Ask Not

As President, John Kennedy (may he rest) once challenged this nation to rise to an impossible challenge; to do something that had never before been done and whose feasibility was questionable at best. He challenged to go to the moon and return safely. We rose to that challenge and the history of what came of it is writ large.

In the current day, Barrack Obama has challenged us to do a task which may well be just as, if not more, monumental but whose parameters are known to us. To move away from unsustainable energy policies and invest instead in cleaner, more efficient technologies such as personal cars powered by alternative energy and efficient mass transit systems. I've talked about this before and hope that I communicated my points well.

What has me so absolutely agitated today is the attitude of the silly buggers at "The Cato Institute". Okay, I get the whole differing view thing. I myself would start getting nervous if everyone suddenly started agreeing all the time. On the other hand, if your going to be a productive contributor, aren't you supposed to follow up your objections with alternatives? This is not what I'm getting from Jerry Taylor and Randal O' Toole. There chief objection seems to be, boiled down, "It's expensive!"

Exactly how much are these guys getting paid? Of course its going to be expensive! Strange as it may seem, that's part of the point. You get money circulating by spending it; on workers, equipment, land purchases and a host of other less obvious expenses involved in building infrastructure. Let me move on to specific arguments however...I'll start with Brother Jerry.

Taylor open by simply attacking the MPG plan, specifically pointing out that,
"If the proposed fuel efficiency standards were in place today, Edmunds.com reports that only two cars — the 2010 Toyota Prius (50 mpg) and the 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid (42 mpg) — would meet the standard."

Has anyone bothered to point out that it isn't 2016 yet? Exactly what point is it that Taylor is trying to make here? That if things were different, then things would be different? This is a nonsense reference designed only to make a future standard seem unreasonable in the present, and thereby elicit a negative emotional response in the reader. This is then directed and amplified in a blatant case of vilification;

"Angry environmentalists might thus find themselves key-scratching "gas guzzlers" such as the 2009 Honda Fit (31 mpg), the 2009 Mini Cooper (32 mpg) and the 2009 Smart ForTwo (36 mpg)."

In the first place, Taylor conjures an image of eco-jihadis viciously vandalizing other people's property and in the second he invents an intolerance towards three specific, excellent examples of perfectly reasonable transition technology. Taken as a whole the paragraph serves no purpose beyond demagoguery. In the immediately following paragraph, Taylor appeals to the authority of mathematics and simultaneously reaches for the middle ground while highlighting a"confession" from the administration.

"There is little dispute that, as a consequence, cars would become more expensive and industry profits more scarce. Even the Obama administration concedes that automotive costs would increase by $600 per car on average and that industry revenues would decline by $13 billion to $20 billion a year. Others offer larger figures, but it's difficult to peg costs with any certainty."

Implementation of new technologies is going to raise costs? Seriously? That's your argument? I seem to recall a similar argument being forwarded in the debate over vehicle safety equipment. Additionally, having bought two cars myself, I can honestly say that the additional $600, when I know I'm getting a better product, isn't a problem. Particularly when the "better" relates to fuel efficiency in an era when we are at or near peak oil as well as facing a global environmental crisis.
Corporate profits will decline? Really? Well perhaps this is a moment when the much vaunted innovative power of the market to reduce costs and improve process could be brought to bear. It might just result in more market competition, yielding better, stronger, more nimble manufacturing corporations. Heck, it might just result in the development of improved technologies with unforeseen knock-on applications.

So then Taylor goes on to talk about how little benefit will be garnered by these terrible reforms;

"We wouldn't reduce our reliance on foreign oil: If we reduced global demand for crude oil, the most expensive-to-produce oil would go away first, and that oil is not in the Middle East. It's in North America."

What he completely ignores are the actual numbers involved. in 2007 the U.S. produced 5,064,000 barrels/day and imported 10,031,000 barrels/day. Our oil exports were just 1,433,000 barrels/day. We're using up roughly three times what we produce. New technologies use roughly half the fuel of vehicles built just back in the 1990's. Basic math here; if you only produce 1/3 of the oil you use and you then reduce what you use by 1/2...you have to get the difference from your imports, so yes, you do in fact reduce your reliance on foreign oil even if you take out your domestic production first.

