A look at the Set America Free Coalition

Set America Free is described as a coalition of several sorts of interest groups, "Tree Huggers, Do-Gooders, Sodbusters, Cheap Hawks, and Evangelicals". They are aiming to set America free from high oil prices.

Their problem statement is:- a) No Fuel Choice: Our Cars Are Addicted To Oil, b) No Fuel Choice: Our Economy Is Controlled by OPEC, c) No Fuel Choice: Our Dollars Are Bankrolling Hostile Foreign Nations

Despite the dizzying array of choice in car models they all have one thing in common: Fossil Oil, primarily gasoline, is the fuel.

The huge choice we have, is no choice at all. My observation over decades is when someone has no choice they tend to choose only the options available. We have only fossil fuel based fuel options because those are the only choices in the automaker showrooms. Theoretically any of us could build an electric car, like I have built an electric motorcycle, but trust me on this, that is not a viable solution given the amount of time it takes for an electric car conversion.

But let's take a second look at their problem statement. Can cars be addicted? Cars are lumps of metal without emotion or any other ability to be addicted. It is the people who drive those cars who are addicted. But they are not aware of the addiction, generally, because gasoline is just the way things are. Just like the question "is a fish aware of the water it breaths" are car drivers truly aware of the level to which they're dependant on fossil oil?

Is our economy controlled by OPEC specifically? In many of the videos on this site they equate purchases of oil products with the funding of terrorism. It is Arab OPEC countries that have the majority of the oil in the world. OPEC however is not entirely Arab, as there are other countries besides the Arab countries who are OPEC members. Further I've seen it said that the U.S. purchases of oil primarily do not come from Arab countries but elsewhere.

To some extent however OPEC sets the price of oil. Maybe. And one thing is clear, that the Arab countries are rich beyond wildest imagination because of the price of oil.

Another idea which should have been on their problem page is this: If there's one hard economic truth, it's this: monopolies lead to higher prices. And, they give inordinate power to the owner of the monopoly. That may be true, or may not be true. Monopolies are part of the market and as Peter Wells said at the ASPO-USA conference the Arab countries are striving to maintain oil prices within a fruitful range. They recognize that if the price is too cheap they don't get enough income, and if the price is too expensive the customers (us) will be looking for alternatives. While it seems oil is in a monopoly position over transportation there are alternatives.

Their solution? Flex Fuel Vehicles & Plug-in Hybrids.

Oil's status as a strategic commodity - as opposed to just another commodity - derives from its virtual monopoly over transportation fuels. Yeah, sure, youbetcha. While there are alternatives it is hard to make use of them and practically speaking we have little choice other than cars driven with fossil fuel. Since we individuals do not control mega corporations that make cars, we individuals have no power other than to buy whatever the car companies make for us. So their solution is to beg and plead with lawmakers and carmakers to deign to sell something that we want rather than the crapola they push on us.

That's the stereotype I read on their site.. that we individuals are powerless and all we can do is plead for the big megacorps to do the right thing.

To a large extent that is the way things are. But there are things we can do which do not require begging and pleading the megacorporations to do something.

One of the simplest things to do is to buy a biodiesel vehicle or flex fuel vehicle, and start using biofuels. It's useful to do some research into the source of the fuel you're using because of the concern over the effect of biofuels on food prices and food supply. Some biofuels come from non-food crops, and some biofuels have a high energy-return-on-investment (EROI) so if there were to be a massive switch to biofuels those are two important factors to utilize.

A little more complex is to convert a hybrid car to plug-in hybrid. There are service centers springing up to do this conversion. It will take some investment of money.

But there are more radical-seeming actions to take which are very reasonable. First thing I have to suggest is to take your blinders off and think outside the box. That is, the box that sits on four wheels. The car is a limiting conception. It takes a lot of energy to move a car around, it takes a large infrastructure to provide cars with places to drive, cars and their roads take over huge swaths of our landscape.

Mass transit often will take you where you want to go. Unfortunately America has undermined its mass transit systems with decades of neglect beginning with the destruction of mass transit systems supposedly perpetrated by GM so they could sell more cars. But most cities do have a mass transit system and mass transit operators should, when faced with increasing ridership, take the hint and increase the service offerings.

Riding two-wheeled vehicles often is more fuel or energy efficient, and has some side benefits. Bicycles for example give you exercise, and all two wheelers give you more contact with the environment than you have shielded within the cocoon of a typical car. Further there are many choices of electric bicycles and scooters which are more prevalent than electric cars. Many motorcycles are far more fuel efficient than the typical car.

