There is no evidence that the world in general, or the United States in particular, is "running out" of fossil fuels - in fact, what evidence exists indicates just the opposite, we have more fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) available for use today than at any time in history. For instance:

• In 1945, in the U.S. proved reserves of oil amounted to 20 billion barrels of oil.

• Between 1945 and 1993 more than 135 billion barrels of oil were produced domestically - more than six times the entire amount known to exist in 1945.

• In 1993, the U.S. had 23 billion barrels of proved reserves.

Current proved reserves of various fossil fuels inspire confidence in America's future energy security:

• According to the U.S. Geological Survey current proved or probable reserves could sustain world oil consumption for 63 to 95 years (U.S. reserves alone could sustain domestic use for 38 to 78 years). It is estimated that 2.3 trillion barrels of oil are ultimately recoverable worldwide; however, this assumes that between 4.1 and 5.4 trillion barrels are unrecoverable. Technological change could, and based on past experience will likely, increase the amount of recoverable oil, with every 1 percent of increased recoverable oil totaling 60 to 80 billion barrels - enough to last an extra four years.

• Based on current technology, economic and political conditions the worlds resources of recoverable natural gas total 14,024 trillion cubic feet, or 186 years' worth of resources. The U.S. holds nearly 10 percent of these reserves, for a supply of 50 years based on expected demand.

• Coal is even more abundant with over 250 years' worth of recoverable coal reserves in the U.S. alone - greater than the entire world's present recoverable oil and gas reserves. Other countries also have abundant reserves of coal. China, for instance, has perhaps the largest coal reserves in the world.

Forecasts of non-renewable energy shortages have been mistaken because they extrapolate trends in energy use and production without making allowances for technological progress or product substitution. This mistake is common even in relation to renewable resources. For instance, in the last century commentators widely predicted devastating shortages in timber (a "timber famine") and whale oil (which was used as a source of heat and light early in the 19th century).

Then came the Civil War. During the civil war while the demand for whale oil continued to rise, the supply dropped sharply as whaling ships were conscripted as cargo vehicles by the North and captured or sunk by privateers in the South. In all there was a 50 percent drop in the number of whaling ships. Whale oil shortages arose and prices skyrocketed. Sperm whale oil rose from 43¢ a gallon in 1923 to $2.55 a gallon in 1866 (a substantial amount of money at that time).

The response was twofold and swift. People started to conserve whale oil, using it more efficiently. And rising prices spurred entrepreneurs to develop alternative sources of fuel to meet the nation's energy needs. Kerosene, a fuel distilled from coal, became an economically feasible substitute for whale oil. In a relatively short-time the demand for whale oil dropped off sharply. By 1896 sperm whale oil had dropped to 40¢ a gallon, the cheapest it had ever been - however, use did not increase because new kerosene and newly discovered petroleum were abundant and cheap and the technologies had evolved to use those fuels.

Since any shift from fossil fuels would occur over the course of several years or decades, not overnight, the change is likely to be fairly painless - similar to the transition that occurred from wood to coal for home heating and train transportation. Economic dislocations are highly unlikely. The most likely cause of short-term fuel shortages are government actions that artificially restrict the supply of energy, not natural depletion through use. For instance, during the 1970s America faced an "oil crisis" (a sharp drop in supply), when as a response to strife in the middle east and later an Arab oil embargo President Nixon instituted wage and price controls on various energy related products.

In short, the remote possibility of the exhaustion of fossil fuels provides no justification for government support for renewable energy development. In fact, such support in all probability causes more harm than it prevents - especially for the poor. Since the poor spend a greater proportion of their income on energy and food (the supply of which is dependent on petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides), government mandates for renewable energy use or subsidies for its development or use reduces the amount of money the poor have to meet their other needs or personal desires - the wealthy hardly feel the effect of such policies. In addition, when the government picks economic winners and losers through subsidies, mandates or restrictions it stifles technological development, making U.S. industries less competitive and forestalling the development of other, perhaps better, in this case, fuel sources and technologies.