My fiance and I were actually discussing this last night in the context of many things-- primarily the context was a report she is writing for a class about snowmobiles in Yellowstone and the economic implications that surround the issue of banning or restricting snowmobiles in the park. She was basically arguing from a practical standpoint that the role of the U.S. government is to protect people's economic well-being (whether that constitutes jobs or an industry) and that to ban snowmobiles in Yellowstone would mean putting many poor people out of jobs.

The issue is similar to that of loggers or the automobile industry-- changing really fast will cost people some jobs. Personally I think this is ok. There is no entitlement to live in a place because you grew up there, or be entitled to be a logger or a producer of SUVS just because you've been doing it for a long time and making profits.

Although, from a political and realistic standpoint, a gradual phase-out is probably best as my fiancee was arguing. I have to agree-- and I even have investments in green technologies... The stocks are like a rollercoaster. I'm actually surprised because the news reports are that green investments are the next big thing-- but I have yet to see my investments make stable gains. Once green industries are really profitable, then the transition will be accelerated.

The cost of gas for the typical consumer might deter some from buying SUVS and other gas guzzlers in the future-- but the bigger driving force (no pun intended) is that the demand for slower and more fuel efficient and greener vehicles exists. The American attitude is such that I doubt this transition will be fast. People like large vehicles that can go fast and protect them in the event of accidents.

All that said though, I hope that we start to see some real change in the right direction in the upcoming years. I want to invest more money in green energy and technology-- because reliance on gas, as the article you linked to suggests, is just a losing battle period.

A lot of this makes sense, but I can't possibly accept that the government's role is strictly to "protect the people's economic well-being." I mean, if that's really what went on it would be a different discussion entirely. But that's an ideal that's far from reality, as I see it. What I really want to say is this: a lot of that makes sense, but for one thing, who gives a shit about the economy when you don't have clean water to drink, for example? I just think the shit about misplaced caribou sympathy is ridiculous. DON'T drill in Alaska, AND let the prices climb. American consumers on many levels of the social spectrum make clear decisions to engage in practices that they absolutely do not need to be engaged in. Blaming the victim is not what I want to do, but I guess for one thing I'm just not that nationalistic- people in America lose jobs, well you know what? They're not the only ones. Basically this whole country shits on entire large segments of the global population on a regular basis. Biodiversity is not a privelage, it is a necessity. Drilling in Alaska should remain a non-possibility.

Jesse, I agree with you. I personally dislike the notion that the government's role is to "protect the people's economic well-being."

Unfortunately, based on my study of history, this is more or less the precedent that was set for our country at its founding.

Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" makes excellent arguments suggesting that the U.S. Constitution and our government were more or less designed to protect the rights of white men with property.

Of course, Zinn himself recognizes that this view is fairly uninspirational and biased, but also wanted to bring another perspective to the table.

I tend to agree with the view-- although at this time the historical precedent of protecting white men's property now seems transparent (i.e. Bush protecting the rights of big business). American beliefs concerning the folk/American legend history most of us were taught in the classroom as kids now seems forsaken by the Bush Administration. But the legend (as Zinn also argues) was created to help perpetuate a belief that the U.S. is about equality, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.

Similarly, the American Civil War was initially less about the immorality of slavery than it was about the South's financial ruin if slavery was banned. The South seceded primarily because the Union did not assure them of economic protection. Eventually, of course, the immorality of slavery became another justification for waging war.

I liked the "People's History" but it started to get so depressing and repetitive in its precision that I could not make my way through the later parts of the book and skipped ahead to the conclusion.

In the end though, my point Jesse is that although the historic tendency of our government is focused on protecting the wealth of the privileged, I like to see the federal government play a greater role in other aspects of our life... education, health care, conservation, transportation, and so on. Alright, this blabberwriter's out...

While I say Amen to that, and for years have thought that rising gas prices are a good thing in terms of changing attitudes about SUV's, technology, etc. the fact of the matter is, it's easy for me to say amen. I can afford it. Let's face it, most of us can afford it. Sure it might take a bite out of our pockets. Sure you might not be able to join netfix or you might have to cancle HBO, or have one less drink on a friday, but if you had to pay more for gas, you could make it work.

But what about those that cannot. High gas prices are going to f!@# the poor, the people who are scraping by. Mass transit prices, buses, they will all rise. Flight will become a luxary for those only with money. Society is going to seperate more and more as the poor, the middle class, all get left behind. Food costs will rise. Those that commute to work because the only home they could afford for their families was an hour away, will find themselves unable to afford living there as well as the cost of gas bites into their savings.

We will all feel it, but this is going to cripple a lot of people. Just remember that as we say amen.

"People like large vehicles that can go fast and protect them in the event of accidents."

Hard to imagine why that might be.

Yes, but don't forget gas is $5/gallon in Europe. The U.S. has been living in a dream.

A gas crunch will hurt those below the poverty line disproportionately, especially those in rural areas that need to drive long distances, but also America will begin to understand that suburban sprawl and gas guzzling vehicles is not an attainable ideal for those in or aspiring to be in the middle-class. My hope is that, during the sad yet somewhat inevitable crisis that you mention above, real estate dependent on sprawl will start to decline, creating denser and Jacobs-ian communities. Such a situation will create jobs in dense environments, hopefully making it easier for the poor to get to their jobs. Public transportation prices will go up, but so then government should be spending their money on bringing those prices down, not gas prices.

