The recent sharp increases in oil and gasoline prices have had some predictable effects on the nation’s economy. The effect on the nation’s politics is less clear.
We all know that there will be higher home heating costs, that travel and car-buying habits may change and that reliance on public transit may increase.
But if oil prices stay up, what political shifts will occur?
More specifically, will environmental groups that have long favored oil conservation, higher taxes on consumption and the use of smaller and more energy-efficient cars finally embrace the free-market capitalistic system? After all, it is that system that may now bring about some of the changes these groups have long advocated.
The short answer is no;and here’s why:
It is already obvious that as gasoline prices approach or pass $3 a gallon, people who had never before thought about car mileage are now taking it into account. Those vehicle models that consume the most gasoline per mile are likely to lose some of their allure and some of their value at trade-in. Those models that use the least gasoline are likely to appreciate in value.
These are some of the predictable effects of the current marketplace. So is the likelihood that auto companies will redouble their efforts to produce more fuel-efficient cars and trucks.
What is not so plain is how various individuals and groups will view these changes, whether with joy or alarm.
The Sierra Club website seems quite confused about what it all means. It features a press release condemning the announcement earlier this month that ExxonMobil, the world’s largest private oil company, had posted record second-quarter profits. Under the headline “Good for Exxon, bad for the nation,” the Sierra Club complained: “Instead of using the $7.84 billion in earnings to move the world toward a more sustainable energy future, ExxonMobil will spend millions of it on lobbyists and pseudo-scientists working to cast false doubt on the facts of global warming, and millions more lobbying to drill in America’s most pristine wilderness areas, including Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.”
The same website celebrates the news that Ford, Honda and Toyota have all produced hybrid cars and SUVs and will show the new models at a Sierra Club Convention and Expo early next month in San Francisco.
So aApparently, the Sierra Club wants to have it both ways. Capitalism is considered an altogether good thing when it produces hybrid cars but is an altogether bad thing when an oil company makes money off the sale of fuel.
It doesn’t take much reflection to discover why the environmental groups are so tormented by recent events.
The free-market system has finally produced energy prices that are probably high enough to affect behavior and consumption patterns. No arbitrary government surcharge needs to be imposed to persuade someone to drive less or buy a smaller car or better insulate their homes. Indeed, if energy prices remain high, the recent trends to bigger and bigger homes might even be affected. All of that should make the environmental groups happy.
The reason it has not is that higher energy prices have also produced some effects they specifically don’t like. High on the list is the congressional interest in drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This proposal was twice defeated during the Clinton administration, but it is expected to be approved later this year.
Then there is the issue of nuclear generating capacity and the drive to build more nuclear power plants. They are a clean energy source but not favored by environmental groups.
These organizations are also unhappy with any proposal to build new oil refineries. Largely because of environmental opposition, no new U.S. refinery has been built in 30 years and no new U.S. nuclear power plant in the last 20.
One can be certain that if and when specific proposals surface for such plants, it will set off a firestorm of environmental opposition.
The reason for reciting these facts now is to make a quite simple point. Environmental groups may pick and choose what parts of the free-market economy they like. The rest of us will more happily take the good with the bad.
Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@mindspring.com) is a former member of The Post’s editorial-page staff. His columns appear on Wednesday.
