Articles

New US Energy Policy Falls Woefully Short
By Dennis Goodenough

Wisconsin State Journal
March 7, 1991

The new energy policy that President Bush is advocating for the nation is irresponsible beyond belief.  In essence, this document proclaims that the United States will continue to ruthlessly squander the resources of the planet as long as those resources last and we have the wherewithal to acquire them. 

We shouldn't be too surprised with this policy, considering the President used to be a big "oil man"  One can't help but wonder that if the energy conservation policies of the Carter administration had not been dismantled, would we have fought a war in the middle East this year. 

The country is strung, from one end to the other, with flags and yellow ribbons showing the rest of the world our resolve.  But, do we have the resolve to stop the inefficient consumptive behavior that has, in many ways, precipitated the war?  Indeed, Bush is saying "we don't need to go on a diet."  I consider his new energy policy a kick in the teeth to every man, woman, child and soldier who suffered or died in the Middle East.

 How long will we ignore the evidence that shows conservation technology is economically viable and available?  It's not necessary to sacrifice our quote "lifestyle", we simply need to stop the deplorable inefficiency and waste.  Japan and Germany are using waste.  Japan and Germany are using their energy more responsibly than we are.  Has Bush considered that this might have something to do with her economic success?

The longer the nation puts off the transition from conventional energy to sustainable energy, the more disruptive and difficult the change will be. In the meantime, we play "Russian Roulette" with the world environment. 

Bush is arrogantly showing us that he is more concerned with the economic stability of a few businessmen and energy entrepreneurs than he is with the temperature stability of the planet.  Is this man oblivious to the scientific community and his constituents’ concerns for the natural environment?  Is the whole administration hopelessly mired in the policies and political thinking of the 1950s?  And finally, are we looking for the path of least resistance, or are we just looking for the path of no resistance?