Fungible

Dilbert takes on foreign oil 6

I've tried a few times to argue that "foreign oil" is a bit of a red herring. The problem is oil, full stop.

Today my argument finds support from, of all places, Dilbert.

(hat tip: Corey)


Update [2006-2-19 17:12:48 by David Roberts]: Hm, the folks over at Oil Drum take a rather dim view of this comic. Just a couple of comments:

  • It seems like a common sentiment that if there were enough Dilberts buying hybrids to actually reduce U.S. oil demand, the price of oil would fall, foreign despots would get less money, and Dilbert would be vindicated. But the basic oil story is one of leveling-off-and-declining supply, coupled with inexorably rising demand. Billions of people in China and India are having their standard of living rapidly raised. Moderate reductions in U.S. demand seem woefully insufficient to offset this rising tide of demand. Rising oil prices seem inevitable absent a truly historic -- and truly unlikely -- commitment by the U.S. to radically curtail its demand, and possibly even then. So to the extent that oil money funds terrorists, it seems likely terrorists will have ample funding for the foreseeable future. In that, Dogbert is correct.
  • My own view is that the "foreign oil" motivation articulated by Dilbert is rather naive, for the simple reason -- voiced by Dogbert -- that we can't pick and choose where we get oil, or who ultimately gets our oil money. If you participate in the world oil economy, you participate in the world oil economy; you don't get to do it daintily, or in some targeted way that's in line with your values. But there are good reasons to reduce U.S. oil use, period. Aside from all the environmental benefits, we would reduce our vulnerability to geopolitical manipulation and arguably provide an enormous stimulus to the economy. I attributed both halves of my view to the cartoon, but re-reading it, I suppose I may have been projecting the latter half. Scott Adams (the author) may simply be arguing that it's pointless to reduce oil use at all (and not just for Dilbert's stated reasons). That would indeed be monumentally stupid.
  • Yes I'm droning on and on about a cartoon, but it's Sunday evening and the kids are napping. What else am I gonna do?

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Michael Boydston Posted 8:04 am
    19 Feb 2006

    but about Dogbert's argument . . .I understand that oil is fungible, but doesn't Dogbert's argument ignore the effect of (hypothetical) reduced American demand on prices?  That is, Dilbert uses less oil, so America uses less oil, so total world demand for oil is less than it would have been otherwise, so the market price is less, so all sellers of oil (including the countries that hate us) make less money?  

    Permalink

  2. Bart Anderson's avatar

    Bart Anderson Posted 8:15 am
    19 Feb 2006

    Fungible -- not reallyProblem is -- just because Scott Adams calls oil "fungible" does not mean that it is so... or that oil will be so in the future.
    A good part of World War II was concerned with the struggle for access to oil.
    Many of the political tensions in the world today are about access to oil.  These tensions are increasing, not decreasing.
    The key concept is that any country or economy that bases its well being on supplies of a resource owned by another country is putting itself into a vulnerable position.
    For a productive way of dealing with oil dependence, see:

    Japanese putting all their energy into saving fuel - Wash. Post (also posted here.
    One reason for emphasizing the national security aspect of oil addiction is that this idea has the support of many in the intelligence and military communities.  

    Permalink

  3. odograph Posted 8:38 am
    19 Feb 2006

    A+Excellent post Bart, you hit all the notes.

    Permalink

  4. Wells Posted 1:46 pm
    19 Feb 2006

    Enough posturingThanks for the link to Oil Drum. I will place it above Gristblog as a forum worth my time and effort. Enough with your mental masterbation posing Hybrids as futile, Roberts. Demonstrate your mental sterility about hybrid potential if you so choose, but don't try to convince readers that you're just posing an honest debate. Who's paying you to come up with this crap?    

    Permalink

  5. David Roberts's avatar

    David Roberts Posted 4:50 pm
    19 Feb 2006

    Wells,just above, I say the following:there are good reasons to reduce U.S. oil use ... we would reduce our vulnerability to geopolitical manipulation and arguably provide an enormous stimulus to the economy.
    Since I advocate reducing U.S. oil use, I also advocate for the manufacture and purchase of fuel-efficient cars. I don't happen to think it will do much to deny terrorist-sponsoring regimes oil money, but it will do wonders for U.S. health and security in a world of increasing geopolitical tension over oil.
    Sorry if I wasn't clear.

    www.grist.org

    Permalink

  6. odograph Posted 12:19 am
    20 Feb 2006

    ledeIf you believe "we would reduce our vulnerability to geopolitical manipulation and arguably provide an enormous stimulus to the economy."
    ... then I think you buried the lede.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement