"Americans have arrived at an answer to high gas prices and concerns about global warming - buy more cars."

At least if National Review editor Rich Lowry is to be believed (the quote above comes from his piece The Inevitability of the Car (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2RmNmU3ZWMyZWYwM2U4MzVjMDFlMDY2MjgyN2RmYzg=), which was reprinted in the June 29 issue of The Parkville [Missouri]Luminary). Mr. Lowry's editorial is a demonstration of the very low standards this culture now places on policy analysis. I'll admit that Mr. Lowry is glib and articulate, but either he's ignorant or he's disingenuous.

Now I'm enough of a meat-head that I take notice of nearly every "cool" car within my purview. I make an effort to keep my autos looking good and running well, and I take pleasure in driving a fine motor vehicle. And I'll admit to enjoying the relative independence automobiles give me (although I would temper my enthusiasm with recognition that I'm selling some of my life in order to pay for this "independence", which makes me, at the very least, a willing participant in my own wage slavery).

So what? Just because I like something doesn't mean I'm guaranteed it will remain evermore available. I'm sure the Romans got pleasure from bread and circuses, too. But quicker than you can say "troops occupying a network of bases throughout the region, providing relative stability in perpetuity, or until resources have been extracted beyond the point of economic viability" (probably much quicker), that practice deflated when the resource demands of their civilization outgrew the capacity of their empire to support it.

And if Mr. Lowry's contention that cars are inevitable weren't laughable enough, his advocacy for more roads is uproarious - more roads, more suburban/exurban development, more driving, more of everyone's life spent behind the wheel. Like this country needs more subdivisions, strip centers, nail salons, and burger chains. Even though that seems to be all we have to keep the economy going these days.

The June 29 Luminary was rich with examples of this sort of fantastical thinking. Local Kansas City development baron David Barth was quoted complaining about local governments increasing "rules and regulations" and how "that sends the wrong message to buyers and the building industry". I know that the invisible hand of the free market is a sacred concept to many, but the problem does not lie in regulation. It lies in trying to maintain unsustainable behavior.

The "wrong message" is that perpetual development, with its attendant consumption of the local landbase, is desirable, or possible. As we run headlong into the wall of increasing global petroleum consumption vs. decreasing availability thereof, we'll find ourselves wishing that someone nearby was producing our food, and whatever other materials we really need.

Lowry is probably right in his belief that cars and petroleum will be around for a long time. But events await not too far in the future which will dictate that our use of each will be radically different. Mr. Lowry either fails to grasp this fact, or he wishes to advance ideology over sound strategy. We should be planning now - whether we love our cars or not - how to meet the challenge of a future in which we indulge our auto-love less, rather than waiting for an ugly reckoning to hit us unaware.