Critics skeptic of Bush oil plan

Electricity shortages in California have raised awareness of energy supply and conservation, and inflated gas prices are raising public concern over crude oil supplies. But some experts say that the real energy supply situation in America is hardly worthy of the title of an energy 'crisis', and that compared to the oil embargoes, supply cutoffs and long fuel lines of the '70s, this summer's perceived supply shortages are minor and short term. \n"(There is) no comparison between what happened in the '70s and what is going on today," said IU business professor Bruce Jaffee. "The concerns raised about energy are similar, but the policy and the causes are different. The '70s issue was perceived supply shortages. Price caps were implemented. Most importantly, there was an Arab oil embargo.Today there are no broad shortages. The Bush administration will not tolerate price controls or supply cutoffs from third parties. Most importantly, there is no embargo by a third party."\nJaffee said that in the '70s the impact of the energy crisis was greater than today's.\n"It slowed the economy," Jaffee said. "This will have no impact on the economy. In this coming December, if you look back at what was written about the crisis in May or June, you will wonder what all the fuss was about."\nSPEA professor J.C. Randolph said the Bush Administration is using circumstances to make an excuse for increased drilling.\n"The '70s crisis was a real circumstance. This (crisis) is manufactured for political purposes," Randolph said.\nBush's energy plan, released on May 17, emphasizes the danger relying on foreign oil poses to national energy security and encourages exploratory drilling in the United States to increase domestic supply. \nBut Jaffee said that there is no danger of becoming reliant on foreign oil. \n"The political and military reality is that the U.S. is the only superpower. In the '90s, we fought the Persian Gulf War and let the rest of the world know that we will not tolerate a cutoff of oil supply or high prices of oil. Importing oil is no more of a problem that importing shoes, clothing and bananas." \nOthers oppose Bush's drilling plan on the grounds that it will quickly drain America's oil supply and endanger future generations of Americans by making them reliant on foreign oil. \n"Bush proposes that the solution (to domestic supply shortages) is to drain America first, and this is the main problem with his energy plan," said Tom Sparrow, Professor of Industrial Engineering and Economics at Purdue University. "If we pump domestic oil without buying foreign oil, we will drain our supply and make future generations reliant on foreign oil."\nSparrow said that independence is the most important issue when discussing national energy security. \n"The Strategic Petroleum Reserve should create a greater reserve of oil and gas in the U.S. and let it sit underground as a threat to other nations," Sparrow said.\nSparrow added that a very similar plan to drain large amounts of domestic crude oil without importing foreign oil, called "Project Independence," was proposed by President Nixon in 1973 in response to crude oil shortages. He said that the plan's main flaw was that oil is non-renewable. \n"Had Project Independence been implemented, and had we stopped importing in 1973, then the U.S. would be without 60 billion barrels of proven technically recoverable oil. Today we could be facing a situation where there is little or no domestic oil in America." \nRandolph added that Bush's history with the oil industry has made Americans suspicious of the Bush administration's motives for drilling in Alaska.\n"The Bush administration made promises to the petroleum industry," Randolph said. "Now they are creating a situation favorable to energy development. Rising gasoline prices are only a product of desire to increase oil company prices. We have an administration that is very pro-oil industry. Historical and recent actions have proved this. A spin has been putting out information to make it look far more serious than it really is.This is a pro-petroleum industry that defends high prices to increase sales."\nElectricity shortages and supply constraints in California have raised awareness of other energy issues. During the past year Midwestern consumers have been hit financially by mergers of power companies and by lack of competition. "We need a lot of suppliers of heat and electricity and we need greater generating capacity," Sparrow said. "Botched regulation in California does not equal a nationwide oil crisis."\nSparrow also said that he was not optimistic about the success of alternative energy sources.\n"Wind (power) has no chance," Sparrow said. "I am pessimistic about photovoltaics, solar power and biomass. Adding more corn-based ethanol to gas would be a positive step (in increasing user efficiency). However, ethanol raises the price of gas"