DEBRIS.COMgood for a laugh, or possibly an aneurysm

Isn’t it ironic that the political party known as “conservatives” wants nothing to do with conservation?

Here’s Vice President Dick Cheney’s famous quote on the subject: “Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.”

Much has been written about this, and it makes for interesting reading, because U.S. energy policy will affect your daily life (whether through conservation or polluted abundance).

Ralph Nader’s essay, Dick Cheney and Conservation, provides an overview of the issue, in a convenient 2.5-minute read:

Federal policy over the past century has largely failed to promote an energy system based on safe, secure, economically affordable, and environmentally benign energy sources… There is an alternative. Three decades of [research] undeniably show that energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies are superior energy options for society.
But embarking on that path requires overcoming the power of the oil, nuclear and other conventional fuel industries to which both the Republicans and Democrats are indentured. Under the thumb of the dirty fuel industries, Congress and the Executive branch have refused to adopt even the most modest, common sense measures.

A report from the History News Service examines the role of conservation throughout American history in a piece called Conservation — An American, and Republican, Tradition. I’ll quote the passage that describes how I feel about it:

Conservationists deflated what one historian has called “the myth of superabundance” and advanced a new ethic of regard and restraint concerning nature. The early conservationists … saw nature primarily as a resource for human use, and they claimed economic well-being as an outcome of conservation policies. But their utilitarian approach was weighted with a deep sense of moral responsibility for the future, for posterity. They struggled to leave us a legacy of open spaces, protected natural wonders and sustainable use of natural resources.

This week, the US has started a war on Iraq. The Bush administration wants us to believe this is about 9/11, even though Iraq had nothing to do with the World Trade Center attack. It’s a convenient lie for Bush, and he has been reviled for it by anti-war activists. The truth is, there are a lot of reasons to want a regime change in Iraq, and some of them are even good reasons.

Somewhere in that mix is a pretty lousy reason — a desire on the part of Bush and Cheney to secure Iraq’s oil for U.S. consumption. Whether Bush plans to take it by force or simply install a government that is sympathetic toward trade with the U.S., I think this is a huge component in Bush’s justification for the war… or else we’d be fighting North Korea, arguably a bigger threat to world peace than Iraq.

In the context of war, U.S. citizens might be expected to pull together to support the war effort. During WWII, the government’s propaganga office pushed hard for citizens to conserve, because military leaders recognized that limited resources could affect chances for victory. Check out these old wartime conservation posters:

In a short but insightful piece called When Uncle Sam Wanted Us, Sierra Club magazine asks the question, “Isn’t there something more patriotic we can do than buy a new SUV?”

Despite war and rumors of war, turmoil in the Middle East, and energy crises at home, missing from the national dialogue has been talk of “conservation,” let alone personal sacrifice. Instead, in the aftermath of September 11, President Bush urged the American people to go shopping.

Subsequently, the Bush administration tried to push through the Alaskan drilling bill as a part of the new federal budget. The effort was defeated by a narrow margin, but Bush and Cheney’s mission is clear: there is no need to conserve, because we’ll provide you with all the oil you can burn, at any cost, e.g. $100 billion for the war on Iraq, and the exploitation of a 1.5 million acres of Alaskan wilderness.

Has the world changed so much in 60 years that conservation is no longer a useful strategy? I think not. We have an illusion of abundance, and it’s a dangerous thing. See CNN.com for details.

Republicans fail to get Alaska refuge drilling measure, by the narrowest of margins.

“The Senate on Wednesday narrowly rejected oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge, rebuffing the Bush administration on a top energy goal it had hoped to win with a wartime security appeal.”

Here’s the thing — it’s not about the animals. I wasn’t losing sleep about the polar bear dens. This is about poisonous lifestyles, self-destructive behavior, and short-term thinking. It’s about special-interest groups buying favorable laws. I’m very happy to see some elected officials taking a stand against it.

The AP reports:

President Bush on Tuesday signed legislation creating a national “do-not-call” list intended to help consumers block unwanted telemarketing calls.

The bill allows the Federal Trade Commission to collect fees from telemarketers to fund the registry, which will cost about $16 million in its first year. The do-not-call program should begin operation by summer.

Telemarketers say the registry will devastate their business.

So it seems that the telemarketers not only will be forced to comply with this new law — they’ll also have to pay for it. Ha!

The new law is unfortunately not comprehensive, because the FTC has only limited authority over some industries. I understand this to mean that the new DNC law may not affect telcos, airlines, and banks. Also, the law exempts charities, surveys, and politicians. But for all of these low-lifes, who think their right to call you at home against your will is protected by the 1st Amendment, there is still Steve Rubenstein’s “hopeful hold.”

Comprehensive or not, this national DNC system is a huge step in the right direction. Citizens’ time and privacy are now protected by federal law. US States that have already implemented DNC lists can presumably shave those costs back out of their budgets as they transfer control to the federal system. And as a telemarketing victim, you no longer need to plead with each individual telemarketer to be removed from the calling list — you can simply opt out one time.

