|
Ucsd_ucla_dad, I think you missed the point that this is something we COULD have done.
The point also goes beyond the "penalty" people would have accepted to pay ... it goes to the question that a reduction of consumption and the growing availability of fuel efficient vehicles MIGHT have introduced a different element in the current pricing structure of oil. Who knows what could have happened if the US consumption would have dipped well below 20 million bbl/day. We NEEDED to discourage the use of gas-guzzlers, and that is best done by additional penalties at the pump. By letting people buy what they want, we simply did not do anything to prevent or address the looming crises. European countries have had higher prices for gas for generations because they have relied on taxes to fund social services. The United States was in a position to use the price differences to build up cash reserves and jumpstart technologies that could have helped us TODAY.
Reducing our oil consumption by 5% or 10% could have had a drastic result in the United States. Today, if we were to locate a new source of 1 or 2 million bbl/day, we might enjoy lower prices. Well, all or a part of this could have been secured via better efficiency and conservation.
Now, our country seems to be crippled by gas prices at a tad over $4.00. What would we do if that became $8.00 or $10.00 and alternatives were unavailable? If small cars are hard to locate at the current prices, what will happen later?
It could have been different.
|