HOME / chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics.

Conservation Is for Sissies

Timothy NoahPosted Tuesday, May 8, 2001, at 2:55 PM ET

Chatterbox believes that Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer's comments concerning energy consumption are being taken out of context. In fact, Fleischer's remarks were even more contemptuous of government efforts to goad citizens into conserving energy than a casual reading of stories in the Washington Post and USA Today might suggest. To correct the record, he reprints a lengthier portion of what Fleischer said at the May 7 White House press briefing:

RSS

Q: Is one of the problems with this, and the entire energy field, American lifestyles? Does the president believe that, given the amount of energy Americans consume per capita, how much it exceeds any other citizen in any other country in the world, does the president believe we need to correct our lifestyles to address the energy problem?

Fleischer: 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. And we have a bounty of resources in this country. What we need to do is make certain that we're able to get those resources in an efficient way, in a way that also emphasizes protecting the environment and conservation, into the hands of consumers so they can make the choices that they want to make as they live their lives day to day.

Q: So Americans should go on consuming as much [or] more energy than any other citizens in any other countries of the world, as long as they want?

Fleischer: Terry, the president believes that the American people are very wise and that, given the right incentives, they will know how and they will make their own right determinations about how much they can conserve, just as the president announced last week that the federal government, as part of its consumership in California will reduce energy needs--for example, the Department of Defense facilities in California, by 10 percent. He believes the American people, too, will make the right decisions about conservation, and the program he will announce shortly will also include a series of conservation items.

But the president also believes that the American people's use of energy is a reflection of the strength of our economy, of the way of life that the American people have come to enjoy. And he wants to make certain that a national energy policy is comprehensive--that includes conservation, includes a way of allowing the American people to continue to enjoy the way of life that has made the United States such a leading nation in the world.

E-mail Timothy Noah at .

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.

COMMENTS

Reader Comments From The Fray:

[Notes from the Fray Editor: Helene Edwards disagreed with the main thrust of the article: you can read her comments here, but in our shallow Fray team way we are going to feature only her splendid final sentence: "Unfortunately, almost all women think the way Noah does, which means I have trouble finding a date, even in Berkeley."]

The resources we use come from other parts of the world. We are buying oil on the European and Middle Eastern markets, driving up the European prices along with ours. President Bush wants to drill for oil in the Alaskan wildlife refuge--and sell most of that oil to other countries. However, the numbers don't balance out, the Alaskan drilling would yield a tiny percentage of the oil that America consumes, and that's before it's sold. Fleischer said that "we have a bounty of resources in this country", and then that "the American people's use of energy is a reflection of the strength of our economy." The meaning of his words is that we have a bounty of resources in this country because we have such a dominant economy that we are able to seize control of these finite resources, wherever they are found.

At some point in the future, it may happen that poor citizens of countries in the Southern Hemisphere don't turn on their heat in the dead of winter because Americans are used to their blessed air-conditioned 68 degrees. Is it our national right to be killers, destructors of commerce in other countries or even to stick our fingers into the pockets of European drivers at the gas-pump?

--svgrl

(To reply, click here.)

I think that market forces should drive our energy policy. Once the policy makers become involved, shortages and price spikes will follow. However, there are a couple of caveats. First, I don't think that anyone involved with energy is paying for externalities. By this, I mean the cost of pollution and, further out, global warming. Surely, this is a cost that will be borne by society sooner or later. Usually with pollution, the longer the problem festers, the more expensive the cost. Since this cost is not factored at the pump or generator, it is not factored into the consumers' decision-making processes, so the market is already not working. Of course, it isn't an easy problem to determine the cost of externalities, but that is not a reason to neglect them and act as if they don't exist. Second, part of our trade deficit originates from importing such vast sums of oil. I don't believe that this is factored into the cost of energy. I believe that we are not paying full freight for the energy we are using. I am not an economist, but I believe that this is a very unstable position, and could wind up in discomfort or worse.

--Cato the Censor

(To reply, click here.)

(5/9)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES