Jonathan Rauch, member of that rare species the serious-minded liberal, today offers Dubya the intriguing proposal that he pursue an international treaty to end the use of gasoline by 2039. Doing so, Rauch notes, would have salubrious (our Word for Today) effects on global politics and the global economy as well as the global environment.
We believe that every reason he gives for hailing the end of gasoline is sound. But aside from wondering out loud whether economics and developing technology have foreordained gasoline's demise before 2039 anyway, we have to ask ourselves this question out louder:
What if, in response to a global anti-gasoline treaty, oil-producing nations banded together with their own agreement to pump more oil at a smaller profit margin, or even for a time to "dump" oil at a loss, making fossilized hydrocarbons so cheap as to buy off treaty signatories and maintain for a span of time their lock on the global economy? Could America count on such global partners as Russia, China, or France to keep their promises with cheap oil on the market again? Could America itself resist gasoline at the equivalent of, say, $1.50/gallon in 2006 dollars?
We believe that if oil-producing nations have that fundamental economic capacity, they will exercise it effectively. We believe further that if they don't, economic developments will overtake them at about the same pace with or without a treaty.
In other words, we believe that the world will be gasoline free at about the same time and with the same effects whether or not Rauch's treaty gets written and signed.
But we could be wrong, just this once.
No comments:
Post a Comment