|
President Carter offered a series of individual actions. First he established a clear goal. "Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 - never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation." By the end of the 1980s, he anticipated that the nation would cut "our dependence on foreign oil by one-half."
To achieve these goals he asked for "the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel - from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun."
He observed that while all Americans were suffering from higher energy prices, some of us were suffering much more. "Our nation must be fair to the poorest among us, so we will increase aid to needy Americans to cope with rising energy prices...."
Carter recognized this effort would be costly. To pay for it he proposed a windfall profits tax on the enormous profits oil companies were making because of OPEC-inspired rises in oil prices: "Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans to Americans."
In 1980, Congress enacted much of what Jimmy Carter proposed. Within months, Ronald Reagan entered office, and immediately set about dismantling or dramatically cutting back most of the programs. He taught us that we should never act collectively, that government was the problem, not the solution. The energy crisis subsided. As a result of the severe worldwide economic downturn in 1981 and 1982, the price of oil dropped in half. A dependence on imported oil didn't seem so important. The nation dropped back into lethargy.
Fast forward to 2005. The price of oil again doubles. As a result of hurricanes we again have long lines at gas stations. The Republican-controlled Congress passes an energy bill. But unlike the energy legislation of the late 1970s, this one does not target imported oil. Indeed, the major difference of opinion between the Republican Senate and the Republican House is that the former wanted to include in the bill a goal, not of reducing our dependence on imported oil, but of slightly reducing the rate at which that dependence would increase. The House refused to even mention in the energy bill that a reduction in our use of oil might be a good thing. The House won.
In 2002, California enacted legislation that would require new cars sold in that state to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The Bush administration has joined with the car companies in trying to overturn that law. Their argument?
To achieve greenhouse gas reductions, car companies will have to raise the fuel efficiency of their cars. And only the federal government has the authority over vehicle fuel efficiency. The Republicans' argument is that even when the federal government refuses to do anything to reduce our consumption of gasoline, the state governments cannot step in.
"There will be no increase in energy efficiency standards on our watch," seems to be the Republican motto. Give me Jimmy Carter in a cardigan sweater any day.
|
|
