The House energy bill leads us to believe that if we drill domestically we can solve our energy problem, but we really need to conserve to save ourselves.

The most dishonest debate going on in Congress is over the nation's energy policy. Supporters of the House energy bill say we can drill our way to independence. That's not true, and they know it.

The House bill, favored by the Bush administration, Congressional Republicans and some Democrats, would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, offshore sites in the Gulf of Mexico and other federal land for oil and gas exploration. The supporters have exaggerated the benefit of domestic drilling, ignored conservation and failed to address national security threats posed by our current policies.

It is particularly disappointing that President Bush is pressuring the Senate to adopt the House energy bill without a full, honest debate. In almost every other challenge that has arisen since the terrorist attacks, Bush has taken a reasoned, pragmatic approach, avoiding the excesses of his party's right wing. Yet the nation's need for a responsible energy policy only grew greater after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The United States probably will have to increase domestic oil and natural gas production to help wean itself from a growing dependence on foreign oil, especially from the Persian Gulf. But increased production alone will have little long-term impact. House bill supporters use the most inflated (and unlikely) estimates for oil reserves in the arctic refuge, claiming it will produce four times as much oil as the government's best estimate. The truth is in the following numbers, however: We Americans use 25 percent of the world's oil but we have only 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves.

That means increased domestic production is only a temporary fix, at best. To really gain independence, Americans will have to embrace conservation. Before the terrorist attacks, conservation was almost a dirty word to the drilling crowd, but reality should open their eyes. Forty percent of the oil consumed by Americans goes into our cars and trucks. If the government required fuel efficiency to be improved by just 3 miles per gallon, we would save more oil than we import from the hostile nation Iraq. A 40-mpg standard would save the amount of oil now imported from all of the Persian Gulf states. Such gains could not be achieve overnight, of course, but the auto industry is actually losing ground on fuel efficiency.

Mileage gains aren't the only way to increase conservation. Overall energy efficiency and alternative fuel development will play a role, but the House bill gives those subjects only token acknowledgement. It would spend nearly $30-billion on tax breaks for the oil, coal and nuclear industries, but only $6-billion for conservation measures. Already, other countries are taking the lead in alternative-energy research.

There is one other urgent issue that is being ignored. Before the first drop of extra oil production goes into gas-guzzling SUVs, the nation should replenish its Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Down to 545-million barrels, the reserve should not only be filled to its 700-million-barrel capacity but increased beyond that point. The Bush administration has showed little interest, but in an increasingly volatile world, it is only a matter of time before the reserve could literally save American lives.

Forsaking self-discipline, Americans have found themselves dependent on nations such as Saudi Arabia, one of our largest oil importers. Yet Saudi rulers have been duplicitous partners, accepting our military help to keep their regime secure while quietly supporting anti-American extremists. Saudis have the world's largest oil reserves, so we will probably have to do business with them in coming years, but the more options we have to fulfill our energy needs, the less our foreign policy will be held hostage by Saudi oil.

These are some of the energy issues Congress should be debating. By pushing through an energy bill that misleads Americans with simplistic fixes for complex problems, the president and others suggest that Americans are incapable of making personal sacrifices for the good of the country. If that proves to be true, no amount of oil drilling will save us.

Back to Opinion

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

From the Times
Opinion page