Lakewood the Thinking City

ENERGY POLICY: THREE QUESTIONS

On October 1, 2002, the Great Decisions group talked about energy conservation. While energy policy is not a part of foreign policy, the relationship between the two is clear: Dependence on Middle Eastern and other nations for oil forces us to support governments we might not otherwise want to support.

Furthermore a lessened reliance on carbon fuels is important because of the possibility of global warming and for other environmental reasons.

There was general agreement that the U.S. should move toward greater use of alternative energy sources, i.e., some or all of the following: solar; wind; hydroelectric; nuclear. (Nuclear is of course more contentious because of safety and waste-disposal problems.) Also, it was agreed that mass transit and rail transportation should be increased, and that SUVs should be treated like regular automobiles in setting fuel-efficiency standards. .

In making these changes, we should distinguish between short-, medium- and long-range solutions. For example, nuclear power was suggested for the short term, to be supplanted by other alternative forms in the longer term.

Three basic questions were raised around the problem of carbon vs. alternative fuels:

Who’s to Blame: Politicians, Lobbyists, or the People?

To achieve long-range energy goals, we need to do all possible research now. To encourage mass transit and rail travel, we should subsidize them to the extent we now subsidize road travel. Why doesn’t the government do so? In answer, one participant said the American people are “spoiled rotten,” wanting to use their automobiles at all times and being unwilling to pay for conservation. But it was also suggested that politicians are at fault for not showing leadership, and that lobbyists for the oil and other industries are at fault for influencing the politicians. So all three seem to be locked in the overall system of inertia.

Kyoto Protocol: What’s a Fair Burden for the U.S.?

The U.S. was criticized for renouncing the Kyoto Protocol (Kyoto Treaty) on energy conservation. One reason for the U.S. stance is that the Protocol hurts the U.S. more than developing countries, Europe or Russia, because in effect more is required of the U.S. Our nation of course claims this is unfair. Other nations, however, say it is only fair that the U.S. should sacrifice more, because it uses more energy, and in addition is apparently more wasteful of energy. Which viewpoint is justified: That the U.S. should sacrifice more because it uses more, or that all sacrifices should be equal?

Can we Afford the Risk?

Is global warming really occurring? According to the Great Decisions booklet, scientists are swinging over to the view that warming is occurring at an alarming rate. Still, it remains controversial, and some in the group thought that global warming might be exaggerated. To this, it was answered: “Can we afford the risks that come with ignoring global warming and being wrong about it? If we act to prevent global warming and it’s not really a danger we lose little – but if we don’t act and it really is a danger, we lose immensely.”

Back to Lakewood the Thinking City Home Page