opinion
tom thompson
Why you should believe in the oil crisis
It is incredible that a majority of
Americans believe that there is no
energy crisis, that the whole thing is
part of a conspiracy by the major oil
firms and the American government We
are in the midst of a crisis There are
several reasons.
Increased oH consumption: Petroleum
demand is higher than ever, averaging
21 million barrels a day. or 11 percent
above 1973’s level. Gasoline demand is
up 4 percent over last year and nearly 12
percent over 1973. Demand for dis
tillates (jet fuel, diesel) is up 5 percent
over last year and 18 percent over 1973
(largely because of a colder-than-normal
winter). Residuals (bunker oil for ships,
asphalt, low-grade fuels) have increased
just 0.3 percent over last year, but are
up 16.8 percent from 1973.
We could escape from the trap of this
crisis if we could only reduce our oil
consumption — relatively easy in theory
but difficult in practice The United
States, whose consumption sets the
pattern for the world's oil
supply /demand equation, now imports
nearly half of its oil compared to about
one-third in 1974. It is a depressing
record We are becoming more, not less,
vulnerable to foreign sources of pe
troleum.
Price regulation: The next time you
find yourself complaining about the high
price of gasoline, consider this: It’s been
getting cheaper ever since the gas lines
of five years ago
That's right, in January, 1979, the
price of gasoline in constant (uninflated)
dollars was a nickel a gallon less than in
January, 1974, according to the Depart
ment of Energy So you've been doing
the smart thing: buying more of a corn
modify which has been getting cheaper
Energy analysts use this example to
illustrate gas-guzzling The alternative is
to increase prices to try to get the public
to use less The easiest way to increase
gasoline prices is to decontrol the price
of domestically produced oil. Govern
ment price controls have kept domestic
oil well below the world price of $14.50 a
barrel. Deregulation not only would raise
gas prices, it would be an incentive to
boost domestic oil production. But by
how much is very uncertain And the is
sue of deregulation is a veritable political
briar patch
Stockpiling The government is far
behind in its effort to stockpile as much
as 500 million barrels of oil for embar
go-caused shortages. Stockpiles now
total 80 million barrels and are expected
to reach 100 million by June However,
they were not scheduled for withdrawal
until the early 1980s, and the govern
ment has not installed a pumping system
to extract the oil from the salt caverns
where it is stored
Imports: Instead of reducing its
theirs
V
t
dependence on imported oil. the United
States is more dependent upon it than
ever Crude-oil imports during a recent
four-week period were a whopping 125
percent higher than for the same period
in 1978 The Iranian oil shutoff came at a
critical time, reducing American s oil
supply by 5 to 10 percent just when
demand was on the upswing
Fuel economy: Despite foreign-car
sales and Detroit’s growing emphasis on
20-mile-a-gallon vehicles, fuel efficiency
has increased little since the Arab em
bargo Five years ago. automobiles
averaged 13 49 miles a gallon Through
1977, that average had increased only to
13 94 - less than half a mile to the gallon
more
Substitute fuels Government and in
dustry efforts to substitute other fuels tor
petroleum where possible have been
only marginally successful Using elec
tricity as an example, petroleum-fueled
generation increased between 1973 and
1978 by 15 percent But the percentage
would have been much higher if it were
not for nuclear power (which tripled in
generation) and coal, which increased
by about 16 percent Future expansion
of nuclear generation is in doubt
because of safety problems and permit
delays, however So the burden for
supplanting petroleum may fall on coal,
in which the United States is fairly rich
Environmental and air-quality problems
remain as obstacles, however
Conservation Industry has been
about the only sector to conserve energy
dramatically since the Arab embargo
Meanwhile. America s insatiable energy
appetite has been growing steadily And
now the pinch is here again
va rs
Anti-nuke ‘sanity’
The response against nuclear
power in the wake of the 3-Mile
Island accident is by no means
out of hysteria as argued by
Michael Lacey's letter on May 7.
It is the result of a growing
awareness among the public of
an issue that has heretofore
remained obscure to them It is
a plea for sanity and honesty in
developing our energy future.
To say that the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has
joined the “hysteria'’ is
ludicrous. Anyone who has
been paying attention to NRC
actions in the past realizes that
this agency is one of the stron
gest advocates of nuclear
power. For them to make such a
recommendation as shutting
down eight plants (8 not just 1)
proves that things are more
serious than the media has
been conveying And now with
the radiation figures double the
original estimate it is clear that
we need a completely indepen
dent investigation, one that is
free of the participation of those
with vested interests as those in
the Committee recently ap
pointed by Carter
As to Mr Lacey's argument
that “nuclear power is only an
infant technology” I wonder
about his definition of infant.
