BE OUR GUEST

Alan R.P. Journet is professor in the biology department at Southeast Missouri State University. He is a previous contributor to this column.

After ten years with no energy policy, suddenly politicians and commentators are worrying about what the U.S. should do to reduce dependence on foreign oil. Although it is by no means too late, a solution would have been easier had the problem been addressed ten years ago; by now the nation would be well down the road to reduced oil imports. Despite the events of the last few months and years, the nation remains without a well-reasoned long term policy that takes into consideration all issues and all options. Like his predecessor, President Bush unfortunately is still shying away from the fundamental problems.

It is time to develop an energy policy that is environmentally sound, a policy that recognizes the global and local consequences of burning oil (carbon dioxide and other chemicals), and recognizes the value of the few unspoiled wilderness areas left in the nation. A policy that focuses mainly on ways to promote the production of more domestic oil, and seeks to reduce environmental safeguards, is out of step with the new decade. But this is what Congress is in danger of delivering.

According to available reports, the energy proposals developed this year by President Bush seem to be moving in exactly the wrong direction. He failed to emphasize the tremendous benefits to be gained from energy conservation and he failed to urge significant investment in alternative less-polluting and non-polluting energy sources. Meanwhile he declared blindly that he would veto any congressional energy bill that does not promote drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

The President's opposition to energy conservation and increasing energy efficiency was illustrated last year when he lobbied hard and successfully to defeat a bill in Congress that, by 2005, would have saved as much oil as is currently imported from all Arab OPEC nations combined, and more than ten times the amount that the Arctic Refuge would yield. The bill, introduced by Sen. Bryan of Nevada, would have required an increase in average automobile fuel efficiency to levels (40 mpg for cars) well within the current capability of the Detroit industry. Surely, at a time when General Motors plans to introduce a fully electric car onto the market by 1993, increased automobile fuel efficiency is the least we should demand. Senator Bryan has reintroduced the bill; it deserves support.

The government of the United States now stands almost alone in the international community of nations in its rejection of the importance of promoting energy efficiency. At two international conferences in 1990, the U.S. Government was isolated in arguing that global warming is still a matter for conjecture and that reducing energy consumption must involve economic catastrophe. Despite an absence of federal support, a 25 percent increase in energy efficiency from 1973 until 1986 saved $160 billion from the U.S. energy bill. Unfortunately, this trend has recently been reversed, and energy efficiency has dropped slightly. Over the same period, the 12 member nations of the European community achieved a 22.5 percent increase in energy efficiency. However, on average, these European nations both started and finished the period using about half the energy per person as the United States. The European Nations also use about half the energy per dollar of Gross National Product generated as does the United States. There is clearly plenty of room for improving energy use efficiency without inducing economic catastrophe.

As a measure of the effectiveness of federal spending, it is worth noting that the greatest energy gains for each federal dollar spent come from promoting fuel efficiency (12.6 million BTU per dollar of federal subsidy in the mid-eighties) while the lowest return ~comes from expenditures that promote nuclear power (0.1 million BTU per dollar of federal subsidy). Strangely, however, federal tax dollars exhibit the reverse pattern, much more (15.6 billion dollars) is spent on nuclear power than on promoting efficiency (0.9 billion dollars). Meanwhile, in the mid-range, but still representing a better return on the federal dollar than nuclear power, are various energy alternatives such as wind, hydro, geothermal, solar, biomass (ethanol and methanol). Among the most promising energy sources is hydrogen, which can be produced using electricity (preferably, of course, from a renewable source) and then burned in automobiles with absolutely no environmental consequences.

Energy gains that could result from increasing energy use efficiency are estimated to be over three times the energy that could be gained from developing all new U.S. oil and gas sources combined. And promoting energy efficiency is cheap, while developing oil and gas sources is expensive.

We should be aware also that we enjoy unusually cheap energy in the United States - one probable cause for our low energy use efficiency; gasoline has now fallen back to the dollar a gallon range. In Europe and other developed nations, however, gasoline may cost anywhere from $3 to $5 a gallon. The difference is federal tax. An increase in federal tax of just 50 cents to a dollar, phased in over five years, would itself promote conservation. It would also generate funds that could be used to develop and promote more efficient mass transit systems and fuel alternatives that would further reduce oil consumption.

The time has come to reverse the federal trend of the eighties, when federal funds for alternative energy research were slashed by some 85 percent. A reasoned energy policy will adequately explore all possible ways to gain energy and reduce consumption. While coal, oil and gas will continue to be important, a reasoned energy policy will not simply focus on increased production of these fossil fuels and the reduction of environmental safeguards. A reasoned energy policy will afford a solution to our long term energy problems (there is no doubt that fossil fuels are ultimately in limited supply) as well as afford protection for our global environment. Surely we have learned by 1991 that protecting the environment is not a luxury, it is a necessity.