Telecommuting is a growing option for many types of jobs. Electronic communications make it possible to perform many types of work without having to travel to perform that work. Obviously some professions cannot take advantage of this.

In any case those are a few ideas.. My point is that this Set America Free coalition is presenting a limited range of options, when there are more one can consider. I wonder why this is that the options they offer still have people driving in cars.

A few years ago while stuck in clogged traffic during rush hour I had this epitome. Even if all those cars were replaced with clean electric cars, we'd still have the traffic jams. Our quality of life would still be harmed by having to sit stuck in stop and go traffic. Our quality of life would still be harmed by the huge swaths of land taken up by cars and their roads. etc.

In terms of good positive policy solutions -- I'm not impressed by this coalition.

In terms of real action -- I'm not impressed. Their site gives no indication that they're doing anything real about this problem. They've got some statements on a website and a few videos hosted on youtube. Ho hum.

Links: 

http://www.setamericafree.org

External Media

Ours is not to question, ours is to do or die

A few days ago the lead General of the UK's army said that "we" weren't invited into Iraq, that "our" presence in Iraq was making the situation worse, as an uninvited presence in Iraq "we" are the ones responsible for it being worse, and "we" should withdraw. He was talking about the UK's military forces but I think his comments apply to the U.S. and other foreign armies as well.

Since those statements the General in question has done a little backpedaling, and on Prime Minister Tony Blair's part he has stated complete agreement with the backpedaled statements.

In a Times (of London) opinion piece titled I agree with every word that Dannatt said. But he has got to be sacked Matthew Paris invokes a precedent from American History. After World War II general MacArthur saw an opening in the power structure of the Pacific region and ...

MacArthur’s desire was to press the military advantage, take up arms alongside Taiwan, and attack Communist China with nuclear weapons. President Truman disagreed. MacArthur started issuing statements to the press. Truman relieved him of his command. And that was the end of General MacArthur.

Many then thought the President’s policy was wrong and General MacArthur’s right; fewer argued that any general had the right to undermine the authority of a democratically elected president. MacArthur was way out of order, and had to go.

Truman fired MacArthur rather than follow the plan he proposed. Why? Because as Mr. Paris goes on to explain

The Armed Forces are not in charge of government policy; ministers are — democratically elected ministers. The Armed Forces are there to implement policy, not attack it. They can and must offer advice, of course, but the advice that Service chiefs offer ministers must be absolutely private. It is not their job to try to influence public debate by making statements to the news media.

Hmm.... This raises some interesting quandries.

A General, especially the top General, has a position of power. If the General sees something that could be done, perhaps the General should use that power to have that action take place. What Mr. Paris suggests is that General instead only use that power in private conversations with other government leaders.

The flip-side of the General determining government policy is that it can lead to a military dictatorship. We can think of zillions of examples in history where the Generals seized power. The most recent is in Thailand where the Prime Minister was on a state visit to the U.N. and while there the Generals seized power, supposedly with the blessing of the King.

Supposedly the Political leaders are answerable to the people, while the Military leaders are answerable to the Political leaders.

In Ministers say general was out of order - then concede his job is safe it's reported that many in the Military have stepped up to defend this General. In short, this makes it a battle of willpower between the political and military leadership. Is the political branch willing to go against a popular General and defend the political branch priority in determining policy?

You can see here the possibility of a military Coup. Suppose the battle of wills goes further and neither side backs down, one side saying it's ridiculous to stay in Iraq, the other demanding the Military must follow civilian and political Authority. What then?

For the record, here is Time Magazine quoting General Dannatt:

"It's an absolute fact that in some parts of the country, the fact that we are there causes people to attack us, and in that sense, our presence exacerbates violence," he said. The original hope of installing a liberal democratic government is out of reach and might have been "naïve." "We should aim for a lower ambition," he argued — just keeping Iraq a unitary state. He has "much more optimism we can get it right in Afghanistan" than in Iraq. Though the British army "doesn't do surrender," he said he wanted its 7,000 troops out "sometime soon" because "time is not our friend -- we can't be here forever at this level. I have an army to look after, which is going to be successful in current operations, but I want an army in five years' time, ten years' time; I don't want to break it on this one."

