The current economic climate may indeed require that we respond with meaningfull action. If driving over a cliff is not an option, maybe we should think about rock-climbing...
I wrote my last post in response to some radio commentary I heard on the subject of gas prices. A slew of typical complaints and predictable expressions of indignation came from each of the radio personalities on the air at the time, including the traffic reporter, the host and even the weatherman. This latter local celebrity decided to weigh in by calling for a political, grass-roots, popular revolt in response to the big “them” who conspire to oppress us and otherwise ruin our lives with price gouging at the pumps. My initial response took the form of a letter which I sent to the radio station, which I pasted here word-for word in the previous post. But I have to confess that I pulled a few punches partly in deference to diplomacy and decorum, but mainly for the sake of brevity.
Needless to say a more elaborate rebuttal is in order, and while I intend to maintain the level of decorum befitting a blog of some repute – which is what I aspire to at Kyotomotors – I am compelled to take this preposterous call to arms down a notch or two before people start to take it too seriously. Indeed, this particular point about a democratic uprising, should be addressed more directly, given the current context of the past six months.
From the perspective of someone who has spent considerable time understanding fossil fuels and our consumption/ dependence issues, comments like this would be largely laughable if they didn’t go so completely unchecked in the ensuing discourse. The fact that the revolutionary spirit of protest would manifest itself in such a self-centered, and lazy analysis of the situation can only be chalked up as a sorry sign of the times. This may not be obvious to the average listener, or to readers of this blog either, so I’m going to try to take the time to reflect on just how misguided this expression of protest and wished-for activism actually is.
Let’s start by imagining the wish realised: perhaps protestors from all the suburbs around
would converge on the downtown arteries in their vehicles, possibly slowing to a stand-still bringing the city to a halt to demand lower prices! Perhaps from there they get out of their cars and march. Where do they go? The Government offices? Corporate headquarters of Shell or Esso or PetroCanada? These authorities have some power, and certainly don’t want the economy to grind to a halt. The question is then, does Big Oil move against their shareholders’ wishes and slash profits for the sake of the economy? If this seems too unlikely, let’s imagine an alternate path toward the same end: the Quebec government could nationalise Big Oil in the province (“PetroQuebec” perhaps?) and mandate that petroleum be provided to its citizens at a cut-rate a la Hugo Chavez, giving them a huge leg-up and decisive economic advantage on the world stage…From there, Quebeckers return to their happy motoring as though there was nothing wrong in the world as far a petroleum is concerned. Montreal
There are, of course several things wrong with this picture. The biggest problem perhaps is that this story of reform hinges on the demands of consumers not of citizens. I could go on at length here about the finer details that distinguish the two, but I’d rather stick to the basics for now: Consumers are by definition self-centred entities manipulated by marketing, who, in demanding their “freedom” in the market place, end up bolstering their dependence on commodities instead. Consumers conflate entitlement privileges with rights, responsibilities and obligations. These moral distinctions separate consumer desires from true social movements.
Another major problem is that
Quebec happens not to have any oil of its own to speak of, so the analogy (even if that brand of socialism were palatable here) falls on its ass. In the game of Big Oil it’s the importers who pay, especially in the era of peak oil. Add to this the fact that a major refining facility on the Venezuela island of Montreal was closed down not too long ago, and you have to accept that when it comes to the Oil Game, is holding a bum hand. Quebec
So the protest that was conjured in the heat of high gas prices is a doomed prospect that could never achieve the motorist’s objective. Yes, motorists could boycott Big Oil, and perhaps they would succeed in forcing gas prices down as oil companies try to get them back behind the wheel. But for many reasons I pointed out in my previous blog, high prices would quickly return so long as a return to status quo (ie.daily commuting) is the objective. This is the painful truth we are trying to avoid: high gas prices are pretty much permanent under the current living arrangements and ways of doing business.
Meanwhile, for those who do hang on to the commuter habits and arrangements, such a protest is disingenuous because the intention to boycott is probably a ruse at best, given the insistence by so many that “they have no choice” while they line up for more expensive gas. At the end of the day, the public is resigned, and seems to be saying “nothing can be done!” and “what’s the use?! Evil prevails!”
But in fact something can be done. Which is to say I’m very interested in taking a closer look at boycotting the oil and gas industry…But I’ll save that for a future post.
One final thought here:
There is a sad irony that the “call to action” would come from a celebrity weatherman, who in the age of global warming should be somewhat sensitive toward the consequences of our consumption of petroleum. Higher gas prices do indeed offer the benefit of reduced consumption. Once we start looking at it as an opportunity to address global warming on a personal scale, we’ll perhaps be able to accept this economic reality as part and parcel of our responsibility to act with the greater good in mind.