Crises are Opportunities for Change
Posted May 27, 02:52 pm in business, economics, environment, experiences, politics, sustainability, transportation
Crises are essential to progress. They are one of the most effective catalysts of change, and you can count on crises to lay the death blow to our most enduring issues of status quo. They provide convenient— yet paradoxically inconvenient— turning points in history, and allow us to contemplate the options on how to adjust ourselves to prepare for the future.
Currently, as fuel prices skyrocket, we have a populace that is becoming increasingly angry about the situation, and demanding of politicians to solve the problem. Of course, for most people, solving the problem is just another way of saying “reducing the price.” And unfortunately, many of those most affected are inclined to use this opportunity not to seriously consider their own fuel consumption patterns, their excessive driving habits, or their choice of vehicle, but instead to point blame at politicians, oil companies, and lobbyists who may be in some way responsible for the rise in fuel costs.
However, perhaps there has been a sort of tipping point in the social consciousness where the public has in some roundabout way, acknowledged that oil procurement is going to be a continuing problem for our economy, and any reductions in gas costs are only going to be temporary respites punctuated by large spans in which high costs are the rule rather than the exception. However, despite this somewhat subconscious admission, it appears that most people are not all that excited about the opportunity to alter their consumption patterns, and would be happy to return to their daily lives without having to “endure” any macro-economic change that might force a shift in their consumption behavior in the future. This is disappointing, but not all that surprising, as there is a heavy resistance to change in almost every social scenario. Tragically, the status quo tends to thrive out of inertia even when it no longer makes any sense, for reasons that are hard to explain.
But let’s think about this harder, and see how we might be able to manage the crisis for the best long-term solution.
Oil is a limited resource, but the world’s apparent appetite for oil is virtually unlimited. As such, prices for fuel are only going to increase in the long run. However, we are witnessing motorists using their gas-powered vehicles less in the recent past as prices have increased, suggesting that oil demand is somewhat elastic in the non-commercial sector. I believe that this is a good sign, as it suggests that people are willing to make some personal adjustments, but on the down side, this is only the result of short-term economic self-interest; it has nothing to do with long-term energy strategy, the encouragement of sound energy policy, or attempts to reduce the impacts of pollution.
I would posit that reducing fuel consumption is one the greatest necessities of our era, for any number of political, environmental, humanitarian, and economic reasons. Aside from those who seek to profit directly from the sale of oil, I don’t think anyone has a particular fondness for oil that goes beyond its utility value. For that reason, along with the immeasurable societal baggage that comes with oil usage, it seems a wise investment of resources to redirect energy policy towards other forms of energy.
However, it can be argued that any other energy source has its ups and downs, and it is entirely possible that alternative energies like solar, wind, and geothermal could bring about their own crippling problems once developed to the scale that humanity requires for daily consumption.
Given this, clearly, one of the most obvious solutions to the problem is to decrease consumption. This is a lofty and well-placed goal for many reasons, but some might argue that the economic costs of this could be high. Maybe, maybe not. I tend to think that economic conditions, like many macro-scale phenomena, have a way of attaining an equilibrium state even if there are temporary hardships involved.
The fuel crisis is presenting us with a choice:
Do we want to continue using a resource whose quantity is rapidly dwindling, whose cost is rising dramatically, and which poses any number of environmental challenges? Or do we want to use this opportunity to reduce our consumption of this resource and invest money, resources, and policy into promoting new sources of energy that are sustainable, scalable, and environmentally sound— especially knowing that consumers are driven by short-term economic interests, and aren’t typically willing to alter their consumption patterns unless forced to by outside conditions?
As posed above, the latter is clearly the superior choice. We won’t get into the complexities involved in choosing that choice and the compromises involved in it, but let’s suppose we are in fact interested in long-term energy strategy. How can we leverage the fact that short-term economic self-interest is the primary driver of purchasing behavior?
One of the most obvious answers to discouraging unwanted behavior comes in the form of taxes. Increase taxation on oil, reduce it on alternative fuels, give tax breaks for buying bicycles, etc. In other words, simply make the undesirable action the more costly one to choose. The trouble comes when we try to balance the interests of society as a whole with economic interests of a few companies that happen to be critical linchpins in the economy.