Comment
The price of energy he recent flap about gasoline prices in the United States must be viewed by Western Europeans as a curious and almost laughable display of naïveté on the part of Americans. Indeed, many Americans are amazed that our low prices have lasted so long. To believe that gasoline can be available indefinitely at less than $1.50US per gallon in this era of growing world demand for petroleum and declining and inequitable distribution of production capacity, indeed, to believe that we have a right to gasoline at these prices is arrogance built upon ignorance. It also reflects a commonly held delusion that petroleum reserves are really not limited, and that regardless, a new technical solution to our energy needs will magically become available when we need it. And it most certainly reflects a view that global warming is not an issue that we have to deal with, at least not now. The combination of our growing energy needs and the prospect of global warming must be considered as one of the most significant challenges facing human civilization in this century, and perhaps beyond. Why we are not taking this challenge seriously is an interesting example of how humans are able to justify behavior that is not in their own interests, or those of their progeny. It is also an example of how our capitalistic system favors short-term gains that neglect long-term resource and environmental depletion, and the power that this system can have on public opinion. Combined with our intense, perhaps genetically driven desires for more comforts and our infatuation with the personal use vehicle, our economic system encourages overconsumption of petroleum and other nonrenewable resources as if there were no tomorrow. That the vast majority of these petroleum resources are being converted into high-entropy products that may have significant environmental effects is maddening to those who feel that better alternatives exist.
T
© 2000 American Chemical Society
In the United States, we are entering our intense campaign period, and the rhetoric on the issue of higher gasoline prices is growing in intensity. Vice President Gore has just announced a new initiative to encourage more sustainable energy generation practices, but his opponent Mr. Bush contends it is too little, too late. Many wish that these issues would be taken up in a more serious forum, but perhaps it is progress for the discussion to be on the table at all. That the same political parties took it off the table in the 1980s is not comforting, however. For those who are interested in the subject from a more technical point of view, opportunities abound. If we are going to leapfrog into a new energy regime, we must have new technologies built on new science. We must turn our new capabilities in genomics to harness microorganisms to make carbonaceous materials more efficiently from carbon dioxide, hydrogen from water, and biofuels from biomass. We must either deal with the issue of fission wastes in a way that is of low risk and acceptable to the majority of people, or we must dramatically accelerate our R&D on controlled fusion. Harnessing the sun more efficiently is an imperative. Given the stated commitment of our political parties for a solution to die energy "crisis", it is hard to understand why these and other energy research initiatives are being treated as secondary priorities compared to space exploration, new drugs, and new armaments. Of course, the latter are important, but does it not make sense to take care of the immediate energy and environmental needs of this civilization with equal determination?
William H. Glaze, Editor (
[email protected])
AUGUST 1, 2000 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 3 2 9 A
