Guest Commentary: George Wuerthner's "On the Range"
Cars and Cows: America’s Addiction to Living Large
By George Wuerthner, 5-22-08
 |
|
 | |
|
The family of a friend of mine used to say they were “living large” whenever they were enjoying something that was a bit decadent like having two desserts after dinner or buying something frivolous that they really didn’t need, like another TV set for the bathroom so they wouldn’t miss a single moment of their favorite sitcom.
Living large could easily be a term that applies to Americans—not only to the increasing girth of our stomachs, but also our excessive consumption of global energy resources. Yet no one in America’s political system--no Republican, no Democrat--appears willing to say that living large by excessive consumption of fossil fuels is killing the nation’s economy, killing our people, destroying our national security, and increasingly cooking the planet.
This morning oil futures reached $135 a barrel. Across America people are complaining about high gasoline prices at the pump—but high pump prices are just a symptom of a major policy failure and lack of leadership. Americans are suffering a much deeper cost in economic and social security as more of our dollars are exported to pay for expensive fuel, reducing the buying power of the dollar, and helping to give greater political power to authoritarian producing nations like Venezuela, Russia, and Saudi Arabia which in turn gives them greater influence over America’s economic and national security.
The Bush/Cheney Administration, always looking out for their oil company cronies’ profits instead of the national interest, have used high pump prices to imply that environmental regulations are slowing energy development on public lands, which could—they suggest—ensure our energy freedom. They give lip service to things like auto gas efficiency, or the promotion of mass transit, but continuously push policies that will enrich energy companies at the expense of ordinary Americans.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are no better. In Washington, D.C. this week Congress held court with the oil company executives. The CEOs were grilled about record profits while Americans suffer high fuel prices at the pump. Vermont’s liberal Democratic senator, Patrick Leahy, accused the companies of profiteering at the expense of hapless Americans. Not withstanding that the oil companies are likely profiteering, Leahy seems unwilling to accept that Americans are partially responsible for their own vulnerability--as if we didn’t know for decades that global oil supplies were maxing out and demand was rising as other countries like China and India develop. Did that stop us from buying large gas guzzling cars or building houses that sprawled out into the suburbs?
Meanwhile, Leahy’s Vermont counterpart, Senator Bernie Sanders, along with other liberals like Senator Hillary Clinton, has joined with conservative Republican Senator John McCain in pandering to American voters by voicing support for lifting the federal gas tax as a means of reducing costs at the pump. At least Barack Obama has the good sense to oppose such a plan, noting that it would only save the average American a few dollars a week. And Vermont’s lone Congressman, Peter Welch, another so-called progressive, introduced legislation to temporarily halt storing petroleum in the strategic oil reserve, hoping to increase supplies sufficiently to reduce gas pump prices. This is exactly the opposite of what this country needs. Rather than reducing the cost of gas we need higher gas price not so we enrich the oil companies or despotic regimes like Venezuela, Russia and Sandi Arabia, but because it will encourage greater energy conservation.
Maybe the reason liberals like Leahy, Sanders and Welch are focused on reducing fuel prices is that residents of Vermont drive more per capita than any other state. Many people in the so-called progressive state of Vermont love to live large on five acres in the country, far from where they work or shop thus indirectly contributing to its reputation as the “most rural” state in the nation. But to live large means driving a car to work, driving your kids to school, driving to do all the mundane things we do daily, from buying groceries to going to the bank.
All of the proposals by our representatives are just stop-gap measures that address the symptoms. They don’t address the central causes of our current energy crisis. I have yet to hear any serious discussion by mainstream political leaders about changing the way we live. Where is the leadership? Even “straight talking” John McCain is afraid to tell Americans the party’s over. We can’t drive our way to energy freedom.
