Jamey Fidel

October 22, 2000

It has taken soaring oil prices and a presidential election to bring the energy policy debate to a forefront, even though the issues surrounding this country's energy consumption and dependence upon foreign oil have been brewing for quite some time.  As Vice-President Al Gore and Governor George W. Bush jockey for positions over a future energy policy, it is important to realize that the outcome of this presidential election will shape the degree to which the United States relies on foreign oil to satisfy its energy needs, and the degree to which our country, as a major producer of greenhouse gases, will continue to impact the global environment.[1]  The policy decisions to be implemented by the new administration will also undoubtedly determine the degree to which society in general is willing to change its behavioral patterns to relieve this nation's looming energy predicament.

One issue that helps to exemplify the crossroads this nation has come to is the issue of global warming.  Vice-President Gore supports the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for significant reductions in emissions of greenhouse gasses, while Governor Bush believes that the implementation of the Kyoto agreement will be a financial burden to the United States.[2]  This basic disagreement over the Unites State's position on the Kyoto Protocol helps to establish the broader philosophical debate inherent in today's political climate.  That is, how far will the United States move to curtail its current consumption of fossil fuels, versus protecting its business, industry sectors and its consumers from the increased costs associated with changing current energy practices?[3]

To help answer this question, it is important to recognize the existing debate between Republicans and Democrats over the best way to balance supply and demand for energy resources in this country.[4]  Most Republicans favor the exploration and development of new domestic drilling sites, such as the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, in addition to ensuring production from other oil-producing nations.  Democrats, on the other hand, favor using less energy, or at a minimum, improving the efficiency of existing energy supplies and technologies.[5]  This inherent difference in philosophy brings forth the notion that under the Republican line of thinking, consumers and energy dependent industries will be further accommodated in their current energy dependent practices, while under the Democratic ideology, behavioral changes will be necessary to decrease our nation's reliance on fossil fuels in order to shift to a further utilization of renewable and alternative fuel sources.[6]

The most recent energy plan outlined by Governor Bush to limit the country's dependency on the international oil market calls for more domestic fuel production, the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, and better relations with foreign oil suppliers.[7]  This platform seems to recognize the public's view that foreign oil-dependency is a serious threat, yet it ignores the fact that the public is against increased drilling off shore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.[8]  Furthermore, the decision to drill in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is only a short-term resolution to a dilemma that clearly requires long-term solutions.  According to the United States geological Service, the Arctic refuge would produce in a best-case scenario, less than a six-month supply of oil at current consumption rates.[9]  Even at peak production, oil from the refuge would represent only 2% of total U.S. daily demand.[10]  Thus, an energy policy that is reliant on drilling in the Arctic refuge, as a means for meeting U.S. demand for oil, is an incredulous policy.  In addition, considering that the United States has less than 3% of known oil reserves in the world, relying on an increase in domestic oil supply in the United States is not a long-term solution.[11]  Because the United States simply does not have a domestic supply of oil to satiate this country's energy appetite, it is clearly going to take a certain degree of conservation and new technology in renewable resources to effectively wean the country of its foreign oil dependency.

Both Governor Bush and Vice-President Gore have proposed programs to encourage energy conservation, but Gore's initiatives are more comprehensive and aggressive in promoting conservation and the development of alternative energy sources.[12]  To be more specific, Governor Bush has proposed "an investment of $2 billion over 10 years for research into 'clean coal' technologies; tax credits of $1.4 billion over 10 years for companies that produces electricity from renewable and alternative fuels, and legislation requiring utilities to reduce harmful emissions."[13]  Mr. Bush would also funnel revenues from drilling in the Arctic refuge towards research of alternative energy resources and additional land conservation efforts.[14]  In comparison, Vice-President Gore offers a "long list of tax credits to promote conservation and development of alternative energy sources" including "credits for purchase of fuel efficient vehicles and homes, use of solar energy and generation of electricity using renewable and alternative fuels."[15]  Gore's plan would also "substantially increase funding for government sponsored work on pollution reduction and efficiency enhancing technology" and it would encourage the development of market-based incentives for industry to create new methods for decreasing pollution.[16]  Finally, Gore has stated that his plan would "create millions of new jobs by getting out in front of the market for these new boilers and new furnaces and new cars and trucks and buses and revamped power plants and new technologies that help" conserve more energy."[17]  While both of the candidates proposed plans would take steps to cut down on pollution, Vice-President Gore's initiatives would make conservation more of a centerpiece, while Mr. Bush would mix conservation efforts with supply side strategies, such as increased drilling in environmentally sensitive regions and the building of new refineries and pipelines.[18]

