I little while back I made a tiny off-hand reference to liking high gas prices, the comment was mentioned by my pastor, I then mentioned it to Mel, who then mentioned it to Gustave, and this was his response:
Dear Ariah,
I was talking to Melissa and she mentioned something offhand to me. She said you think high gas prices are good in that they will help change patterns of American consumption. I am not sure what your whole position is. It was something about a conversation with your pastor.
However, I get riled about gas and energy prices. Perhaps 3 dollar gas will make people get out of their SUV. More likely though, it hurts people without much money. I live in Wheaton. Most people eat the higher cost of gas. However, the refugees I work for have to often choose between gas and clothes or healthier food or the doctor bill. There is no public transit here and commutes often take 30 to 40 minutes. There is no lifestyle change that will help them. Not everyone can just up and move to the city or live closer to work. Not everyone can drive less. Some people can. Many cannot and have to pay the price of high gasoline very dearly.
Another aspect of high gas prices is that it benefits countries who are oil rich. THose are fun places like Sundan, Iran, Venezuela and Russia. None of them are very nice. High oil prices help Putin consolidate autocratic power, help the President of Iran pursue nukes, fuel conflict in SUdan, and let Chavez talk about being the next Castro. The global effects of high gas prices have horrible effects on the freedoms of millions of people as leaders that are not very nice are flush with cash.
High gas prices in the US also act as a tax. They limit economic growth. Money spent on other things now goes to gas. That means less vacations, fewer purcheses, less charitible giving. All these things affect the job market and can cause economic downswings. Who gets laid off when the economy suffers, not the rich guys. Prices for all goods go up as well because transporting them costs more. So everyone pays more for potatoes and milk. High energy prices also lead to infliation and inflation always hurts the poorest the most.
I see little good in high gas prices. Sure it means some people will consume less…maybe. Sure it spurs on R and D for renewable and clean energy (something I support completely). However, the drawbacks in my mind far outweigh the benefits. Anyone who says otherwise has failed to see the human cost and geopolitical nightmare that high gas prices and high oil prices cause. I am not sure what you think about all this, but high oil really gets me going.
Gustave
I thought everything Goose shared was excellent. I’ll post my response in a little bit, but I figured I should keep them seperate since what he said was worth sitting and thinking on.
I like high gas prices, too.
There are any number of ways to make progress in this country on a variety of issues. Invariably, however, these moves toward progress are hampered (at least in “progressive” circles) by the idea that progress is somehow hurting the poor. I don’t dispute that high gas prices adversely affect a poor person more than they adversely affect a rich person. That is unfortunate, but maybe a solution could be proposed to help poor people adapt to the new reality. Remember that high gas prices are a reality, not the result of some transient political arrangement, amenable to democratic will in the next election.
Everybody has choices. This is as true of poor people as it is of rich people. Where I live, a lot of poor people decided driving was too expensive many years ago, and many take the bus. I used to live somewhere where there was no bus, and people somehow got by, even the poor people. I have decided to accept the fact that poor people often will get the short end of the stick, and that this is unfortunate and we should do what we can to mitigate their disadvantage. Why the relative disadvantage of poor people is an argument for maintaining the status quo, I’ll never understand. Will higher gas prices squeeze the poor? Of course, but they’re being squeezed now. They’ve been squeezed forever, and will be squeezed on into the future. The current system isn’t good for poor people, and future systems won’t be any better, and probably not any worse. But we mustn’t lose our perspective. Getting off oil dependency is a good thing, a necessary thing, an urgent thing. High prices will help people see a motivation for making this positive step. Usually rich people set trends, with lower socioeconomic classes following. In this case, by necessity, the poor will become the trendsetters for once.
