A little common sense, a little cooperation, a little forethought: Is that too much to ask from the people we put in charge of leading our nation? I think not; but when it comes to an energy policy, common sense is sorely lacking.

As gasoline prices jump above $2 and crude oil prices reach for $60 a barrel, Congress and the Administration argue over yet another energy bill. In the midst of this pops up former President Jimmy Carter to lecture us on the importance of energy, and provide a little historical perspective on how well Washington has done managing our nation’s energy policy.

Carter, architect of the original energy crisis in the 1970s, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week at the invitation of committee chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., to talk about why the nation hasn’t solved its energy problems three decades after he left office. While a lot has changed since the 1970s, Carter’s approach to energy has not.

He still believes we can conserve our way out of the crisis and is still opposed to nuclear power. In his testimony, he blamed the Reagan Administration for not carrying through with the energy policy he started.

“I dedicated solar collectors on the White House roof in 1979,” Carter told the panel, “but the 32 panels were soon removed almost instantaneously after my successor moved into the White House.”

In a famous “fireside chat” in 1977, Carter donned a camel-colored cardigan sweater and spoke of the need for Americans to use less energy, turn down their thermostats, and support his efforts to develop alternative energy sources.

Carter turned down the thermostats at the White House and a token amount of government funding went into alternative energy research, but it all did little to change the course of U.S. energy policy. At the time, the United States imported 46 percent of its oil. Today, nearly 60 percent comes from sources outside the country.

President Obama spoke boldly about energy during the campaign; but, since taking office, his proposals have been less than groundbreaking and energy remains a politically divisive issue on Capitol Hill. Congress and the White House are unwilling to break with the past and make the bold decisions that could set our nation on the path to a new energy future.

One of those simple decisions, which would lessen our dependence on imported gasoline by 700 billion gallons a year, is currently being considered by the EPA. It simply involves increasing the amount of ethanol we blend into our fuel supply. Currently, 70
percent of all U.S. gasoline has 10 percent ethanol in it. The EPA is considering a petition from the ethanol industry to increase that to 15 percent.

While this would not impact your car’s performance, it would have a big impact on rural America. It is estimated that the move to 15 percent would create 135,000 new jobs and pump $24 billion into the economy. It would also increase the demand for corn which would boost corn prices and insure long-term profitability for grain farmers.

Quick and seemingly logical steps would be to drill for the oil we have in the United States, remove prohibitions against nuclear power, and enhance the infrastructure needed to transport renewable fuels more efficiently. There is also the longer term investment in solar, wind and cellulosic technology.

What is not quick or logical is the approach espoused by Carter and many environmentalists today - that we can conserve our way out of our energy problem.

While conserving energy and increasing gas mileage sound like noble goals (and they should be part of our energy strategy), to think they are going to make much of a difference is ludicrous.
Going forward, the world will continue to need more energy. A recent international study predicted that energy used by computers and consumer electronics will not only double by 2022, but increase threefold by 2030. We will not be able to meet this increased demand with finite and dwindling fossil resources. Only renewable sources of energy will allow our world to continue to advance.

And since these renewable sources are more environmentally friendly and sustainable than current sources, our world will be a better place in the decades to come. If our leaders get off their duffs and take some bold productive action, that is. It also behooves us to stop being complacent and demand action. It is time that political ideologies and special interests be put aside and that policies and programs be put in place that will truly solve the problem. Can we please have a little common sense when it comes to energy?

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of Farm World. Readers with questions or comments for Gary Truitt may write to him in care of this publication.