Three items in this week's news and views ought to be examined and discussed at the same time. 1. Friedman's column telling W to lead or leaveon energy policy (I prefer sh*t or get off the pot). 2. Krugman's piece explaining that the spike in oil prices is not the fault of speculators - at least not in large part; it is rather the growth in demand by China and the fact that the supply of fossils fuels is finite. 3. John McCain's characterization of Jimmy Carter as a bad president.
The theme of the week is energy. More specifically, oil and the rise in the cost of gasoline in the US. And the cost of energy this coming winter. And the cost of gasoline next year. And the next. Conventional Wall Street wisdom is that the rise in crude oil prices is causing share prices to tank.
As Krugman writes, one theory getting a lot of attention, including that of Barack Obama, is that speculators are causing the crude oil price to rise quickly. It seems that GWB and his sometime-clone John McCain have no theory on what is causing the prices to rise. McCain's claim that Jimmy Carter was a bad president, to me, indicates that McCain can't/won't even appreciate that Carter had a plan to deal with our future energy needs.
We look for leadership, and we don't see it coming from Washington.
Our supply of fossil fuels is finite, right?
Our government's investment in renewable energy sources is minuscule, right?
Just like with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we citizens have not been asked to sacrifice much (except for those brave folks who gave their lives and the grieving loved ones) if anything to solve our energy problems, right?
We can drive less. We can drive slower. We can ride bicycles. We can ride scooters. We can walk. We can run. We can take mass transit. We can invest in more insulation. We can turn down our thermostats in the winter and up in the summer. We can take shorter showers.
But who's leading? Who ought to be leading? I mean, really leading?