U.S. needs leader during energy crisis

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

As a kid in spring 1974, I took my first trip to Washington, D.C., and was excited about seeing our nation's capital.

I arrived late afternoon, and a friend took me to a nice restaurant for dinner and afterward gave me a tour of the city. As we drove by the Washington Monument, he said we would have a nice view if the lights were on. Same thing at the White House, Lincoln Memorial and the Jefferson Memorial.

In fact, all throughout the city, government buildings had their exterior lights off. You may recall the reason: the Arab Oil Embargo.

Because of unhappiness with U.S. foreign policy, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and primarily the Arab oil-producing countries decided to severely limit the amount of oil shipped to the U.S.

Our government's response was quick: lower speed limits, close gas stations on Sundays, ration gas, implement daylight-saving time early and shut off unnecessary lights around the country. Turning out the lights may not have had much of an actual impact, but it was a powerful symbol showing us what needed to be done. All of this was done swiftly and decisively to illustrate the government's desire to provide leadership in a time of crises. The president, Richard Nixon of all people, was doing what we expect of leaders: leading.

The private sector responded to the government's example by urging conservation and shutting off lights. Automobile companies raced to design fuel-efficient cars, and even NASCAR got into the act by reducing the length of its races 10 percent.

In the late 1970s another energy crisis occurred as once again there was a decline in the amount of oil being exported from the Middle East.

President Jimmy Carter appeared on TV wearing a sweater, urging us to turn down our thermostats. The White House was equipped with solar panels and a wood burner was installed. Of course, the last two were symbols, but they illustrated what we needed to do. Once again, we had a president who tried to provide leadership, even some inspiration.

Fast forward 30 years. Once again we have an oil problem.

World demand for oil is growing faster than supply, and prices are rising to near-record levels. Gas is well over $3 per gallon, and some experts are predicting $6 per gallon in the near future. Further, our dependence on foreign oil, especially from the Middle East, is severely affecting our foreign policy. Whether we like to admit it or not, oil-producing countries have really got us in a box, as we currently import about 60 percent of our oil.

The president's response? He recently said we have an oil problem, and we should do something about it. His plan is to urge the producers to produce more. Never mind we then become even more dependent on foreign oil. Never mind our Middle East policy will become even more difficult.

Just make sure we suffer no pain. Well, thanks Mr. President, but no thanks. Step up and provide bold leadership. Maybe suggest ways to promote the development of renewable energy sources, other than ethanol, which itself causes other problems. Maybe lead us in ways to conserve energy. Maybe turn off unnecessary lights to show us symbolically this is a serious problem and you mean business. Doesn't it seem odd that the private sector -- individuals and even more strangely, corporations -- are in the forefront of energy efficiency? Just what is your job, Mr. President?

There is no question increased energy prices will eventually lead us to reduce consumption. But users respond to more than just price. We can do other things to convince Americans to reduce usage, and many of these things won't even cause much pain. Do we really have to light the outside of houses with decorative lighting? Is the questionable convenience of electric doors worth the energy? Are hand dryers that much of an improvement over paper towels made of recycled paper? Can we just remember to turn out lights when we leave a room?

If the president made energy saving a high national priority, we could make some progress. He has chosen not too. Maybe the next person we put in the office will be a real leader.

Print Email

/
 
Sponsored by:

Connect with Us