Even the food we eat is energy-intensive and not sustainable. We expend nearly 10 calories of energy to get back one calorie of food energy—mostly because we use oil to subsidize food production and import it from throughout the world. Plus America uses the bulk of its cropland to grow livestock feed, instead of crops that can be consumed directly by humans. We have 90 million acres in corn production—an area the size of Montana—with the vast majority of that corn feeding cows and other animals, not people. And nearly as many acres are in soybeans—yet less than 2 percent of all soybeans are used for things like tofu and other soy-based food directly consumed by humans. The bulk of all soy, corn, and many other grains are fed to livestock—to supply our “living large” meat and dairy diet.
And now increasingly, some of these grains like corn are also feeding our cars as land is cultivated to grow bio-fuels at the expense of human and/or even livestock food. What does Congress do in face of rising energy costs? It passes a giant farm bill that, among other things, gives even larger subsidies to farmers to produce crops largely utilized for livestock feed and bio-fuel for vehicles.
Worse yet, our collective transportation and living choices are now starving people around the world. As bio-fuel demand has grown, food costs are rising for everyone, in part, because the US and other countries are now planting bio-fuel crops for fuel production instead of growing food for direct human consumption. Not to mention that higher fuel prices are also driving up the cost of fertilizer (produced from natural gas) upon which the vast majority of the world’s food production depends. Indeed, we are living large at the expense of the world’s poor.
Capitalizing upon rising fuel prices, Bush/Cheney released a report this week suggesting that if all federal lands were opened up immediately to energy development we could drill our way out of high oil prices, ignoring that even at the maximum full production of all known reserves, America would not be able to produce more than a fraction of the petroleum it consumes. America’s known reserves are a mere 21 billion barrels of oil, with perhaps only 6 billion or so recoverable. At current rates of consumption we would use our entire known reserves of petroleum in less than three years—even assuming we could recover it all.
By way of comparison, Saudi Arabia alone has known reserves of 260 billion barrels, and not surprisingly Saudi Arabia is our second largest supplier of petroleum after Canada. Plus Iraq and Iran both have at least 100 plus billion barrels of known reserves as well. That is why Bush/Cheney wanted to have a military presence in the Gulf—to ensure control of oil supplies. Despite all the flag waving, the so-called desire to bring democracy to Iraq (but not the fiefdom of Saudi Arabia?) and talk about weapons of mass destruction, in truth, Saddam Hussein had to go if Americans were to continue living large and maintain its valued “American way of life.” Every day soldiers die in Iraq not protecting democracy but protecting our energy-extravagant lifestyles.
The best national defense isn’t to build military bases in the Middle East or even drill for more oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. Rather we need the equivalent of a Marshall Plan aimed at significantly reducing America’s use of energy—not just finding more energy. Note that I did not say reduce “dependence” on fossil fuel by replacing fossil fuel energy with other sources of energy like nuclear, solar, wind, hydro or bio-mass. We can not secure our economic and national security by greater energy exploitation. And while we should continue to encourage alternative energy sources, none can match the energy savings that a massive energy conservation effort could engender.
The only real way to reduce all energy consumption is through energy conservation—to consume less energy and all other resources. And this will entail a major change in the way we live. Living large isn’t an option any more. Our country needs to invest in making homes energy-efficient by granting homeowners and businesses interest-free loans or even outright federal grants to pay for energy conservation measures like insulation, new windows, passive solar heat and water, small wind generators on roof tops, and other measures that could turn our homes into energy producing machines, instead of energy sinks. Grants and loans are far less expensive than maintaining a military presence in the Middle East. We need to mandate energy efficiency in cars and work towards eliminating them altogether by investing heavily in mass transit, not more highways. We need to make our communities more desirable by building bike paths, parks and protecting or creating green space, so that people want to live in our towns, not out in the sprawling “country.” We need to move towards a healthier vegetarian diet that does not consume the majority of farm land with livestock feed. And we need to grow more food in our yards (reduce the size of lawns) and in nearby farms, not trucking produce across continents and oceans.
