Planetshed

Blog archive

Are STRONG Policies the Start of Rehab for U.S. Addiction?

The New America Foundation's Lisa Margonelli, director of the think tank's energy initiative, has developed a new acronym: STRONG (Secure Transportation Reducing Oil Needs Gradually) and while the translation is a little awkward, the meaning may be starting to sink in.

The tragedies in the Gulf of Mexico are a good launching pad for lots of things. In the last two weeks, I have received at least six technological "solutions" guaranteed to take care of the oil spill. The contamination is spreading further east and onshore, affecting more species and more economies. And now cleanup crews are being warned about long-term health effects. Could the STRONG initiative be a reasonable approach to easing our oil addiction?

Margonelli's "Strong America 2020" outlines ways that the United States can reduce demand on oil by more than 3 million barrels a day in 10 years with no new technology, vehicles or fuels. That's what she said: No new technology, vehicles or fuels.

The strategy centers on policy changes, none of which are without their own costs to somebody (each change is tied to a specific barrel of oil per day reduction). They are:

  • strong CAFÉ standards already in place;
  • an incremental 3 percent STRONG tax that is accompanied by a lesson in the true costs right on the pump receipt;
  • systemic transit policy upgrades (pdf) recommended by the non-partisan Mobility Choice Coalition;
  • new air traffic routing and scheduling and loans to truckers for energy efficient engines and aerodynamic designs; and
  • a guaranteed loan program for the most fuel efficient cards funded by half of the subsidies ($5 billion) now used for oil exploration.

In a way, our need for oil reminds me of our need for water. On both counts, we don't pay the full cost and we simply take for granted that we can continue this way. We need to change more than policies (although that is a good thing) and mindsets. People simply need to change they way they live and, of course, there's nothing simple about that.

(Image courtesy Department of Energy)

Posted by L.K. Williams on Jun 14, 2010 at 7:50 AM


Comments

Tue, Jun 15, 2010

The above appears to be a shallow and one-dimensional approach with the focus being on the fuel pump. While this is the largest single point of contact for cost for the average person, what will be the impact on all the economy by the 3% fuel tax? It will be more than a 3% cost of living increase. And to make this "workable," is she proposing to exempt cost increases traceable to the fuel tax from the "benefits" paid by the entitlement programs? Unless you feel pain, there is no response and, if you simply get more money as the price increases - why change your ways? The sad truth is that the government is not to be trusted with any responsible program as they will loot the program for imediate gain. Look at social security - once well funded it was "borrowed" from and then expanded as a program until now you can get the benefits for your life without ever paying into the fund. Why? Because it was popular with the voters. Do you expect the tax dollars generated from this proposed tax to end up anywhere else except in someone's "buy the vote" program? Find another way - the people who run this country as their job cannot be trusted to implement anything in a responsible manner

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above