Irresponsibly Green

Not everybody is complaining about high gasoline prices. The green lobby sees in them an opportunity to discourage use of the automobile. Barack Obama would have preferred a more gradual rise but is apparently content to see them continue going up. His plan is restricted to higher CAFÉ requirements (CAFÉ is the federally mandated mileage standard imposed on auto manufacturers), greater use of ethanol and bio-diesel, and new taxes on oil companies. His model is Brazil’s sugar cane ethanol. John McCain offers no more than a temporary gas tax holiday and a halt to filling the strategic petroleum reserve. If he has a long term solution I don’t see it on his web site.

What this suggests to me is that the current upward spiral in prices is at least in part the result of deliberate government policy. Most Democrats, some Republicans, and many in the media have gone along with it. It doesn’t have to be this way. Most of us would like to be responsible stewards of the planet but there are domestic sources of fuel available at reasonable costs that do not necessarily damage the environment or interfere with our ability to feed ourselves. I can think of at least four: undeveloped oil and gas reserves, oil shale, coal, and the potentially inexhaustible renewable resource, alga-culture. Any one or a combination of these has the potential to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, or eliminate it entirely. All of them can be produced as cleanly as or more cleanly than petroleum. Self proclaimed environmentalist object to them all. Some of their concerns are legitimate. Some are red herrings. All of them can be addressed. Some require reasonable compromises but these are not reasonable people. They will object to any alternative that prolongs the life of the internal combustion engine.

So we have huge reserves of oil and gas offshore and in the arctic left unexplored and untapped. No measure to reduce the surface footprint or risk in drilling is enough. We have more oil in shale rock alone than Saudi Arabia has petroleum. Royal Dutch Shell has what they believe is an environmentally friendly process to extract it at a cost of about $30 per barrel. Last month with gasoline approaching $4 per gallon the U. S. Senate Appropriations Committee voted 15:14 along party lines to prevent them building a plant to prove it. We have enough coal to last us three hundred years. We know how to cleanse it of pollutants and convert it to liquid fuel at a cost less than half that of oil at current prices. Potential investors are reluctant to build commercial refineries in no small part because of perceived legislative risks. Scientists say alga-culture has the potential to satisfy the entire world’s appetite for liquid fuels, can use animal, agricultural, or municipal waste as feedstock, does not require arable land or fresh water, and leaves a byproduct that can be used as food supplements for people and animals. The Department of Energy shut down its one research program into alga-culture in 1996.

Our economic prosperity depends on the various modes of transportation that are affected by oil prices, and they are mostly dependent on internal combustion. There are alternatives to imported oil but for the foreseeable future there are no alternatives to hydrocarbons, not in transportation anyway. All-electric or hydrogen powered vehicles are things of the distant future if they are ever to be. We need transportation now and that means we need carbon based fuel. China, India, and every third world nation all need it if their people are ever to enjoy the life styles they aspire to. Environmental theists must not be allowed to continue dictating public policy. We have to make our decisions not only for the benefit of the planet, but for the benefit of those who live on it as well.