In face of energy crisis, green is the answer

President George W. Bush, DC '68, has delivered a few pleasant surprises to the country over the past month. First, he's issued a number of articulate speeches at times when the national audience has needed to hear reassuring words. Second, his administration has developed a thoughtful response to the terrorist attacks, emphasizing multi-lateralism and deliberation.

If he were now to announce his support for full-speed development of alternative-source energy production in America, that could potentially surprise everyone into mass spontaneous heart failure. But it would be shocking only because of his track record on environmental issues, and not because this moment is an inappropriate time for such a policy.

At any time since the fuel crisis of the 1970s, any American president could have found justification for taking steps to reduce our dependence on oil and to pursue alternatives such as solar, wind, water, and nuclear power. It has long been clear that our access to affordable and abundant petroleum is not always guaranteed—a political reality—and that the supply of petroleum on earth is limited—a geological fact.

America currently imports 60 percent of the oil it uses, 13 percent of which comes from OPEC nations. At the moment, nothing happening in the Middle East poses an immediate threat to this trade relation, and there is no sure indication that it will be cut off at any time in the future. However, it is better to protect ourselves against a possible negative outcome than to do nothing in the hopes that it won't hit.

What if we don't get bin Laden, dead or alive? Or what if we do kill him and that event galvanizes militant Islamic sentiment against us? Either way, there exists the possibility that the popularity of his cause could grow in some Middle Eastern countries, giving him the power to topple governments favorable to the U.S. and replace them with regimes whose priorities would be a million miles away from trading with our country. Or the air attacks could turn into a ground war, which could spread out or shift in such a way as to interfere with the production and shipment of oil.

Even the sharply targeted bombing missions are starting to go awry, hitting civilians and destroying humanitarian aid camps. How can we be sure that the people of the Middle East will continue to view us as the good guys?

It would not be terribly out of character for Bush to say that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil—in fact, he's said recently that such a move is important to our national security. But by all indications, the next move would be to open up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, something he and Interior Secretary Gale Norton have been itching to do for months. Meanwhile, the federal government is building up its emergency oil reserve, caching millions of barrels that will come in handy if foreign supplies are suddenly cut.

Even with these untapped reserves lying in wait, at our current rate of consumption, we're going to burn through the petroleum supply in an alarmingly short time. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil is one matter, but figuring out what to do when we run out of oil altogether is a much larger concern. Unless the industries that rely on this resource evolve-and these industries include transportation, polymer production, and power—the catastrophe will be enormous. Some people in the energy business and in politics have mentioned natural gas as a desirable alternative. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) is one such person, having in recent days attempted to put off the Alaska-drilling proponents with an offer to expand the natural gas pipeline already working in that state.

He's throwing a bone to the environmentalist crowd, though only a small one. Natural gas is in some ways less damaging to the environment than petroleum—yet it too is a limited resource. The better answer for the long-term is to invest in "green" energy, which causes minimal harm to the environment in its creation and consumption, is infinitely renewable (or at least until the sun burns out), and can be produced without major dependence on other nations. It would be expensive to implement, but more cost-efficient in the end than current practices. Though the U.S. has had the knowledge and technological capacity to make this development for years, without solid governmental support, progress has been painfully slow.

No, I can't imagine Oilman Bush promoting green energy with a straight face. Or Oilman Cheney suddenly proclaiming conservation to be a "public" virtue. But someone in the White House is going to have to do these things someday soon, and it would be in their best interest—not to mention that of the world ecology—to do it now, before a crisis hits.

Back to Opinion...