"Consumers would not be better off: If gasoline prices remained in today's neighborhood (that is, near their historical average, adjusted for inflation), the fuel savings from these new hybrids would not offset the higher sticker prices."

The flaws in this are so obvious it hurts me to point them out. In the first place, you have to make an assumption that runs totally counter to reason: that gas prices remain the same. Basic economics; what happens when demand for a commodity drops? That's right, the price drops. Basic logic; what happens when cars uses less gas? That's right, demand drops! So, logically if we use less gas, thus lowering demand, price of gas drops. A preceding argument stated that sticker prices could go up in the neighborhood of $600; so that's between 30 to 40 tanks of fuel, which is easily accounted for in the first 1.5 years of the average vehicle. So in the second place, yes, the extra cost up front is paid for in fuel savings.

"Moreover, many consumers would be forced to buy cars they don't want."

Except that consumers do want to buy more fuel efficient cars and there several monetary incentives to do so, such as tax credits. Additionally, what consumers what to buy is, in a practical sense, dictated by what is on the market to begin with. For instance, I don't want to buy a fossil fuel driven vehicle at all. I want a hydrogen powered one, my choices are limited to what is on the market, however.

"Greenhouse gas emissions might not decline much, if at all. U.S. emissions would likely decline, but reduced U.S. demand for crude would mean reduced global crude prices, which in turn would increase demand for — and consumption of — oil outside the USA. Eventually, most if not all our reductions might be offset by increases elsewhere."

Right, and why should we do the right thing if nobody else does? Maybe for the same reason we didn't replace our old king with a new one and went with a representative democracy instead. Maybe because its the right thing to do. Its called leadership and has been generally lacking from our domestic policy for a while. Additionally, if you need a good market motivator, consider the value of exporting said technology to those other nations.

Next we come to the traditional vague implication of threat;

"Finally, drivers and passengers would be less safe. Plenty of hard evidence suggests that smaller, lighter cars equal more highway injuries and fatalities."

Actually, its irresponsible, dangerous drivers that cause those highway injuries and fatalities. This is a spineless adoption of the "blame the object" argument so many pro-gun advocates deride. What's true of one inanimate object is true of the other; cars don't cause accidents, people cause accidents. Also, however exactly does he reach the conclusion that a smaller, lighter car will cause more damage than a bigger, heavier one? It runs counter to all logic.

One thing Taylor gets absolutely right is calling fuel efficiency "a means to an ends". That is absolutely true. Where he fails is in implying that this particular means is supposed to be sufficient unto itself to achieve that end. It isn't, obviously, but it is necessary to that end. Speaking of which, let me move on to Brother Randal's bit of tripe. It seems obvious to me that they split the issues in an attempt to divide attention and create an illusion of these being completely unrelated issues.

"At first glance, President Obama's enthusiasm for building a high-speed rail network linking major cities seems like a wise move. On closer inspection, however, it is clear that the plan would cost taxpayers billions of dollars and do little to reduce traffic congestion or improve the environment."

Okay, first lets look at the framing of the paragraph; it creates the impression that there are multiple layers to this proposal and that the "second" layer, the cost, is somehow obscured. Only two possible interpretations present themselves: this is unintentional and suggestive of incompetence or else it is intentional and suggestive of deception. Does Brother Randal really think people are so stupid that they wouldn't understand the project is going to carry a hefty price tag? One should hope so, because if he doesn't one might be inclined to think he was trying to be manipulative.

O'Toole here has far more clever rhetorical command than Taylor, he spaces his positions and explanations which makes it more difficult, at a glance, to argue with him. So we have to jump around a bit.

"Obama's 9,000-mile high-speed rail plan reaches just 33 states, yet the $13 billion he proposes to spend would cover about 2.5% to 25% of the cost, depending on how the system is built."

Okay, let's don't forget the $13 billion is called, specifically, a down payment; as in, more to follow. Only an idiot is going to honestly believe that this transit network could possibly get built that cheap. Secondly, "just those 33 states" accounts for the overwhelming majority of private and commercial traffic. I'm a truck driver, I know; you don't need a high-sped from Boise to El Paso. Of course the implication of this bit is really to make people angry about a "secret" future tax hike, which is probable; what it ignore however is that when it comes to concrete services, people suddenly get a great deal less resentful.

"Most of Obama's plan should really be called "moderate-speed rail," as it would upgrade existing freight lines to run passenger trains at top speeds of 110 mph. At around $5 million per mile, the total cost would come close to $50 billion."

