Energy

We are all concerned about both the high cost of gasoline and how rapidly the cost has increased. Given how fast this change has occurred, we’ve been unable to make good plans to adjust to the need to use less petroleum. We’ve been surprised, and painfully so. Many of us have vehicles which we could afford to use when gas and diesel cost half as much. Others are dependent upon machinery that uses a great deal of fuel in order to work. Budgets of cities, counties and even police and sheriff’s departments are unable to pay for the same amount of gasoline, limiting such basic services as snow plowing on the weekends, sheriffs’ officers patrolling the streets, or sports in smaller schools that require travel to other communities. We are trapped into a situation in which we depend upon crude oil, and have to pay so much for it that the cost is hurting us individually, and threatening our economic safety as a country.

It’s tempting to look for simple answers. Some advocate off shore drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific. That sounds like a great answer, but it’s not. Even the United States government’s Department of Energy points out that such off shore drilling would take well more than a decade to be productive, and that the cost savings on gasoline for the average consumer even then would be almost non-existent. There have also been proposals to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), with the thought that this too, might provide a simple solution to our complicated problems. It appears that the benefits of these efforts would be minimal, yet the risks are very real. Anyone who’s ever traveled through the Bob Marshall Wilderness, the majestic area in Montana that’s been preserved as has ANWR, knows that the consequences of oil activity and oil rigs would destroy what the Bob Marshall Wilderness has meant to so many people and continues to be for our environment. Again, the U.S. Department of Energy has said the effect of drilling in ANWR, as with offshore drilling, would not have any significant effect upon world oil prices.

There are smarter and wiser solutions to the problem of energy dependence. The smart solution is to begin to withdraw from petroleum based fuels as our primary source of energy, rather than rely upon it even more by investing in additional drilling. We must remember that India and China are becoming more industrialized, producing vehicles and adding drivers, and some estimates suggest that these two countries, in and of themselves, will have need for the entire amount of crude oil currently known to exist in the world by the year 2030. We must look at alternative forms of energy, and aggressively pursue energy independence, not only from foreign governments, but also from our over reliance on petroleum.

Fortunately, there are alternatives. There are vast amounts of available energy, but it’s not easily usable. Anyone who has watched a lightening storm, been tossed around by a wave, seen powerful winds blow dirt and heavy debris away, experienced the heat of geological activity, or gotten sunburned, has experienced energy that is available but not useable. We must move aggressively towards relying upon these alternative forms of energy and making them usable.

The problem has not been an awareness of our need to do these things; it’s been with the political will to make these things happen. The current presidential administration is one all too familiar and cozy with oil, since both the president and vice-president have their backgrounds in the oil industry. They believe that supporting crude oil dependence is a wise way to provide for America’s energy needs, and that’s just mistaken. In fact, the president has even supported tax breaks for oil companies that are making record profits, adding to such annual profits (after all expenses) of above $40 billion for one oil company. Even with these immense profits, the president has proposed tax cuts for large oil, and Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, our current representative, voted in favor of the president’s tax cuts, as she has with other efforts supporting big oil.

We need to mount an effort, as great as that which led us to win WWII and land a man on the moon, to develop alternative energy sources. We must begin these efforts immediately to develop new technologies and wiser uses of all alternative energy sources. Additional funding into basic science will help us explore alternative fuels, such as current efforts to develop petroleum from algae; develop more environmentally friendly fuel cells and batteries; and understand the viability of nuclear fusion. Looking at different models, such as that used in Canada with much smaller and safer nuclear reactors, will allow us to fully evaluate the safe use of nuclear energy. We must also conserve energy and come to realize that it is limited.

There are many alternative ways to meet our needs for energy, but what’s very clear is that we cannot keep going the direction that we’ve been going. Our current situation is not a good one, and it can only get worse if we continue down the same path.