Read any news source and you'll find the realization spreading that the United States is suffering from a crisis of profligacy, addicted to spending more than it earns, using more energy than it can produce, and having a culture of "I want for me now" that has gone on for 25 years. We are facing national bankruptcy even as millions are unable to make ends meet in their own homes, and we face an economic depression unless people in other countries, poorer countries with problems of their own, continue to sacrifice and save in order to lend us more and more money each and every day. And yet in their debates and in their campaigns, the two candidates for President have done little but promise Americans that nothing they do needs to change, that there will be an easy way out, that the government will provide it, and that it won't cost them anything. Instead of Commander in Chief, we have two candidates for Panderer in Chief.
All the talk about energy independence in the last debate was a bunch of hot air, just as it has been for the past 35 years. If the next President wants to be a leader and turn this country around, he's going to have to make requests and not promises, and he'll have to convince people to work together in ways that are difficult in the short run to make things better in the long run. And I have a suggestion — one thing that can be done within months rather than years. Dynamic carpooling on a large scale.
For those who haven’t read it here before, dynamic carpooling is a system where a different carpool, with different people, is arranged for every trip, with people dialing in on their cellphones and a computer making the matches. It can be used for shopping, visiting, and religious services as well as trips to work. As I have proposed it, the passengers would pay the drivers somewhat more than the typical transit fare, say $3.00 per ride in the New York area, for the equivalent of a taxi ride. Fifty cents would go to the business that operated the service, and $2.50 to the driver who, by taking an average of two people an average of twelve trips per week, could earn an extra $3,000 per year, earnings I believe should be tax-free.
With thousands of trips being arranged every minute, riders would be able to able to give up a car, living with one instead of two, or even no car at all, even in suburban and rural places where they can’t live without one today. The savings would be $3,000 per year and up, depending on the location and the cost of auto insurance there, and the cost of gasoline. A married couple that now has two cars could, by getting rid of one, end up $6,000 or more ahead, as one spouse takes carpoolers and the other one rides. Aging citizens, trapped in suburbs with no transit or services in walking distance, would have a way to get around as driving became difficult. Younger seniors could earn a few dollars taking older seniors around. The complete proposal is once again attached to this post.
Drastically decreasing the use of oil would allow Americans to become more thrifty and turn their personal finances around, without adding the recession by reducing demand. The problem, called the “paradox of thrift” by John Maynard Keynes, is that if everyone saves more money during times of recession, then aggregate demand will fall even more people will lose their jobs. Yet we have to spend less. Spending less on oil wouldn’t reduce jobs in America very much, or even jobs in Russia, China or the Middle East — it would just make a few oligarchs, oil company executives and rich sheiks less rich.
Given the economic, environmental and national security problems we face, the statements of the candidates about goals for reducing dependence on foreign oil were laughably unambitious. Here are real goals. By having people shift to dynamic carpooling on a large scale, use bicycles, telecommute, and — for younger people just starting out and older people retiring — increasingly live in places with transit and pedestrian accessibiliy, the United States could reduce vehicle miles traveled by one-third in twenty years. And by gradually replacing the motor vehicle fleet with newer technology, it could double fuel efficiency in ten years. That would reduce fuel use in passenger transporation by two-thirds in twenty years, to a level domestic oil production and, increasingly, alternatives could satsify. And if the U.S. could reduce energy use by two-thirds in 20 years, it can get it down by one-third in ten. At that point, energy would no longer be the economic and national security threat it is today. Americans cannot afford to replace all their vehicles, and completely rebuild their communities, very quickly. But the can start carpooling.
Here is where leadership comes in. Unless such a system is already in existence with tens of thousands of participants, it doesn’t work. There would be too few trips at any given time to make matches, and riders — who had given up their cars — could end up stranded. So large groups of people would have to join together to get the system working. When I wrote up this proposal 14 years ago, I had thought that New York City’s public employee unions, and unions in organizations that rely on public funding (ie. the health care industry), could lead the way, and perhaps take an ownership interest in the business. They would accept a two-thirds reduction in parking placards and set asides, with the remaining parking reserved for those willing to drive others during each and every trip. Public employee retirees would lead the charge in getting other seniors citizens around. I have since become much more aware of the selfish character of the city’s unions, who represent the most selfish instincts of their most selfish members and no one else. Beside, Sheldon Silver would never allow something new here. Forget New York.
What about Washington DC? The federal government, the military, and government contractors account for a huge share of the workers in that metropolitan area. The next President should ask them to give up two-thirds of their parking spaces and participate in the first large-scale dynamic carpooling system, not only as a matter personal financial benefit but also patriotism. So that there would be more than one competing system, the federal government could also sponsor another system created by another group in another progressive metro area, such as Raleigh-Durham or Austin. As soon as the systems were running well, others would be asked to participate. Within a few years the two or three systems could spread across the country, eventually reaching hidebound, ossified places such as New York.
In addition to public employees and the military, the President could ask religious people and those with strong environmental and humanitarian values to demonstrate those values by participating. The rest, who would whine about other people telling them what to do? They would be ignored and allowed to go on driving and whining by themselves. In addition to the practical benefits, such an initiative could have strong symbolic value — Americans could show themselves that they really are capable of acting to solve problems, and not just of sitting around complaining and expecting others to make everything easy for them. Who knows? Perhaps that attitude might spread to other areas of American life.
Speaking of making everything easy, note that as the price of energy rose people started doing all kinds of things to use less of it and develop alterantives. People started riding bicycles, shifting to transit, and buying fuel efficient cars instead of SUVs. All of a sudden, investors were shifting resources to wind power, solar power, and natural gas drilling, and the demand rose for allowing domestic oil production on the continental shelf. People started making the adjustments, even if they weren’t the easy way, as consumers, companies, and investors.
But now the price of oil has fallen and the price of gasoline is coming down. Cheap imported oil is always the easy way in the short run, no matter how much damage it does to our environment, economy and national security in the long run. And given the values of so many Americans, no one is interested in the long run. Already, it has been reported that Americans are shifting back to SUVs. According to an auto analyst “the data over the last few months show consumers are shallow — they’ll go and buy a large SUV when gas prices go down.” So having nearly been bankrupted by producing fuel inefficient cars, expect the U.S. auto industry to be burned again, perhaps once and for all, if it shifts to fuel efficient cars.
And how about “drill drill drill?” “As recently as July, tapping deep water sources and extracting crude from Canadian oil sands – two very expensive production methods – were seen as economically viable ways to deal with the energy crisis. At that time, the price of oil was above $140 a barrel. Now that the price has fallen below $75 a barrel, and could go even lower, many experts say the future of these projects is uncertain.” Expect the alternative energy industry to be wiped out next, despite all those government subsidies everyone wants.
If the next President wants to be a leader, he’ll have to tell Americans that only by accepting higher energy prices in the short run, and then cutting costs by conserving and shifting to alternatives, can they get lower energy costs, freedom from dependence on foreign sources, and a stable environment in the long run. And he’ll have to convince them to accept a tax that rises as the cost of oil falls, to keep that price high. No one has been willing to say that during the campaign, but as we face an institutional and economic collapse, the United States cannot afford another Panderer in Chief.