The Daily Grasshopper

(To all: Been having some technical difficulties with the old ISP - sorry for the delay. This is yesterday's entry. Am busily working on my rebuttal to the President's State of the Union. Will forward ASAP. PK)

I have to confess that I did not tune in to the President’s State of the Union speech this evening, so I will reserve judgment on it until I’ve had a chance to read the transcript. However, I’m going to assume that he didn’t mention the word “oil” once, that he continued to insist that we’re going to war to “liberate the Iraqi people, etc.,” and that I’ll have my hands full pointing out all the gaps between Bush’s rhetoric and the world’s reality in tomorrow’s entry. The fact that my telephone isn’t ringing off the hook is a good indication that, for now at least, the Bush administration’s war is still on. So we go to today’s news.

There’s a whole lot in the papers today about the U.N. weapons inspectors’ reports, which were delivered in New York yesterday. Much has been made of the apparent shift in Secretary of State Colin Powell’s rhetoric (“Patience Gone, Powell Adopts Hawkish Tone,” said the New York Times front page), and the overall negative tone of Hans Blix’s report (“Report faults Iraq on arms” shouts the Boston Globe’s top headline). Less prominent has been the discussion of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report. According to the Times, the report “that Iraq has not resumed its nuclear program has challenged one of the Bush administration’s main arguments for taking military action to topple the Iraqi government.” (NYT, pg. A9).

You can read the whole story ("Report's Findings Undercut U.S. Argument") here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/international/middleeast/28INTE.html

As popular opposition to this administration’s planned war mounts, both at home and abroad, it’s interesting to watch some of the related developments. I’m not saying there’s always a direct correlation between the stories, but I wouldn’t want to rule it out, either. A good example is one of the other front-page stories from the New York Times: “Hybrid Autos Quick to Pass Curiosity Stage.” The article is an in-depth look at how Toyota and Honda have beat the big U.S. automakers to the punch in seizing on the growing market for energy-efficient cars. You can read the story here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/business/28HYBR.html

Here’s my favorite quote from the article:

“What’s the cost of fuel? It’s not $1.80 a gallon. It’s how much does a war in Iraq cost? How much does the fact you’ve got 75 years of this stuff left on the planet cost? And then what’s the cost of pollution? At some point, the industry has to recognize it.”

Now, those of you who read the article know who said that, but if you didn’t, then you probably think I’m quoting one of the environmentalists or consumer advocates that can be reliably called upon to slam the auto industry in the pages of the New York Times. Nope. That quote is from none other than James E. Press, executive vice president of Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A.

Now, even allowing for some tough-talking rivalry between U.S. and foreign companies, what he’s saying is still remarkable. In that short paragraph, he’s conceding that 1) the U.S. government (his government – he’s the VP of the U.S. division of Toyota) subsidizes the low price of gas in this country through its deployments in the Persian Gulf; 2) the war in Iraq is about continued access to or control over the supply of cheap oil; and 3) the world’s known oil reserves will be gone, if present consumption continues, in less than a century. You see what I mean about interesting developments related to the war? This is a high-ranking auto industry executive talking like, well, a member of the Green Party. Yes, he’s trying to sell more hybrid cars, but this kind of candor would have been considered WAY off the reservation in the not-too-distant past from anyone in the industry.

What’s really entertaining is the reaction of the U.S. automakers. The U.S. public is responsible for the demand for these energy-efficient models, despite the fact that it means buying foreign-made cars. It’s clear from the comment of General Motors’ vice chairman for North American operations that at least one of the Big Three is being dragged kicking and screaming into the hybrid world: “You just can’t fly in the face of public opinion. It would be self-defeating to constantly say to ourselves, ‘It’s not gonna work, it’s not gonna work.’”

