Gregory Richards, in "It's Time to Kick the Oil Habit," [The Dartmouth, April 22] rightly points out that our dependency on oil imports from the Middle East increases our trade deficit, damages the environment, and also pushes our finite oil reserves to exhaustion. The solution, he argues, is to take advantage of those alternative sources of energy which are "ready when we are" and to use as little energy as possible. Richards correctly identifies what should be done to ameliorate the multiple problems, but his analysis overlooks the essential element of any alternative to oil -- cost-effectiveness.
In a perfect society, individuals would work for the good of the community. We do not live in such a society. It is the role of government to provide funds for the research and development of alternative energy sources. The potential for profit in the field of alternative energy sources is great, but unless companies foresee a profit, they will not invest in the research and development necessary to create those alternative sources. Without such funding, we will continue to be dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
The Federal Energy Information Administration projects that in 10 years the Persian Gulf will control two-thirds of the world's export for oil, netting $200 billion a year for the region, and resulting in a $100 billion trade deficit for the US. In response to such a scenario, companies such as the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, the world's most profitable oil company, have engaged in strategic planning to increase the use of renewables and solar energy. A decade of research by the Department of Energy (DOE) has brought such plans into the realm of possibility.
On the precipice of such a massive change both in type and amount of energy consumption, Congress has proposed budget cuts for the DOE that will cuts thousand of new high-wage jobs in advanced transportation and fossil-fuel research.
These cuts will cause America to lose the source of innovation which has put it at the forefront of the international market for alternative energy sources. Finally, as J. Romm and C. Curtis point out in "Mideast Oil Forever?" (Atlantic Monthly, April, 1996), "Congress's actions all but guarantee that if an oil crisis comes, our national response will be reactive, uninformed, and unduly burdensome."
Forget how these cuts reflect on the general environmental apathy of Congress. These cuts will reduce our available tools for dealing with an oil crisis to measures such as price controls or unplanned attempts to combat sharp price or supply fluctuations.
It has been proven that a relatively small amount of money for research and development goes a long way in both energy savings for the consumer and savings of our finite oil reserves, not to mention the reduction of damage to the environment. The funding that has made all of our progress possible costs each American only $4.00 per YEAR.
If Congress continues to invest in research and development, it will be there to take advantage of the vast opportunities in a new international market created by the coming revolution in energy and environmental technologies.
If Congress does not make a commitment to take advantage of the innovation of our technological sector and make long-term investments too risky for the private sector, America will be left dependent on Mideast oil and only foreign competitors will be left to lead the revolution.
