Energy for America: we can achieve energy independence for the 21st century without destroying the environment. There's no need to deindustrialize or sacrifice our standard of living.(ENERGY)(Viewpoint essay)(Table)

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The single most important human component in the preservation of the Earth's environment is energy. Industrial conversion of energy into forms that are useful for human activities is the most important aspect of technology. Abundant inexpensive energy is required for the prosperous maintenance of human life and the continued advance of life-enriching technology. People who are prosperous have the wealth required to protect and enhance their natural environment.

Currently, the United States is a net importer of energy, as shown in Chart #1 (page 22). Americans spend about $300 billion per year for imported oil and gas--and an additional amount for military expenses related to those imports.

Political calls for--in the words of the "7 Point Pledge" announced by Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid--cutting "global warming pollution in developed countries by 90-percent" are obviously impractical. A 90-percent reduction of U.S. hydrocarbon use would eliminate 75 percent of America's energy supply, and this 75 percent of U.S. energy cannot be replaced by alternative "green" sources. Despite enormous tax subsidies over the past 30 years, green sources still provide only 0.3 percent of U.S. energy.

Technological Options

The United States clearly cannot continue to be a large net importer of energy without losing its economic and industrial strength and its political independence. It should, instead, be a net exporter of energy.

There are three realistic technological paths to American energy independence: increased production of hydrocarbon energy, nuclear energy, or both. "Global warming" alarmism notwithstanding, there are no climatological impediments to increased use of hydrocarbons, although local environmental effects can and must be accommodated. Human use of hydrocarbons is not measurably affecting the Earth's climate. Nuclear energy is, in fact, less expensive and more environmentally benign than hydrocarbon energy, but it too has been the victim of the politics of fear and claimed disadvantages and dangers that are actually negligible.