None of these proposed changes require new technology. Rather they are all options available now. Blaming corporations for profiteering or blaming environmentalists for slowing energy development will not solve our energy crisis. The only ingredient missing is the political will power and leadership to move the country in the right direction. I’m willing to bet that if we made these changes, most people would actually find they like the kind of life it creates—more livable communities, healthier air and water, healthier bodies and lifestyles, and a more secure global political stage. It’s time to start living well instead of just living large.
George Wuerthner is an ecologist, photographer and writer with 34 published books on natural history and environmental issues.
[End of article]sir , your observations are very good. But the measures you mentioned need to be implemented with an iron hand ,because it is often people like you who are bluffed and finally these people pay the price after the situation slips out of hand. i hope your article has a wide reach inspiring many like me.
Comment By Jedediah Redman, 5-23-08Would there were a way to get everbody to read your article--or one of the many, many, like it.
Simple ignorance is very probably the reason so many of our fellow citizens continue to take pride in living so very, excessively, large.
Petrhaps if such a message were available--via television, it would not be necessary for such an iron hand?
Hardly anybod would take the time to read such a lengthy article...
"Yet no one in America’s political system--no Republican, no Democrat--appears willing to say that living large by excessive consumption of fossil fuels is killing the nation’s economy, killing our people, destroying our national security, and increasingly cooking the planet."
I think I could find something on the following webpage to refute your statement:
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060403-energy_independ/
Thank you, George for this inspiring essay and your good information and arguments! It's about time that someone has the courage to point out how American have been living way too large for way too long. Especially when it comes to our heavy animal-centric diets and irresponsible dependence on personal vehicles. We have got to shake up our habits and take more responsibility for more wise use of the ever more and more precious world natural resources and for the consequences of climate that has changed by human hands.
I am afraid it IS going to take an iron hand to get most Americans to change. We're been too selfish and oblivious for too long, our patterns too ingrained. And business interests and greed have most of the power in policy decisions. I hope there's enough responsibility leadership and creativity out there to assure the country there's good money to make in this green revolution, as well as the plenty of reason to make significant adjustments in our lifestyles and decisions.
How can we get through to a wide, responsive audience with a persuasive case that what we thought was good living was really selfish, wasteful, and ultimately unhealthy living in many, many ways for ourselves and all those impacted by our ways. George gets to the heart here of many of the issues and solutions. How can we bore through the iron curtain of the beef industry? Agriculture needs to be revolutionized for the sake of human health, the health of the land, and for the welfare of animals, wild and domestic. It's all interrelated.
George, I feel I am 'living large' when I cast a fly in God's country.
Comment By matt, 5-23-08I agree Americans live too large, but then we get a comment about "animal centric" diets and those are the comments that drive middle of the roaders away from the environmental movement. We humans are omnivores and should remain so. Cerain meats prepared certain ways are necessary to a healthy diet. The real problem in America is population growth. Immigrants from middle eastern, African, latin american, and asian countries still cling to the idea that large families are a good thing, and that is the reason our wilderness is vanishing. Time for a complete freeze on immigration, both legal and illegal.
Comment By Jedediah Redman, 5-24-08You figure its immigrants who're screwing things up, huh..?
Comment By matt, 5-24-08Statistically, the birth rate of native born Americans is down. If we had stopped immirgation in the 1970s, our population would be around 100 million,maybe less. But now it's 300 million and will be 571 million in 50 to 100 years. Native born Amercans tend to have one or two kids, immigrants are coming from cultures were it is admirable or macho, or considered God's will to have 6 or more kids. So if the premise of the article is that Americans consume too much, then combine the third world notion of large families with the Amercan lifestyle (our habits rub off on people that come here afterall) and you have a recipie for disaster.
Comment By brian ertz, 5-26-08amor sceleratus habendi
Comment By Frank N, 5-26-08"Living large isn’t an option any more. " Not an intelligent option anyway. Unfortunately, whoever said that we are intelligent? As I write this Yellowstone National Park (which I live near), as well as other parks around the country, are filling up with gas sucking Taj Mahals on wheels, as usual; sub divisions are still going in around the country, and the grand daddy symbol of all symbols of western fuel wastefulness, the Indy 500, has been run once again. Meantime the triple A says that high fuel prices are hardly putting a damper on holiday travel...down a mere .9% from last year. As with everything else, America's poorest citizens are the ones who must suffer. How many folks, do you imagine, are sitting down to a huge 8oz. porterhouse tonight?
