Page 16 RAIN April 1980 .•~ .. ~~~~ U.S. Dependence on Imported Oil In 1978, oil imports amounted to 45 percent orall u.s.petroleum products consumed, over $39.5 billion, or about $11 .5 billion greater than our entire balance of payments deficit. Today, foreign oil supplies 22 percent of our total energy needs. Although Persian Gulf oil constitutes only 34 percent of our oil imports, it supplies 61 pt'rcent of Western Europe's oil and 72 percent of Japan's-both seen as part of Amenca's ':vital interests." Since the Arab embargo of 1973-74 we have actually increas ed our reliance on foreign oil. With an economy and transportation system geared to oil (35 percent of our oil goes dirt'ctly into motor vehicles). we have vividly seen the eHects of rising prices and 011 shortages. Dependence on imported ail for U.S. security has led, quite dIrectly, to the announcement of the Can er doctrine and the danger of military confrontation. It is also leading to a deepening economic criSIS. I b Z itz Pi ;., ni b Z The Economic Disaster of Non-renewable Energy and Increased Militarism In Carter's annual economic report to the nation January 30 he painted a grim picture of continuing inflation (now at 14 percent annually) and laid the blame on rising energy prices spurred by imported oil. What he didn't explain is how his own National Energy Policy continues our reliance on nonrenewable, costly and inflationary energy supplies and how his proposed new military budget will accelerate inflation even more. This double blow to the economy may be the most disquieting security factor in the Carter doctrine. For, in the words of Senate Majority Whip Alan Cranston (D-Ca1), " 'n the final analysis, a nation is no stronger than its economy." Barry Commoner has clearly derailed the bankrupting effectS of nonrenewable energy on the U.S. economy. As supplies get tighter costs will continue to go up, WIth or WIthout OPEC or Lran. These costs rise exponentially, as each part of the supply becomes more difficult to get our of the ground. More and more resources have to be dIverted to the production of energy', depleting capital resources nt'cessary for economic growth. This contributes to unemployment and is a drivmg force in the rapidly spiraling inUation rate. The second factor in our economic crisis is the massive dIversion of the natlon's resources into military production. Carter's proposed defense budget for fiscal year 1981 ($158.7 billion) exceeds the official cost of Hghnng the VIE.'tnam War, more than $110 billion over a ten-year period. The new Research & Development (R&D) budget shows that the Carter administration is planning large increases even after the end of the " five-year plan" - 1985, Military R&D funding jumped from $13.5 to $16.5 billion, a rate of increase much greater than the rest of the Pentagon budget. The impact on the economy of this massive infusion of money into the military is disastrous, producing inflation, unemployment, and deterioration of indWitrial activIty. This triple effect has bcen amply documented by Seymour Melman (Tire Permanent Wllr Economy) and others. Pouring more and more money inro capital-intensive weapons p.roduces goods that people cannot bUYI employs far fewl'r pl'Ople than comparable investment in the d Vllian sector, and depletes the scientific a.nd technical resources needed for industrial growth" Particularly harmful is the fact that fully one-third of all U.S. scientists and engineers work on military-related projects. Is it any wonder that West Germany and Japan have much higher industrial growth rates than the U.S.?They invest from 25 to 40 percent of their Gross National product (GNP) In new industrial capacity, while the U.S. invests less than 10 percent. At the same timer they spend less than 1 percent of theIr GNP on mIlItary production, as compared WIth our nearly 6 percent spending. An Alternative Energy Plan A shift of national energy resources from nuclear, coal and oil to renewable sources over a period of years would contribute directly to our national security by fighting inflation, providing needed jobs, and removing a key excuse for foreign intervention. A primary emphasis on conservation and renewable energy could be one of the answers to our energy, economic and foreign policy crisis. It could: • provide us with safe, renewable, non-inflationary sources of energy; • create thousands of jobs in hundreds of skill levels ; • begin the process of converting our military-, nuclear-, and oildependent economy to safe and socially useful production, under decentralized community control. Such a strategy has been outlined in detail by Dr. Leonard Rodberg in a study for the energy subcommittee of the Joint Economic Committee of the Congress. In "Employment Impact of the Solar Trans.ition" (April, 1979), Rodberg shows how we could save 40 percent of the nonrenewable fuels projected to be consumed by 1990. Solar systems could supply about 15 percent of the total energy required while conservation technologies could save enough energy to prevent increases in total energy use between 1980 and 1990. Rodbel'g's findings are supported by the Council on EnvlfOnmental Quality, Stanford Research Institute International and, most recently, by Energy Future, the excellent study by the Harvard Business School energy project (see RAIN , Jan. 'SO). Energy Future stresses the great potenual of conservation-that mix of insulation, weatherization, energy efficiency, co-generation, and industrial and commercial measures which, it is variously estimated, could cut between 30 and 40 percent of ou r energy demand If we made a serious commitment. A combination conservation-renewable strategy utilizes a variety of technologies, with no sing.le technology providing all the answers !o (Jur needs. Such a path includes (II) conservation and energy efficiency measures ; (b) active and passive solar systems for hot water and space heat ; (e) concentrating collectors providing higher temperature solar heat for industrial applications; (d) electricity generarion through wind systems, photovoltaic cells, low-head hydro, and solar thermal community power plants; (1'1liquid (uds (methane and ethanol) from biomass and agricultural products. Rather than making this commitment-to a 30-50 year wtal transition from our current centralized, oil- and nuclear-dependent economy to a renewable energy system- the Carter administration has chosen the hard path : a mix of oil, coal, nuclear and synthetic fuels development that only gives lip service to conservation and solar development. (A mere 8 percent of the 1980 Department of Energy budget is earmarked for solar and conservation, while 25 percent is still committed to nuclear power and related technologies. Even the windfall profits tax of $20 billion is currently estImated to proVide only $1 billion for biomass-based fuels; the rest is going back to the big oil and mining companies for synthetic fuels development .) How to Make the Change: Local Organizing for Conversion and Renewable Energy The current crisis, especially Carter's proposed draft registration, has given new impetus to anti-war forces across the country and has ignited anti-draft protests on college campuses. At the same time the pro-solar, anti-nuclear movement can,pe found nearly everywhere in the wake of Three Mile Island. Rarely, however, are these movements working together. Yet the kind of change necessary, for both energy and national security pohcy, requires a massive
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz