7
Did the BP oil spill curb your petroleum habit?
A man pumps gas into his car at the Gas & Shop gas station in San Francisco, Calif.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
Tess Vigeland: The BP oil well in the Gulf of Mexico is finally capped. But it will be years before anyone knows exactly how widespread the effects are on the area's economy and environment. What might be easier to judge is its effect on our habits. It takes less than a day for this country to go through the 205 million gallons of oil that poured into the Gulf over three months. So did all those videos of oil-slicked animals and beaches and horror stories from Gulf residents prompt us all to action?
Here with some answers from our Sustainability Desk is Krissy Clark. Welcome Krissy.
Krissy Clark: Thanks Tess.
Vigeland: So a spill of this magnitude surely must have affected our oil consumption?
Clark: Unfortunately, it doesn't look like many people have changed their habits in any way when it comes to this stuff. Consider this MSNBC poll that came out recently: 65 percent of the people asked if they had changed their habits due to the oil spill said no.
Vigeland: Well, of course, we did not become oil addicts over night, right? And I remember even a couple of years ago when gas prices hit almost $4 a gallon and everybody said, "Oh, this is when we'll get off oil." Eh. Uh uh.
Clark: Right. And that actually even changed our habits more than this oil spill did.
Vigeland: Yeah.
Clark: But here's a brief history, just to sort of put this in perspective. What you might call the "petrochemical age," when petroleum products really became the material and energy basis for our lives, that didn't kick into gear until World War II, when it was a matter of national security. We had this urgent need for raw materials, and so government worked with private industry to come up with alternatives, and they turned to oil and the hydro-carbon molecule, which was very flexible. And then of course, once the war was over, there was a huge expansion of the interstate highway system in the 1950s and that dramatically changed the way our cities and towns were laid out. So all of this created a world where we used oil in lots of different ways and we used a lot of it.
Vigeland: And we still do. I mean we have cars, we have airplanes, power plants, we use oil to heat our homes, even run our air conditioners. This is a lot of very hard stuff to give up.
Clark: Yeah, and in fact, about 85 percent of the oil Americans use is all for all of that stuff that you just mentioned. The other 15 percent goes into the chemical industry to make industrial products and more than 6,000 consumer products that we use.
Vigeland: Ah yes, I hear a quote coming to mind, "One word for you: Plastics."
Clark: Exactly.
Vigeland: Benjamin.
Clark: But it's not actually just the obvious things like plastic bags and bottled water. I started to do a thought experiment as I was doing research for all of this. And I thought, "OK, what's the first petroleum product I encounter when I wake up in the morning?" And you actually don't even have to wake up, you're lying on it, because the mattress is full of stuffing that has various synthetic materials. Then you have the alarm clock, of course, that's probably plastic. Then there's some finish on the wood of your bed, most likely, that is made from a petroleum product. When you get into the bathroom, your medicine cabinet is full of cosmetics and medicines, which are all based on oil. So it's everywhere.
Vigeland: OK. I give up then. I mean, what am I supposed to do?
Clark: And that's the thing. I know this is really annoying to say, but on an individual level, there really is not a lot that you can do.
Vigeland: Wow. What happened to sustainability?
Clark: I know, and it's hard because I know that, on the one hand, there are a lot of individuals out there who are well-intentioned and who are trying to do their part, but I spoke with a guy named Harvey Molotch, who's an environmental sociologist at New York University. And he said as many well-intentioned people as there are out in the world who might want to cut back on their oil consumption, mass behavioral change is a very hard thing to do. And he actually found hope in cigarettes.
Vigeland: Cigarettes?
Clark: The idea is that like oil, smoking is something that is very hard to quit on your own. But in the last several years, smokers have actually started voting for smoking bans and cigarette taxes, in the hopes that since they can't quit by themselves, maybe they can at least make it harder for themselves to smoke. So this environmental sociologist, Harvey Molotch, says that we should take a similar approach to oil. If people want to be less dependent on oil, they need to vote for policies that make using oil harder and not using oil easier. Things like taxes that will discourage people over time from using cars or encourage people to make life decisions about where they live or things that on a higher government scale are changing national policies, like the way we design highways or plan cities.
Vigeland: Has he gotten himself off oil?
Clark: I asked him that and here's what he said.
Harvey Molotch: No. I have not done a thing. I do the right thing only 'cause it's easy and I think that's the solution is to make it much easier for people to do the right thing.
Vigeland: There you have it. Thanks so much Krissy.
Clark: You're welcome.
