Tuesday, January 23, 2007

10% Less, Right Now

If our national security is compromised by our fuel consumption right now, why wait ten years to cut usage by 20%. Let's start right now. Being January, we're at the beginning of a new year, so let's see if we can't drop our own usage by, say, 10%.

Ten percent, right now. How, you may ask? Make fewer trips to Walmart (another issue tackled later), use public transportation, plan your errands to reduce inefficiency, car pool. Use your imagination.

During World War II, gasoline was rationed. We were at war, and had to make sacrifices. Why not bring that same level of urgency to our consumption now?

While we're at it, another threat to our national security is looming in the form of our trade and currency imbalances with China. Not only have they siphoned away our manufacturing base with artificially low labor costs and created a trade imbalance with low-cost goods, but they've bought enormous amounts for U.S. debt, guaranteeing their leverage over us, economically.

Let's also buy less from China, say 10% less, right now. Every purchase, evaluate the need for the item, and look for non-Chinese alternatives. It will involve some time, research, and some sacrifice, but remember: This is our national security at stake!

10% less gasoline use, 10% less Chinese trade. Let's do it.

2 comments:

The Unseen One said...

Unfortunately, the word "Sacrifice" to most of today's Americans is a foreign concept. "Oh, that dirty old Iraq war? Isn't it over yet? I hate Bush." "Peace in our time! Let our children deal with the threats."

The only way to cut fuel consumption in this country is to perfect alternative energy sources... or for gas prices to skyrocket, which I am definately NOT for!

Personally, I've been taking my wife's Ford Espire to work (1 hour commute) instead of my Chevy Trailblazer.

Dumb Ox said...

I hate to throw a spanner into the works, but conservation is historically a pretty short-sighted and uneconomical strategy. Technological breakthroughs come through incentives created by profits and directed to entreprenurial types--not from think tanks, banks of government scientists. Conservation may be necessary in an emergency, but it is hardly a plan for the future... only the Dems and Greens (who see a future with FAR FEWER human beings in it) can think otherwise...

How's that for controversy?

I'll add you to my blogroll too!

Thanks!