Andrew Sullivan: Peak Oil, Meh

With some slight modifications, the post below is the letter I sent to both Andrew Sullivan and Reihan Salam yesterday in response to Salam’s post minimizing the significance of the coming shortage of global oil supplies.  To his credit, Salam has engaged with me on a brief back and forth on the subject.  I have to say, after reading his responses I don’t feel like he was able to give me a meaningful answer to contradict my arguments, or that in any way supported his indifference to the oil crisis.  And I hope that this does not reflect the current state of thinking in conservative policy circles.

His first email was basically just asserted his expertise in the area:

Thanks for writing, Daniel. I appreciate your thoughts. Suffice it to say, I’ve spent a good deal of time reading the debates surrounding Peak Oil and I like to think that I’ve given the argument for serious concern due consideration

My response:

That being the case, I would be interested in hearing your take on two questions:

1. How much pain do you think will occur as a result of the “painful readjustment in how we live” as a result of limited oil supply? and

2. What demand-side policy measures do you support to mitigate the pain of that adjustment?

Understand, if there are effective counter-arguments against the four points I raised, or the conclusion that I view as inexorable from those points – that reducing our dependence on oil should be a major policy priority of this country beginning immediately – I very much want to read them.  It’s important to my job to understand the way conservatives think about this issue.  But I need something a little more specific than a blase faith in the ability of markets to respond and civilization to endure.

Him:

1. No clue. I’m guessing not much. Keep in mind that I’ve spent time in the developing world. Loss aversion is important to understanding how people will react, but I’m not sure the adjustments I consider plausible are best understood as truly painful.

2. I’m not unsympathetic to the idea of an oil import fee, as proposed by Glenn Hubbard and Peter Navarro, but it’s the kind of policy idea that could be executed very poorly.

I appreciate that you don’t think much of my blase faith. Given that I’m fairly familiar with the Peak Oil literature, I recommend reaching out to people who haven’t and are more inclined to embrace your arguments.

Me:

I don’t understand your point.  How will loss aversion solve the problem?  Sure, people will have a strong incentive to reduce their oil use once the price goes up a great deal, but that doesn’t mean they can spontaneously move 30 miles closer to work, or that the market can spontaneously generate massive supplies of electric vehicles or the infrastructure necessary to support them.  It’s going to take a decade to adjust to the new economic reality once the price of oil really starts to rise.  In the meantime, the economy is going to get pounded just as much as it would if Congress imposed a massive tax increase on the middle class – only the bulk of the revenues will go to the government of other nations.

Him:

Loss aversion makes matters *worse.*

Me:

So obviously I really don’t understand your argument.  It seems to me that with all your expertise on the issue, you should be pretty easily able to bang out a quick 5 sentence summary of why I am wrong to think that peak oil is going to be a brutal burden to middle class families and the economy, and an enormous windfall to oil exporting nations.

Him:

One sentence: I think investors and entrepreneurs will see it coming and, again, I have a different threshold for “brutal burden. Thanks for writing, [name].

I’m interested in what other people think of this exchange – he’s obviously only half-engaged – but I find those answers to be seriously unsatisfying.  And I think it’s a pretty good indication of the attitude of many right of center domestic policy wonks – a faith in markets that overwhelms serious consideration of glaring real-world problems.

http://buddhistwonk.tumblr.com/

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/

3 Comments on "Andrew Sullivan: Peak Oil, Meh"

Kenz300 on Sat, 11th Sep 2010 9:38 am 



Republican spin doctors…… short term thinking…..

Wheeldog on Sat, 11th Sep 2010 12:00 pm 



The exchange reminded me of an agnostic and a born again evangelical debating the question of evolution. Salam appears to have a faith based belief that human intelligence and ingenuity will overcome any “inconveniences” that might result from declining supplies of oil. His responses to the questions seem to drift off point and become vague.

KenZ300 on Mon, 13th Sep 2010 12:31 am 



Scarcity of supply and increasing demand will mean BIG MONEY for producers and suppliers of OIL. They are not interested in seeing any transition to alternative energy and will work to make sure it does not progress to quickly.