Also, clearly I think we'd be better off with higher gas prices coupled with a more socialistic government than what the Bush administration represents.

Alright, this blabberwriter’s out…
-No way, I love discussing this. I mean, go if you want to, I'm just saying...

I think really we agree pretty heavily. My comments about the environment- I mean, I realize you weren't espousing any of that, and I don't really know the details of your fiance's paper, political outlook, or for that matter the way in which snowmobiles in yellowstone relate to employment. I was mainly responding to Krauthammer and his statements about drilling in the Arctic.
I realize my statement about American jobs may seem a bit heavy handed, but I think it could be argued that a significant rise in unemployment could have a similar effect to a significant rise in gas prices- i.e., could force a greater awareness that, our country's infrastructure notwithstanding, many people in this country are in very comparable positions in terms of stable employment, living wages, etc., to many of the expendable individual workers the world over. Clearcutting and drilling may provide temporary employment solutions, but when the environment starts to really kick us in the fucking face, who's gonna be sent to the front of the line?

NYAnthony, I don't entirely agree with you, as you can see from the above, about 'who gets to say amen to that.' Short term it sucks for those who already struggle. Long term though, it's only gonna suck more. There are no more quick fixes. What you are describing is already happening, and will happen even if action is taken to momentarily stabilize gas prices- and if you look at it on a global scale, which to my mind is the only way to look at it at this point, it only gets uglier.

Did I mention I'm an optimist?

also America will begin to understand that suburban sprawl and gas guzzling vehicles is not an attainable ideal for those in or aspiring to be in the middle-class.

I'm not confident that our country, politically or culturally, is that focused on the needs of the lower classes.

Sure, but Europe wasn't built around cars. We were. In the long run, getting the USA away from a car mentality will be great, but until then, it's not going to be pretty.

Withdrawal from an addiction is never pretty.

As for drilling in the arctic: sounds to me like a short-term solution to merely suppress a symptom. It's not worth the environmental damage.

Jesse, of course I'd love to keep talking about it. I just don't want to come off as pretentious with historical information you might already know.

A little more information: my fiance is from Lima, Peru and so she has a very different understanding of poverty, employment, and all other things related to the modern third world than I can bring to a discussion at this time. My very brief 1st trip to Peru in January was extremely eye opening for me.

Idealistically, my fiance and I both think that snowmobiles should be banned in national parks and that people can find new jobs-- as crazymonk says though, addiction, or a widespread phenomenon in this case, is challenging to get rid of immediately. The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is one of the most intact ecosystems left in the U.S. and therefore it makes sense to me that if there is one place where natural interests should trump human interests, it's Yellowstone. Although that is where our philosophical view of nature changes.

We both see people as part of nature, rather than separate from it... in other words, wilderness should include people, not exclude them. So there is a predicament-- if people cannot enjoy nature and understand it's relevance, then they will have no conception of why it is important to protect. So we are for some use of parks and natural lands-- although we think deep down that snowmobilers have other places they can snowmobile and see elk and bison near Yellowstone.

Moving back to a discussion of gas and transportation though... I agree that drilling in the National Arctic Refuge is a short-term solution rotten with ill effects...

On the other hand, crazymonk, I'm not sure if people living in dense spaces will solve problems and that jobs created in those dense areas will be a good thing. What will people do in these jobs?

I don't know if this is off topic, but I have been wondering a lot lately about which industries are the first to suffer when gas prices go up. It's a lot easier said than done to simply drive less and the switch to a more gas effecient car takes a while, so what luxuries do Americans cut first when they are short on money? Maybe higher gas prices caused last year's supposed slump at the box office. I don't know. Maybe you deeper minds will.

Rodenator, as I work at times for the National Park Service, I can tell you that higher gas prices directly affects the tourist industry across the nation. People take vacations closer to home and sometimes not at all. It would be easy to say that vacations are a luxury-- but I think they are important for public health and for increased efficiency at work.

Less plastic would be a nice step to take. And of course I'm sure a decline in plastics consumption could precipitate a whole other set of problems economically... unless we recognize that there are alternatives here too, and transitions can never be perfectly smooth.
This is thought-provoking, I think:
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/04/12/griscom-little/index.html
of course, here's a whole other set of questions and problems we've only slightly touched on in this discussion. But it's thought-provoking.

Thanks, Jesse. It's extremely encouraging to read that-- although the
powerful Walmart hater/boycotter in me is quite cynical that it will
pass to be true.

Oh yeah, the conflict that article produces in me is awesome. And of course keep the PR factor in mind (I'm sure you do, I say so rhetorically). It will be very interesting to see to what extent he chooses/is able to follow through on that. Somewhat related in terms of content:
http://www.guernicamag.com/interviews/147/built_green/

Sorry Slater, I read your last response really quickly. Didn't mean to repeat exactly what you just said.

No worries, Jesse. I looked at parts of the last article you linked to and there is some pretty interesting information in there as well.

So sure enough, Hastert's calling for drilling even though it'll make no difference to anyone except him and exxon. I hope it hurts when he dies.