Published: August 02, 2008 07:02 pm         

FLASHPOINT: Debating the oil crisis — Reducing consumption key to lowering energy costs

Pro-big oil, anti-environment conservatives have recently been making a lot of noise in favor of building nuclear power plants and an expansion of oil exploration in the Alaskan wilderness and off U.S. coastlines. Their position, as always, is that it is in the best interest of all Americans to allow big corporations to operate freely without any government oversight so that they can maximize profits, The recent mortgage, banking, and housing meltdown illustrates the disastrous consequences to average working people that result when government regulators turn a blind eye towards corporate excesses. Far worse consequences are likely if large corporations are allowed to build new nuclear power plants and expand oil drilling in environmentally sensitive areas; particularly if these activities are allowed to proceed without aggressive government oversight.

According to proponents of nuclear power, environmentalists have

manipulated science and engaged in fear mongering in order to demonize nuclear power. Well, environmentalists have never needed to demonize nuclear power in order for most people to oppose it because it is fraught with serious problems that have never been adequately addressed. Advocates of nuclear power somehow always forget to mention that the radioactive waste generated by nuclear power plants remains highly toxic for many thousands of years — well beyond the life expectancy of any known natural or engineered containment structure.

This is a fact of physics and engineering that has not been manipulated by anyone. Every decent, sensible person knows that producing large quantities of highly toxic radioactive waste without an adequate means of storing it is wildly irresponsible and downright immoral because it poses an unknown but potentially serious threat to future generations.

According to anti-environment propagandists, global warming is a fear campaign foisted upon us all by environmentalists. As an environmental scientist, I am skeptical of some of the claims about global warming made by environmentalists. However, it seems to me that any reasonable person who has examined this issue cannot escape the conclusion that global warming is very likely to be occurring and is also very likely to have serious consequences. I am sure that there are some people who, like global warming skeptics, also remain skeptical about the “alleged” link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

Many conservatives, including John McCain, now tout nuclear power as a way to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions associated with coal-fired power plants in order to halt global warming — a phenomenon that they claim is not really occurring. They support an expansion of nuclear power rather than promising new and much safer technologies such as solar energy because of the influence of a well-funded nuclear power industry lobby.

Conservative big-oil apologists argue that oil prices are high because of limited supply. Increased drilling will supposedly augment oil supplies and lower prices. The problem with high oil prices is not one only of supply, but rather one of supply and demand. Conservatives never mention a reduction in demand as part of a strategy for American energy independence. Why not work to reduce the demand for oil? Conservatives ignore strategies to reduce demand because a reduction in demand for oil would negatively impact the record profits made by big oil companies. They instead favor an expansion of drilling that would result in even greater profits for big oil companies.

There is no evidence that allowing more drilling in Alaska or along U.S. coastlines will lower oil prices. On the contrary, some economists assert that oil should cost around $50-60 a barrel based upon current supply and demand figures, although this is controversial. Even if oil exploration is allowed to expand without any constraint, speculators and big oil companies with the help of both Republican and Democratic lawmakers can artificially inflate the price of oil as they now appear to be doing. Thus, allowing an expansion of oil exploration is no guarantee that oil prices will ever be reduced.

Anti-environment conservatives who live in Indiana support the construction of nuclear power plants in New York or Texas and oil exploration in Alaska and off the shores of California. They love the idea of building a nuclear waste storage facility in Nevada. Why? Any environmental catastrophe will likely only affect other people. Any plans to build a nuclear waste storage facility in Indiana would soon have Indiana conservatives railing against nuclear power as the work of Satan.

The anti-environment right also has no patience for any attempts to mitigate the effects of “alleged” global warming because this sort of responsible behavior would interfere with their selfish consumption of resources. Again, if global warming is a real threat, it will only seriously affect future generations and is, therefore, of no real concern to them.

Congress needs to act in the interests of average Americans by taking several steps: 1) vigorously oppose the construction of any additional nuclear power plants until a solution has been found for nuclear waste storage, 2) increase funding for research into alternative energy technologies; particularly solar power, 3) block any expansion of drilling in the Alaskan wilderness, off U.S. coastlines, and in other pristine wilderness areas, 4) prevent oil speculators from artificially inflating the cost of oil by tightly regulating the oil commodities markets, 5) impose steep new taxes on gas guzzling vehicles, and 6) impose substantial new windfall profits taxes on big oil companies.

Individuals have no control over the supply of energy, but they do have the power to reduce the demand for energy. Individuals need to reduce wasteful electricity consumption in order to eliminate the need to build and operate more coal and nuclear power plants and they need to buy fuel-efficient vehicles in order to eliminate the motivation for expanded U.S. oil exploration.

Reducing consumption is the best way to reduce one’s own personal energy costs and the only strategy that offers any hope of driving down energy prices given the extensive manipulation and control of energy markets by corporate interests.

— John Allen

Terre Haute