U.S. seeks new energy policy
I heard a great joke the other day … I don’tremember the details but the tag line basically said that theUnited States had a reliable, sustainable, environmentallyconscience energy policy.
Like I said, it was a great joke.
Fresh from their summer vacations and a month-long sojourn atthe always-posh Western White House in Crawford, Congress and thePresident have arrived back to a Washington rife with contentionover topics ranging from economic doldrums to the North Koreaissue.
Somewhere in this mess of messages is the cue that this nationneeds to revise its national energy policy (which is an oxymoron ofsorts).
The sweltering days of July brought with them a catastrophicfailure of the northeast power grid, $2 gallons of gas across thecountry, and a renewed debate over what is best for thisnation’s future energy needs.
Which is not to say that this administration and Congressdon’t already have enough to deal with – they do. Butnow their plate is even fuller.
The “Great Blackout” of early July that affectedtens of millions of Americans was the fault of preparation, orrather a lack of preparation.
From coast to coast, our nation’s energy grids and powersupplies are antiquated and dilapidated at best. At worst, theblackout of July was only a hint of what could happen.
I’m not just waxing apocalyptically — roughly 65percent of our nation’s power grid is circa 1950.
Just this weekend, I heard my friend complaining about the $45he used up to fill up. While his immediate worry was his loss ofbeer money for Saturday night, at least he can rest assured thathis big Tahoe will look mighty crump as he rolls around getting 13miles per gallon.
However, my friend’s dilemma underscores another problemfacing the folks in Washington: rising gas prices.
Because this summer brought with it increased road travel(higher demand for gas) and instability in the Middle East (meaninga lower supply of available gas), economic theory prevailed onceagain in the form of gas prices across the country approaching $2per gallon.
Rest assured though, that these problems will be at leastsuperficially remedied come next November (patience is avirtue).
Politicians who like their jobs recognize that come electiontime its bad news if folks can’t fill their SUVs up eitherbecause they don’t have a job or because even if they didthey couldn’t afford to because gasoline prices are toohigh.
In this instance, people will vote with their paychecks (if theyhave one) and their fuel tanks.
Which brings us to what the Washington wizards (not thebasketball folks) will do to affect a change.
The rhetoric espoused out of the White House and the halls ofCongress will call for an “energy policy for the nextcentury.” Lost in this grand vision for a new era, however,will be renewed calls for oil “exploration” in theArctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska and more”sustainable” power in the 48 states.
What this really means is that people will want to drill for oilup north and burn more coal down south. What this really means isthat our environment is up for grabs.
Some will argue that ANWR is hardly a national treasure becauseit is a vast arctic wasteland — home to a few thousandcaribou and lots of oil.
Although I happen to like caribou, the real issue is whether theharm caused by our oil hunger is enough to satiate ournation’s gas needs.
The real answer is that it isn’t. If oil were strucktomorrow in ANWR, it would still take 5-8 years to put it into ourgas tanks — and the production out of the area would onlyserve to temporarily lessen our nation’s dependence onforeign oil.
At the cost of ruining a rare, pristine environmental region,America would only delay the inevitable day when its oil dependencecatches up with it.
Sustainable power in the states can be sought out by simplyburning more coal — which releases nasty stuff into the airlike ammonia and mercury (yep, we breathe that crap).
Bush & Co. will tell us that these toxins will be reduced bythe passage of Bush’s paradoxical “Clear SkiesInitiative.” The proposed bill is paradoxical because besidesthe bold name, it would actually serve to delay and lessen theEPA’s already standing power plant emissions standards.
The only sustainable part of the proposal is to sustain presentemissions standards.
However, I was taught to never offer complaints when youcan’t offer solutions as well.
Therefore, in no specific order, I propose the followingsolutions to our nation’s energy and environmental problems…
1. Invade Canada, aye. They’re way too quiet andthere’s no energy problem uup thare.
2. Hire all the unemployed Americans (thereby sparking theeconomy) and put them to work peddling human sized hamster-wheelsto generate more power.
3. Stop driving SUVs. Does an HP soccer mom really need a 3-tonExcursion to haul around 2.5 kids and a golden retriever? I furthercall on rappers like 50-Cent to popularize environmentally friendlyrides — just think how pimp it’d be to roll around townin a supped-up Hybrid with 12-inch chrome blades!
4. Get Congress and the White House to develop energy policiesthat make sense — economically and environmentally. If we aimto live in a world where we don’t have to mortgage the houseor sell the dog to buy gas, and if we want to be able to go outside10 years from now with out a barrage of ozone warnings, thepolicies of today must provide for the people of tomorrow.Politicians are the guardians of tomorrow because they are thetrustees of today. If Washington does not want to act ethically andresponsibly, the future will not be a laughing matter.
