Inside Bay Area - Alameda Times-Star - Op-Ed

THE FRESHEST and, for some, most encouraging part of President Bush's lackluster State of the Union address and budget was the proposal to increase federal spending on alternative energy research by 22 percent.
Our nation, Bush posited, is "addicted to oil" — an admission that can't come easily for an administration whose top two officeholders are beneficiaries of the industry.

The fund increase is part of Bush's avowed goal of cutting our dependence on Middle Eastern petroleum imports by 75 percent in the next 20 years. Particularly favored are the development of solar energy and biofuels, as well as taking a new look at reviving the use of nuclear power plants. But increased funds for coal-powered plants, wind energy, hydrogen fuel cells and batteries for hybrid cars also are part of the proposal.

The money is intended to be not an end-all but a catalyst for increased investments in alternative energy by private industry. Hopefully they'll take the bait.

Such investment is long overdue but must be sustained. The tipping point of peak world oil production is expected to occur within the next 20 years. Some say it's already happened.

Meanwhile, international competition for oil and natural gas has increased dramatically, with China and India at the forefront. Demand is expected to jump 50 percent within the next 20 years, and our nation no longer enjoys the relative monopoly it did for more than a century. It's a finite resource, and some experts contend we could deplete supplies of easy-to-retrieve, relatively cheap oil within 40 years.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




All of which could seriously erode our fossil-fueled quality of life, economic base, production of modern conveniences and easy mobility. At worst, we could be headed for a period of "generalized and chronic (economic, political and social) contraction," James Howard Kunstler says in his compelling but somber book "The Long Emergency."
We currently have no good alternatives to oil and natural gas. It's vital that we invest in developing some. Our future depends on it.

So, has the Bush administration finally gotten religion on alternative energy, or is it playing politics with an issue that is key to the world's future?

The proof will be seen in the length and depth of our commitment. UC Berkeley Nobel laureate Steve Chu and Stanford biologist Cliff Summerville indicate that our dedication needs to be sustained for 15 years or more.

It's comparable to the space race. To start such an undertaking and then say "no" a few years later would be farcical.

Now that it's made this commitment to alternative energy, the Bush administration — and its successors — must sustain the effort to fuel such options.

We can't afford to dabble in alternative fuels and then abort the venture — as we did in the 1970s. This time, that could be a disastrous.