Common Sense Missing From Energy Debate

Gordon MacAlister wouldn’t make a very good politician. He relies more on common sense than on advisers when it comes to examining a problem. Take the oil crisis for example.

Gordon has given it some thought, and he has come to some conclusions.

“No matter what we do toward the advancement of alternative fuels today, the brutal truth is that there are industries that are dependent upon petroleum and will continue thus for perhaps decades to come: shipping, a national and international airline system, rail service trucking, farming, plastics and . . . the military.

“A piece of scratch paper, a pencil stub, a half a cup of good old American coffee, and you will have a long list of your own that may astound you.

“How green can we be how fast? Not very.” Gordon seems like a very practical man. In his thoughtful conversation with me he concludes that “in my opinion, I don’t think we will soon be seeing solar panels or cumbersome batteries incorporated into the wings or bellies of airplanes, or in trains, 18-wheelers, John Deere or Caterpillar” machines any time soon”.

He also would not be eager to volunteer to be “strapped into a first-generation hybrid transoceanic aircraft. I also would be distressed to learn that our military was unable to respond where and when needed due to having to recharge transport planes, the hummer, the Bradley or vessels of our Navy. . . .

“And, least I forget, should we not consider such community services as law enforcement, fire departments, air and ground ambulance service and public transportation?” . . .

“What I’m thinking with my bachelor-of-arts educated, checkbook challenges, non-elitist brain is that the drill-no drill mud slinging has little to do with reality," Gordon says.

What he’d like to see is an orderly, assertive effort to develop affordable, alternative fuels. But he realizes that it probably will take a few decades to perfect them, get them to market and to replace the existing fleets of cars, trains and planes (and buses and ships and tractors and heavy construction equipment).

In the meantime, we shouldn’t continue to be held hostage by the producers of foreign oil, when we have plenty of the stuff under our own ground - and the technology to get it out.

As Gordon knows, but some politicians have forgotten, millions of Americans can’t afford to trade in a 10-year-old truck for a shiny, new hybrid vehicle - regardless of $4-a-gallon gasoline.

“These are the folks who comprise our American working class, blue-collar families who pilot vehicles that are five, 10, 15 years old and older, because they drive what they can afford.

“These primarily are the same good citizens who need vans, delivery trucks, pickups, 4-by-4s, tractors, combines and heavy equipment because these are tools of their livelihood.”

Out of necessity, he reasons, “the very core of our American working-class society will continue to use fossil-based fuels to power what they have.”

Simply put, they can’t afford to trade in their 10-year-old sedan, which is paid off and in good working condition, for a stylishly new and hip $23,000 hybrid. They are having trouble as it is, without a monthly car payment, trying to buy groceries every week and keep the lights and heat on in their homes.

I suspect that Gordon isn’t alone in being “sick to death of the rancorous debates concerning the pros and cons of drilling for oil within our nationally controlled boundaries,” and in his yearning for an honest, common-sense debate on the practical course American should set in its energy policy.

He suggests that it would be a “wise investment” to develop existing U.S. oil resources while pursuing alternatives that probably won’t be available and affordable for the mass market for a generation or two.

He doesn’t have a staff of advisers to help him on this. He’s just equipped with a sheet of paper, a pencil, a cup of coffee and a heap of common sense.

Is anyone listening to him?