Conservation Costs More
I regularly hear about Barack Obama's plan to help our energy crisis, and it is basically to reduce consumption. This sounds good, because if we use less, the resulting higher supply will cause prices to go down, and we will produce less greenhouse gasses. Ignoring the fact that the US is a net negative carbon producer, and that Nuclear Power should be every greenie's best friend, I want to know how this will work without it costing the average American household more than $40,000 each.
The underlying principle behind both left and right proposals on energy is basically the free market: supply and demand. Right = increased supply means lower prices ("Drill, baby, drill"). Left = lower demand (consumption) means a higher supply, and ultimately lower prices ("Invest in conservation"). However, one of the consequences that is behind the left's proposal is that Americans will have to do with less in the mean time.
The only way to lower my consumption with my current set of tools (car, lights, etc.) is to use them less frequently. I already walk to campus 2-3 times per week. This is a nice 30-minute walk for me, each direction, and I enjoy it. It's also nicer on my car. However, not everyone has the luxury of frequently walking to their destinations. They may live too far away from work/school/stores, or may have some other reason that they must drive that far. I think in many cases, people could drive less and would have happier, healthier lives (although I haven't lost any weight yet), but I do not want to force people to do that.
The left regularly proposes to increase mileage standards on cars. Ignoring how this can actually adversely affect vehicle safety, this is a good idea for future cars, but not existing cars. It is not easy to go to the local shop and get a new engine for my car that will make it 40% more efficient. I can do that with light bulbs, but I have to pay much more for a light bulb that takes 30 seconds to fully warm up, doesn't typically last as long as the box says (I replace a bulb in the bathroom once every 3 months) and can aggravate my migraines (I can see the flicker when my head is not doing well...grumble grumble).
So, with my car, my only recourse to increased energy prices is to simply drive around less frequently. Thankfully, I mostly just go to school and back each day. But what about everyone else. Most households have existing cars: the average American has 2.28 vehicles.
If each person in America wanted to save on their gas with a more fuel-efficient vehicle, they would have to replace their current car. If they truly cared about the environment, each person would not resell their car, otherwise some other poor bloke would be driving that damaging vehicle. Newer, more fuel-efficient cars cost upwards of $20,000 each, which means each household, to continue driving the same amount (i.e. get the same number of things done in a day), would have to spend over $40,000 to buy 2 new cars, with no way of recouping the cost of the vehicles they already own.
How does increasing conservation actually help conserve the most important American resource: time? At $40K a household, this is a year's pay out the window just to save money on fuel. This is bad economics, and really is just a tax on every American hidden in the niceties of words. Worst of all, this keeps poor people poor, and rich people rich because only the rich can really afford to plunk down $40K on a whim to save energy.
Increasing the supply of fuel in our economy is really the only way of helping every American live better, happier lives. I know that Americans are smart and will conserve in their own ways to deal with the current scarcity of resources. However, I believe that the best way to help everyone is to try and make as many resources as possible as abundant as possible.
Drill...Baby...Drill...