New York Daily News - News & Views Columnists - Stanley Crouch: An oil-free U.S. will fuel our future

New York Daily News - News & Views Columnists - Stanley Crouch: An oil-free U.S. will fuel our futureAn oil-free U.S. will
fuel our future

Yesterday, big oil went on something of a trial when hearings began in Washington about the billions Exxon and the rest have made from the unprecedented prices now being paid for car fuel and how that money should be used.

The Democrats wanted to begin the hearings with some melodrama. The oil bigwigs would have had to stand up and swear to tell the truth and the whole truth if the donkeys had it their way, but one of the elephants in charge nixed the soap opera proposal.

The reality is that oil industry captains usually sit on hills of money so tall that they cannot normally be seen without the aid of binoculars.

Last month, ExxonMobil Corp. reported its quarterly corporate net profit at $9.9 billion, up 75%, the largest ever. British Petroleum, or BP, reported profit growth of 34%. Chevron Corp. saw an increase of 12%, and ConocoPhillips was up 89%, to $3.8 billion.

And while it looks like things could get a little rough on oil companies, with Congress considering whether to propose a windfall profits tax, petrol's big boys will do just fine. The $14 billion in tax breaks for the energy industry signed by President Bush recently will make them even richer. Still, with the huge prices at the pump prompting more and more questions, industry execs are quick to say that the tragedy is they just have to ask consumers for more money. They don't want to, but they have to. Even with record profits? Yes, I'm afraid so.

But it doesn't have to be this way. The U.S. is still on the short end when it comes to refineries, and there has been no serious fusion of environmental and corporate interests that would result in a more enlightened policy. Then there is the whole question of oil dependency itself. Politicians need to stand up and start to face the fact that America could do a lot worse than switching over from oil to nuclear power.

Some automatically fall on the floor and begin barking and drooling at the very mention of anything nuclear because all they can see is a mushroom cloud. This became even more of a favorite after Sept. 11, when many began to believe Islamic fundamentalists could have flown those planes into Indian Point instead of the World Trade Center.

In fact, studies done by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission make it quite clear that a plane would not even penetrate the domes in which the reactors are held. Switching to nuclear energy is the sort of thing that is more important to consider. It is what this country must do, instead of trying to get customer concerns elevated on the agendas of oil companies.

If the French - whom I would almost never point to as a source of policy inspiration - can see the validity of using nuclear power to dramatically reduce dependency on foreign oil, it seems to me with some reiteration of American pragmatism, we could get on the same page and begin taking our society into its inevitable future.

Originally published on November 9, 2005