In a recent response to Vice President Gore and President Clinton's decision to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to bring oil prices down, Governor Bush charged the Clinton Administration with generally failing to develop a "sound energy policy" over its eight-year term.[19]  In an election year, such a critique is fair game considering home oil heating and gasoline prices are presently so high, yet it is misleading to suggest that the Clinton Administration is entirely to blame for what Bush has perceived as an absent energy policy.  The real culprit for any lack of vision in this country is Congress, which has been consistently hostile towards promoting fuel conservation measures and energy research programs.[20]

In 1993, the Clinton Administration proposed a broad-based B.T.U. tax as a means to tax the use of fossil fuels and decrease the nation's reliance on foreign oil, yet negotiations in Congress failed to provide more than just a specific gasoline tax.[21]  Several years later, Congress attached a rider to the FY 1996 Department of Transportation Appropriations bill blocking the Department's ability to create new fuel economy standards for both cars and light trucks.[22]  That same year, Congress cut the Department of Energy's transportation technology budget by 30%, which slashed the Department's ability to develop super efficient automotive vehicles, and in more recent years, Congress has cut renewable-energy funding by 30-60%.[23]  Based on these statistics, it might be more appropriate for Governor Bush to be criticizing Congress, instead of the Clinton and Gore Administration, but this is an election year and barbs will fly.

If there is a take home message, it is that this country is facing a serious energy crisis, and issues surrounding the United State's consumption for oil and energy must be addressed.  Both Congress and our newly elected president will need to work together to craft a workable energy policy that identifies our need to develop a long-term strategy which mandates further conservation and the development of new and existing fuel sources in an ecologically conscious manner.  As it stands now, the onus is on those running for office to prove that the energy crisis is something more than just fodder for the campaign trail.

_______________

[1] "The United States is responsible for about one-fifth of the potential change in climate resulting from worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases from man-made carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion." Amy C. Christian, Designing a Carbon Tax: The Introduction of the Carbon-Burned Tax (CBT), 10:22 UCLA Journal of Environmental Law 221, 222 (1992) (quoting FRANK G. SUSSMAN, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, ENERGY USE AND EMISSIONS OF CARBON DIOXIDE: FEDERAL SPENDING AND CREDIT PROGRAMS AND TAX POLICIES ch. 2 (1990)).

[2] See Richard W. Stevenson, Supply v. Demand Ideas Separate Gore and Bush, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 29, 2000, at A20.

[3] See generally, Administration's Energy Tax Proposals: Hearings Before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate, 103rd Cong. (1993). The Committee on Finance for the 103rd Congress received testimony from public utilities, chemical manufacturers, transportation industries, petroleum companies, environmental organizations, and other interested parties in regards to a proposed, broad-based BTU tax. It was clear that there was great concern over the financial impact of the BTU tax, which would have imposed a levy on the heat content of fuels such as natural gas, petroleum, and coal. See id.

[4] See Stevenson, supra note 2.

[5] See id.

[6] See id. According to Robert E. Ebel, director of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "In very simple terms, the Republicans would approach an energy problem from the supply side: What can we do to increase supply?" On the other hand "the Democrats would say: What can we do to make better use of what we've got?" Id.

[7] See Frank Bruni, Bush, in Energy Plan, Endorses New U.S. Drilling to Curb Prices, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 30, 2000, at A1.

[8] See American Green Network, "America Speaks Out on Energy: Foreign Oil Dependency" (visited Sept. 28, 2000) <http://www.americangreen.org/poll_findings_oil.htm>. The poll, conducted in 1998, shows that 86% of people surveyed believe that U.S. dependence on foreign oil a serious threat to the nation's economy and people's jobs, and 80% of people believe that it is a serious threat to our standard of living. A majority of voters (57%) oppose opening new oil drilling in restricted or protected U.S. offshore areas and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. See id.

[9] Daniel F. Becker, Director, Global Warming and Energy Program Sierra Club, Witness Statement Before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives on National Security and Strategies for Reducing Oil Imports, April 12, 2000 (visited Sept. 28, 2000) <http://www.house.gov/resources/106cong/fullcomm/00apr12/becker.htm>.

[10] See id.

[11] See id.

[12] In a side-by-side comparison of the candidates' energy policies, Gore's plan includes more programs to promote the conservation and development of alternative energy sources. See Bruni, supra note 7, at A13.

[13] Id.

[14] See id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Stevenson, supra note 2.

[18] See Bruni, supra note 7, at A13.

[19] Id.

[20] See Joseph J. Romm and Charles B. Curtis, Mideast Oil Forever?, The Atlantic Monthly (visited Sept. 28, 2000) <http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96apr/oil/oil.htm>.

[21] See Jackie Calmes and John Harwood, Fuel-Tax Rise May Be Limited To 4.3 Cents, Wall St. J., July 30, 1993.

[22] See Becker, Supra note 9.

[23] See Romm and Curtis, supra note 20.