By now it should be clear that Americans are not facing an immediate energy crisis. Gasoline prices have subsided and California no longer faces daily blackouts. While there is work to be done, there is also time to debate reasonable measures that would increase domestic oil production, encourage conservation and protect the environment.

So why is the U.S. House in such a hurry to pass an energy bill? Maybe it is because House Republican leaders haven't addressed conservation or the environment. They have merged four energy-related bills into a complex 510-page document that would allow drilling on our most valuable public land, while weakening environmental protection and giving billions of dollars in tax breaks to the oil, coal and nuclear industries. Republican leaders are pushing House members to debate and vote on the bill quickly, before they recess at the end of this week.

But that would be a mistake because the consequences are too serious to rush the process. As it stands, the bill is so flawed it should be rejected without major amendments.

One of the more controversial provisions would allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a landscape called the Serengeti of North America because of its importance to wildlife. The refuge is a small part of Alaska's North Slope, 95 percent of which is already available for exploration, and drilling in the refuge would take years to begin supplying a relatively small trickle of oil.

The bill wouldn't stop there. It would open nearly all federal land to energy production, with only national parks and wilderness areas off-limits. That means drilling could be allowed in national monuments, wildlife refuges and national conservation areas. To speed up exploration, the bill would allow the Bush administration to overrule local agencies that stand in the way and to weaken environmental oversight.

Is the United States so desperate that it would risk its most valuable natural places for a small gain in oil production? No it isn't, and the House should drop the idea of drilling in the Arctic refuge, national monuments and other irreplaceable natural areas.

As if that weren't enough of a giveaway, the bill would also provide tax breaks worth $30-billion over 10 years, mainly to the oil, coal and nuclear power industries. That includes suspending some royalties paid by offshore oil and gas companies. This would come at a time when oil companies are enjoying record profits. In the first three months of this year, profits for the five largest oil companies operating in the United States rose nearly 40 percent over the same period last year, according to the consumer group Public Citizen. So U.S. taxpayers would be hit with a double whammy: paying at the pump and at tax time.

Even though Americans believe conservation should play an important role in any energy plan, the bill gives the subject only superficial attention. Automakers would be required to improve mileage for SUVs enough to save 5-billion gallons of gasoline between 2004 and 2010. While that might sound like a great sacrifice, it could amount to little more than improving fuel efficiency by 1 mile per gallon.

Forty percent of the U.S. oil supply goes for gasoline to fuel cars and trucks. So the auto industry and U.S. drivers could, and should, make a greater contribution to conservation. An expected amendment to the energy bill would require gas-guzzling light trucks (SUVs, minivans and pickups) to meet the same fuel-efficiency standard as passenger cars over the coming decade. That is a worthy goal.

Any rush to judgment on the energy bill would leave House members with two responsible choices: Either put off the vote until there is time to fully debate the issues, or reject this flawed legislation.

Back to Opinion

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

From the Times
Opinion page