I’ll enjoy watching the DMA squirm over this one.

I saw a weird bumper sticker on a lightpost downtown recently: “Drive Vegetarian.” It’s funny, but what does it mean? My motorbike isn’t on the Atkins diet.

Below the slogan appeared a domain name: greasecar.com. The website there taught me something astounding: any diesel passenger vehicle or light truck can be converted to burn used vegetable oil instead of diesel fuel.

Think about that for a minute. You could drive a perfectly regular car, but burn no fossil fuels. It’s great for the environment and great for US foreign policy. (If the Bush administration knew about this technology, they’d be staging an armed invasion of your local diner.)

Alternative-fueled vehicles usually carry some sort of compromise. I don’t see any here. The cars are full-sized, work in any weather, and have plenty of power. You could even continue to burn diesel fuel (or, better, bio-diesel if it’s available). This means that, if need be, you can pretend you don’t have an alternative-fuel vehicle; you can just drive to the neighborhood gas station and “fill ‘er up” like everybody else.

There are significant advantages to burning grease, as compared to diesel or gasoline, according to the SF Chronicle: “[Grease-burning engines] emit fewer toxic byproducts, they utilize fuel from renewable sources and they consume a waste product that must otherwise be disposed of by less efficient means.”

If you think that’s neat, check this out: grease is free. Most restaurants would be happy to have someone take it off their hands.

My research indicates that it’s getting even easier to buy used cooking oil — you need not strike back-alley deals with the fry cook at the neighborhood greasy spoon. Co-ops have formed in California, Oregon, and Massachusetts. See also the Regional Biodiesel links in Biodiesel.com’s forums.

Here’s the thing that most people never think about: fossil fuels are not a renewable resource. The ubiquity of filling stations might make it seem as if there is an endless supply of oil, but this is simply untrue. We will run out — sooner rather than later, according to the trend analyses showing increased demand. We can drill more wells, fight more wars, or fund alternative-fuel research. Seems to me that driving a “greasecar” is a painless way to be part of the solution.

Jeffrey W. Runge, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administation, was an emergency room physician for 30 years. You can imagine how many how many auto-accident victims he treated there — but you don’t need to, because I found real numbers: “[Dr. Runge’s] passion for reducing injuries comes from being a clinician in North Carolina’s busiest trauma center, treating over 30,000 injuries yearly, 10,000 of which are motor vehicle related.” [Source: Dr. Jeffrey W. Runge Becomes 12th National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator]

In a speech in Dearborn, MI, heart of the SUV industry, Runge made surprising remarks about SUV safety. He reported statistics about rollover fatalities and about the risk to drivers of small cars when they get crushed by SUVs. That had to take courage, to deliver that message to a roomful of auto executives who have been raking in profits on the sale of such dangerous vehicles.

The NHTSA site contains Runge’s presentation materials and speaking notes. After reading his prepared speech I was confused, because it seemed somewhat dry and invective-free. But perhaps he embellished on the prepared notes, as implied by the Chron when they report that he “tack[ed] on his own outrage”, and by the Washington Post when they report that “he sharply criticized SUVs on safety grounds”.

Or perhaps the real fireworks weren’t in his speech, but in a followup interview with the Wall Street Journal. It’s the WSJ article that generated most of the coverage I could find. For example, Car & Driver reports on the WSJ article under the headline Safety Chief Warns Buyers Off SUVs:

Runge told the Wall Street Journal that sport-utility vehicles and pickup trucks aren’t safe enough and that consumers should think hard before buying one. Runge said that because of their high center of gravity, SUVs are prone to rollovers during sudden maneuvers, and warned that if automakers did not make design changes to make the vehicles safer, the government might step in to mandate changes.

More coverage of the WSJ article: Government’s Top Auto Safety Regulator Speaks Truth About SUV Dangers; It’s Time for Action

Still more: an editorial in the Chronicle includes this candid comment from Runge on the apparent safety of SUVs: “gut instinct is great for a lot of stuff, but it’s not very good for buying a safe automobile”.

So this seems like a big first step towards changes, whether they take the form of voluntary changes by manufacturers or mandated changes to comply with new federal regulation.

The next step is already in place: CNN reports that Senator McCain will ask Runge to testify this month about the possibility of issuing new safety regulations targeted at SUVs. McCain’s not in bed with big auto (or big oil), so he has the right kind of energy for an effort like this.

The refreshing thing about Runge’s comments is that they’re so not in line with what seems to be our current administration’s efforts to put an SUV (and a snowmobile) in every garage. (I’m referring to recent moves by Bush to provide huge tax breaks to small business owners that purchase SUVs, and to require only modest increases in fuel economy — so modest that Bush’s requirements are actually lower than the industry’s voluntary efforts.) I guess I should not be surprised to see CNN report that “the Bush administration has sought to downplay [Runge’s] comments, saying they didn’t amount to a blanket indictment of SUVs.” What a spin that is — for that’s exactly what Runge’s comments were!