Here we again see the tactic of implied deceit paired with a "revelation". I listened to the speech myself and Obama said himself that a large part of the project on the front end would be exactly this sort of upgrade. Is anyone really surprised by this? Is anyone really surprised that its going to be expensive? Again, that's part of the point; that money isn't going to just magically vanish, its going to get paid to workers, fabricators and engineers as well as a whole slew of other private sector economic drivers.

"Not satisfied with moderate-speed trains, California says it wants half of all federal funds so it can build brand-new 220-mph rail lines. But it's unlikely other states will settle for the slower trains if California gets the faster ones. Building fast trains nationwide would cost at least $500 billion."

Right, unsurprisingly we have vilification of California for implied decadence, followed by the further implication that the other states will make unreasonable demands so that they can "keep up" capped off with a paternal and patronizing monetary flourish.

"Besides the high costs, these trains do little to relieve congestion. "Not a single high-speed track built to date has had any perceptible impact on the road traffic" in Europe, says Ari Vatanen, a European Parliament member. California predicts its 220-mph trains would take just 3.5% of cars off of roads. California highway traffic grows that much every two years."

I love it when guys like O'Toole try to borrow the authority of foreign officials; its as if they feel they can gain credibility by sounding cosmopolitan. Let me tell something about Monsieur Vatanen. For starters, his credentials as an MP are: he was a famous race car driver. His credentials as an analyst of traffic statistics vis a vis mass transit are: he's an MP...who used to be a race car driver. Did we mention he's currently a member of the French Union for a Popular Movement, which is the native analog of the Republican party? Are we surprised that a Cato writer is citing the man, incompletely and without reference? Also, exactly what is the source of O'Toole's traffic statistics in California? Can can we possibly get some verification of claims?

"Moderate-speed trains would do even less. Nor would such trains be good for the environment. Amtrak diesel trains are only a little more energy efficient than flying or driving, and pumping those trains up to 110 mph would reduce their efficiency. Because planes and cars are growing 2% more energy-efficient per year, rail would fare poorly by such measures over the next 15 to 20 years.
Moreover, high-speed rail consumes enormous amounts of energy and emits enormous volumes of greenhouse gases. These would cancel out any operational savings over cars and planes."

Except, once again, O'Toole follows the formula and winds up creating a false dilemma; fossil fuel rail or fossil fuel cars. As if electrifying the rail system just isn't an option because he choose not to discuss it. And before anyone gets started, yes, I know that the power has to come from somewhere; who says it has to be a coal fired plant? Or even a current-spec coal fired plant? Please.

Now, the next statement is interesting;

"Interstates paid for themselves out of gas taxes..."

It is interesting chiefly because it directly contradicts an earlier statement that I reserved until now, to contrast the two;

"In contrast with the interstate highway system, which paid for itself out of user fees..."

Now I am forced to conclude one of the following: O'Toole doesn't know what he's talking about, O'Toole is being deliberately misleading, or O'Toole simply neglected to say explicitly that a complex, heterogeneous combination of solutions are at times called for to address complex problems. For the sake of charity I will assume the latter of these.

And finally I want to address these two statements;

"Although every taxpayer would share the cost of these trains, high-speed rails are not about serving the common people. Instead, they are aimed at the elite."
-and-
"Rail requires huge tax subsidies and would regularly serve only a small elite. Which is the better symbol for the America President Obama wants to build?"

Now I can't speak for anyone else but when I lived in Bethesda, MD which itself is part of D.C.'s metro rail system I was hardly one of the "elite" (although O'Toole never deigns to define exactly what that means, so maybe I was!). I was a very junior sailor living in the barracks and learning my trade as an MLT. For just about a year and a half I used that transit system to go everywhere. More than that, I used the AmTrak hub at Union Station to go as far as NYC on several occasions and closer points regularly. Right now I'm one of the loudest (if not prominent or influential) voices for development of a similar system in Cincinnati, OH.

It utterly escapes me how a publicly available mass transit system, improving mobility for student and workers, could possibly be interpreted as being reserved for some mythical social "elite" in a country where private transportation has always been the hallmark of the upper-classes; from carriages to yachts to limousines to private jets, the elite have always been easily identified by such luxuries.