Even better is the quote from GM’s CEO, Rick Wagoner. Referring to the fact that the U.S. government is planning to subsidize the purchase of environmentally friendly cars by giving tax breaks to hybrid owners, Wagoner stated, “For this to go, it’s a team sport. We’re going to need the government in.” A classic corporate honcho – never missing an opportunity to go to the government with a hand out. It’s always a “team sport” when a Fortune 100 company wants a little help from the government, but when it comes to obeying regulations, or paying taxes, most of the big companies adopt a very unsportsmanlike attitude.

Of course, government subsidies for hybrid cars are not new, and this is a “team sport” that has been going on for over a decade. The government has been “in,” as in “giving over a billion dollars of taxpayer money to the big three domestic auto makers” for years, as part of its “Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles” (PNGV). Never heard of it? That’s because it never did much of anything except drain a bunch of taxpayer money from the Treasury into the coffers of GM, DaimlerChrysler, and Ford. Classic corporate welfare. And, in the end, the Japanese wind up beating the U.S. companies to the punch, which is pretty much what happened when Toyota and Honda flooded us with cheap imports in the ‘70s, responding to another energy crisis.

Veteran consumer advocate Ralph Nader explains PNGV in a June, 2000 op-ed piece:

"More than a billion dollars in taxpayer money has been spent to support the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles.

It is time for the Clinton Administration and Congress to end one of the most unnecessary corporate giveaways in recent times. The name is soothing – The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles – but the program is aggravating.

PNGV is a collaboration between the Clinton-Gore administration and the Big Three automakers – General Motors, Ford, and Daimler Chrysler. In return for federal funding and access to the research efforts of 7 federal agencies and 20 federal laboratories, industry participants have pledged to create production prototype vehicles of a "supercar" that would be, according to the Department of Commerce, "an environmentally friendly car with up to triple the fuel efficiency of today's midsize cars – without sacrificing affordability, performance, or safety."

The House of Representatives' Committee on the Budget has publicly denounced the program as corporate welfare asserting that the auto industry does not need the money. The same research is already being conducted by the Big Three, and any technologies that do emerge as a result of PNGV will mainly benefit foreign manufacturers and foreign consumers. A supercar is unlikely to ever be mass-produced. Members of Congress such as John Kasich, (R-Ohio), John E. Sununu (R-NH) and Robert E. Andrews (D-NJ) are taking a pro-taxpayer stand by opposing this boondoggle.

The PNGV initiative has served as a smoke screen behind which the automakers have hidden for nearly a decade to protect themselves from more stringent CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency) standards.”

You can read the whole article at:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/061900-104.htm.

Bush & Co. may not get it yet, but it seems to me that the American people do. They understand the points made by the Toyota U.S.A. VP about the amount of money (and lives) being wasted to maintain our oil addiction. The people, once again, are leading. Maybe hybrids won’t be more than 10-20 percent of the market at first. But like the man from Toyota says, in 75 years, all the gas could be gone. Then what?

I don’t know about you, but I’ve already got a plan: http://www.veggievan.com.

And if you really want to see something wild, check out this report from 1998 that estimates the actual cost of a gallon of gasoline to be anywhere from $5-15, when you factor in things like the cost of sending troops to the Persian Gulf every 10 years:

http://www.icta.org/projects/trans/rlprexsm.htm

Here’s the important part, for those who don’t like to link:

“Beyond program subsidies, governments, and thus taxpayers, subsidize a large portion of the protection services required by petroleum producers and users. Foremost among these is the cost of military protection for oil-rich regions of the world. US Defense Department spending allocated to safeguard the world's petroleum resources total some $55 to $96.3 billion per year. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a federal government entity designed to supplement regular oil supplies in the event of disruptions due to military conflict or natural disaster, costs taxpayers an additional $5.7 billion per year. The Coast Guard and the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration provide other protection services totaling $566.3 million per year. Of course, local and state governments also provide protection services for oil industry companies and gasoline users. These externalized police, fire, and emergency response expenditures add up to $27.2 to $38.2 billion annually.”