Thomas Friedman-June 3, 2004 NYTIMES, Energy Conservation

In today's editorial Mr. Friedman who, oxymoronically, is often an intelligent liberal, takes the usual dumb liberal position that energy conservation is good because it will make us less dependent on unstable countries like Saudi Arabia. But what is his rationale exactly? If we conserve by driving less or by buying expensive hybrid cars our standard of living goes down, but we still are 100% dependent on foreign oil for the fewer but more important car trips we do take; so where is the net benefit? If we double or triple the price of gas through taxation as they do in Europe some will drive less or even not at all, but their standard of living will go down and, again, their dependence on the reduced but more important driving they must do goes up; so where is the net benefit?
If we encourage consumption with extravagant suvs, jet travel, and other forms of conspicuous consumption this arguably will deplete the supply of oil faster, raise prices, and encourage entrepreneurs and huge corporations to develop alternative fuels. The conspicuous consumption method is more promising it would seem since it contains within it the promise of a genuine substitute for Saudi oil, whereas conservation contains within it the promise of lowering the price, killing innovation, and prolonging our dependence on the crazy Wahabi.