Most people I talk to about this still call me an enviro whacko, and tell me that they have no intention of giving up anything. What gas costs it costs, they say. With the exception of folks with a low or fixed income, I don't think that we are anywhere near the point that Americans change their ways. Oh, consumption will come down somewhat, as seniors will have to make a choice between going to the doctor or putting food on the table, and others will decide that it costs more to drive back and forth to work than they make. Someone who makes a lot of money will point to these reductions in fuel consumption as positive steps. "America learning how to conserve" they will say, when in reality it will merely be a sign of the poorest subsidizing the richest, who will continue to consume at an obscene rate until they too, like so many goldfish, find themselves floating belly up at the top of the tank.
Well said Frank N. Don't forget all the people that think it's God will if they have 4 or 5 kids. Or they will say "no one has the right to tell me how many kids to have". Also, people will say that if we would just drill in ANWR, gas prices would go down. As if destroying some of the last real wilderness in the USA is an acceptable sacrifice to the god of jet skis, atvs, gas powered leaf blowers (because a broom is too physically demanding), and don't forget snow mobiles. We are a spoiled rotten nation. Consumer habits are partly to blame, but everyone overlooks population increase. Perhaps because one then has to address the reasons behind America's population increase. And casting immigration or the culture of immigrants in a negative light is not politically correct, so the problem just gets worse.
Comment By Tim Aaronson, 5-27-08Championing reduced consumption is noble, but failing to even mention population growth is grossly disingenuous.
Our problems today with a world of 6.6 billion people will rapidly grow more difficult as we hit 7, 8, 9, ... billion.
Domestically that means stopping the mass immigration regime we have been allowing for the past 3 decades. It is insane to sell conservation when the reward is millions more consumers, i.e. immigrants.
Here in California 100% of the population growth (currently 38 million and growing like no tomorrow) is from immigration. In the part of the state I live we now have water rationing emergency. Following the advice of the author, I guess I will just declare, "Save Water; Shower with an Immigrant"
George, I'd like to point out an interesting conflict in your article. On one hand you castigate the hauling of food from point A to point B, C, D, etc. On the other hand you complain about using corn for fuel and letting folks overseas starve instead of shipping that corn to feed them. Now how do you plan to get that corn there without fuel for ships and planes? Or is it ok to use fuel in that case, but not to provide food to Americans?
I don't know about you, but I prefer not to do without food we cannot grow where I live, I like fresh fruit, coffee, tea, come to mind. Even more important medicines have to be hauled from place to place. That doesn't include equipment, autos, appliances, furniture, computers, etc. I see no way we can stop trucking stuff from place to place. However if we do not get a supply of fuel to bring the price down, we may HAVE to do without trucked supplies, truckers are hurting bad.
Do you ever drive? Then you add to the problem. Despite all of the talk, everyone could drive a fuel efficient vehicle now, there are plenty of little cars available.
Frank, I'd bet that a significant number of those behemoths you mention are driven by folks who consider themselves environmentalists. I say that because I have argued on blogs with those who want no drilling, and when I point out they can eliminate long vacations in their RV, and cut other driving, they inform me they have no intention of cutting back, the "can afford it". If they were truly concerned about the environment, they would be willing to sacrifice themselves. Otherwise it is a desire to control other folks. An ideology, not a concern abouot the enviroment as Dr. Klaus stated so clearly.
I have said it before, users are the problem, when everyone cuts back, it will mean significant saving, but as long as it is only those who have and use little to begin with while the "talk a lots" fly and drive all over it will not be solved.
Marion:
While the cost of shipping grains to other countries has no doubt risen, as I understand it, the main reason for rising food prices in many poorer countries has to do with other factors. Farmers in other countries are now planning crops for bio fuels production on lands that formerly grew crops to feed local people. For instance there is a huge increase in bio fuel crop production in places like Brazil and so on.
