Some Earth Day thoughts

Many environmentalists throughout the world have long taken up the cause of fighting genetically modified crops. The Barrel won't go into the rationale for this dispute; it's well-documented on the Internet.

But a story popped up on Monday's front page of The New York Times, a story that I almost knew was going to occur eventually, even though I hadn't heard anything specifically about this development. In the story, the Times spelled out how many nations that vowed they would never, ever buy GM crops because of questions surrounding possible health effects -- the whole "Frankenfood" argument -- are now finding their resistance challenged. They need grain, and they're willing to buy it from a lot of places that they weren't going to buy it from previously.

Their earlier arguments were often draped in morality. And now, as it usually does, economics trumps morality.

A second observation comes from an Associated Press story about the success that big SUVs are having in gaining marketshare in the Chinese market. Just when Cadillac Escalantes are falling out of favor in the US, the Chinese market beckons.

It was always interesting to hear the arguments that SUV use was a function of American immorality and materialism. No; it was a function of economics. As long as gasoline prices remained relatively low, especially as real incomes were rising as real gasoline prices were falling, it was not surprising that people would find new ways that energy use would lead to a more comfortable existence. People have been doing that since, oh, maybe about the first moments after they climbed out of the primordial ooze. The consumption of energy is an economic transaction. Trying to make it a moral equation is doomed to fail. You want consumption lower? Make the price higher.

In China, of course, not only does the government lightly tax gasoline; refiners are subsidized when government policies force them to sell at a loss. This sends a strong economic signal from the government to the citizens that energy use is encouraged. That the nouveau rich in China would then turn around and buy great big cars after getting that signal is not surprising. It also blows a significant hole in the idea that the SUV explosion in the US during the 90s was a function of immoral thoughts. The collapse of those sales now isn't occuring because US citizens suddenly walked with the angels.

Which is why on this Earth Day, you're going to hear many suggestions on how to save energy. Some of them are fascinating. The New York Times devoted its entire Sunday magazine section both to new technologies and ways that people can live a greener life.

But do know that when these arguments are covered in a moral sheen, they're probably not going too far. Individuals and companies are going to conserve energy because it helps their pocketbook. We'll say it again: the consumption of energy is an economic transaction. Public policy must recognize that.