published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Charlotte Observer, Bangor Daily News, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Albuquerque Journal, St. Petersburg Times, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Whittier Daily News, Pasadena Star-News, Keene Sentinel,Providence Journal, Forth Worth Star-Telegram, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Long Beach Press-Telegram, St. Petersburg Times, andDaytona Beach News-Journal in October and November, 2001
Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, "energy security" has been debated as a matter of national defense. But we must guard against beguiling solutions that would both increase our vulnerability to oil supply disruption and simultaneously spurn vastly more effective measures.
Renewed pleas for energy independence have, predictably, called for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. One analyst quoted in news stories talked about trading "relatively small environmental damage" to caribou "in return for the World Trade Center." Senators who favor drilling in the refuge have recently railed against the 56 percent of our oil imported from the Middle East, as though Arctic oil -- unavailable for seven to 10 years and promising to fill less than 5 percent of our needs at peak production -- was the panacea.
But oil from the Arctic Refuge would have to travel through a new pipeline connecting to the 800-mile-long Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. Even the current structure presents a tempting target, having already been bombed twice, and the U.S. Army considers it "indefensible."
This was driven home on Oct. 4, when a lone gunman fired several bullets into the pipeline; one penetrated it. Containing the subsequent geyser, which sprayed nearly 300,000 gallons of crude oil, took almost 100 workers and three days, shutting down shipment of 17 percent of the nation's oil production.
Fortunately, neither the explosive vapors nor the flammable oil ignited, but as Alaska Gov. Tony Knowles said, "Clearly, the fact that one person with a rifle can do this much damage is a point of concern in terms of vulnerability."
While U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta claims the nation's thousands of miles of other pipelines and fuel depots are secure, it's chilling to remember that years ago a caller claiming responsibility for an Irish Republican Army bombing said, "We have only to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always." And now with crop dusters and hazardous materials haulers coming under scrutiny, it seems foolish to bank a 21st century energy policy on keeping terrorists away from snowmobiles.
According to the Cato Institute, America spends $30 billion to $60 billion a year -- and deploys thousands of military personnel -- in securing the roughly $10 billion worth of oil we import from the Persian Gulf. We are essentially risking American lives to support our addiction to gas-guzzling SUVs. While we cannot anticipate or prevent every terrorist attack, we can do much to make disruption of Middle East oil supplies less threatening and also reduce dependence on vulnerable pipelines (or, for that matter, nuclear reactors).
Terrorists can blow up oil pipelines or nuclear plants. But they cannot stop 190 million licensed U.S. drivers from driving a little bit less and buying cars that burn gasoline more efficiently. They cannot stop 100 million households from switching to compact fluorescent light bulbs or installing energy-efficient appliances. And they cannot stop American technology and ingenuity when it comes to finding ways to save money, energy and natural resources.
Amory and Hunter Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute estimate that "the untapped, inexpensive reserves of oil efficiency technology exceed by more than 50 times the average projection of what [Arctic] drilling might yield."
No terrorist act could reverse our savings from such efficiency. Efficiency cannot be bombed and doesn't need aircraft carriers for protection.
Investments in efficiency would provide immediate and permanent benefits to the economy.
Alternative energy, too, is home-grown and more secure. Household solar systems or community wind-power electric stations are far less susceptible to attack than massive centralized generating plants. The most promising energy source of the future, hydrogen fuel cells, would likewise be located with individual consumers.
Smart and defensible technologies are here today. Wind and solar are cost-competitive. Their further development, and especially the development of fuel cells, should be spurred by aggressive government support, for their success is now a national security imperative.
Energy policy has too often been undermined by interests that profit when Americans are profligate with energy and foolishly depend on oil. The oil price shocks of the 1970s brought major advances in efficient use of energy, but a 1986 rollback of fuel standards for cars soon doubled imports from the Persian Gulf. Five years later, we were fighting Iraq over Mideast oil.
Meanwhile, for years Congress has prohibited the government from even studying increased vehicle fuel efficiency.
Energy security is a fine phrase and a worthwhile goal, but we must avoid becoming even more vulnerable through misguided efforts. A truly secure America will find its energy in efficient technologies, wise usage, distributed power generation and clean, renewable sources.
