Mav--
There will some things that we will have to agree to disagree about, but I thank you for your response. I tried to make it clear, possibly unsuccessfully, that I object to the idea that some self-anointed people are going to decide what is best for me, my family, and society. My basic political instincts are Libertarian; if I choose to smoke, use heroin, drive a motorcycle sans helmet, go skydiving, fly in a hang glider, or do any number of statistically dangerous things, it's not your business (I do none of these things). You will object that these things damage only me, and my Suburban potentially damages you and your family. True enough, but that hasn't stopped others from trying to outlaw many of these activities which harm no one but the user. It's just a matter of time before they get to your favored activity, whatever it is. I'm not an anarchist, but I differ with you on where to draw the line.
I am not persuaded by your argument that petroleum is not correctly priced. Either we let the free market set the price of a commodity, or we let Karl Marx do it. Your list of petroleum derived products is if anything too short; anyone who has taken an organic chemistry class (mine was 30 years ago!) cannot fail to be amazed at the usefulness of oil derived products. Nonetheless, the price of oil is what it is, actually a lot less, before taxes, even with everyone in the world having the full knowledge of the value of oil. Since I was a kid in the 1950s, there has been a 20 year supply of oil. There is no reason to explore for more than we'll need in the foreseeable future. Eventually, of course, we will run out of practically recoverable petroleum, and I'll accept your estimate of 2200 for the sake of argument. The world ran out of whales just as practical electricity was discovered; I am confident that my kids and their kids will be smart enough to figure out the next way to obtain organic chemical derived products, or a substitute. Otherwise we're claiming that our generation (and our parents') are the pinnacle of human achievement. I don't think so.
I agree that people who drive SUVs for safety reasons are misinformed or possibly deluded. I know that the driver of a well engineered sedan, even my gas-guzzling Lincoln LS, is much safer on the road, and even a Camry or late model Saturn is probably safer. Please come by my house and try to convince my wife of that. She is a cum laude graduate of a high class university and she believes fervently in her Suburban (this is her second Suburban since 1987). Multiply her by several million others who like their vehicles for one reason or another, and you have a healthy portion of America.
I hope you noted that I favor eliminating the light truck loophole. I also think that all bumpers should be the same height to protect smaller cars (I think we already have that to a degree). If you try to legislate identical car body size, height, or weight, that's where we part company. I'll pay my fair share of taxes to build and maintain the roads, and spent extra to clean up my V8's emissions (with OCP of course). I will not support a mandate that all vehicles adhere to some bureaucrat's dream of what a car should be. I don't know what you drive, but I bet I would find it acceptable. You're not the one who will make the rules, though, and when your plan to universalize the nation's cars is enacted, I doubt that you will be happy with the car they let you drive.
I do wish that you had all those nickels. You would buy more OE stock, and drive the price higher. Good night. |
