Don’t Let the Oil Industry Arguments Divert Plans to Develop Cleaner Alternative Fuels
I read the Looking Ahead column by Carlton Jones, “Reason to Rush Into Cleaner Fuels,” (Dec. 19) and found his argument to be circular. His answer to our air pollution problems brought on by complete dependence on petroleum is limited to more of the same--”new” gasoline.
There is already a varied menu of transportation fueling alternatives before Californians, including methanol, natural gas and electricity. Jones brushes over these options in favor of gasoline.
For example, he states: “In the next 10 to 15 years, the role of alternative fuels will likely be limited to a small share of fleet vehicles.”
Fleets are being converted to run on natural gas and methanol now, and the new Administration has committed to convert all state-owned cars by 1995.
General Motors Corp. and others are developing electric cars for a variety of uses, including as commuter vehicles, by the turn of the century.
The oil companies have not been leaders on this issue, but reading this article one might think otherwise. Their lobbying teams have been whittling back clean air legislation since the automobile was first invented. Only a few short years ago they claimed that California’s proposed auto emission levels would sink the industry. Those same standards are now accepted nationwide.
The oil industry has led us down the road of petroleum dependency for decades, producing environmental harm, health problems and international confrontation. Instead of continuing to follow their lead, we need to move rapidly on the full range of possibilities available to us.
A premise of Jones that deserves to be questioned includes, not only the assumption that gasoline will get us out of this dependence fix, but that we would also accept the oil industry’s pricing mechanisms.
Jones says it will cost the industry “$10 billion to $22 billion,” which “will raise gas pump prices by about a nickel a gallon,” and we know who pays that.
If we are all going to pay $10 billion to $20 billion for retrofitting the oil industry, we should compare that to the cost of natural gas refueling compressors, research for batteries, development of fuel cells, etc.
The oil companies have never liked the subject of true costs. The public health costs of burning gasoline were recently put at 40 cents a gallon by the American Public Health Assn.
We should not let the oil industry’s clever arguments divert us from an aggressive strategy for developing clean alternative fuels.
LUCY KILLEA. The writer is a Democratic state senator from San Diego who serves on the Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee.
