This weekend was the first time I’ve been in a vehicle all spring term. It was also the first time I’ve really thought about gas prices. And that’s when it hit me: the infamous Dartmouth bubble had been secretly sheltering me from the scary outside world. The pundits have been speaking the truth: we have an energy dilemma, people!

Americans have started to bite their nails as gas prices in some parts of the country exceed 3 dollars per gallon, with no drop expected. This precarious situation cannot persist, obviously, but what are possible solutions? And why has it taken us so long to realize a real problem exists?

Re the first question, the Republicans have proposed a clever plan: send 100 dollar checks to U.S. voters burdened by the rising prices. But does this address the fundamental problem of oil dependency and misallocation of resources? I scratch my head. This silly proposal, a quick fix, does not address long-term problems and makes many voters feel like, to quote Rush Limbaugh, “a bunch of whores.” Hence, in the obvious response to this criticism, some senators have proposed to raise the rebate checks to a hefty $500.

President Bush addressed this issue in his State of the Union address and again last week. He encouraged Americans to reduce oil usage and spoke of alternative energy sources. The amount of government funding for alternative energy research has remained the same, though, while American consumption of oil increased by 0.8% this year.

But there is more at stake than with the energy question than solely environmental issues now—there are national security concerns as well. Dependence on foreign oil makes the Unites States vulnerable to foreign influence and increases the risk of an economic attack. What will happen if, for instance, Iran or another Middle Eastern country decides to cut off the American oil supply? Answer: disaster. The Strategic Oil Reserve will only last five weeks, while 97% of all American energy comes from oil.

In America, we like to think we are progressive. However, energy remains an issue that suggests we are more 20th than 21st century. Nations economically weaker than the United States have embraced more progressive energy policies. Brazil, for example, has the potential to become nearly energy-independent in a few years because of its ethanol program. Despite a population of 189 million, Brazil imports less than 10 percent of world’s oil. And many pundits believe the country will soon decrease oil imports to zero percent.

Brazil’s success in oil dependency reduction may be attributed to its innovations in the transportation industry. Three-fourths of all cars sold in Brazil run 85% on ethanol and 15% on diesel. The use of alcohol fuel has become so common that many gas stations across Brazil have two pumps: A and G, for alcohol and gas, respectively.

In the United States, 42% of all oil is spent on transportation. Imagine how much our dependency would decrease if we switched to corn or sugar alcohol for energy. This, of course, may force dependency on sugar-producing nations. However, our relations with Brazil and Barbados are slightly better than those with Iran and Nigeria.

Ethanol is not the only solution, of course. Many countries in the European Union look to nuclear power and renewable resources for energy. For example, 65% of all energy production in France comes from nuclear power. In Germany, wind power constitutes 3.5% of all energy production. Even though this figure seems small, wind energy grew by 44% since last year, and should see even more rapid growth in the future.

Pursuing alternative energy sources would be a good strategic move on the part of the U.S. government. Even though it may not appear efficient now, in the long run it will prevent great crises. The current administration seems to understand this publicly, but its proclamations all too often produce zero effect. Bush’s attractive rhetoric is used to assure us that government has everything under control. Perhaps the Bush administration sees no reason to worry, presupposing the availability of Iraq’s oil (and at a great discount). But no matter how many more oil-rich counties the U.S. invades, oil will not become a renewable resource. It will run out eventually.

Increasingly, more countries around the world are thinking outside the oil barrel. Perhaps, with rising tensions in the Middle East, rising temperatures in Greenland, and rising rates of asthmatic Americans, the United States should start doing the same. This is our chance to embrace alternative energy and stop playing catch-up with the rest of the world. America, get back on the vanguard of technology, where you belong!