Hard Times: An Excuse to Pillage

Sad days are here again. The economy is in shambles, although the Bush Administration is only admitting to a "slump," and the candidates all feel our pain. The cost of everything, especially food and gasoline are going up. Yes, especially gasoline.

In this insulated country we think that now that gas has topped $3.50 a gallon we are suffering. In Europe the average price at this moment is around $8.25 a gallon. Most of this difference is because of the taxes that Europeans pay. Taxes that pay for mass transit infrastructure, alternative energy development, etc. Not the kind of things Americans do. No, we give subsidies to transnational petroleum companies and stifle the development of alternative energy sources.

Our politicians pander to us. Proposals to repeal the federal gas tax, not even twenty cents a gallon, are insulting. A sane energy policy would raise the gas tax, not lower or repeal it. Raising the tax to use for infrastructure development and alternative energy development would work towards solving the problem. It might even provide some high paying jobs in skilled worker categories.

Worse than the gas tax pander however, is the renewed effort to destroy the environment in the name of our addiction to cheap oil. Proposals to drill in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) are rearing their ugly heads. How difficult is it to understand that destruction of the wild is responsible for the environmental disaster looming for our planet? How unreasonable do you have to be to think the solution is bringing heavy industry to pristine wilderness? I'm sure the oil companies would argue they can do this safely. Does the name Exxon Valdez ring a bell?

Beyond even the idiocy of destroying the wilderness is the insanity of the nuclear spectre. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island seemed to have been forgotten. Even more nonsensical is when nuclear energy is referred to as "clean." How can the spent fuel rods be defined as clean? The best solution we seem to be able to come up with is to put them in pools of water or bury them underground (where they can wait for an earthquake). Should we really be playing with the fabric of the universe and contaminants that have a half-life of forever?

All of this is being done in the name of helping the consumer. The real reason is the bottom line. Follow the money. Government subsidies for nuclear power benefits big business as does getting the last drops of cheap oil from the commons. All of this in the guise of addressing the rising price of oil. Strange how those who supply the oil seem to want to help the rest of us get more of it. Keep those junkies addicted to the cheap deadly stuff.

Solar, hydro and wind power seem to be neglected as regards development. Again, follow the money. With these alternative sources of energy most of the investment is up front and confined by necessity to somewhat localized production. Once the solar panels are purchased, or the windmill built (to be smplistic about it), there is little else for which to charge the customer. In some states utilities are required to buy excess energy production from customers who produce their own through solar panels. In some cases, individuals actually receive a check from the utility!

Therein lies the rub. Until corporations can figure a way to meter the sun or the wind, these forms of power will remain underdeveloped.

Until then, look for continued attacks upon reason as well as the environment. We will continue to destroy the planet and continue to look for that next fix of cheap oil until forced to do otherwise. Melting ice sheets and disrupted weather patterns don't seem to have yet gotten our attention. False solutions like carbon credit trading only add to an illusion that the problem is not so bad.

"If only we could find more cheap oil" must not be our mantra. Further destroying the environment and endangering our future won't solve this problem of climate change and fuel shortages. Fundamental lifestyle changes will be required. Profit may have to be abandoned in favor of survival.

The problem of energy use and its affects on the environment is multifaceted and will likely have multiple partial solutions. Continuing to rely on the fuels of the past will not move us forward into a future our grandchildren can live in. Taking money away from future research into solar and other alternative fuels is short sighted. Peak oil is past. The decline has already begun.

Price support for oil development should be viewed as akin to price supports for videotape. The technology of the past should be defunded. Some will argue that environmentally sensitive and sustainable energy is too costly or is not economically feasible. Essentially this is saying that we can't afford to do the right thing. Can we afford to do the wrong thing?