Vers Libre | Government response to energy crisis negligent

Brenna Gilbert Opinions Editor

The importance of energy to a college student is more intimate than some might assume. Filling our cars with gas to drive back from break, lying in bed listening to the banging pipes as the heat turns on in our dorm rooms, cursing the four seriously over-worked printers in the library—we are constantly surrounded by its presence. As the days get colder and oil prices rise, we must ask ourselves what level of response our community should make.

This summer, Congress passed the first energy legislation in over ten years. The Department of Energy describes the goals of the bill as “strengthening our nation’s electrical infrastructure, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, increase conservation and expand the use of clean renewable energy.” Lofty goals, indeed. The bill promises tax credits for people who buy electric or hybrid cars and credits for installing more energy efficient appliances and heating systems in their homes. The bill encourages the continued exploration of the possibilities of nuclear power. But when it comes to finding new and reusable sources of energy, the bill falls flat. In fact, a significant portion of the policy involved lengthening daylight savings time. In 2007, daylight savings will begin earlier and end later.

Daylight savings time is one of the most absurd responses to national problems our country has ever thought up, and extending it does not address the issue at hand. Officially instituted in 1966, it is based on the idea that if it’s bright out, people don’t turn their lights on until later. This hardly seems like a brilliant approach to an energy crisis.

First of all, daylight savings presents an enormous financial burden. Traffic lights need to be adjusted at the expense of the taxpayers to account for the shift in peak traffic times. Clocks need to be changed. Government computers and private software companies will need to adjust in the very short time offered to them. The airlines will also take a serious hit, considering that we are the only country that is participating in this extension. Layover times will be long and confusing, not to mention the amount of man hours required to take care of the disruptions. All together, it will create a ridiculous expense.

Secondly, the studies that inform the bill were done in the 1970s. The consumption figures cited on both the Department of Energy’s website and the National Institute of Standards and Technology are based off of reports from 1974 and 1975. It is negligent for our government to pass legislation based on information that is 30 years old. This information does not address the contemporary concerns of the energy crisis. We are 30 years closer to running out of fossil fuels, 30 years ahead in technological advances and 30 years wiser, supposedly, to the devastating impact of our civilization on the Earth.

Finally, it doesn’t actually address the need for new energy sources! What sort of energy legislation just encourages people to go outside more and not turn on their lights at home?

Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts, as quoted in a National Geographic article entitled “More Daylight Savings” in the 7.28.05 edition, however, stands firmly behind the change. “In addition to the benefits of energy saving, less crime, and fewer traffic fatalities, more recreation time and increased economic activity, daylight savings just brings a smile to everybody’s faces.”

The National Institute of Standards and Technology sings the praises of daylight savings, citing it as a tool for crime prevention, restoration of family values and an efficient, easy approach to saving energy. If your children can walk home from school in daylight, these responses imply, they will be less likely to get in trouble and more likely to make it home in time for a family dinner. Interesting how the current administration’s response to the energy crisis also happens to reinforce traditional GOP values. What an idealistic portrait of American life our government has painted for us—if only it were brighter outside, people would be better people.

In reality, all that the bill reveals is the typical American reaction to environmental concerns: I want to help, but I don’t want it to interfere in any way with my daily routine. Consider recycling and how difficult it has been to get people to participate. Americans simply don’t want to be bothered with throwing their Coke cans into one bag and their sandwiches into another. Instead of proposing real solutions and searching for renewable resources, our government has let us down once again by encouraging Americans to continue to be passive when it comes to environmental responsibility.

Vassar is currently searching for new approaches to address our energy concerns. It is essential that the College focus not on finding a way of paying for our energy use, but actually reducing it. Rumors of proposed usage fees on appliances like refrigerators are disheartening. We need to take a stand as a progressive institution and find a way to conserve our resources and use energy as efficiently as possible.