Nuclear energy has been under
intense research for 25-30
years with a funding of billions
of taxpayers' dollars What have
we gotten for our money?
Nuclear energy appears to
never be able to realize its “po
tential". whatever that may be
I'm surpnsed that a senior in
political science such as Mr
Lacey even made the statement
that we could use nuclear
power until the less dangerous
alternatives can go on line He
has allowed a major oversight in
his analysis, that once we put
the billions of dollars and years
of development into nuclear
power production we will be
locked into the technology A
switchover is extremely unlikely
and furthermore it will be
50-100 years before the plant is
paid for completely and net
profit investors ever realize
a net profit on their investment.
Will they shut down the plants
before then?
I agree with Mr Lacey when
he says that we need to “sub
ject the (Nuclear) question to
honest scrutiny. We need con
structive criticism ” And again
quoting Mr Lacey, “Let us cri
ticize, by all means, but let us
use our criticisms to build
rather to destroy.”
We need to put our money
into research and development
of alternatives We need to
make the switch now!
John Jennings
Students for a Nuclear Free
Future
Christ and draft
As I mused on the recent
Armed Services Committee's
approval of a “Defense bill that
includes a provision to reinstate
draft registration by 1981”
(ODE, 5/11/79) I was con
strained, as a concerned Chris
tian. to address the evangelical
community
As evangelical believers we
have often reversed the full
gospel mandate to be
"ministers of reconciliation."
"salt" and "light" in the world,
and ‘‘ambassadors for Christ "
We have become mute and
dangerously reticent concern
ing issues outside of our
“religious" circles when, by
Holy Commission, our "circle"
of influence is the undivided to
tality of God s creation We are
hypocritically content with but
ton and bumpersticker theology
devoid of substance and
application.
Where is the evangelical voice
concerning the major social is
sues of registration, draft-rein
statement and war? — which un
fortunately is the logical
sequence. Do the pulpits
speak? Are the "citizens of
heaven" (Phil 3:20) fleeing the
world their Master prayed they
would not be taken out oH
(John 17:15)
“Subjection" to the govern
ing authorities (Rom 13) does
not suspend the inspection of
their principles and intensions;
nor does it extinguish a consis
tently Christian response to
them (Daniel 3,6; Acts 4:5-22,
etc ). As Senator Mark Hatfield
has said in his important book,
Between a Rock and a Hard
Place“ . . our allegiance as
Christians to any State is con
ditioned by our commitment to
a higher authority, to God ” (p
113)
Is military conscription really
needed? Can a Christian who
adheres to Christ s Sermon on
the Mount contribute to its
cause? Many ot we evangelicals
must be loosened from our fos
silized tradition (Matt 15) so as
to realize that scores of true
Christians have found it impos
sible to further the Kingdom
through such action
These issues are not easy —
they are demanding, and until
we evangelicals realize that the
cost of discipleship requires an
investment in Culture and not a
flight from it or a captivity to it,
that unheeded demand will
haunt us.
It is our prayers and not our
Christ that belongs in the
inner closet Christ is the true
light that shines in the dark
ness (John 1:5,9) Christ is
public. The divine compassion
and righteousness of his life,
teaching, crucifixion and as
cension were and are public
This compassion and right
eousness of Christ becomes
public now through us as we
fully submit to his absolute
Lordship
The Great Commission
doesn’t end with baptism, nor
can it be fulfilled in silence
Douglas Groothuls
*onlor, philosophy
Boyd, Quacks
I have refrained from writing
another statement on the
Senior Quack issue until after
I could meet with Howard
Farting, author of the letter
published on May 14 Further
exchanges could serve no pur
pose. I thought, except to
exacerbate a situation that ill
serves the University
Now. having talked with Mr
Farting. I do wish to add what I
hope will be a few final words
While I have no independent
memory of calling the Quacks
‘obnoxious." Mr Farlmg.
whom I trust, assures me that
he heard that attributed to me
or spoken by me on a local
television station. I agree with
his judgement that such a
designation is unbecoming and
warrants the chiding he ad
ministered He and I may have
some disagreements, but I con
cede that he is right on that
point
With respect to next year, I
repeat my earlier assurances
that I will welcome a larger in
volvement of prospective
graduates in the planning of
commencement exercises I
shall work with ASUO President
Scott Bassett to achieve that
goal
William Boyd
President
Limerick IV
I have not yet thrown in the
towel,
but shall continue to growl
at the felonious offender
who concocted “notenda,”
a grammatical murder most
foul.
C. Bennltt Pascal
Professor of Classics