online - Two items in the sunday edition.
On the editorial page we have:
Foolishness on Fuel
Senator Dianne Feinstein offered an amendment to strengthen fuel economy standards for S.U.V.'s, minivans and pickups. When James Talent, a Missouri Republican, opposed the amendment with an argument about potential lost jobs, he drew a sharp response from Pete Domenici, the committee chairman. What's really costing jobs, Mr. Domenici said, is Detroit's failure to make the fuel-efficient cars that can compete on world markets.
Mr. Domenici then voted against Ms. Feinstein's amendment. So did most of his colleagues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/opinion/21sun2.html?th&emc=thAnd in the magazine we have:
The Breaking Point
By PETER MAASS
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/magazine/21OIL.html?pagewanted=1The United States and China are counting on the Saudis to satisfy our growing thirst for oil. The Saudis say they can supply all our needs. Critics say that that is becoming impossible. They just might turn out to be right.
<snip>
In the political and corporate realms of the oil world, there are few incentives to be forthright. Executives of major oil companies have been reluctant to raise alarms; the mere mention of scarce supplies could alienate the governments that hand out lucrative exploration contracts and also send a message to investors that oil companies, though wildly profitable at the moment, have a Malthusian long-term future. Fortunately, that attitude seems to be beginning to change. Chevron's ''easy oil is over'' advertising campaign is an indication that even the boosters of an oil-drenched future are not as bullish as they once were.
Politicians remain in the dark. During the 2004 presidential campaign, which occurred as gas prices were rising to record levels, the debate on energy policy was all but nonexistent. The Bush campaign produced an advertisement that concluded: ''Some people have wacky ideas. Like taxing gasoline more so people drive less. That's John Kerry.'' Although many environmentalists would have been delighted if Kerry had proposed that during the campaign, in fact the ad was referring to a 50-cents-a-gallon tax that Kerry supported 11 years ago as part of a package of measures to reduce the deficit. (The gas tax never made it to a vote in the Senate.) Kerry made no mention of taxing gasoline during the campaign; his proposal for doing something about high gas prices was to pressure OPEC to increase supplies.
Husseini, for one, doesn't buy that approach. ''Everybody is looking at the producers to pull the chestnuts out of the fire, as if it's our job to fix everybody's problems,'' he told me. ''It's not our problem to tell a democratically elected government that you have to do something about your runaway consumers. If your government can't do the job, you can't expect other governments to do it for them.'' Back in the 70's, President Carter called for the moral equivalent of war to reduce our dependence on foreign oil; he was not re-elected. Since then, few politicians have spoken of an energy crisis or suggested that major policy changes are necessary to avert one. The energy bill signed earlier this month by President Bush did not even raise fuel-efficiency standards for passenger cars. When a crisis comes -- whether in a year or 2 or 10 -- it will be all the more painful because we will have done little or nothing to prepare for it.
<end>
The Maas article is quietly scary.