The opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of Senator Lugar and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Dr. Lee Lynd
Professor of Engineering
Adjunct Professor of Biology
Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College

The President's goal of displacing 20% of projected annual gasoline use in 10 years through a combination of increased production of alternative fuels and increased vehicle mileage would be a welcome and needed change from business as usual.

Providing three quarters of this displacement in a decade from alternative fuels is likely near the maximum of what can be done. There are options that can grow quickly enough to meaningfully contribute to this goal, but they are limited in number. It will be important as we make a push to realize a 10-year goal to also aggressively advance promising technologies that have a longer maturation time.

Although the President acknowledged the desirability of reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses that contribute to climate change, the alternative fuels that could meet the proposed 35 billion gallon target include some that are very positive in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and some that may have quite negative implications in this context. I see no provisions in the President's initiative that would incentivize or reward fuels addressing the climate change challenge. Rather, the dominant underlying motive seems to be national security. I believe that this is a significant ommission, and that the country should avoid a course that rapidly builds production capacity of climate-negative alternative fuels - which would likely have to be reversed as the climate imperative becomes ever more clear. A policy option under consideration not mentioned by the President that would foster rapid growth in alternative fuel capacity is a production incentive keyed to the price of oil such that it would shield producers from low oil prices while avoiding large and unnecessary public expenditures when oil prices are high.

The President's plan recognizes the vital synergy between new energy supply and increased efficiency of utilization in order to address challenges associated with energy security and sustainability. This is significant because the U.S. has been slow to recognize the public interest in energy efficiency, and has instead relied on market signals even though such signals do a poor job of placing a value on security and sustainability. Increasing the fuel economy of the transportation fleet reduces demand for imported oil while also decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, and at the same time increases the fractional impact of new alternative fuel supplies. Whereas the alternative fuel capacity building goals in the President's plan are aggressive, saving 8.5 billion gallons of gasoline (about 5% of current use) via increased efficiency strikes me as considerably less aggressive relative to what could be done. Although it was not proposed, an initiative aimed at revitalizing the U.S. auto industry while becoming competitive at manufacturing fuel-efficient vehicles would be timely and have lasting benefits for the country.

[back to top]