As pointed out by columnist Marie Cocco in the Bangor Daily News on Jan. 28, the United States is addicted to oil. Though the United States has some 4 percent or 5 percent of the world’s oil, the bulk of the world’s proven oil reserves lie in the Middle East, principally under Saudi Arabia. Our reliance on foreign oil has significant disadvantages, but also has solutions. We have the technology, technique and resources to wean ourselves from our addiction, if we only make the choice to do so.

Almost by definition foreign oil is insecure. We rely on the willingness and ability of other countries to sell it to us, and then we have to maintain a secure transportation system to move it halfway around the globe. Not only is this inefficient, but as the 1973 oil crisis and the Gulf War demonstrate, our foreign oil supplies are vulnerable to manipulation and disruption.

There are costs to securing foreign oil that are not reflected in the price we pay for it at the pump. Most noticeable, of course, is the expense and loss of life in fighting wars and flying constant patrols over threats to that oil supply. Notice the marked increase in funds requested for national defense by the president in response to certain Middle East and other people who violently resent our armed presence in their countries, and our insatiable economic desire, which motivates it. Enjoy whatever “tax cut” you have received, for it shall not last. The return to deficit spending will decrease the efficiency of your tax dollars as more of them go to interest payments; requiring more dollars from you and me to get the real business of government accomplished.

Purchases of foreign oil contribute significantly to our unfavorable balance of trade. In 2000 we incurred a net trade deficit of $109 trillion for oil alone. When we buy abroad, the dollars go abroad, not to American citizens. When we purchase domestically, some of that purchase price also ends up back in Uncle Sam’s pocket – not the case when the sheik is the one earning the buck. So, domestic fuel sources make tax cuts much more realistic and sustainable, as well as providing our own with a living, and perhaps even wealth. But, domestic fuel sources do not make sense if irreplaceable ecosystems, set aside as wildlife refuges, have to be disrupted or destroyed to get to limited nonrenewable supplies. Domestic fuel sources make sense if they respect our environment, an intricate web in which we rely on other life forms for survival, both directly and indirectly. Fortunately, we have many options for sustainable domestic energy supplies. We do not have to continue to rely solely on the petrochemicals of the 20th century.

At 40 percent of our total energy usage, oil is our nation’s largest source of primary energy. By far, transportation fuels are the largest use of oil, at some 66 percent. It does not take a Harvard MBA to decide that if we want to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, transportation is the first sector to address, though an Enron-type executive might have trouble making the connection. Homegrown biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel offer a viable alternative to the foreign petrochemicals that we have been, and if nothing changes, will continue to be so desperately addicted to.

The beauty of biodiesel in particular is that it is manufactured from vegetable oils and recycled restaurant grease, substances that America is blessed with an abundance of. Imagine this – the grease from a trucker’s bacon and burgers also fuels his or her big rig. Talk about fuel efficiency. This is fact, not fantasy. Currently there are 14 marketers of biodiesel nationally, and here in Maine it is being sold at Solar Market in Arundel.

Biodiesel has many attractive attributes that suggest it deserves aggressive budget, tax and regulatory support from national and state government. First, it can be produced in the United States. Every gallon of biodiesel purchased helps to create American jobs and American income, and improves our trade balance. Because it is homegrown, it is relatively secure, and because it is grown, it is a renewable source of fuel. Biodiesel has performance characteristics similar to petro-diesel. Diesel engines do not need modifications to burn biodiesel, so there is no conversion cost.

Biodiesel can be mixed with petrodiesel in any proportion, making a seamless transition possible. Biodiesel increases the lubricity of petrodiesel, extending engine life. It is safer for humans because cancer-causing agents (PAHs) are reduced by 75 percent to 80 percent. Sulfur dioxides and sulphate emissions, which cause acid rain, are virtually eliminated. Carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to global warming, are reduced by 78 percent. Biodiesel’s ozone-forming potential is 50 percent that of conventional diesel. There is much to recommend the aggressive promotion of alternative fuels like biodiesel.

Why should government become more proactive in promoting bio-fuels? Because national security and environmental protection are public goods that a free market has little economic incentive to provide, or cannot provide effectively. Providing public goods is the business of the government, and should not be confused with the profit motive of private industry. Our reliance on petrodiesel should be tempered by requiring that diesel fuels have a minimum biodiesel content, gradually increasing from 1 percent to 20 percent over the next several years. At the 20 percent level, an estimated 300,000 new jobs would be created.

There are a number of bills before Congress that promote genuine energy security, among them S 1006/HR 2423, the Renewable Fuels for Energy Security Act of 2001; S 1058, the Biodiesel Renewable Fuel Act; HR 2088, the Biofuels Air Quality Act; and S. 1766, the Energy Policy Act of 2002. Encourage Reps. Baldacci and Allen, and Sens. Snowe and Collins to co-sponsor and support these important steps toward a more secure, sustainable and environmentally sensitive American energy supply.

John Henderson is a resident of Dover-Foxcroft and teaches social studies at Foxcroft Academy.