I would like to add to Rob Valet's provocative article, "By the Gallon," that appeared in Wednesday's edition of The Dartmouth. In it he makes two important points, namely1) that we fail to realize the true cost of the gasoline that we draw from our "neighborhood Foodstop," and 2) that we choose to blame the 'greed' of oil-producing countries rather than our own behaviors.
As Valet notes, the overproduction that led to low oil prices resulted in major financial repercussions for many of the oil producing countries. Now, they are trying to fix this by lowering production. This is not some conspiracy but is simply the law of supply and demand. When there is an oversupply, prices fall to compensate. To fix this, producers must produce less -- this way prices will go back up and producers will not fall deeper in debt. The OPEC countries are not playing some political game but are merely trying to survive. If anything, it is the US that is playing a game of politics, threatening a cut in foreign aid to OPEC countries if the latter do not yield to US demands.
Let us now discuss Valet's first point, that of the cost of a gallon of gas -- it's averaging a buck eighty a gallon across the country. This is more than we are used to, but as Valet notes, this is cheaper than what we pay per gallon of milk. In fact, it's cheaper than we pay for most bottled water. Unfortunately, while Valet notes the absurdity in this, he does not point out that gas is not actually this cheap to produce but that the government goes to great lengths to subsidize gasoline. In most European countries, gas costs more than twice as much as in America, reaching up to $4.50 per gallon. This is closer to the true cost of gasoline, although if we factored in the hundreds of millions of dollars the taxpayers spend on environmental clean up, the true cost of gasoline would probably be closer to seven dollars a gallon.
What do you think would happen if tomorrow gas cost seven bucks a gallon? Yeah, that's right, probably massive riots, a revolution, or a coup d'tat. What about if the change occurred gradually over the next three years (not that the lobbies or the voting population would ever allow this move)? People may start driving a little less, carpool more and vehicles that get 20 miles per gallon would be replaced by the highly efficient models that get at least 70 miles per gallon (the 2000 Honda Insight gets this now) and many that get up to 200 miles per gallon. Did I just say 200 miles per gallon? That's ten times more efficient than the typical SUV. And yes, there are cars that get this -- prototypes ready to go, but there's just no demand for them.
Some predict that the gas prices may go all the way up to two dollars a gallon this summer throughout the US but this will not be enough for a change in behavior. The people of America love their cars and would overthrow the government before they got rid of them, but even without imagining that we will get rid of our cars, with the technology we possess right now, we can start making cars more efficient. And through this we can make the limited resource of petroleum last longer than the estimated fifty to one hundred years that scientists predict. Moreover, by having cars that go 200 miles per gallon, we can help preserve our health and the environment, save money, and lower our dependence on foreign resources.
So what's the catch? Simply this: nothing will change unless we demand that it does. We need to contact the car manufacturers and tell them that we want them to produce more fuel economical cars and then BUY those cars. If we continue to buy cars that get 20 mpg, the companies will just keep producing these. This is once again just simple supply and demand. So, e-mail Toyota, Nissan, Ford, Honda, GM and any others you can think of and say that we want fuel economical cars, and when it comes time for you to buy your first car, make sure you take a look at the fuel economy rating before you buy it.
