Oil, Profits, and the Question of Alternative Energy

Humanist, Sept, 2000 by Richard Rosentreter

The adverse effects that burning fossil fuels have had on our environment and their contribution to global warming are well documented. Yet, according to Exxon Mobil's 1999 annual report, the company acknowledged the public's concern over "climate changes" due to the use of fossil fuels but said that the projected serious effects "rely on speculative assumptions and results from unproven models." Exxon Mobil doesn't believe that "the current scientific understanding justifies mandatory restrictions on the use of fossil fuels" as it is certain "that significant economic harm would result from restricting fuel availability to consumers." The fact is that the company would lose profits--just as any other oil company would if alternative energy sources were developed. Oil companies are searching for more oil reserves, not alternative sources for fossil fuels. More oil means more profit.

While there is no concrete evidence that proves oil companies purposely sabotaged the progress of alternative energy, there are clues that point to political favoritism on their behalf. The U.S. Senate recently passed an amendment by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (Republican--Texas) that saves oil companies from paying $66 million a year in royalties to the government. Opposing the amendment was Senator Russ Feingold (Democrat--Wisconsin), who said, "I am very concerned that Congress is abdicating its responsibility." Feingold cited soft money political contributions from oil giants--including Exxon, Chevron, BP Oil, and Amoco--that totaled over $2 million during a two-year span. In all likelihood, the oil industry will use the latest "oil crisis" as leverage to promote continued legislation in its favor.

As for future legislation, the current poll leader for the presidency, Republican George W. Bush--a former oil company executive who has amassed "substantial financial contributions" from the industry --has also been criticized for being a "tool of oil interests." It is highly unlikely that alternative fuels have a chance for further development if Bush--who, according to Joby Warrick in the April 4 Washington Post, "supports oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve while opposing the United Nation's 1997 Kyoto protocol that requires industrialized countries to cut emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming"--lands in the White House in 2001.

Nearly two decades ago, a group of students from Crowder College in Neosho, Montana, built a car at the cost of about $5,000 that traveled across the continental United States powered only by the sun. Just last year, students from the University of Oklahoma built a solar-powered vehicle that won a biennial intercollegiate competition which provides them an opportunity to "design, build, and race solar-powered cars." Modern science technology has given humanity the ability to access hundreds of channels on cable television, develop computers to communicate on a global scale, clone animals, and produce state-of-the-art weapons of mass destruction. Imagine if the inventors and scientists of the world focused their minds and energy on developing alternative energy sources for the public good.