National energy policy should be based on a more honest debate, including disclosure of the interests that influenced the vice president's task force.

No one should expect a quick or neat resolution to the energy debate in Congress. The public could hope for an honest and relevant discussion, but that is probably asking too much. The key issues -- drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, automobile fuel economy, renewable fuels and conservation -- have become so politicized already that the debate is more likely to resemble a Mike Tyson fight, filled with fouls and ending in controversy.

Enron, of course, will be invoked. The House passed an energy bill last year that was based on recommendations from Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force. The General Accounting Office, an arm of Congress, filed an unprecedented lawsuit against Cheney to force him to reveal who met with the task force and the subject of those meetings. Some in Congress think Bush administration policy was unduly influenced by Enron and other energy companies that had access to Cheney's task force, and the president's decision to stonewall only heightens such suspicions and clouds the outcome.

Adding urgency to the debate are the Sept. 11 attacks and ongoing war against terrorism. Republicans and Democrats say they want to lessen the country's future dependence on oil from Persian Gulf countries, but that is easier said than done. Those nations have 66 percent of the world's known petroleum reserves, while the United States has only 3 percent.

Despite all of the complex issues involved, attention has focused on a single point: drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Bush administration, in a questionable tactic, has exaggerated the significance of the refuge to U.S. energy policy. Listening to the president, one might believe that the nation's very existence depends on turning this pristine wilderness into a limitless gusher. Even the most optimistic scientific estimates, however, say the refuge would provide only a temporary boost to domestic production and take years to retrieve.

The House energy bill would allow drilling in the refuge, while the Senate bill would not. Senate Democrats say they are willing and able to sustain a filibuster on refuge drilling if that is the only way to stop it. In an effort by the Bush administration to win over undecided senators, the Interior Department is now saying it will consider reducing the area open to drilling.

Other key differences in the bills:

Fuel economy. Because of the growing popularity of SUVs, which are held to more lenient mileage standards, the 2001 model year automobiles fell to a 21-year low in average fuel economy. Yet better mileage for new cars is the surest way to reduce imported-oil consumption. The House bill requires only vague mileage gains that probably would result in little change. The Senate bill would require improved mileage of 8 mpg overall by 2013 (a reasonable goal) and would remove the exemption for SUVs.

Tax breaks and renewable fuels. The House bill includes $33.5-billion in tax breaks, mostly to oil producers, without any proof that the industry needs the help. The Senate bill includes $16-billion in tax breaks, with most going into renewable energy sources and natural gas production. The Senate would set a goal of using renewable fuels to generate 10 percent of electricity, while the House has no such provision.

In essence, the House bill represents the Bush administration's emphasis on oil production, with scant attention to conservation. The Senate bill represents the Democratic reaction, with more emphasis on conservation, clean fuels and renewable energy. The Democrats think they have an edge on the one issue in which President Bush shows vulnerability -- the environment. If they overplay their hand, however, they risk being viewed as obstructionist on an important policy matter. If Republicans are unwilling to compromise, they risk confirming public fears that they are protecting drillers and polluters.

The Democrats are right to hang tough on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is an irreplaceable wilderness crucial to the existence of dozens of plant and animal species. The United States is not so desperate for a momentary boost of crude oil that it would desecrate its most important natural places. We should try innovation and self-restraint first.

On other issues, it is time for the two parties and the two houses of Congress to work together. The government can boost domestic oil production without damaging the environment and giving away billions of taxpayer dollars. Conservation has to be a key component in any energy plan because it offers a sustainable fix for the problem. Alternative and renewal fuels are not just a dream but more and more a potential solution.

So let the debate begin, but we would all be wise to protect our ears.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page