Morton Zuckerman is the honored editor-in-chief and publisher of US
News and
World Report. He was also the President of the Presidents of Jewish
Organizations. He is a very successful business-man, art lover, and
clearly
a very high-brow intellectual. He is just the kind of person I would
have
expected to understand the problems resulting from the world’s
addiction to
oil and join those trying to fight for changing our misguided culture.
Nevertheless, the businessman in him toped the intellectual for many
years.
Now, finally, the political man seems to be besting the previous two
thirds
of distinguished Mort. Let us see what he says - in effect I would
have
reprinted his article here - but as it was copyrighted - I can include
only
the above web-site - so that it can help those intrigued by further
details
of the arguments.

Mr. Zuckerman finds that the US imports 12 million barrels/day and we
are
heading for 20 mb/d by 2025. Further he finds that The price increases
over the past years mean that we, consumers, will send oil producers an
additional $50 billion this year that is above the figure of $120
billion we
sent last year”. He observes — “we’re sending all these dollars to
countries that use a good chunk of them to promote anti-American ideas,
to
spread Islam, and to finance the jihadists who are waging the war of
terrorism against us. Some of these same countries are also using this
largess to develop weapons of mass destruction. As if all that weren’t
enough, we’re also spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a U.S.
military presence to protect this Middle East energy source. It is a
tax on
consumers here - not to mention the fact that, yes, these same Middle
East
oil producers have enmeshed us in two wars over the past two decades”.
Seeing those words I reacted with belief that finally light may have
struck
Mr. Mort Zuckerman whom I watched for the last three decades when he
did not
say anything remotely resembling above comments. Sending money abroad
for
our “burning needs” is not something that started with 9/11 - it is
only our
awakening that was started by 9/11. I was hoping to see Mr. Zuckerman,
starting with his mentioned military expenditures, to calculate the so
called “externalities” of the price of a barrel of oil - the real cost
to
the country of that barrel. This could give us the real value of the
replacement energy-barrel equivalent and lead us to honest economic
figures
needed for planning our way out of the hole the oil interests placed
us.

But then, in the following paragraph, titled in bold letters
“ILLUSION”,
Mort says that energy independence is a fantasy. He defines a
“Republican”
more production of oil, and a “Democratic” conservation, as two
separate
approaches, and says that neither will solve the problem - then says
that a
coherent policy needs both. He also belittles alternative power
sources
from waves, windmills, or solar panels as “weak, intermittent, and
expensive
- costing roughly twice the cost of the electric power produced by
either
coal or gas”. This leads then to a quite shocking paragraph where he
intelligently recognizes that our gas tax is only 43 cents/galon while
most
of Europe has a $4/gallon tax; our gasoline costs now at least one
third
less then 25 years ago when factoring in also inflation, but is
unwilling to
recognize that he has just put his finger on the wound itself. He says
-
“Most Americans believe they are entitled to cheap fuel, regardless of
how
much they consume”. He knows that seemingly, with 5% of the world
population, it may be exaggerated, to say the least, to allow the US to
claim 25% of the world oil-use. Under these conditions - why should the
American’s conserve. The right question - but were is the answer?

To be fair to Mr. Zuckerman - next three lines - for the demand side -
he
suggests: “HIGHER FUEL TAXES AND TIGHTER CONTROLS BY BUSINESS. CAFE,
the
Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standards imposed on carmakers, HAVE
BARELY RISEN IN 20 YEARS. By some estimates, reasonably phased higher
standards could save us a million barrels of oil a day”. This has some
of
the needed ingredients, it is anemic in size and he talks - “controls
by
business” - that sounds strange to someone who would like to see real
progress. He has indeed mentioned that when the cost of gasoline was
high -
the public started to buy smaller cars - but the public forgot the
subject
completely when they realized that the government had no serious intent
to
lead to change. With the government lenient, why should one expect
business
to be any more responsible? Yes, Government was invented in order to
Govern
and an intellectual’s analysis policy should be expected to say so
clearly -
for the benefit of society. Mort is savvy - he knows Washington - so
at
this stage in my reading I thought he tells us that politically nothing
of
real value is possible indeed.

The following paragraphs deal with the production side. Here he
suggests
that we have to start building nuclear plants and “we are also going to
have
to look to find places to drill, such as the Arctic Wildlife Refuge,
which
has become a symbolic issue to environmentalists”. He follows this
with
comments that are an intellectual’s anathema - the feeling that he
believes
he has a God-given right to judge nature - he says - “The refuge is far
from
the picture postcard of green forests and snowcapped mountains its
defenders
would have us believe”. Was Mort ever there? Does he know what he is
talking about? Does he believe that environmentalists need his further
explanation of what the tundra is like? All this is plain “hutzpah” of
someone extremely bright trying to introduce, in a different way, the
same
old ideas that the Washington oil people are trying to sell us for
years and
Mort explains - “it’s Alaskan tundra, and drilling there would involve
only
a minuscule portion of the 18.5 million acres that are being set aside
for
conservation”. Yes Mort - that tundra, and the herd of caribous, are
holy
to us, and to our God who told us to be guardians of the earth and not
its
destroyers - what you suggest is the introduction of a Trojan horse to
that
area. What is even more misleading is that the little oil that is to
be
found there will appear in the US market only in fifteen years, will be
of
no importance earlier, will not contribute to decreasing the dangers
you
mentioned at the start of your article - those dangers that are
immediate.
Further, the mention of nuclear plants is another half backed idea -
have
you ever calculated the number of plants needed if we were to try to
“produce” our way out of this corner? Would you, Mort, want to live
next to
a nuclear plant? Do you think that the effects of a nuclear plant
mishap -
waiting to happen - can be localized? Are you going to have your
mansion
down-wind or up-wind?

Mort also knows that China and India “explode economically and are able
to
buy cars … the number of cars by the year 2050 will go from 800
million
today to as high as 3.25 billion then - an unimaginable threat to our
environment and a surefire guarantee of global warming”. Great - you
finally managed to include at the end of your article the magical
threat of
GLOBAL WARMING. Is drilling Alaska going to help? Is there any
practicality in pushing nuclear fission? The ideas you mentioned made
many
folks rich - and the appropriate lobbies are strong - we understand
that.

But, we understand better then this. We understand that we do not need
cars
but transportation; we do not need oil but energy, we do not need
combustible fuels but hot water, heating, and light. The faster we
elaborate these basic ideas before the public, the faster we can start
finding immediate, as well as long range, solutions by walking away
from the
oil and nuclear lobbies representing the oil and nuclear interests. We
allow then new industries to come to our help. We allow planners to
help us
change some of the instincts that are nothing more then the results of
indoctrination by media and public relations firms fed by oil and
nuclear
money. We may actually learn that we can live happier and more
productive
lives by needing less energy. The cars of the future will not be the
Cadillacs and Hummers we think we must have. Actually, believe me, the
Chinese you mentioned are already now marketing smaller and more
efficient
cars, they will even want to sell them to us. The savings in oil can
be
immense if we only decide to price logically the cost of oil to the
environment in addition to the direct costs you already mentioned
(military
and security). The technologies you called expensive are the cheap
ones;
man made disasters are not natural disasters and a lot of what goes on
as
natural disasters are actually man made disasters. You started out
writing
a great article, but you fell flat when you reached the stage you had
to
make recommendations.

And finally, Mort, please try again - I know you are capable of
better vision than that. The final lines of your article: “The failure
of
our elected officials in both parties to come to grips with this vital
issue
long before now is a national disgrace. Continued failure is not an
option”
- this is a guarantee, in my eyes, that you do not lack the courage to
aim
to find the correct answers.