We do not have an energy crisis in America right now. What confounds us is a political crisis.
With the exception of deregulation snafus in California and a severe drought in the Northwest, we have not been bushwhacked by unforeseen events. We are living in a world of our own making.
We have known for years that America will always be at the mercy of foreign oil powers as long as we rely on oil. Even if we drill in every wildlife refuge and put oil rigs off all our coasts, we will still have no more than 4% of the world’s reserves. Yet we consume 25% of the world’s production. We delude ourselves if we think we can drill our way to energy independence. Alaska Senator Frank Murkowski’s “energy” bill—which gives the green flag to oil production in some of our most sensitive lands and throws all sorts of subsidies at the oil industry—will only reduce the percentage of imported oil we consume from 56% to 50%.
We have known for decades—since the killing fogs of London and the murderous clouds in Pennsylvania mill towns—that burning fossil fuels harms human health and the environment. We know that other disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill, will likely recur as long as oil is our nation’s lifeblood.
Despite all the advances claimed by the oil industry, accidents continue to cause grievous harm to the Earth. In just the last year, the second largest oil spill in U.S. history spoiled miles of the Mississippi, oil slicks washed ashore on the Galapagos, and the world’s largest drilling platform sank off Brazil. Oil is spilled every day at Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay. Every day, those oil fields generate an amount of pollution equal to twice the amount generated in a city the size of Washington, DC.
We have known for years that our road to energy independence must be built upon efficiency, technology and the abundant all-American, clean and renewable sources of power that surround us: wind, solar, geo- thermal, ocean and biomass energy.
We know how to use these energy sources, which are rapidly becoming as cost-effective as fossil fuels. Their cost will continue to decline while the prices of fossil fuels and their environmental costs move higher.
No foreign power could manipulate our economy if our energy were harvested from the winds blowing across Wyoming prairies, the sun baking the California desert, or the Earth’s heat trapped under New Mexico’s mesas. We would not have to defend vulnerable shipping lanes or fret about remote pipelines that could be blown up by a few terrorists on snowmobiles.
Our dependence on foreign oil is why brave American men and women defend foreign sources and secure lines of supply back to our shores. Few of us ever think of this unseen cost of oil.
In the time we have been debating whether or not to industrialize the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—and with the millions of dollars spent by both sides—enough wind power farms could have been built to ameliorate California’s situation. Unlike gas, oil or coal-fired generation, wind farms do not need water, a bonus frequently overlooked when comparing competing sources of energy.
Instead of throwing millions more at the boondoggle of “clean coal,” we could create a market for photovoltaics and fuel cells, just as the government jump-started America’s dominance in computer technology.
While President Bush’s budget slashes funding for renewable energy research, the rest of the world surges forward. Japanese auto makers are producing hybrid engines that get 70 mpg. BMW has been demonstrating a powerful luxury car that runs on hydrogen fuel cells. Volkswagen will market a car capable of 234 mpg. (And that’s no typo!)
Spain is constructing a 100 megawatt solar thermal collecting station. Industrialized Holland already gets 15% of its power from the wind. Wind is the world’s fastest-growing source of energy. Scandinavians—not Americans—lead the world in design and production of wind-harvesting equipment.
The nation of Iceland is on a time table to move completely off fossil fuels. Even its fishing fleet will run on hydrogen fuel cells.
Many people have leveled criticism at the Clinton Administration for defaulting on energy. But our Republican leaders in Congress over the past eight years cannot escape blame. Some forward-looking Republicans, such as Representatives Nancy Johnson and Sherwood Boehlert, envision a better future and are attempting to secure it for America. But the GOP leadership has chained us to a past based on gluttonous consumption of fossil fuels.
The same GOP leaders who bar the path to a bright, new energy future mock “conservation.” They use the tired old “jobs versus environment” dodge. This time, “conservation” is made the villain, and it is America’s prideful quality of life that is tethered to the stake.
Consider... it has been five years since our Republican Congress prohibited the federal government from even studying fuel efficiency. And now Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott seems to have invented a new right—call it “the right to waste”— to justify retarding progress: “The American people have a right to drive a great big road hog SUV if they want to. And I’m gonna get me one,” Lott said in a Roll Call interview published March 12, 2001.
If we truly are in the throes of a national energy crisis, Congress has no excuse not to increase vehicle fuel efficiency.
