Green Energy News | June 22, 1997

June 22, 1997 – Vol.2 No.12

ENERGIES... week of June 22, 1997

IT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE that U.S. President Bill Clinton refused to commit to drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions for the U.S. as proposed by the European Union at this week’s United Nations’ Earth Summit in New York. As the world’s single largest producer of greenhouse gases, the U.S. was asked to join the EU’s goal of reducing greenhouse gases to 15% below 1990 levels by 2010. Claiming that goal impossible to meet, the Clinton Administration offered to create a program to install solar panels on millions of U.S. homes, generally promote green energy and smart growth policies, as well as pledge $1billion to help developing nations reduce greenhouse gases.

SO WHY NO SURPRISE? What the rest of the world might not understand, and probably many Americans don’t either, is that the U.S. economy in many ways is successful largely because of cheap and readily available energy - specifically fossil fuels, the main contributor to global warming. Any major effort to stem the flow of fossil fuels and thus carbon dioxide emissions over a short period of time, even by 2010, could send the U.S. economy into a tailspin.

OUR FOSSIL FUEL QUANDARY. What if for example a heavy tax were placed on gasoline, aimed at reducing consumption, thus CO2 emissions? What if that tax brought the price up to levels seen in other industrial countries - $3, $4, $5 per gallon? Would Americans still drive many miles to the malls on weekends? Would Americans still buy gas-guzzling - but profitable for the automakers - minivans, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles? How would a typical working person, who might commute an hour or more each day to work, cope with a much larger monthly gasoline bill? How would the stock market - which many Americans have their hopes and dreams invested in - fare when oil companies were told their revenues would be cut in a dozen years or so because of reduced consumption? And what about our oil producing allies? What would they do? Another embargo as seen in the 70’s?

So that is the quandary. Act strongly to protect the planet for future generations, or reduce fossil fuel consumption and risk serious economic damage now. If you were president what would you do?