A post on Andrew Sullivan's blog last week got me thinking: Is "addiction" the right word?
Bush's SOTU statement that "America is addicted to oil" was treated as the Big News of the speech, as though he'd admitted to some deep dark secret. Even groups hostile to his administration lauded him for it; many of them have used the metaphor themselves.
But it strikes me as an extraordinarily poor way of describing the problem. It's imprecise in a way that serves Bush's interests in subtle but important ways.
When Bush talks about "addiction," the subtext is always his own carefully constructed personal narrative: The youthful alcohol problems and the redeeming power of Jesus and the love of a good woman. In Bush's campaign story, he was spiritually redeemed; he shook off addiction by improving his character. The subtext of America being "addicted" is that the American people are somehow fallen and weak.
But America does not rely on oil by virtue of any moral failing. It is not a weakness. It's simple prudence: For quite a long time now, oil has been an incredibly cheap, incredibly concentrated source of energy.
It turns out that burning it is screwing up our atmosphere, and it's going to run out soonish, and it props up politically detestable regimes, so yeah, we need to start phasing it out. Circumstances changed. You can't say the same about, say, heroin, which was never a smart choice.
The addiction meme also seems to imply that individual Americans need to break their own addiction -- that reducing oil use will be a matter of individuals cutting their own consumption. But while it's certainly true that individuals can reduce their oil use at the margins, real, substantial cuts will arise from public policy and corporate commitments.
What's stopping that public policy and those corporate commitments? It's not "America." It's a finite, identifiable set of financial interests and the politicians that serve them.
There are bad actors here. The vague "addiction" metaphor seems designed to smoosh out responsibility to the point that it ceases to adhere to anything.
Comments View as Flat
mrknightley Posted 1:11 am
07 Feb 2006
Simple Prudence?
Dave, what is your definition of prudence? It's general usage implies caution and foresight. In the 50's M. King Hubbert gave us a warning about future oil supplies. In the 70's the Club of Rome gave a broad warning about the long term consequences of trends in human resource consumption, including oil. In the 90s the IPCC issued its first report noting that increased carbon emissions from human activities (burning fossil fuels among them) were warming the climate. Through all of this, US oil consumption has continued its upward trend. Perhaps you meant expedient?
Permalink
Katus Posted 3:08 am
07 Feb 2006
The Return SOTU: Oil 'Addiction'
Much of the same skepticism ran through my mind when Bush blamed American petrochemical supply woes on 'addiction.' As mrknightly remarked, 'expedient' is certainly a more accurate term, and I would add, 'willfully.' Unless the U.S. public can confront profound changes that need to take place in their political economy (and recognizing that many oil/power elites will lose influence) to curb their dependency, then, indeed, they will continue to ruled by an "identifiable set of financial interests and the politicians that serve them." Nice post.
Permalink
PDXOutdoors Posted 7:28 am
07 Feb 2006
Missing a Major Reality
In all the analysis and commentary on Bush's recent seemingly environmentally friendly initiatives, and his talk of 'oil addiction,' I've seen no talk at all about the main reason we burn so much oil in this country, which is that the way our cities and suburbs have been and are being built requires people to drive nearly everywhere.
I'd like someone to speak up in the national debate and say, "Hey, if you're serious about reducing foreign oil dependence then you'll talk about ways to encourage development and re-development of cities so that folks have more non-automobile choices when commuting or running errands in their communities." People, even those with the best intentions, will usually choose the path of least resistance (expedience) and so encouraging them to make the right choice regarding transportation has to include making that choice less of a sacrifice.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 4:47 am
08 Feb 2006
Sweden Plans to Be World's First Oil-Free Economy
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0208-05.htm
Sweden is to take the biggest energy step of any advanced western economy by trying to wean itself off oil completely within 15 years - without building a new generation of nuclear power stations.
Permalink
Per Kurowski Posted 4:13 pm
21 May 2006
Yeah, yeah, you'll quit the habit a thousand times
Quitting oil should be easy for Americans, the way they're going at it they will as Mark Twain said be able do it a thousand times. Analyzing what now seems to be on the table for battling the habit of oil reminds only of low intention new-year promises to quit smoking, using low tar cigarettes or nicotine patches. Before politicians openly dare to express the need for a substantial federal tax on the consumption of gas, no one needs to believe a jota in their determination. But, what about cars with lower gas consumption? Well that just reinforces the current no-public-transport-model that will just make all withdrawal symptoms so much worse when because of doctor's orders the country finally has no choice but to quit.
Permalink
kmp Posted 2:48 am
22 May 2006
Addiction vs Choice
I agree with Dave that addiction isn't quite the correct term. True addiction is a pharmacological phenomenon that occurs when your body rebels against the lack of drug at a receptor, making you feel like utter crap unless you replenish the supply (i.e. score some more heroin). But even physical addiction involves a choice; you can choose to put up with the pain of withdrawal, you can choose to substitute another substance to lessen the impacts of your body's withdrawal (methadone, nicotine), you can choose to employ 'alternative' methods (yoga, acupuncture, herbs, etc) to get your body over it's physical addiction. But what are our choices as Americans for not using fossil fuels? You might as well say we are addicted to breathing - "You, there, yes you! You are taking in precious oxygen and spewing out vile CO2 with every breath! Do the planet a favor and kill yourself now!"
The only true fossil-fuel-free choice that exists in the country right now is to live a hunter/gatherer lifestyle (as our food chain is driven by fossil fuels) in a home with no power or that is completely off the grid; not exactly practical for Joe & Jane Public. Even the clothes that we wear, toilet paper, toothpaste, eyeglasses and aspirin - I would venture to say it is virtually impossible to live a completely fossil-fuel-free existence in this country.
So of course I am addicted to oil. I'm "addicted" to air too. Give me a choice beyond oil and we'll see how quickly the "addiction" fades.
Permalink