A P PHOTO
GOVERNMENT & POL ICY
FLASHBACK
“What this means, however, is that we lack a coherent energy policy with clearly thought-out goals that are strong enough to make a major change in energy markets,” he stated. A look at the 1970s bears this out. The early ’70s brought some regional gasoline shortages to the U.S. But the 1973 energy crisis kicked into high gear with the Arab-Israeli War in early October and the subsequent Arab boycott of oil sales to the U.S. because of the U.S.’s support of Israel. The embargo was short-lived, however, ending in March 1974. Even so, the era of cheap imported oil was over. The impact of the 1973 crisis and limits on imported oil reverberated through U.S. energy markets. The price of Middle Eastern oil went from $3.11 per bbl before the embargo to $11.65 after it; the U.S. stock market took a dive (with the exception of oil stocks); and President Richard Nixon initiated the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act in November 1973, authorizing oil price, production, allocation, and marketing controls. Early in 1974, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger—presaging today’s politicians— announced a national plan to make the U.S. “energy independent.” The embargo and high oil prices led to long lines at gas pumps, various rationing techniques, and personal and economic energy-related stress. But the crisis also created an environment that encouraged development of non-oil-based energy sources—solar, wind, and nuclear energy as well as nonpetroleum fuel alternatives and synthetic fuels. Conservation became part of the mix, and vehicle gas economy standards were introduced in 1975. In 1979, the U.S. experienced a second oil crisis, driven by turmoil in the Middle East, this time by a regime change in Iran and the deposition of the U.S.-backed shah. Iranian oil production dropped, and a year later, matters got worse as Iraq invaded Iran and Iranian oil production came to a halt. Meanwhile, President Jimmy Carter had moved ahead with various attempts to influence energy policy by such actions as proHigh gasoline prices and shortages made conservation necessary during the 1970s.
ENERGY CRISIS DÉJÀ VU, OR NOT Climate change may be GAME CHANGER that keeps U.S. on conservation path despite tumbling gasoline prices JEFF JOHNSON, C&EN WASHINGTON
TODAY’S PUSH for solar and wind energy tax breaks, ethanol production mandates, big energy research and development demonstration projects, appliance standards, and energy-project loan guarantees looks a lot like the 1970s to Phil Sharp, president of Resources for the Future (RFF), an energy and environmental think tank in Washington, D.C. Sharp, an energy maven with 20 years of congressional experience under his belt, was elected to the House of Representatives in 1975, soon after the 1973 energy crisis hit and before the 1979 energy crisis began. Both were largely driven by constrained petroleum supplies and subsequent high oil and gasoline prices, and both led to new government energy policies and programs, Sharp noted during a daylong RFF symposium on Oct. 29. During the 1970s, the government initiated a host of energy reforms, trying in vain to lower oil prices. Most important among these reforms, Sharp said, was the implementation of oil price controls. Although the controls failed, he said, prices eventually did decline in the 1980s, and the U.S. soon returned to its wasteful ways.
Today, as gasoline plummets below $2.50 per gal from a high of more than $4.00 and as oil drops to $65 per barrel from $140, Sharp wonders whether the present will be a repeat of the past and whether the U.S. will return to its consume-more-than-ever trajectory. This was the main topic of discussion explored at the RFF event in Washington. By bringing together energy crisis oldtimers to discuss the ’70s experience, RFF aimed to generate clarity and guidance as decisionmakers strive to shape U.S. energy policy for the 21st century. According to Sharp, the U.S. has had no shortage of energy policies. “Historically, there has been much hand-wringing by economists and academics over the lack of a U.S. energy policy,” he said. “In fact, we have a plethora of energy policies, and we make and remake them from time to time as the government attempts to influence energy issues.
“We lack a coherent energy policy with clearly thought-out goals.” WWW.C E N- ONLI NE .ORG
32
NOV E M BE R 10, 20 0 8
ment programs and everything else that went with them. Finally, we decided that these just weren’t working. For the future, he said, “my shorthand answer is you have to put a price on carbon. There are lots of ways to do that, such as a cap-and-trade system or carbon taxes.” These actions are unlikely to be sufficient to handle all climate-change issues, he
moting conservation and encouraging solar energy development. Despite attempts to control oil price and allocation, prices continued to float up, and Carter began a phaseout of Nixon’s oil controls. By the early ’80s, oil prices had climbed to $39 per bbl, the highest oil prices in real dollars ever—until this year. U.S. efforts to increase oil production began to work, and prices declined in the ’80s. Along with prices, interest waned in the national focus on conservation, renewable energy, and other efforts to reduce energy consumption. William W. Hogan remembers this well. As he explained at the RFF meeting, Hogan joined the federal government in the months before the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, working in the newly created Office of Energy Data & Analysis at the Department of the Interior. The message Hogan took away from that time is that price controls don’t work. The system, he and Sharp agreed, was impossible to control. The lesson was learned, they noted, and there has been little interest today in repeating errors of the past by imposing oil price controls as a solution to an upsurge in oil prices. When asked whether Americans will again lose interest in alternative fuels and renewable energy and jump back in their SUVs as oil prices drop, Hogan said, “The lessons from the past say the answer is mostly ‘Yes.’ It will become harder to develop alternative energy sources.” But the difference this time around, Hogan pointed out, is the specter of climate change and how Americans choose to address it. This factor may help stop history from repeating itself.
added, but marketplace incentives are absolutely necessary. “These may not solve the problem, but they are needed and must be in place soon. Pressure for climate change is constantly building, and that will make solutions harder,” Hogan said. “The situation is dramatically different than in the 1970s. “If you think you can deal with climate
Pharmaceutical Services and
cGMP Synthesis Analytical Services
CLIMATE CHANGE and global warming
were discussed in the 1970s and ’80s, Hogan and others at the conference noted, but without the intensity and sense of urgency of today’s discussions, with both presidential candidates having embraced a need to act on climate change. The question, however, is how PresidentElect Barack Obama and Congress will act. For his part, Hogan backs a system of market incentives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas production, a tack that he notes will take a toll on consumers’ pocketbooks. “In the 1970s, we had this huge debate about the role of markets or price controls, whether we should let prices go, and what people would respond to,” Hogan explained. “We tried all kinds of mandates and had allocation programs and entitle-
Chemistry Services
GLP release (COA)
cGMP synthesis
cGMP release (COA)
Bulk production (Kg to Tons)
DSC, TGA, XRPD, and ATR-FTIR
CMC preparation and review
SEM (morphology and particle size)
New process research
LC-MS and GC-MS
FTE based research (China or US)
DVS (Dynamic Vapor Sorption)
Salt screening and selection
Purity by HPLC, GC or NMR
Polymorph screening
HPLC (including chiral) method
Co-crystal screening
HPLC method validation
Hydrate (hydration/dehydration)
Alkyl sulfate detection (RSO2OR)
Heavy metal trace removal
Stability / Photostability (ICH)
Crystal size control
Forced degradation studies
Hazardous process evaluation
Large scale preparative column
API impurity ID and synthesis
Solubility (aqueous or organic)
Impurity removal(
