But it is an indirect result. The increasing number of low mpg SUV's (and pickup trucks) since the mid 1980's has greatly increased oil consumption. It's basic supply vs demand.

>> So I think it is still ... ridiculous to conclude that SUV drivers are indirectly funding terrorists or killing U.S. military personnel.>>

I suggest reading, 'How to Escape the Oil Trap' and 'Winning the Oil Endgame', executive summary

SUV's (and all vehicles) could easily get higher mpg, with improved safety. Safety is created with intelligent design and proper materials, not weight. An example at, 'Building a Better SUV'

Ignored in all of this is the psychological effect of the US suburbanite voters' low gas mileage. Bush and Co. KNOW they can't push Saudi Arabia too hard on their support for the actual terrorists who really attacked us, because they can't risk much higher gas prices.

If we got the kind of mileage they get in France and Germany and England, we would either be able to lean on the Saudis like they desperately need to be leaned on, or just not care about the politics of the Middle East at all.

While I agree that the balance sheet would not be much altered by a shift away from SUVs one can't really ignore the symbolic effect of such a switch, especially since the function isn't entirely rational in the classic utilitarian sense. (It's probably rational in the broader Public Choice sense, where you can account the value of beliefs and other "intangibles"). In that regard Marc Danziger sees a trend.

And FWIW, I think a lot of SUV-owners are overly defensive. You do not have to have an SUV to drive your kids around safely.

Interesting question and well put. My initial reaction is at the very least not interfere with the market for oil too much. After all, the higher the price of oil, the greater the incentive to find alternatives and the more attactive those alternatives look. If one wanted to be really serious about this, IMO one really would talk about a tax on oil/gasoline to help increase the incentives. But we don't get that from the likes of Sullivan, instead we get this kind of pablum.

he best way to reduce the flow of petrodollars to terrorists is to stop using oil. But what will take its place?

Well, I agree that getting rid of SUVs would probably not reduce the dollars available to terrorists by very much, but there's an interesting economics question implied here. Let's suppose the lion's share of terrorist money comes from oil-rich nations, and reducing-to-elimination (over a period of years, perhaps) our oil dependence would eventually almost eliminate the source of those funds. An elimination program would have to entail some alternative energy source, and there would probably be both development costs, and higher prices per unit of energy, assuming we could replace without disruption to the current industrial system. (If not, then the cost of disruption has to be figured in, as well.)

So, how much additional money should we be willing to spend to reduce the need for oil to near-zero, and who would have to pay it? Those who felt they were relatively immune to terrorist attack, whether rightly or wrongly, probably wouldn't be willing to pay higher prices, while those who perceived a threat probably would. Is it fair to expect those who perceive a greater threat to bear the burden for free riders who simply don't perceive the threat accurately?

I'm pretty sure what we have here is a market failure, but I'm not to sure how big it is. The problem is, essentially, that there's so much uncertainty in the risk assessment, even assuming that people are, in general, capable of turning this into a rational problem. (Pretty doubtful.)

What I'd like to see are some realistic assessments of the consequences of various types of terrorist attacks. And the kind of attacks that would be the most crucial would be those that interrupted the flow of oil itself. We're currently paying that price militarily, and by and large it's Americans who are paying it. This includes not only protection of oil sources in the Gulf, but protection of the distribution channels Straits of Malacca and elsewhere.. And we can almost make an estimate of what we think that risk actually is, including both the uncertainty term and the physical and social consequences of failure. (Probability times consequences, including a discount rate reflecting temporality, yields a number in dollars.)

The question is, how much higher does the risk have to become before we decide that it might be a good idea to eliminate the funding of the threat entirely? We appear to be close to the mark, because we don't seem to be willing to spend a great deal more to enhance our military capability.

At some point, and that paint may not be very far off, it will simply make more sense to initiate a crash program to develop a different energy system, without all the terrorist financing, distributional, and protection problems of this concentrated source. And at some point, perhaps not too far off, it will probably behoove our politicians of both the Right and the Left, to talk openly and realistically about these options.

Drilling in ANWR and SUVs can both be considered distractions. But they do kind of provide a rough and ready guide to how close we are to the threshold.

The problem is that money doesn't go right into the pockets of the terrorists. It goes through quite a few people first, each taking their share.

Further, the point is that while we could see some real changes, they aren't all that big. Comparing a 6.7% cut in my gasoline bill to a 6.7% cut in my taxes (I'll assume federal taxes) here is bit different. While I do spend a fair amount on gasoline I spend far, far more in taxes. It is like saying do you want 6.7% of $100 or 6.7% of $5,000? If I like the latter then I must equally like the former?

And this doesn't get around to the fact that people might actually need such a car. Granted the single guy who likes it his SUV with great big tires so he can feel manly is stupid, but for every such dolt I bet we can find a family that really puts their SUV to good use. Calling the former a dolt who is being wasteful in a narcissistic manner is one thing, calling the family who finds an SUV very helpful indirectly responsible for killing soldiers is just tacky...which pretty much describe Andrew Sullivan, IMO.

If your point is that it is too small an amount of money/savings to worry about, I would have to disagree. You would not turn down a 6.7% tax cut, even if it just means the money would be spent elswhere. Why belittle a potential 6.7% cut in gasoline prices?

It's rather amusing that no small portion of the demand for larger vehicles is fueled by the government, via the safety-at-any-cost nuts.