselves are demanding the physically impossible.
Cars that are small and fuel efficient are, by design, less safe in a collision. And surprisingly enough, people don’t want less safe vehicles. They’re willing to pay a fuel premium for safety.
The only way you can get people to buy unsafe smaller cars is to force them into it — and your whole justification then becomes “your safety and that of your family will simply have to give way to my political agenda.” Not surprisingly, that message isn’t going to sell.
Frank - November 11, 2007 at 8:19 am
Brian, I will find your argument convincing if you can show me the people in Europe have somehow been coerced into accepting less safety. Is their safety on the road really being sacrificed by CAFE-like standards?
Here are some more stats on the safety risks imposed by SUV’s:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/07/rest_of_rf_seri.html
There is dispute on the point, but some say that they don’t add to their own driver’s safety at all–they just constitute a menace to others.
Leave a Reply