Energy Independence

I have read and listened to politicians', oil industry executives', scientists' and citizens' reactions to the crude oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I do not believe British Petroleum intended to lose an extraordinary amount of money - perhaps risking bankruptcy - or harm its reputation, but I do believe that BP was grossly negligent in failing to have multiple back-up plans in the event of a technological failure. The government deserves some of the blame by its obvious failure to demand and evaluate them prior to permitting off-shore drilling. In our desperate attempt to maintain at least some energy independence from Persian Gulf states and other international sources, we ignored or minimized risks associated with off-shore drilling.

In the short term, capping the well has to be the first priority. When it happens, I hope we ignore those who give themselves pats on the back for fixing something that never should have happened in the first place. Also in the short term, we will have to continue finding energy sources, including crude, to ensure that we are not hostages to oil exporting nations who either hate us or intend to take advantage of us.

Conservation, improving solar power technology, using wind power when possible, moving products via rail to the fullest extent possible and leaving large, gas guzzling vehicles to those who need them for their livelihoods might make a huge difference if we were serious about it. I don't know the answer but I wonder if we could all accept that a 1986 Honda Accord was once considered a perfectly good car for most families even though it is far smaller than the current Accord (The Accord is just an example; there are plenty of other vehicles that have become increasingly larger in the last quarter century after our brief dalliance with driving even smaller cars in the 1970s.) With safety advances and more efficient power plants, I wonder how much gasoline we would have saved over the years if we didn't demand ever larger vehicles as if it were a national birth right. For years, we have had special High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to encourage car pooling. At the same time, we marvel at 4 cylinder engines that push out over 200 horse power. Very, very few of us need 200 horse power. For five years I drove a 1988 Subaru Justy (considered quite a safe vehicle given its small size) that had a 3 cylinder 66 bhp engine. I drove back and forth from D.C. to Upstate N.Y. at speeds exceeding 65 miles per hour. It got about 40-45 mpg on the highway and in the low 30s in the city traffic. Would we lose our national identity if we decided it was more responsible to drive those kinds of vehicles?

I'll leave nuclear power alone as a solution because I don't believe I am sufficiently informed about its safety, particularly storing spent nuclear fuel.

What about railroads? A number of large cities have excellent, energy efficient public transportation options. Is riding a subway, commuter train or bus such a burden? Could we invest (admittedly at great expense) in high speed rail that reached most people in the country? Could most of us walk 20-30 blocks to visit a store or a friend instead of automatically driving? I think we could do all of these things. Again, I do not know the initial cost or the ultimate savings in energy use but I am persuaded that we could learn a great deal from countries that already do these things. Most are European. Does that matter?

I know one thing for sure. If we were completely energy independent, the likelihood that we would involve ourselves in wars in the middle East - with the exception of counter-terrorism and the protection of Israel - would be much lower, perhaps lower enough to take some of our defense budget and build a smarter transportation system right here.

None of what I am saying is new. It's all about developing a national willingness to try. $5/gallon gasoline might change a few minds.