Forty Years of Inaction on Oil

• Author: Margaret Kriz Hobson
• Position: Environment and energy writer for the National Journal
• Pages: 8-8

Page 8 ❧ THE ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM Copyright © 2010, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, July/August 2010

Forty Years of

Inaction on Oil

Throughout the spring, Ameri-

cans f‌locked to web sites broad-

casting the horrif‌ic view of oil end-

lessly gushing from a broken pipe

into the Gulf of Mexico a mile be-

low the surface. e video feed of

the BP drilling site and subsequent

photos of oil-ravaged wildlife along

the coast were reminders of the dev-

astating costs of the nation’s oil ad-

diction.

e inevitable question that the

disaster raises is, Why has it been so

hard for the United States to cut its

use of oil? Experts say that ef‌forts to

switch from fossil fuels to cleaner al-

ternatives have been stymied by low

gasoline prices, an entrenched oil

industry, lack of cheap and conve-

nient alternatives, and an absence of

long-term political leadership.

“What do we want from ener-

gy?” muses Richard Sears, a visiting

scientist at MIT and former vice

president at Shell. “We want it to be

clean, cheap, and convenient. When

push comes to shove, which of those

falls of‌f the table f‌irst? Clean takes it

on the chin.”

For the last 40 years, every U.S.

president has vowed to deliver the

nation from the evils of foreign oil.

e promises began with President

Nixon, who pledged that by 1980

the nation would no longer be “de-

pendent on any other country for

the energy we need.” Since then,

however, U.S. oil imports have dou-

bled.

It’s not as if the United States

hasn’t tried to kick its petroleum ad-

diction. Past oil crises triggered seri-

ous action. When petroleum prices

soared during the 1970s, Washing-

ton required automakers to produce

more-ef‌f‌icient cars and pushed elec-

tric companies not to burn oil in

their power plants. During the 1979

oil crisis, President Carter funneled

millions of dollars into research to

help develop alternative transpor-

tation fuels. But in the 1980s, the

pendulum swung away from oil al-

ternatives when the price of gasoline

plummeted and President Reagan

shifted national priorities.

“Petroleum cost is a very f‌lexible

sort of thing,” notes Don Hille-

brand, director of Argonne National

Laboratory’s center for transporta-

tion research. “And when the price

of oil naturally be-

gins to dip, it kills all

the investment, all

the technology, all

the research and de-

velopment that has

gone forward to that

point. We seem to

have to constantly reset [alternative

fuel programs] to zero again.”

Now President Obama is promis-

ing to “reverse our dependence on

foreign oil while building a new en-

ergy economy that will create mil-

lions of jobs.” Unlike previous presi-

dents, Obama has not suf‌fered from

high oil prices; the ongoing recession

has lowered world oil demand and

held down the cost. Obama’s goal is

to dramatically cut U.S. emissions

of greenhouse gases. Because one

third of the nation’s carbon dioxide

pollution comes from cars, trucks,

and airplanes, the White House is

investing in new technologies to re-

place oil. Obama also argues that his

green programs can help solve the

nation’s economic woes by provid-

ing new jobs.

To reach his global warming goal,

Obama has already hiked fuel ef‌f‌i-

ciency standards for cars and trucks

and increased funding for alternative

fuels and new automotive technolo-

gies. Obama also backs congressio-

nal ef‌forts to pass climate change

legislation.

To some extent, Washington is

following in the footsteps of Cali-

fornia, which has adopted a low-car-

bon fuel standard requiring compa-

nies that sell gasoline or diesel fuel

in the state to reduce their overall

emissions of greenhouse gases by 10

percent by 2020. California of‌f‌icials

say the standard could cut gasoline

and diesel use in that state by 20

percent.

California Air Resources Board

chair Mary Nichols says the stan-

dard, which takes ef‌fect in January,

is already spurring new investment

in transportation fuels and car tech-

nologies. “New ethanol production

facilities are being constructed in

the Central Valley

and they’re looking

at bringing in waste

material from or-

chards and vineyards

to fuel those plants,”

she says.

Obama argues

that the nation needs to face up to

the continuing costs of oil depen-

dence and global warming. “e

only way the transition to clean en-

ergy will ultimately succeed is if the

private sector is fully invested in this

future — if capital comes of‌f the

sidelines and the ingenuity of our

entrepreneurs is unleashed,” he says.

“And the only way to do that is by

f‌inally putting a price on carbon pol-

lution. . . . If we refuse to take into

account the full costs of our fossil

fuel addiction — if we don’t fac-

tor in the environmental costs and

the national security costs and the

true economic costs — we will have

missed our best chance to seize a

clean energy future.”

By Margaret Kriz Hobson

Margaret Kriz Hobson is t he en vir on me nt an d

energy writer for the National Journal. She can

be reached at mkr iz@nationaljournal.com.

T F B

We seem to have

to constantly reset

alternative fuel

programs to zero