High gas prices demand change in lifestyle

By Christie Genochio

Petrol-phobia is sweeping the nation.

My own case feels particularly acute as I pull into the Rotten Robbie station on Lafayette, where regular unleaded gas is going to bleed me dry at $2.95 per gallon. I know there are better deals closer, but my beat up Acura Integra, which is sputtering from fuel deprivation, needs a transfusion.

The only thing I can do is follow the directions: swipe debit card, lift handle and begin fuelling car with liquefied paychecks.

Tick, tick, tick, ticktickticktick -- the numbers beside the dollar sign scroll by, outstripping the sluggish digits on the gallon-counter which seem to be rolling like a fat man turning somersaults. Thirty bucks later I refuse the receipt, and speed out of the filling station without looking back. I know I won't return until my car begins shuddering from withdrawals again and needs another fix.

I just can't afford it.

The cheapest gas rates can be found at the Arco on Homestead and Kiely and at Costco on Coleman, fluctuating between $2.83 and $2.87. Today the average price of gas in the United States is $2.96, compared with $1.85 last year.

As far as ardent environmentalists and cynical economists are concerned, sticker-shock like mine may actually be a good thing. Maybe Americans will walk or bike more, buy small or hybrid cars, carpool or even patronize public transportation systems, deterred by the bloated price of petroleum.

But even with the incentive of long-term savings on costly gas, it's still not necessarily economical for most people to invest in fuel-efficient or alternative energy source vehicles. In northern California, hybrids like the Toyota Prius cost around $24,000, while the Toyota Highlander sells at $40,000. Even the Honda Civic will set you back nearly $20,000 -- a price too steep for the eco-apathetic.

But maybe there is a connection between environmentalism and gas prices after all. Maybe the Bush administration's environmental policies are actually complicit in more national issues than it seems.

During the second presidential debate in 2004, President Bush, a self-proclaimed "good steward of the land," announced his proposal of the Clear Skies Initiative to reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury by 70 percent. However, the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledges carbon dioxide as the primary perpetrator of global warming. These gases exacerbate the greenhouse effect that has been slow-roasting the earth since the Industrial Revolution in the nineteenth century.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Complex systems, such as the climate system, can respond in non-linear ways and produce surprises," and these surprises include polarities of weather, including drought, flooding and other such meteorological catastrophes.

Global warming and climate change, caused by a carbon dioxide-saturated atmosphere, increase oceanic temperature. This then increases evaporation and, likewise, precipitation.

A lot of precipitation.

The EPA recognizes that there is "the possibility that a warmer world could lead to more frequent and intense storms, including hurricanes" and there is evidence to suggest that warmer oceans may intensify and strengthen hurricanes and tropical storms once they're generated.

President Bush rejected a treaty specifically designed to combat global warming, a treaty signed in 1997 by former President Clinton. That treaty was the Kyoto Protocol.

"Well, had we joined the Kyoto treaty - it would have cost America a lot of jobs. It's one of these deals where, in order to be popular in the halls of Europe, you sign a treaty. But I thought it would cost a lot--I think there's a better way to do it," said President Bush.

The treaty, adopted by 38 industrialized nations, details a plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions among its cosigners by an average of 5.2 percent by 2012. The U.S., responsible for 25 percent of the global emissions, would have to alter its industry to procure a 7 percent decrease. Concerned about the exclusion of China and India as well as the possible impact on the domestic employment rate, President Bush abandoned the Kyoto Protocol in 2001.

In the last two years, tempests like Ivan and Katrina have delivered devastating blows to the economy and international crude oil prices as well. Most recently, the cataclysmic Katrina shut down several oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and shot oil prices to over $70 a barrel for the first time in history. In the week following the hurricane gas prices skyrocketed up 45 cents per gallon. President Bush may have sought to defend U.S. jobs by shrugging off the "halls of Europe," but ultimately a natural disaster deprived American citizens of more than just work. Homes, schools, historical and cultural landmarks -- all have been lost in the onslaught of the recent hurricanes and storms.

Here in California, we may know El Niño, but we don't know hurricanes. Certainly nothing to compare with what the people of Louisiana and Mississippi experienced this August. We know only what we read in the papers and watch on television, what we hear from those who have survived when they tell their stories of destruction and loss.

Maybe we should walk, cycle or take the bus. Maybe we should carpool or put away money for fuel-efficient cars. Not just to save money today, but to pursue a sustainable future for both our world and for livelihood.

We can complain all we want, but if we want a change we need to face our petrol-phobia and eliminate it at its roots.

Christie Genochio is a senior English and philosophy major.