• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

As UCLA students return to campus for the start of spring quarter, record-breaking gasoline prices are squeezing their pocketbooks. (As if outlandishly high textbook prices and Governor Schwarzenegger’s fee hikes weren’t enough of a burden on students’ limited finances.)

Gas prices, which have risen to a record national average of $1.80, have also sparked fierce rhetoric from President Bush and Sen. John Kerry. Unfortunately, for the American consumer, the accusations and lofty promises both candidates have made regarding the gas issue are mostly hollow.

Bush’s major energy proposals lack a serious approach to dealing with our country’s dependence on foreign oil. His biggest policy initiative, which would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling, would somewhat increase the amount of domestically produced oil. But this quantity would be small compared to the mammoth amount of oil the United States consumes. Additionally, it would provide a limited supply because only 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves lie in the United States, while 65 percent are in the Middle East. In the end, the harmful side effects of drilling oil wells and building pipelines through thousands of acres of the nation’s most pristine wilderness far outweigh the small amount of oil that could be extracted.

The best way to reduce the our dependence on foreign oil, without drastically decreasing our energy consumption, would be to pursue a dual policy of significantly increasing energy efficiency and alternative fuel sources. Bush, however, has avoided both these ideas. His one proposal is a small-scale program to promote the development of hydrogen fuel cell technology.

Unfortunately, many of Kerry’s proposals are also full of hot air. One of his big ideas is to apply more diplomatic pressure to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to discourage them from tampering with supplies to keep oil prices artificially high. While the president of the United States is in an incredibly powerful position, OPEC member states have shown that they are able to resist high levels of pressure.

Another one of Kerry’s proposals is to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserves to help decrease prices. Former Vice President Al Gore supported a similar plan during his 2000 campaign. However, this kind of action would only have a limited effect on gas prices for a very small period of time. Additionally, the Strategic Petroleum Reserves were only meant to be used during emergencies like the oil embargoes of the 1970s, not for dealing with price spikes like the current one.

At full capacity, the reserves would only generate about 60 days’ worth of oil if all imports were suddenly cut off. Most importantly, this kind of action only encourages the political procrastination that has been taking place when it comes to dealing with national energy issues. Releasing oil from the reserves would not get to the root of the problem with the United States’ energy usage.

One of Kerry’s proposals that does offer some hope is a plan to simplify the myriad of regional, state and local regulations relating to the production of gasoline. These regulations have created dozens of market “islands” across the country, where gasoline must be produced in a certain way according to a certain formula. In other words, gasoline is not standardized.

These regulations create artificial barriers separating the oil markets and serve as trade barriers that block the free flow of refined gasoline.

One of the biggest examples of these market islands is our very own state of California, where prices hit as high as $2.69 per gallon over the weekend in places like San Diego, compared to a national average of $1.82 per gallon and as low as $1.43 in places like Lake Wylie, S.C. If all of these different rules could be simplified to reduce the number of market islands, refineries would be subjected to increased competition, which would help to balance prices across the nation.

Reducing the number of isolated markets would also limit the effect of shortages on gas prices. For example, if a refinery in California were to be shut down by a fire or for repairs, stations could import gas from refineries outside the state, preventing shortages and price increases.

But while this is a good mid-term solution that could help stabilize prices, it wouldn’t reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

Ultimately, that is what the next president must focus on. Hopefully, both candidates will embrace energy efficiency and alternative fuel sources.

Until then, individual citizens can do some good by buying fuel-efficient cars and using alternative modes of transportation like motor scooters, bicycles and public transportation. But I somehow doubt most Americans can get over their fascination with the gas-guzzlers unless the federal government inspires them with some sort of carrot (or stick).

For now, we can hope prices will go down. But for the long haul, the United States must come to grips with the reality that the world’s oil pumps will eventually run dry. It’s not too soon to prepare for that day.

Bitondo is a third-year political science and history student. E-mail him at mbitondo@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.