ActForChange.com activism

Even though salon.com did a good job debunking the specific issues raised concerning the 2004 election, I feel concerned. The use of paper-trail-lacking voting machines must be stopped, for example, since we must have accountability in the voting system.

ActForChange.com (a division of Working Assets) has two calls for action out right now. The action is simple, sending an email to congress-people asking for investigation and reform.

Investigate Electronic Voting Machines

http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?ItemId=18055

Pass Meaningful Election Reform

http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?ItemId=18051

Make Election Day a National Holiday

http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?itemid=17781

Self-organized Voter Registration drives, homespun political activism

The date is July 8, 2004. We are in the middle of the 2004 national elections which, among other issues, will choose the next President of the United States. As stated elsewhere on this site, there should be no surprise as to who I'm planning to vote for. I'm going to hold my nose and vote for the most likely to win over Bush, even if that person may not be the best choice overall. (I would prefer to have Wesley Clarke, since his role as Chairman of a company that makes electric vehicles clearly was a "put his money where his mouth is" kind of decision, but Kerry will just have to "do")

In late June 2004 Michael Moore's movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, was released, and I was among those who saw this movie the first day. While at the theater my friends and I came across a flyer calling for action, organized by MoveOn.org. They were promoting an on-line nationwide "town hall" meeting with Michael Moore. At the town hall the participants were persuaded to join in two types of activites, voter registration drives in their local area, and voter registration drives targeting the "swing states".

As a result, my fiancee and I decided to self-organize a voter registration drive at a local movie theater for the following weekend. Obviously people coming out of Fahrenheit 9/11 would likely be hot-to-trot just as we were, and ready to do something, such as finally register to vote (grin).

Let me tell you, before last weekend I had believed that "voter registration" could only be conducted by experts, or would require some special licensing, or in some be done only by a select few people. Little did I think it would be so easy as this:

• Drop by the DMV office.
• Grab some forms.
• Go somewhere public.
• Hand out the forms.

That's it. That's all there is to conducting a voter registration drive.

How's that for some simply organized, and simply conducted, democratic activism? What could be simpler? Well, unfortunately there were one or two gotcha's, but it really is essentially that simple.

Gotcha #1: Read the instructions on the form carefully. You are undertaking some legal activities, and there are a few requirements. For example, if you are simply handing out forms then there's no requirement you are under beyond handing out the forms. However, if someone is filling out the forms and handing them to you, there is a receipt at the bottom of the form which they are supposed to keep. The California forms we handed out had every piece of information and requirement (and then some) you might want to know, so read carefully.

Gotcha #2: Are you on public property or private? Remember we decided to go to a movie theater? For this activity to be most useful, your best location to be at is near the doors to the theater, because that's where the people will be congregating. But the theater in question had a parking lot (their property) completely surrounding the sidewalk (their property) leading to the front doors (their property), so everything in sight was their property. While the U.S. constitution protects freedom of speech and the right to assemble, the rights of a property owner generally over-rule the right of someone to come onto that property to exercise their free speech rights.

While standing in front of the movie theater, getting a lot of positive feedback from the patrons, we were approached by the theater's manager. Seems they have a policy around the exercise of free speech, since it is private property. What they wanted was for us to register with their main office before we could do our little voter registration drive in front of the theater, and the registration process would take five days.

In other words, as I said in gotcha#2, private property is controlled by the property owner. While it's of value to recognize the rights of property owners as to the use of their land, it's worrisome for the practice of free speach. Consider that more and more of the "public" spaces are actually privately owned. Where in the past shopping was done "downtown" with the majority of the space there being publicly owned, today the bulk of shopping is done in various kinds of shopping centers, and everything in sight is privately owned. As more and more of the space is privately owned, what happens to our rights to free speech? If the property owner can control when we have free speech, where we have free speech, and the content of our free speech, then is it really free speech?

We learned the next day the picture isn't quite as bleak as all that. The next day we went to the local farmers market, stood on the public sidewalk as people went in and out, and handed out voter registration forms. While there we met some official operatives of the local Democratic Party who were operating the official Democratic Party booth a little ways down the sidewalk from us. What we learned is a magic word:

"The Pruneyard Decision" (google search), and @ findlaw

Basically what this decision means is that for private property that functions as a public gathering place, that free speech is allowed in such spaces. Which means that gotcha#2 is greatly eased, so long as you understand the rights the Pruneyard Decision gives you.