Scientists for a Sustainable Energy Future

ARCHIVED 2002–2016: Originally distributed via the eWire press wire service. Preserved as historical record.

SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE |

Conservation & Wildlife

Corporate Responsibility

Science & Technology

Syndication Partners

**************************************************************************

E-WIRE PRESS RELEASE E-WIRE PRESS RELEASE E-WIRE PRESS RELEASE

**************************************************************************

For Immediate Release

Scientists for a Sustainable Energy Future

An Open Letter to the American People

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, May. 25 -/E-Wire/-- Dear Fellow Citizens,

We are natural and social scientists who study the connections among energy, the

environment, and society. We write to you out of grave concern with the turn the

nation's energy policy has taken. Decisions taken today about the supply and use of

energy have far reaching implications for our economic prosperity and for the health

of our environment. Since the first "energy crisis" almost thirty years ago, a large

body of research in the nation's universities, national laboratories, think tanks, and

private sector has produced large advances in our understanding of energy issues. We

would like to share some of this information with you because the current direction of

the nation's energy policy is inconsistent with much of this work.

Conventional forms of energy have grabbed the policy spotlight in recent months, but

this emphasis is misplaced, and, ultimately, counterproductive. We produce slightly

less than half of the oil we consume; by 2020 we will produce just 35 percent. Can a

policy to encourage domestic oil extraction reduce dependence on imported oil and

maintain the price of gasoline and home heating oil at reasonable levels? The simple

answer is no, because the domestic oil resource base is depleted to the extent that

large investments in drilling cannot generate a commensurate increase in oil supply.

Extraction and proven reserves of oil have dropped considerably since their peaks in

1970 despite a massive drilling campaign in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Because

domestic oil sources are more costly than overseas alternatives, incentives to

encourage exploration and development will hurt the economy in the same way they did

20 years ago when the oil price shocks produced record rates of drilling. A large

diversion of capital investment and profits to the oil industry ensued, but oil

extraction continued to decline, as it has to this day. There is every reason to

believe that the same scenario will play out if political decisions are made to

promote domestic extraction.

Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration will not improve our

energy security, nor will it have any impact on the price of gasoline. The

economically recoverable amount of oil in the Refuge is just 152 days of supply for

the nation. More importantly, if we started drilling in the Refuge today, the

Department of Energy projects that by 2020 it could supply 1.4 million barrels per

day. By then world oil production will be in the range of 100 million barrels per

day. The Refuge would amount to about 1 percent of global oil supply, and thus have a

trivial influence on the ability of oil exporters to influence prices.

Nuclear power faces formidable obstacles. Experience of the last several decades has

shown that electricity from nuclear power plants is an expensive form of power when

all public and private costs are considered. Nuclear power generates high level

radioactive wastes that remain hazardous for thousands of years and increase the

likelihood of nuclear weapons proliferation. These are high costs to impose on future

generations. Even with improved reactor design, the safety of nuclear plants remains

an important concern. Can these technological, economic, environmental, and public

safety problems be overcome? This remains an open question. Further public support

to help resolve these issues should not come at the expense of an aggressive campaign

to develop energy conservation and renewable energy sources.

The efficient use of energy must be front and center in our energy future.

Unfortunately, energy efficiency and conservation are painted as a return to the Stone

Age, conjuring images of people huddling in the cold of their living rooms in front

of lifeless TVs. But in reality, just the opposite is the case. In the last twenty

years some of the country's best scientists and engineers have produced great

innovations in the efficient use of energy. Cars that get 70 or more miles per

gallon, appliances that use half the energy they did ten years ago, lighting fixtures

that last for years at a fraction of the energy cost, and new homes that heat and cool

with modest amounts of energy are proven winners in energy and economic terms. Just

a 3 mile-per-gallon increase in the fuel efficiency of SUVs alone would reduce U.S.

oil consumption more than the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could supply. A

study by five national laboratories concluded that a government-led efficiency program

emphasizing research and incentives to adopt new technologies could reduce the growth

in electricity demand by as much 47 percent. This would drastically reduce our need

to build new power plants.

Many forms of renewable energy have enjoyed equally impressive advances. The cost of

electricity from wind turbines and photovoltaics has plummeted in the last two

decades, making power from these systems increasingly cost-competitive with

conventional sources in some regions of the country. Compared to oil and coal,

renewable energy produces small amounts of the pollutants that presently impair the

health of people, degrade our lakes and forests, lower crop yields, and damage

buildings, bridges, and other structures. Most notable is their near absence of

greenhouse gases, pollutants that contribute to climate change.

On the subject of climate change, a lot of misinformation has obscured the scientific

research. We want you to know these important and irrefutable facts. The

overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate change have concluded that (1)

the Earth is warming much faster than it has in previous centuries for which we can

measure temperature change, and (2) human use of energy produces most of the

greenhouse gases that contribute to this warming. In other words, climate change is

real and directly related to present patterns of energy consumption. The costs of

adjusting to a warmer world could be large and unpredictable, and they would be

disproportionately borne by the poorer nations. Energy use in American homes, cars

and factories has been a large source of greenhouse gases. We believe that this

places a burden on the U.S. to lead the international effort to curb the release of

these pollutants. Instead we have done just the opposite, thumbing our nose at the

Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions. As a

result, we are now viewed internationally as an environmental pariah. The U.S. must

face its responsibility by engaging the international community on the climate change

issue, and by reducing our emission of greenhouse gases. This means more energy from

natural gas, renewable hydrogen and geothermal sources, and less coal and oil. Above

all it calls for an accelerated development and adoption of energy conservation and

renewable technologies. We also must lead the effort to help less fortunate nations

find and fund the path of development that improves their quality of life with minimal

de-stabilization of the Earth's climate.

There has been a lot of talk in Washington about the need for renewables and

conservation, but action seriously lags behind the rhetoric. The budget submitted to

Congress last month calls for a large cut in funding for these technologies while

proposing greater incentives for conventional fuels. This would speed us in the

direction opposite from one that would improve our energy security, reduce pollution,

help stabilize the Earth's climate, and maximize our economic flexibility. We urge

you to join us in the campaign for a sensible and sustainable energy future.

Center for Energy and Environmental Studies

http://www.bu.edu/cees/openletter.html

http://http://www.bu.edu/cees

**************************************************************************

To Transmit Your News Over E-Wire, visit http://www.ewire.com or

call 1-[REDACTED-PHONE]. E-Wire Is Broadcast To Millions Of Readers Worldwide

**************************************************************************