In addition, the rise in oil has affected fertilizer costs, which in turn, drives up the cost of even locally produced food. As I understand it those are the prime reasons that food costs have risen for the poor in these other countries.
As a retiree, I have been living small or a long time. Questions such as; should I drive 30 miles to the nearest Wallmart to fill my perscriptions for $3 each, or walk to the corner pharmacy and pay a lot more? Is it less expensive to water my garden, or go to the local farrmer's market to buy my vegies? Is is better to use natural gas to heat my home in the cold months or use my fireplace and pour polutants into the atmosphere. All the answers basically come down to how far I can streatch my limited income, so I really don't care much if people in other countries are starving, because I'll probably be next in line. As for the above comment about the Indy 500, I wonder just how many thousands of acres of corn were diverted from food to ethonol, so the boys and girls could play and say they were ecolgically righteous because they were no longer using fossel fuel in their toys. I just bet it could have provided enough sustance for several thousand hungry poeple for a year or so.
Comment By Marion, 5-29-08George, the shortage of corn for food is the direct unintended consequence of the environmental desire for corn based ethanol. I agree that we need to all cut back, but once more it must be environmental groups that lead the way, not use their lawyers and judges to force everyone else to cut back and leave more for them.
I can think of two wind farms off the top of my head that environmental lawsuits stopped in their tracks. How can you expect those companies to spend or even have any money for more research if it is going to be allowed at the whim of a handpicked judge for envirnmental groups?
If environmental groups are actually concerned about the environment, why do they not use their resources for research instead of for lawyers to ruin those who actully try to find alternatives? I think they are more concerned about power and the ability to control every action of other people.
This article by Drl Klaus of Poland pretty well lays it on the line.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/208338,czech-president-klaus-ready-to-debate-gore-on-climate-change.html
I believe this is Dr. Klaus whole speech, it should be required reading for everyone in this country:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/blue_planet_in_green_shackles.html
Excerpt:
I do not, however, live in the past and do not see the future threats to free society coming from the old and old-fashioned communist ideology. The name of the new danger will undoubtedly be different, but its substance will be very similar. There will be the same attractive, to a great extent pathetic and at first sight quasi-noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of something above him, (of something greater than his poor self), supplemented by enormous self-confidence on the side of those who stand behind it. Like their predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality. In the past it was in the name of the masses (or of the Proletariat), this time in the name of the Planet. Structurally, it is very similar.
I see the current danger in environmentalism and especially in its strongest version, climate alarmism. Feeling very strongly about it and trying to oppose it was the main reason for putting my book together, originally in Czech language, in the spring of 2007. It has also been the driving force behind my active involvement in the current Climate Change Debate and behind my being the only head of state who in September 2007 at the UN Climate Change Conference in New York City openly and explicitly challenged the undergoing global warming hysteria.
If only our cars could be retrofitted to run off of cow farts.
Comment By matt, 5-29-08The premise of Dr. Klaus' diatribe,that environementalism is the boogeyman,would be more believable if I was able to ignore science the way Rush Limbaugh and Bush are. Unfortunatley, I am educated on the matter and realize a simple truth: that we humans are devestating this planet we live on, and that we will leave an altered and possibly irrepairable planet to our children. And all of the things we do to supposedly increase quality of life such as killing off predators, building more roads and homes, and manufactoring more crap, will actually have the opposite effect. Our children will wonder what made us thing we had the right to live excessively at their expense.
Comment By jedediah Redman, 5-30-08Matt:
You are a very welcome occasional voice of reason...
amen... less is more. (including this reply !) :)
GP in Whitehall
http://www.fishcreekhouse.com
To be honest I don’t find large cars that useful. I have a Nissan Land Rover and is quite hard to take care of it especially because I all the Nissan Auto Part I find are quite expensive.
http://www.partsgeek.com/makes/nissan.html