Increased efficiency is our best weapon against foreign control of our economy. Improving vehicle fuel efficiency by just 2 or 3 miles per gallon will “produce” more oil than the best science estimates is economically recoverable under the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Americans need not drive only tiny GEO Metros. If we all drove vehicles getting 30 mpg on the highway—like a Buick LeSabre or a Toyota Camry— such savings could be achieved. And, of course, we can do even better than that.
If one weighs everything that this country must risk to protect Senator Lott’s “right to waste,” then driving a gas-wasting, inefficient SUV to get groceries looks downright unpatriotic.
Theodore Roosevelt preached that efficiency in the use of resources was a moral and patriotic obligation. Once again, the wisdom of this great man provides guidance for today.
Environmentalists love the word “conservation.” To us, it is as American as apple pie. It conjures up noble themes and undergirds our philosophy toward much of life. But to build a ladder up out of our political energy crisis, we need to remember the handyman’s adage: the right tool for the job. “Conservation” may not do the trick. “Efficiency” might.
For example, requiring replacement tires to be as efficient as original tires would “produce” 5.4 billion gallons of oil, 70% more than the amount of oil that could be produced from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Increasing vehicle fuel and tire efficiency—using technologies already at hand—could replace all the oil we import from OPEC countries. Efficiency at home could deny Saddam Hussein the American dollars he uses to buy weapons to endanger American lives abroad.
Efficiency in building design and construction can “produce” immeasurable quantities of energy. Simply using a white roof to reflect sunlight curbs air conditioning needs dramatically. Co-author Dr. Gerald Leigh—using low-tech concrete and passive solar design—built a 5,000 square foot home more than twice as large as his previous wood-framed home, and cut his utility bills by 33%.
Efficiency implies no reduction in comfort or quality of life. Efficiency does not threaten America’s pride and self-image. To the contrary, “The demand for efficiency,” Theodore Roosevelt said, “has given us vigor, effectiveness, decision and power, and a capacity for achievement which has never been matched.”
No one can effectively mount an argument against efficiency. The alternative to efficiency is waste, and who wants to defend that side of the debate? Don’t conservatives value efficiency? Aren’t we no-nonsense, hard-headed, bottom-line folks who demand efficiency in everything?
It has been observed that the Stone Age did not end because the world ran out of stones. Nor will the Oil Age end because we run out of oil. There is a risk to prolonging our reliance on oil and other fossil fuels. America could be left behind in an energy stone age, and then be at the mercy not only of foreign suppliers but also the nations holding the upper hand in energy technology. The Microsoft of tomorrow is probably an energy technology company. If our nation does not dedicate itself to launching America into the energy future with the same determination that won World War II and rebuilt Europe, chances loom large that the energy Microsofts of tomorrow will be headquartered on foreign soil.
Efficiency and new energy technologies defeat the “jobs versus the environment” bogeyman. For example, wind energy systems create more jobs per kilowatt hour than more capital-intensive systems. Building efficient concrete homes may reduce logging demand, but it creates more sustainable jobs. Auto workers don’t care if they build cars that run on fuel cells rather than gasoline. They are in the automobile business, not the internal-combustion business. The real threat to American jobs is betting that the future lies with fossil fuels.
As Republicans and conservatives, we can bring a fresh voice to the debate. We can wield revered themes and values to break the political log jam that blocks America’s way. Each of us must shoulder responsibility for working America out of its energy woes. That means using energy responsibly—patriotically—and responsibly using the assets that we bring to the debate.
While we at Republicans for Environmental Protection relish repeating at every opportunity that “Conservation is Conservative,” saying that “Efficiency is Conservative" sounds awfully good, too.
For additional information, see REP's "Hot Topics" section on Energy.
Jim Scarantino of Albuquerque, NM, was the Executive Director of REP America during 2001.
Dr. Gerald Leigh is a REP America member living in Albuquerque. Dr. Leigh earned his BE in Chemical Engineering at the University of Idaho; his masters in Mechanical Engineering and his Ph.D. in Engineering Mechanics at Arizona State University. He is retired from the New Mexico Engineering Research Institute, where he served as Senior Technical Advisor, specializing in energy research and development. Dr. Leigh also headed the Structural Mechanics Division at the Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, and worked on energy and weapons development at the Air Force Laboratory at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque.
