Opinion: Straight talk on energy

President Bush has set the bar high for his administration's energy plan. "To protect the environment, to meet our growing energy needs, to improve our quality of life, America needs an energy plan that faces up to our energy challenges and meets them," he said, introducing his plan last week.

Yet if the country accomplishes those goals, the energy plan put together by Vice President Dick Cheney will have little to do with it. The plan seeks to open up more public land to oil and gas production, but it exaggerates the importance that would have on lessening our reliance on foreign oil. As for the environment, it is more threatened than protected under the plan. And the quality of life Bush wants to improve apparently refers to our already profligate ways, which have created the problem.

Bush should be given credit for at least addressing conservation and alternative fuels, two subjects Cheney has treated with disdain. But the president's support for such programs is a minor part of the plan. Bush believes it is necessary to weaken federal regulations, such as those protecting public land and air quality, to stimulate oil drilling and power generation. It is a dubious argument. The energy and power markets have already responded to increased demand for gasoline and electricity with new drilling, pipelines and plant construction -- without government inducements.

The plan calls for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Gulf of Mexico and other protected federal lands. Such exploration carries significant consequences. The refuge is a unique natural asset, and drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico could threaten Florida's beaches and tourism industry. As Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., warned: "The energy crisis is not an excuse for creating an environmental crisis."

Conservation elements introduced by Bush are useful but don't go far enough to make much of a difference. In an about-face, he would offer tax credits for those who purchase hybrid gas-electric vehicles, a proposal Bush mocked when Al Gore suggested it during last fall's presidential campaign. Most of the suggestions for developing renewable energy sources come in the form of tax credits, which may not be enough to spark innovation.

On automobile fuel efficiency, the one area of conservation that could lead to a sustainable reduction in demand for gasoline, Bush was too timid. Overall fuel economy has slipped to its lowest level in the past 20 years, yet Bush said he would only study the matter. He should have pushed for mandatory improvement in mileage for SUVs and light trucks, whose popularity has dragged down the nation's fuel economy.

Democrats were quick to criticize the Bush plan, but they offer no serious prescriptions. Instead, they are trying to score political points by making an issue out of high gasoline prices. They don't explain how cheap gas promotes conservation. Bush and Cheney are probably right when they say there is little they can do in the short term to bring prices down. When it comes to California's power crisis, however, Bush could at least speak out against apparent price-gouging by electricity suppliers.

Americans still haven't gotten much straight talk from the Bush administration or the Democrats. What we need now is a dose of reality. High gas prices are a function of the marketplace -- demand has temporarily outstripped supply.

The surest way for Americans to improve the energy situation is to end our wasteful habits. Conservation works and will buy time while our energy supply and distribution problems are resolved. The Bush plan fails to deliver that message.

Back to Opinion

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

From the Times
Opinion page