[Mb-civic] EDITORIAL Energy Myth-Making LATimes

[Michael Butler]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-energy18oct18.story

EDITORIAL

Energy Myth-Making

BUSH vs. KERRY

 October 18, 2004

 Since the 1973 Arab oil embargo that created gasoline lines in the United
States, seven presidents have vowed to reduce the country's dependence on
foreign energy. But the opposite has occurred. More than 50% of the oil
consumed in the U.S. is imported, and it's likely to exceed 60% by 2010. A
mere 4% of the 1 trillion barrels of world oil reserves are in the U.S.,
while two-thirds are in the Persian Gulf.

 Now, as oil prices push the $55-a-barrel mark, both presidential candidates
vow to bring the U.S. closer to energy self-sufficiency. Setting aside
whether self-sufficiency is possible ‹ and it isn't ‹ is it even desirable?

 In the last four years, President Bush has not only failed to arrest the
trend of increased oil imports, he has exacerbated it. Bush contemptuously
dismissed the idea of energy conservation soon after taking office and gave
the go-ahead for Vice President Dick Cheney to hold secret meetings with
industry leaders to develop the nation's energy policy. The administration
has been using the fig leaf of energy development to give industry free rein
across environmentally sensitive parts of the West.

 Although John Kerry is not as beholden to the energy industry as Bush, his
plan is almost as impractical. Kerry advocates a number of conservation
measures, but is extremely vague about how he would accomplish them. The
"Energy Security and Conservation Trust Fund" that he proposes would
subsidize mostly boondoggles for farmers in the Midwest who grow corn to
produce ethanol. Nor does Kerry propose any concrete fuel standards for
automobiles and SUVs, beyond calling for increased fuel efficiency. What
Kerry cannot bring himself to acknowledge is that transportation burns
two-thirds of the oil consumed in the U.S., most of that pumped into the
nation's 200-million-plus cars and trucks.

 Then there is Kerry's embrace, like Bush's, of so-called clean coal. Kerry,
like Bush, wants to win West Virginia, so he's calling for investing $10
billion over the next decade to create cleaner coal-fueled power plants. And
he rejects, as his plan puts it, "the old view that coal cannot be part of a
clean energy future." In truth, it can't. No matter how much coal is
scrubbed, it will always remain a major polluter. Rather than proposing
pouring $10 billion into coal, Kerry should back spending on solar and wind
power, as well as conservation.

 Perhaps least persuasive is Kerry's claim that the U.S. must become
self-sufficient. As long as oil reserves are diminishing, it makes abundant
sense for the U.S. to tap into world reserves rather than exhaust its own
dwindling supplies prematurely. Anyway, Middle East countries and Russia
could not afford to cut off supplies to the U.S. even if they wanted to
because they're dependent on the revenue. The diversity of suppliers means
that a repeat of the oil crises of the 1970s is improbable. The higher
prices go, the more countries will seek to develop their oil fields.

 Unlike Bush's, however, Kerry's myth-making about energy security is
essentially innocuous. One candidate wants to plunder the environment for
short-term benefit; the other to tinker at the margins with subsidies.
Whereas Bush's plans are futile and harmful, Kerry's are futile and
harmless.


If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at
latimes.com/archives.

Article licensing and reprint options




 Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times