Lawmakers agree on crisis,
disagree on solution
By Dave Stephens
Assistant
Campus Editor
America is headed toward an energy crisis.
That is according to The National Energy Security
Act of 2001, a bill that was introduced to Congress earlier this month.
The act proposes to cut America’s dependency on foreign oil by
using more renewable energy resources, using new technology to conserve
energy use and increasing the supply of domestic oil.
With the Department of Energy predicting energy
use to increase by 27 percent in the next 20 years, and dependency on
imported oil to increase from 55 to 65 percent, few people object to
changing America’s energy policy.
It’s the different possible solutions to the
nation’s energy problems that people debate.
John Dunning, an associate professor of ecology,
said he thinks the best way to solve our future energy needs is to reduce
the overall demand for fossil fuels, and not by drilling for oil in
new areas.
Dunning said that by conserving energy and improving
energy efficiency, oil drilling would not be needed in ecologically
significant areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
"The migration of the porcupine herd of caribou
is the last great wildlife spectacle left in North America that involves
the migration of huge herds of grazing animals," said Dunning.
"We have eliminated all the other similar wildlife spectacles —
such as the movements of bison across the Great Plains. The place where
they want to drill is the most critical site for the caribou calving,
so environmentalists are worried it will disrupt the whole system."
Robert Bartlett, an associate professor of political
science who specializes in environmental law, said the argument to drill
for oil along the Arctic has been going on for 15 years.
"It’s an area where there is suspected
a high potential for oil," said Bartlett, "but it’s the
kind of thing that a substantial number of people have opposed."
However, Bartlett said that if fuel prices rise
high enough, more people would probably be in favor of drilling.
Along with drilling for oil in the Arctic Wildlife
refuge, proposals to open up other federal lands to mining and drilling
are also being considered.
"The coastlines of Florida and California
are prime drilling areas," said Dunning. "Areas around the
Grand Canyon have coal deposits, and park managers there worry about
coal mines and utility plants decreasing the air quality in the national
park."
Bartlett said there is mixed support in Congress
to open federal land to mining and oil drilling, but a lot of things
that would pass in the House would not pass through the Senate.
"In the Senate, some of the republicans are
opposed to opening more lands, including Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.),"
said Bartlett. "Generally speaking, it’s the senators from
either party in the western states who are in favor of opening more
federal land to development."
Dunning said opening more federal lands to development
would not solve our energy problems.
"What it will do is put off until later deciding
how to become energy self-sufficient. It will dramatically increase
the profits of the extraction industry that is dependent on cheap resources
of fossil fuels," said Dunning.
George Horwich, a professor of economics who used
to work with the Department of Energy, said a lot of the current oil
problems could be solved by using the Strategic Petroleum Reserves to
balance out the decrease in stability.
The Strategic Petroleum Reserves consists of 570
million barrels of crude oil, stored in large salt caverns along the
coasts of Louisiana and Texas.
"There’s enough (oil) there to iron out
the fluctuations in price," said Horwich.
Horwich said both drilling for new oil supplies
and making drastic changes in fuel efficiency would have little effect
on the price of oil.
"I’m not opposed to (drilling in the
Arctic), but the additional oil isn’t going to solve the stability,"
said Horwich. "Increasing conservation efforts won’t solve
anything either. Right now, we’re dependent on 40 percent (of the
country being fueled by oil), 25 years ago we were at 44 percent. That’s
only a 4 percent change in a quarter century."
Horwich said no administration in Washington has
considered using the reserve because they say they are saving it for
wartime.
"That’s not the smart way to use it,"
said Horwich. "There’s such a large quantity of oil, we could
still make most of it available for use by consumers and still save
enough for a war."
Bartlett said he has only heard of one senator
talk about using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and that the senator
called on President Bush to open the reserve for use.
"That’s probably not something Bush is
going to do," said Bartlett. "During the presidential campaign,
Bush made fun of Clinton and Gore for opening the reserve temporarily.
It’s not something that Bush would propose."
|