As always, thank you for your normally insightful and practical advise regarding personal finance. However, in this case, I must civilly, briefly, and relevantly, ask you the following:
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MINDS?!
Your self-described expert says that that there is really nothing that we can do on the individual level to curb our appetite for oil?! This is the most absurd piece of misinformation you have ever published. There is plenty that each of us can do. If each of us just found one day of the week where we could carpool, use mass transit, telecommute, bicycle, etc., then we have reduced our energy usage for commuting by 20%. If we decided to simply not buy that Sport Utility Land Barge and make our next vehicle a fuel-efficient sub-compact, then we would have a huge individual impact. Even better, if we use the extra $20,000 (that we did not spend on the $45,000 Sport Utility Gas Guzzler) to buy solar panels or solar hot water or new windows for our home, then the impact becomes even greater.
Please, in the future, have someone with do a smell check on the advice from your self-described experts. I have a family of skunks in my backyard that smell better than this horrible advice.
The BP spill did not change my habits but the $4 got me thinking how much it really cost to drive somewhere to shop, have dinner and commute to work. It has me considering that my next car might be an Aptera. (www.aptera.com) Cars like this will be the next revolution in automobiles.
Oil is seemingly so market competitive than alternatives because there is so much hidden subsidy in it. We spend hundreds of billions $ or maybe a trillion a year out of the federal budget making sure the world gets the oil, like naval task forces keeping the Middle East shipping lanes open, foreign policy, military bases, wars, troops assisting countries guarding their pipelines, ect. Even though we get most of our oil from Central and South America, and the Canadian tar sands. So why do we still spend all those billions to keep oil flowing from the Middle East if we are not using their oil? Because if we did not, hostile nations and terrorists would stop the oil to spite the West, and would cause the world price of oil to go up, causing people like us to re-think our usage. So we in effect, have a hidden subsidy that keeps the apparent price of oil low enough that alternatives cannot compete.
Now if instead of a carbon tax or other new tax, we took the taxes we already pay from the income tax that keep the Middle East oil flowing, and placed that tax at the pump, several good things would happen. We would all get an income tax cut. We would know how much we really pay for oil and begin thinking about our own usage. We could give ourselves a tax cut by reducing our own usage. And alternatives could compete in a fair free market. All these good things with NO NEW TAXES! The only people that would not like this are those who want to keep us on oil, or who insist on driving their Hummers.
Small changes, done by 200 million consumers can make a big difference. Like switching to re-fill able cigarette lighters. Or any of a thousand ways each of us re-consider our habits.
As I was driving home from work I heard your "Marketplace" energy story. Indeed, I admit that I am commuter, and have a rather lengthy commute at that. That being said, I was shouting and cursing at your show as I listened. We are powerless to change anything? Has this become the accepted level of journalism at NPR? Individuals are, in reality, the ones who change _everything_. It is individuals who are finally able to bring about enough pressure to force their government to improve regulations and laws (where positive changes can then be multiplied many times over). Krissy -- women now have the right to vote in America. Are you aware of how difficult that struggle was? Was it "easy?" Should we really all "just give up?" No, we should not. I chose my current car specifically because of its fuel efficiency. I decided (after much debate) not to get a Prius for too many complex reasons to go into now. Suffice it to say that I'm averaging between 38-40 mpg on a commute that includes quite a few stop lights. In 1973 (Arab Oil Embargo), as an individual, I bought a car that got 40mpg (though, it was a "tin can" compared to today's version of the same model). I've been buying cars, based on reliability, safety, and fuel efficiency, for years. On the cover of a recent "CS Monitor" the huge typeface exclaims, "OFF THE GRID." Of course "we" can do something! My community has huge trash and recycling containers. We have a compost pile in our backyard and usually only have a few small plastic bags for trash pickup. A powerful robotic arm picks up a huge container, and out comes 1 or 2 small plastic bags. Conversely, our recycling container is picked-up once every 2 weeks, and it's occasionally close to being full. A drive around the neighborhood reveals tons of wasted packaging in burgeoning trash containers, however, our family decided (by our own initiative and freedom of choice) to support the far and away healthier organic/sustainable food system, and we produce only a small fraction of trash. Please watch "The World According to Monsanto," "King Corn," "Gasland," "Crude: The real price of oil." EDUCATE YOURSELVES!! Where we buy our food makes a huge difference, not only in petroleum, but in many other ways as well (worthy of dozens of reports and articles). What type of car we drive and _how_ we drive makes a huge difference. "Jackrabbit starts" really do waste millions of gallons of fuel each year. During my commute, I see dozens of