Increased use of alternative, preferably renewable energy sources.
By following these three initiatives, the demand for fossil fuels will be curtailed and the supply will last as long we need it to.
Tougher CAFE
Standards
The first step that should be taken is a conversion of much of the domestic automobile fleet to fuel-efficient vehicles, which would not only cut down on oil use, but also pollution. The best method to accomplish this is an increase on the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards on new cars manufactured in the U.S to an eventual level of 40 miles per gallon. The effect this would have on oil conservation is staggering. Consider this: there are about 200 million cars and light trucks on the road in the U.S. today. A hybrid, a type of car that runs on both gasoline and electricity, is currently available, and is competitively priced, gets an average fuel-efficiency of 40 mpg. If only half of the light vehicles in the U.S. were to get 40 mpg, the total gas savings would be about 50 million gallons per year, the equivalent of 1.2 billion barrels of oil!
Of course, government regulations on the free market are always debatable and many people are worried that a tight minimum gas mileage level would, at first, have a negative effect on the economy in general and the automobile industry in particular. These beliefs are pessimistic and unfounded. Extensive studies have shown that as engineers are forced to find ways to conserve oil, the CAFE standards increase will actually lead to an increase in jobs.
The Need for a
Stronger Gas Tax
Another problem with putting stricter regulations on the gas mileage of newly manufactured cars, which are more expensive than traditional gas-guzzlers, is the fact that most consumers are reluctant to pay the extra money for a car that only gets moderately better gas mileage than their current vehicle. This problem could be solved with a stronger gas tax, which would prompt consumers to buy more of the most fuel-efficient cars on the market and less fuel.
Some people believe that a higher gas tax would cause more problems than it would solve because, generally speaking, the more people are taxed, the more reluctant they will be to spend, thereby hurting the domestic economy. The best way to encourage people to pump money into the economy is to give back through tax incentives what was paid through the stronger gas tax, thus ensuring that people who drive fuel-efficient vehicles are rewarded for their choice to help conserve oil. Currently, people who own fuel-efficient vehicles, including hybrids, get a $2,000 tax incentive. Next year, the incentive will drop to $500. Clearly, this is not enough. With the increased revenue from a higher gas tax, the government could easily afford a more rewarding incentive. Unfortunately, the current administration does not support a gas tax increase, or, it seems, any tax increase.
Pundits assert that the gas tax is a regressive tax, meaning it financially harms the poor while having virtually no effect on the wealthy. They claim that with minimum wage at its current substandard level, many people couldn't afford a few extra dollars at the gas station each week. Fortunately, this problem is easily solved. People earning less than, say, $18,000 on a yearly basis would not pay the same gas tax that a wealthy businessman would pay. The gas tax could become progressive through a tax credit for all people who earn below a set salary.
At this point, I'd like to remind the reader that I'm aware that because of the skyrocketing gas prices, consumers have been forced to pay more at the pump. But I am not writing about bringing gas prices down; I am writing about curbing the rapidly increasing demand for oil. As Paul Roberts (2004) points out, the trends in oil conservation are "sliding backward, dramatically increasing U.S. demand for oil." In other words, demand for a limited supply of oil is increasing, and something must be done to restrain it.
A third problem with a stronger gas tax is the fact that most politicians are either opposed to it or afraid to endorse it (Rifkin, C. & J., 1992) because of the electorate's widespread skepticism of taxes. This was evidenced during the 2004 presidential election when President Bush was able to repeatedly successfully attack Senator Kerry for consistently voting on gas tax increases. Americans may not like to pay their taxes, but something has to be done. Polls show that citizens support energy independence and oil conservation until they have to start paying for it. Obviously, a strong gas tax is vital to preserving oil and bringing about energy independence. Without more positive commentary on the issue, people may never realize that the positives far outweigh the negatives. Consider this: the current federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon with the states also imposing their own gas tax. A small tax increase on gasoline to a mere fifty cents per gallon would not only lower traffic congestion by enticing people to drive less and buy smaller, more fuel-efficient cars; it would also help fund research on alternative energy, finance extremely safe, modern nuclear power plants, and any other excess could be used to pay for the tax incentive.
We Must Find Other
Energy Sources
The best way to conserve oil and control the oil demand is greater utilization of alternative sources of energy. As more and more cars switch from being powered by fossil fuel to being powered by electricity, we must find cleaner, renewable sources of electricity as opposed to the usual dinosaur fuel. Wind farms have been springing up all across the nation lately. Why? Because they're extremely efficient, run on nature's limitless supply of wind, and are very cost-effective. Farmers can lease their land to energy companies, which then erect tall, narrow windmills on their property. Wind farms more often turn profits than traditional, agricultural farms because the farmers not only receive income for leasing their land; they also get a tax credit of 1.5 cents for every kilowatt-hour generated. In effect, farmers can turn wind into one of the most valuable cash crops of them all.
Heightened nuclear power use is another method to wean us off the dwindling fossil fuel supply. Most environmentalists are wary of nuclear power, especially after the accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. It's well known that nuclear power plants produce dangerous radioactive waste. However, modern nuclear power plants are much safer than they have been in the past and there are many benefits to nuclear energy; it's environmentally sound as long as the waste is properly disposed of, it's cheap, and, best of all, it does NOT require fossil fuel.
Another form of alternative energy, perhaps the oldest one, is solar power. In ancient times, the Greeks and Romans built their cities facing toward the sun to absorb heat during the day and let it out at night. Solar panels were developed during the space race and have found a small market in the private sector as well. The benefits of solar panels are vast: they have no moving parts, they run solely on green energy, they're relatively inexpensive, they last for decades, and the renewable energy tax credit the government gives for wind power also applies to solar power users.
In 1979, before leaving office, President Carter, a forward-thinking progressive, set an excellent example for the nation and the entire world when he had solar panels installed on the White House roof. In 1980, one of the first presidential actions the newly elected President Reagan took was to have the panels removed. People who are concerned about our oil dependence try to find solutions, but for every Carter who makes progress on curtailing the oil mania, there always seems to be a Reagan who wants to tear everything down again. This explains the looming oil shortage, our dependency on foreign oil, and most people's unwillingness to accept the fact that this dinosaur fuel will not last forever. Limiting the oil demand is the best and, perhaps, only way to stifle the oil mania and avert a potential crisis.