For two years, I commuted by bicycle 10 miles each way (now I live/work close enough to walk). Many people I’ve met believe that riding a bicycle this far is an act of superhuman strength. But, when you see me, you will see that is not the case, as I am nothing if not average. Unfortunately, the widespread use of the automobile for trips of less than 10 miles has made us believe that an automobile is necessary. It isn’t. How many poor people are scraping by in some beater car driving 10 miles or less to work? For the price of a beater car and the cost of operating and maintaining it, a great bicycle can be had, and those 10 miles of beater car uncertainty can be a thing of the past. As for those who live 30-40 miles/minutes from work… Anybody, rich or poor, who lives more than biking distance from work, excuse me, is living a life of splendid luxury, far beyond our collective means. It is only a matter of time before such arrangements will become impossible for everybody, whether we like it or not.
Jim,
I really appreciate your thoughts, I think you shared some important things and I think they are things that need to be addressed. I like what you wrote in your blog post about this too as you point out the need to not try and put a band-aid on the issue but rather start making some structural changes.
I agree by the worlds standards even many of the poor year live in a bit of luxury, but before you and I get on our pedestals because we bike to work, let’s acknowledge some things.
The poor don’t have as much freedom of choice in this society as you or I might. The commute to work is not something they have much say over because there are only certain places one can afford to live and certain places one can manage to get a job at. There isn’t the luxury of spending time picking and choosing a career, and there isn’t the finances to pick up and switch living spaces. I completely agree these are the things that need to be addressed, but they aren’t simple lifestyle changes, there are some structural things like affordable housing that need to be dealt with.
It is so much not as simple as “they can just ride a bike like me,” and “you’re being squeezed already, so what’s one more squeeze?” – frankly, that’s appalling.
Now, the idea that some good could come of gas prices – that’s worth considering. Dismissing the bad that comes of it – that’s just too common. Just who is going to help these folks “adapt to a new reality?” Well, now, that doesn’t matter, does it? THey’re already being squeezed…
… so a kid isn’t going to get adopted by my friend because she really can’t afford it *and* gas. If she rides those ten miles here and there, that’s serious time she’s not at home when she has to be for the kiddos. Oh, but it’s just being squeezed a little more.
Sue,
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts, I totally agree with what your sharing.
Thanks for your wisdom.
Sue,
I think you may be misreading what I’ve written. My main point is that all of us, rich, poor, or in the middle need to adapt to the reality of higher and higher gas prices, and, eventually, gas that is unavailable at any price on an increasingly frequent basis. This is the reality, and it isn’t something we can easily change, say, by electing different politicians. Obviously, the poor are going to be the first to feel the pains of these changes. Is the best approach to somehow enable the poor to keep on motoring, even though we know it is unsustainable and expensive, or should we try to give these most vulnerable citizens a helping hand to adapt to the situation at hand? Those of us who aren’t poor will generally have an easier time adapting, which is why I suggest helping the poor “adapt to a new reality”. In a sense, the difference between subsidizing the poor’s fuel purchases and helping them break the dependence on fuel is the difference between giving out food stamps and facilitating some sort of livable employment.
Ivan Illich wrote Energy and Equity back in the 1970s. Copies are easy to find and download on the web, and I highly recommend it, if you can stand to wade through the overly-intellectual mambo-jahambo. Illich’s main assertion is that as the speed of transport increases beyond human-scale – i.e. faster than bicycle speed – inequity follows naturally. By having cars that travel at 60 mph, the 60-mile commute becomes a reality for many people with the means to afford a 60 mph car. As more people begin to accept a 60-mile commute as the status quo, the commuting options at shorter distances quickly become diminished. One hundred years ago, most people could take care of all their business within a few miles of home – i.e. walking distance. When destinations can be reached on foot, the poor man and the rich man are equals. How many people can do their daily business as pedestrians now? Now that the ability to regularly operate within a 1-hour drive of home is considered normal, those who can’t afford that luxury are at a hopeless disadvantage. The widespread use of the automobile creates inequity; more cars on the road is not the solution to the problems created by having more cars on the road.