pathetically wasteful SUV's and huge PU trucks, all carrying one passenger each -- all doing jackrabbit starts. Jimmy Carter offered meaningful incentives for people to invest in Wind and Solar energies. Reagan abolished those incentives and they've never reappeared. If Americans had the will power, we could perform miracles with wind and solar. Solar technology is still in its infancy -- if we would get serious, we would enjoy improvements analogous to those we've seen in the personal computer world. This little laptop has more computing ability than a mainframe had in the 1960's. The mainframe required a large room and large amounts of energy -- not to mention the large AC system to keep that room chilled to the upper 60 degree range. The Space Program, to a very large degree, created the Integrated Circuit (IC). Without the IC, computers would still be massively expensive and we wouldn't have hundreds of the devices that we've come to take completely for granted. If we had been working seriously on alternative energy for the last 30+ years, with real funding behind it, the Gulf Oil Spill would likely have never even happened. And furthermore, much of the reason that this has not happened is due to the corporate takeover of the press and news media. Some years back, PBS did an unflattering report on Monsanto (or was it ADM?). Now, both Monsanto _and_ ADM are PBS "corporate sponsors." 90% of all media is now owned by (IIRC) 5 companies. Without real investigative journalism, the public is fed "infotainment" -- like this opinion piece that has been passed-off as reporting. In reality, the "report" you just did was either unwitting misinformation or wanton and wilful disinformation. In reality, there is a great deal that people can do to reduce our petroleum use to a manageable and realistic level. Reinforcing people's ignorance and laziness is just what corporate America wants -- and happens to be the polar opposite of what Americans need.
"I know this is really annoying to say, but on an individual level, there really is not a lot that you can do."
I know, right? Like, I know all about the suicides of Chinese workers in the Apple factories, but I just can't stop buying iPads. I have 5 now and need more! I just don't care about other people at all. I'm pretty much all that matters.
I need the government to save the world from my inability to control myself!
First World Problems are SOOO HARD! I just can't stop consuming. Please, make the government create new laws so I don't have to do anything hard - like avoid buying a million silly bands! Or say no to my kids! Or have less shoes than my neighbors.
Since I have no morality or individual convictions, this is certainly the only way!
"I do the right thing only 'cause it's easy."
There you have it.
Is the individual really rather powerless, as you say? A young couple living in a rented basement apartment in Nashville refused to believe it and they ended up saving enough to buy all renewable (wind, solar, water) electric power - no coal at all. In addition they made an award winning documentary of it, "Kilowatt Ours" which has been playing in schools across the country teaching people just how much they can do. Your statement "we can do very little" does not agree with any science textbook currently printed.
This is HORRIBLE and filled with lies! It is like saying we can do nothing about child abuse, only these lies are more malignant and harmful (not hype).
U.S. oil consumption dropped 6% in 2008, 2009 so even though people surveyed may say "no change" thsy have changed. The INDIVIDUAL is the most important element in any social change, not just because of what Margaret Mead observed but thermodunalically and economically in this particular case. Krissy Clark has no business speaking to this issue. If we could get each individual (homeowner) to buy 3 CFL bulbs and replace them it would be the equivalent of removing over a million cars from the road. Replace one meat dish with a vegetable substitute a week and there is a similar reduction.
When you begin to speak of "What can people do to be more sustainable?" please get someone that has some good practical knowledge in the field. Try Bil McKibben, Lester Brown, or Paul Hawken to name a few.
I do applaud your mentioning it, how it's the energy using infrastructure we built modern America with that makes reducing our energy use completely impossible for how we live. It's tragic that it has taken 40 years of people like me pointing this fact out to you and others in control of the public discussion of energy conservation for me to finally hear it mentioned in public. That's a "slow response" to our rather fast moving problem.
Your piece on it then completely reversed course, however. It went back on the false theory everyone has been touting all along, the "control your appetite" theory that the first half of the segment had proven false. It will NOT just take more social cohesion and commitment to change. It will take being realistic, not fatalistic or moralistic.
The real reason we can't change is that building infrastructure to consume ever more energy is how money is made. The problem is that building infrastructure to do the opposite, does the opposite.
The real connection between money and reality is that our way of "making money" is done by using more and more energy. That's because... energy is nature's money, and switching from "using it more" to "using it better" has not started to be discussed. That's the next taboo for you to break on this path toward real understanding.
If you want to get some leads and support for covering the rest of the story, call or write. I'm "in the book"...
