You Can't Have It Both Ways, Part N+1

In a recent survey the Times conducted in response to the BP oil spill, a disappointingly routine disconnect emerged. "Overwhelmingly, Americans think the nation needs a fundamental overhaul of its energy policies, and most expect alternative forms to replace oil as a major source within 25 years," write John M. Broder and Marjorie Connelly. "Yet a majority are unwilling to pay higher gasoline prices to help develop new fuel sources."

Unfortunately for these respondents, who seem to reflect popular opinion, U.S. energy policy can't change fundamentally unless gasoline prices increase. The two are inseparable. As long as the externalities of gasoline consumption, such as air pollution or massive ocean pollution, are not included in gasoline's price, it will remain the country's cheapest energy source. If prices remain more or less the same -- though the past five years have certainly highlighted commodity prices' volatility -- demand continues to grow, which is all it has done in the past 60 years, exacerbated by massive increases in the past 15 years in China and India. With that, oil companies will continue to explore for and extract oil in more environmentally and politically dangerous places, risking public health and international political stability.

This is how federal energy policy and BP's spill are related. In order for energy policy to reach a different summit, the market has to be re-directed and a collective sacrifice has to be made. One can't request a systemic change and realize it without making personal changes to lifestyle, driving and land-use habits. The situation reminds me of a theme Thomas Friedman often writes about in his columns. He criticizes the Bush administration for its handling of the Iraq War because it said the country could go to war and win without committing many soldiers or much money or losing many lives. All we civilians had to do was keep shopping.