Early this year, some Capitol Hill lawmakers severely criticized President Bush for using military force to defend oil interests in the Persian Gulf.
Last Friday, ironically, the Senate refused to consider a White House-endorsed national energy bill because it relied too heavily on boosting domestic oil output instead of promoting conservation to curb America`s energy appetite.
About eight senators, led by Colorado Democrat Timothy Wirth, filibustered to death a motion to open debate on the bill. Supported by environmental groups, they oppose drilling in Alaska`s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area that might supply a million barrels of oil a day for two decades.
In a few hours of maneuvering, these senators derailed months of effort that went into forging a national energy strategy. Some members said afterwards that the Senate wouldn`t be able to agree on a broad-ranging bill in the time left in the session, although Wirth said he was eager to try.
The lawmakers shouldn`t give up. The nation needs policies that will steer it toward efficient energy use. The U.S. has improved, but it`s still far behind Japan and Germany in energy efficiency. And although the United States will continue to import oil for many years, it can lessen its dependence on overseas sources with sound, thoughtful policies.
With domestic output declining and both demand and imports rising, any national policy must stress output as well as conservation. President Bush had made drilling on Alaska`s coastal plain the centerpiece of his energy proposal and threatened to veto any bill without it. Although the case has been convincingly made that development could take place on a tiny piece of the refuge without environmental damage, winning that narrow political battle now isn`t worth sacrificing other constructive parts of the bill.
The Senate`s bill, for example, would speed the building of pipelines for natural gas, boosting the output of this abundant, clean-burning fuel. It also would begin to deal with the critical problem of ensuring future electricity- generating capacity by streamlining the licensing process for nuclear power plants and allowing more competition in the industry.
The bill also would set energy standards for buildings and appliances, provide tax incentives for conservation and mandate alternative fuels for cars.
Certainly more can be done to boost conservation. Alternative fuels should be encouraged with incentives instead of legislative commands. But the environmentalist insistence that Detroit meet higher fuel economy standards regardless of the cost to automakers or consumers makes no sense and is bad policy.
Experience with such laws shows that, while auto efficiency may improve, little fuel is saved, because people tend to drive more or to keep their old vehicles. Also, as people are forced into lighter, smaller cars, their chances of being seriously injured increase.
The nation needs an energy policy that boosts efficiency through both increased production and conservation. It also should rely more on market incentives than on costly command-and-control regulations. If Wirth can`t achieve such a compromise on a second try, maybe he did right by choking off debate.