Hyman Out of Gas

In another case of Mark Hyman flip-flopping on long held positions (he recently touted the importance of making the rich pay their fair share of taxes while advocating for a tax system that would do the exact opposite), he now says that three-dollar-a-gallon gas is a major problem.

You might remember that about six months ago, Hyman mocked the idea that three-dollar gas was a big deal, saying that the extra cost to Americans was marginal. As we pointed out at the time, Hyman’s math was disingenuous. In fact, the average American would pay more in higher gasoline prices than they would get back in the much touted Bush tax cuts.

But now Hyman says that gas prices are a problem, and suggests a possible solution is increased use of nuclear energy. Beyond expensive gasoline, Hyman also notes other signs of the need for expanded use of nuclear power, including the fact that “the Al Gore green house gases side show is heating up” and “obstructionists continue to block a sensible oil drilling plan in a barren section of Alaska.”

That’s right. Global warming is reduced to a “sideshow” and those who object to drilling in a wildlife refuge in order to get less than one-year’s worth of oil are “obstructionists.” Welcome to Hyman World.

Of course, if lack of oil is what concerns Hyman, perhaps he should aim his ire at the Bush administration’s failed “reconstruction” of Iraq. While the American people were promised that the rebuilding of Iraq would “pay for itself” in the form of Iraq’s vast oil reserves, oil production has actually been dropping. Poor planning, corruption, and the insurgency that the administration claims it didn’t see coming have eroded Iraq’s ability to profit from the one thing it has going for it: oil.

But the larger issue concerning this administration is whether it has any intention of seriously investing in alternative energy sources. Given the personal business histories of the president and vice-president, more than a little skepticism is called for. On top of that, we had the infamous flip flop by President Bush: having claimed in his State of the Union address that America is “addicted” to foreign oil and suggesting we needed to break this addiction, we were told immediately afterward that Bush didn’t really mean this.

And touting nuclear power as a solution lacks any imagination. I’m not necessarily opposed to using nuclear power across the board, but it’s not a good long term solution (particularly not when considering the specific issue of the problem of automobile emissions).

Given the centrality of oil in the crafting of Mideast policy, developing a comprehensive program to investigate new, clean, cheap, environmentally friendly, and domestically produced sources of energy is not simply an energy issue or even an economic issue; it’s a matter of national security. Freeing ourselves from the ball and chain of dependency on foreign oil would allow the United States to fashion a far more coherent and evenhanded foreign policy, one that might actually be consistent with our stated values as a nation.

Does anyone doubt that a President Gore would have laid down such a challenge to the nation, particularly if we assume the September 11 attacks had still happened? I can’t imagine him *not* calling for the pursuit of energy independence the way John Kennedy called for a mission to the moon.

But, despite defeating Bush by half a million votes, Gore is not the president, and any call for alternative energy sources, even Hyman’s short sighted one, is going to be DOA as long as oil men rule Washington.

And that’s The Counterpoint.

Hyman Index: 4.14