The Great Energy Debacle

David M. Fine | April 18, 2003

The battle over whether or not to drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge is really a battle over the direction of U.S. energy policy.

So far, it hangs in the balance.

President George W. Bush and VP Dick Cheney have made drilling in the refuge, or ANWR as it is also known, one of their top priorities.

While the Senate barely managed to keep drilling in ANWR out of its version of the energy bill, the House succeeded in including it in the bill - so the battle over whether or not to drill in the refuge now moves to the conference committee.

Given the limited amount of recoverable oil in the area in question, the effort put forth by the Bush Administration smacks of an attempt to give a windfall to some oil-buddies - and to continue an old school policy of using up all the resources at our disposal, without looking at the bigger picture.

According to an assessment done by the U.S. Geological Survey back in 1998 there exists between 3 and 10.4 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in the refuge, if oil is selling at a price of $30 per barrel (where it has been hovering recently). Currently, Americans consume about 7 billion barrels of oil per year.

This amount of oil would satisfy current American energy appetites for only a year. But revenues from the sale of the oil could amount to hundreds of billions of dollars. While Americans blithely pump the petrol into their cars, a few companies would be saying "cha-ching!" Meanwhile, in the process we pollute and despoil a pristine coastline in Alaska.

In this energy debate, two camps are facing off: those representing the mammoth, fossil fuel powers and those brandishing the promise of alternative, non-polluting energies and energy-efficient technology. The former want to make as much money as they can in the decades to come before the world burns up the remaining fossil fuels. They do not calculate concern for the environment into their bottom lines and nor do they look very far into the future. They likely scoff at and belittle environmental concerns. This group was the group that secretly met with VP Dick Cheney and developed Bush's energy policy.

The latter group looks at what is happening in the world - massive development, global climate change, and an ever-greater consumption of fossil fuels - with an element of concern. America, the largest per capita consumer of oil, is king among wasters. We waste energy, which we have in abundance and at cheap prices, unlike the rest of the world, with little contemplation. This group asks, what impact will all this waste have upon the world in twenty or thirty years? They see the need for greater energy conservation, to use energy sparingly, and believe that we should not be driven to sacrifice pristine natural lands in the name of profligate energy consumption.

Though the President would like you to think he cares about the environment - and his initiative to develop fuel cell cars is supposedly proof of that - his policies do not aim to reduce pollution today. Though Bush is not alone: President Clinton did little to put pressure on automakers to increase fuel efficiency during his tenure either. Our government's preferred method of dealing with the problem is to spend millions on research and development via the Department of Energy - millions that have yet to translate into tangible results rolling off the assembly line.

Today, faced with global climate change and other environmental ills, we are at a point now where we are not compelled by market forces, like we were in the 70s, but we should nevertheless be compelled - to change our behavior. We are facing two choices, empty the oil in the earth and hope that technology will save us in due time, or take a look at what the scientists are telling us and take steps to guide the process of transitioning to greater fuel efficiency and alternative energy sources so that it moves apace.

For everyday American citizens, our hands our nearly tied: we want our SUVs and cheap gasoline and clean environment, too. Are we just as culpable as the Bush insiders? Perhaps. But for most people, we have no alternative but to drive and to pump our cars full of gasoline. The market is only beginning to offer alternative choices: hybrid and electric and low-emissions vehicles.

What we can do is vote for candidates who believe in quickening the pace of development of fuel-efficient technologies, who promote increases in automotive fuel efficiency, and who encourage development of alternative energy sources. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, a Democratic Presidential candidate for 2004, is opposed to drilling in the refuge and recently attempted to require an increase in the average fuel efficiency of automobile fleets.

The Bush Administration views cheap gasoline as an imperative for America and the American economy. In fact, gasoline should cost double what it does today, if we wanted to encourage responsible consumption and increase market demand for cars that get better gas mileage. Our elected officials should increase the gasoline tax a sizeable sum and use the proceeds to create alternative, more efficient modes of transportation.

But for you SUV owners, not to worry, that is not likely to happen. In the meantime, however, we should draw the line at drilling in Alaska. We need to start going forward, not backward.