(See related pages)
|
|
|
After industrialized nations agreed to release 60 million barrels of crude oil from their strategic stockpiles to help avert a severe fuel shortage in the United States following Hurricane Katrina back in 2005, oil prices appeared to be stable—at least for the moment. But the rapidly rising oil prices of the last year have forced the international community to face the issue of dependency on oil and fossil fuels more broadly. More important than the continued high prices at the gas pump is the ever-growing world population, the world's developing economies, such as China and India, and their impact on the supply and demand for more electricity, petroleum, gas, and coal. Nor can one can ignore the constant high demand from industrialized countries such as the United States. Today most of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels, which poses two main problems. First, the supply of fossil fuels is finite and at some point in time those sources will run dry. Second, the production and use of fossil fuels results in the release of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide), and most scientists agree that increases in such pollution contribute to global climate change and global warming more broadly. Given the shortage of fossil fuels, the increasing competition for oil resources from the developing world, and the national security implications of limited energy resources, some scholars have argued for government-sponsored programs that develop clean energy sources and make them accessible to Americans. While certain government-sponsored programs, such as President Bush's FreedomCAR and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, already exist, there is debate concerning just how much funding and government authority such programs ought to receive. Some go as far as arguing for energy programs that are a functional equivalent of the Manhattan Project of World War II. The Manhattan Project, a secret government program that developed the A-bomb, was expensive, but commandeering the significant resources it needed, drafting scientists in much the same way as soldiers are drafted into the military, the government eventually achieved success. Should the United States approach energy security in the same way? Should strong, well-funded, and even secret government-sponsored projects be established to develop real alternatives to this country's dependency on fossil fuels? Yes: Alternative energy sources only stand a chance if they receive government funding and support. From this perspective, the U.S. dependence on fossil fuels is only going to change if there are substantive incentives from the government and affordable alternatives available. Leaving the research and development of clean energy resources to the private sector will not produce the results that the United States needs, in terms of both significant price reduction and increased accessibility. Resources need to be channeled and controlled by one entity, and the government is the best vehicle for this specialization. Further, proponents of this view see the development of such energy sources as a key component of our national security, economic welfare, military functioning, and environmental future. In other words, the energy crisis needs to be taken as seriously as other national security threats, such as terrorism, with the appropriate funds and resources that follow. For such programs to be most effective, the government needs to call on its best people—just as it does in the military. Therefore, the drafting of particular scientists and engineers would be an important and necessary aspect of such a government initiative. No: The costs of a government-sponsored clean energy program outweigh the benefits. Those who are opposed to such a program are not necessarily opposed to developing alternative energy sources. Their reservations stem more from the means for achieving that end. To begin with, a government-sponsored program, like the Manhattan Project, is extremely expensive and will likely mean an increase in federal taxes. Further, there is no guarantee that such a project will work, and it could even produce undesirable outcomes. Beyond this lack of assured success, many people are uncomfortable with the government's having so much control over this important economic sector. Many people maintain that current clean energy development projects, split between government and the private sector, are progressing along at a satisfactory rate. And for the short term, in particular, there is no need to act rashly and create another Manhattan Project. The U.S. government has many other security issues to worry about, and it would not be wise to concentrate so many of its resources on this particular project, despite its importance. In other words, the government would be better off to pursue other, less costly avenues of clean energy consumption. First, the government could provide better and more incentives for those who drive fuel-efficient cars, possibly through tax breaks for owners of hybrid vehicles. The government could also encourage alternative domestic heating options. It could, for example, provide subsidies to companies developing these technologies to enable them to bring down the cost of their production and installation in Americans' homes. These may be less expensive and equally effective options. There are two questions underlying this debate: How much are we willing to do to get out of the vicious cycle of fossil fuel dependency and, simultaneously, to decrease greenhouse gas discharges? And, How much of this is government responsibility and how much is individual responsibility? Although the government program presented above is hypothetical, it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility. Use the links below to gain a better understanding of this debate and the U.S. government's current approach to developing alternative energy resources. Is enough being done? Do we need another Manhattan Project? http://www.energy.gov/index.htm http://www.sdp.gov/sdp/initiative/cei/28304.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project |