national energy policy

National Energy Policy:
            Updated 7/13/05

NEW! :

SEE THE NEW WEBSITE http://www.exxposeexxon.com/ , WHICH ANNOUNCES THE BOYCOTT OF EXXON BY THE MEMBERS OF MANY ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING SIERRA CLUB.
IT ALSO DETAILS HOW OIL USE CAN BE REDUCED.

        The 9/11/01 terrorist attack and the subsequent calls for war with Iraq appear to have wiped environmental issues from the public mind, leaving the Bush Administration free to change hundreds of environmental protection rules to favor business and industry. Never was there a time when national energy policy was so important, and yet the Bush folks continue to rely on increasing oil supply.
       The 108th Congress tried unsuccessfully to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. The Senate has blocked this so far, but the 109th Congress is now still trying to do this.
        House members use the completely false argument that the Arctic oil would be an important way to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign imports. (See box below.) Opening the Refuge is really a give-away to the state of Alaska, which gets significant royalties from drilling, so much so that the state has no income tax! In early 2005, world crude oil prices rose to the $50/barrel range, a signal that oil supplies are limited. Indeed, prominent geologists are predicting that world oil production will peak and begin falling sometime within the 2006-2040 time frame. Without rapid national response to this possibility the economic and social disruptions to the world's and our way of life are going to be catastrophic. Since burning oil also contributes to global warming, (via carbon dioxide production), we have an additional incentive to deal with our energy use. The US Defense Department in 2004 even came up with a study that suggested climate change with its disruption of rainfall and drought patterns was a very large threat to our national security because of the food-growing and social instability that would most certainly occur.


The United States has such a small portion of the world reserves of oil and gas (about 3%), under the most optimistic assumptions, that no amount of drilling will ever impact the price or supply of these non-renewable energy sources. We will continue to be dependent on oil from the Middle East since we import over 50% of our oil needs now. We as a nation, with only 5% of the Earth's population, produce 25% of global carbon dioxide emissions. The only wise energy (and national security) policy is to use our technological resources to find ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and gas by developing technologies like solar, wind, fuel cells, hybrid cars, and hydrogen. The quickest results will come from improvements in the way we use electricity (like better refrigerators, air conditioners, insulation, etc), and from improving the miles/gallon performance of cars and trucks. Just using efficient, properly inflated tires would save 70% more oil than is expected to be found in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Increasing auto fuel economy to 40 mpg would save 15 times the amount of oil in the Refuge over its 50 year life cycle. (source: Natural Resources Defense Council, 2001) It is clear that our long-range national policy should be directed at reducing dependence on oil in general, not only to reduce Middle Eastern strains, but to abate the global warming/greenhouse effect, and to reduce air pollution. We also have the opportunity, even the obligation, to promote sustainable energy technologies throughout the developing world. Right now we are forefeiting technological leadership to others.

For those wanting more information, data, (with source references), see the Natural Resources Defense Council web pages on energy policy: www.nrdc.org/air/energy/fensec.asp
Top Ten Oil Producing Countries (producing 82% of the World's oil):
    Saudi Arabia                        18%
    Russia                                  13%
    US                                         13%
    Iran                                        8%
    Venezuela                             7%
    Mexico                                  7%
    China                                     7%
    Norway                                  6%
    United Kingdom                    6%
    United Arab Emirates           6%
Remaining 18% is shared by Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Algeria, Nigeria which together produce 10%. Note that 77% comes from countries that either are, or potentially are, unstable or unfriendly. The 13% produced by the US amounts to only 40-50% of the oil we consume, so we are very dependent on the rest of the world.

Terrorism and the Environment: Some more numbers

       We, like all thinking people, are horrified at the criminal acts of September 11 and the terrible loss of life therefrom. This new sort of international Mafia must be exterminated. However, the crisis must not be used as an excuse to demolish environmental causes we hold dear, such as protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and a sensible national energy policy.
        That we depend so heavily on Middle Eastern oil certainly is one reason we are so heavily involved in Middle Eastern politics, and why we have so many troops there. (And by the way, did you know that Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, most of them as yet undeveloped? Do you suppose that American occupation of Iraq might have something to do with that? American oil companies would have access to this oil, and the US would be able to influence OPEC oil prices.)
        Compared to our national oil use, the amount which may be found in the Arctic Refuge in total is less than a year's-worth of current use, a piddling fraction of our overall continuing oil consumption, with zero effect on world oil prices. And for this we should degrade the nation's last large functioning pristine ecosystem? Or perhaps to continue the current payments (approx. $2000 per year) to Alaska residents from oil revenues?
      Maybe some math will help here. If we have a 100-year supply of oil but the consumption rate increases 5% each year, the oil will last 36 years. Suppose we really have a 1000-year supply. How long with the oil last? Only about 79 years it turns out, because we are still increasing use by 5% each year. Suppose we have a 10,000-year supply. Then the oil will be gone in 125 years. No amount of new oil will ultimately satisfy a continuously-increasing rate of use. It would be far smarter to reduce the rate of increase, stabilize, or actually decrease use. These are the mathematical facts, no matter what your politics are.

For the ultimate complete information on the arguments against drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge see Amory Lovins' article in Foreign Affairs for July/August 2001, at page 72. Lovins is famous for pointing out that conservation and energy efficiency are vastly cheaper and more available than new oil supplies and conventional fossil fuel-burning or nuclear plants. He and his wife founded and run Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado. See his newest book, "The Oil Endgame".

Maybe you didn't know we have been drilling in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska since 1957, complete with oil spills, explosions, pipeline leaks and all the other horrors of oil extraction. See the Audubon website: http://www.audubon.org/campaign/arctic_report/toxic_drilling.html

We, like all thinking people, are horrified at the criminal acts of September 11 and the terrible loss of life therefrom. This new sort of international Mafia must be exterminated. However, the crisis must not be used as an excuse to demolish environmental causes we hold dear, such as protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and a sensible national energy policy. That we depend so heavily on Middle Eastern oil certainly is one reason we are so heavily involved in Middle Eastern politics, and why we have so many troops there. (And by the way, did you know that Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, most of them as yet undeveloped? Do you suppose that American occupation of Iraq might have something to do with that? American oil companies would have access to this oil, and the US would be able to influence OPEC oil prices.) Compared to our national oil use, the amount which may be found in the Arctic Refuge in total is less than a year's-worth of current use, a piddling fraction of our overall continuing oil consumption, with zero effect on world oil prices. And for this we should degrade the nation's last large functioning pristine ecosystem? Or perhaps to continue the current payments (approx. $2000 per year) to Alaska residents from oil revenues? Maybe some math will help here. If we have a 100-year supply of oil but the consumption rate increases 5% each year, the oil will last 36 years. Suppose we really have a 1000-year supply. How long with the oil last? Only about 79 years it turns out, because we are still increasing use by 5% each year. Suppose we have a 10,000-year supply. Then the oil will be gone in 125 years. No amount of new oil will ultimately satisfy a continuously-increasing rate of use. It would be far smarter to reduce the rate of increase, stabilize, or actually decrease use. These are the mathematical facts, no matter what your politics are.

Return to Conservation Issues

Return to Main Page