|
Akron
Beacon Journal Editorial...
Energy void
Published on Monday, Apr 04, 2011
Another president hurls words at higher gas prices. Still missing? A
concrete strategy for easing our oil dependence
With oil prices exceeding $100 per barrel and gasoline at the pump
approaching $4 per gallon, the country has performed its usual fire
drill. Consumers howled. Republicans demanded increased drilling for
oil, and President Obama delivered a speech framing a comprehensive
approach to energy. Any likelihood of substantial progress in putting
together an enduring and effective strategy? Unfortunately, the answer
likely is no.
If the failure to discuss responsibly the massive federal budget
deficit for the long term points to the dysfunction in Washington, the
lack of broad energy and climate legislation reinforces the impression.
President Obama stressed the sorry record in his talk last week. He
proposed that the country reduce its oil imports by one-third during
the next decade. In doing so, he acknowledged that every president
since Richard Nixon has put forward a similar course. Yet the country
today relies on foreign oil for half of its daily needs of almost 20
million barrels.
What is different now? The president pointed to the turmoil in the Arab
world, from which this country purchases about 3 million barrels per
day, equivalent to the reduction in oil imports the president seeks.
More, there is the presence of China and other emerging industrial
economies, plus the deepening threat of climate change.
What Americans grasp is that higher oil prices put at risk the economic
recovery, more expensive gasoline dampening consumer confidence and
diminishing spending. Yet, as the president rightly argued, there is no
quick fix. Expand oil drilling? It would help slightly. It shouldn’t be
pursued without the necessary oversight. Neither should illusions hold:
Americans consume one-quarter of the world’s oil but produce barely 2
percent of global supplies. More, higher gas taxes promote better
choices.
The president offered the appropriate vision of a sound energy
strategy, emphasizing the need to make progress on multiple fronts.
Already the White House has achieved advances in fuel-efficiency
standards for cars and trucks. It plans this summer to unveil the
first-ever fuel standards for heavy-duty trucks. In the fall, it will
propose the next round of increased fuel economy for cars. These steps
promise a significant dent in the country’s oil dependence.
The effort also requires, as the president explained, more use of
natural gas to fuel vehicles. It involves expanded use of mass transit
and a greater presence for electric cars. To be sure, electric cars
bring their own complications, trading oil for coal as the power
source. The exchange provides a reminder of the key role nuclear power
must play in an effective strategy. The president rightly argued that
in the wake of the earthquake in Japan, lessons must be learned about
operating nuclear power plants safely. Yet the reality remains: To curb
oil use and combat climate change, nuclear power must have a prominent
place on the energy landscape.
Nuclear power should serve as a prod, too. The president pointed to
developing biofuels. Solar and wind power have an obvious role. All of
this suggests the need for technological innovation. Unfortunately, the
country skimps on the research dollars devoted to clean energy. It
spends far less on energy research and development than on defense,
biomedicine and space research. More, the effort is fragmented, harming
the return on investment.
Thus, the country must make the essential commitment of resources and
organization. Reduce our dependence? The words long have been uttered.
Action on the necessary scale? It still is missing.
Read it at the Akron Beacon Journal
|
|
|
|
