A Republican rationale for kicking the oil habit

The Republican Party has never quite made up its mind on issues like energy dependence and global climate change. Our party leaders will often give half-hearted lip service to the problems they present, but have yet to enter the market of ideas on change. George H.W. Bush sent a delegation to the Rio de Janeiro conference on global warming and came away with a promise to “voluntarily” reduce emissions. Our current President acknowledged in his first campaign that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the climate to heat up. He subsequently withdrew from all talks on the Kyoto Protocol.

The cold, hard facts are these: America’s energy usage is spiraling out of control and Republicans cannot continue to ignore the problem. Our ideology of economic prudence demands it.

All are familiar with the laundry list of harms that are a direct result of our dependence upon foreign oil, which President Bush and the Republican leadership generally acknowledge. Our economy is wholly dependent upon the most volatile region in the world. This dependence has caused us to sustain brutal regimes that we would not tolerate under any other circumstances. These regimes serve as inspiration for a generation of young terrorists who then associate America with their own oppression.

President Bush’s solution to this problem is more drilling. He looks to sources like the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. The plain fact of the matter is that no source either at home or abroad can supplant the constant flow of cheap oil coming from the Mideast. We need new sources of energy that can not only be produced in the U.S. but that can be renewed (hydrogen power, for example). Unfortunately, these energy sources do not receive the support needed from a government more concerned with keeping the price of petroleum low than creating a cost-competitive alternative.

As Republicans, it is essential that we begin to support these technologies over fossil fuels. Economic common sense demands it. More turmoil is inevitable in the Middle East from any number of sources (Iraq, Iran, Saudi instability, Kurdish-Turkish conflict, and Israel’s rivalry with...well, everyone). When it comes, the shock within the oil markets will make two dollars a gallon seem like chump change and the potential impact upon the American economy will be devastating. The only way the U.S. can avoid such a future is by heavily subsidizing not only alternative technologies like hydrogen but also the infrastructure necessary to bring them into the mainstream, not to mention a scale-back of petroleum subsidies.

Our European and Japanese counterparts are already doing this. They have recognized their long term interest in energy security and therefore are beginning to push ahead on renewables. These technologies will become valuable in the future when oil becomes scarce or the Middle East blows itself up, whichever comes first. When that day arrives, we are likely to find ourselves far behind in the race for energy technology. By delaying, we risk America’s economic preeminence in the world.

But the greatest threat to our long term economic interest is global warming. Natural disasters inevitably bear out an economic cost as well as a human one. That being assumed, the economic impact of global warming stands to be gigantic. A substantial portion of the world’s population lives within 200 miles of a coastline. Meanwhile, sea levels are rising as a result of polar ice melting. As heat levels continue to rise, populations will eventually find their homes underwater. If the human costs of warming are not enough to justify an abrupt correction, the prospect of running the American economy smoothly with New York and Miami beneath the Atlantic should give one further pause. If allowed to continue unabated, global warming stands to be the greatest economic spoiler in human history.

Pure reliance on the free market has never been Republican policy. We tariff steel when Ohio jobs depend upon it and make loan guarantees to United when airline employees are on the line. Even if it were our policy, the free market is clearly not combating this problem. The risks are evident. It’s time for the Republican Party to step up to the plate and do something about it.