At least according to an article on Time magazine's site. Interesting concept, especially since people are none-to-happy about gasoline prices right now. Well, here are their 10 reasons (in bold), and my quick response (in italics). I don't believe these are in any particular order - just 10 reasons.
1. Globalized Jobs Return Home
Good for the local economy in the sense that jobs are returning, but will likely mean an increase in the cost of these products anyway. The transportation costs from foreign production facilities will probably be offset (at least to a degree) by the loss of cheaper labor. Either way, the price to the consumer goes up, which isn't so good for the economy.
2. Sprawl Stalls
Good. It may not be the answer many people want to hear, but it's the sort of thing that will help us as we move into the upcoming phases of our war on Global Warming and begin to address the myriad of sprawl related problems.
3. Four-Day Workweeks
Another positive, much like work-at-home. It'll cut down the daily commuter travel which is good for the environment, gridlock, and the wallet. Flip side, many jobs don't fit the work-at-home or work-more-hours model. So this isn't exactly the win they make it out to be.
4. Less Pollution
Good. Although the modest drop in gasoline consumption probably won't have much of an overall effect on pollution. Perhaps a little less smog in some urban areas.
5. More Frugality
Also good. If the high prices are pushing people to consider conservation friendly actions, then it's good for their wallet and the environment.
6. Fewer Traffic Deaths
Hard to argue with this. The article claims 1,000 lives saved per month - that sounds a bit high to me. But the fact that less driving and slower driving will save lives is good. Although I'd also like to see the auto industry step up more than they have and build even safer cars.
7. Cheaper Insurance
Well, ok, but it kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it? Anyone can cut their auto insurance to zero if they don't drive. Hell, they'd also cut their gasoline costs to nothing.
8. Less Traffic
I'll believe it when I see it. Seems like a very logical outcome, but so far I haven't seen much difference getting around town. If it does happen however, it will be a multi-win situation. Less traffic - less frustration - no need to build new roads - less fuel wasted idling - less time wasted idling.
9. More Cops on the Beat
An odd one - I think they were stretching to make a list of ten. It certainly doesn't make any difference in the big picture for pollution or consumption, but on the micro level it might promote better community relations with the police. And that is a good thing.
10. Less Obesity
No arguments here - although, like the "Less Traffic" point, I'll believe it when I see it.
Ok, so it's not that great a list. But there are some good points. Despite the obvious negative aspects of high fuel prices, they could be helping us move in a good direction. And that's really the most important point - that we break the mindset that got us where we are today. With a modified approach we may be able to move forward with a good economy, a much improved environment, and a satiated populous. But that isn't going to happen with the status quo.
Another problem is the regressivity of all this, and the fact that people can't adjust their lives to these sudden fluctuations in energy prices. Again, another reason for a national energy policy that lets people plan for the future and that deals with the regressivity in a variety of ways (e.g., reduced withholding taxes, incentives for energy efficiency improvements). Right now, the regressivity is simply hurting people here, without any counterbalancing/offsetting gains. That's stupid, almost criminal malfeasance on the part of our "leaders."
I feel sorry for the people who drive for a living, but as a nation this is the only thing that's going to make people open their eyes, so I say bring it on.
I agree with you, but I'm not holding my breath for the government to work it out, Dem or Rep, unless the American people are in pain. I wish it didn't have to be that way, but it is.
If coal prices double, I'm sure you'll find more public interest in stopping another coal fired power plant or replacing the current ones. But otherwise, lack of interest, except for the top quintile of wage earners who eat this green stuff up.
You wanted something done and this is producing action in a way that An Inconvenient Truth never could.
Everyone had a choice before we got to this point. Heck! There was the oil embargo of the 1970s. Did any voters ever bother to follow up with their politicians when they promised to end America's oil addiction? A good deal of America's voters, these past years were more concerned with the impending threat of the Gay Agenda, the war on Christmas, and abortion than our energy policy. And even now, does the electorate really have an idea of what is needed or are they still hanging on to the idea that gas will one day be cheap again? I can't say that I feel sorry for anyone on this. It's a choice we made either by positive intent or ignorance. But I don't believe ignorance is a good excuse.
People's answers: 38% say "government," 31% say "companies," 19% say "suppliers," 10% say "something else."
The correct, answer, of course, is "something else" (e.g., increased demand running into a near-vertical supply curve as non-OPEC production peaks and OPEC stalls out as well). Also, I guess "government" is kinda sorta rorect to the extent that it hasn't formulated and enacted a serious energy policy. Suppliers...eh, not so much. Companies...eh, not so much.
People get distracted by all sorts of stuff. Popular culture, shiny objects (i.e. cars, or electronic gadgets). Sometimes people get busy and don't have time to think, sometimes people are just bored and they go out and do stuff to try and make life more interesting. I suspect that most people out there don't really think ahead that far, or if they do they just assume that the future will be just like the present.