Editorial: Energy bill writes off the future

Friday, Dec. 19, 2003 | 5 a.m.

Dec. 20 - 21, 2003

It's been known for decades that fossil fuels and nuclear energy are the worst polluters in the world. Nuclear energy produces the deadliest waste on Earth, with no safe place to secure it. Oil and coal foul the air, water and land. Oil has additional problems. The United States must import it to meet our energy needs, a factor that leaves us dependent on unfriendly nations and leads to increased world tensions. And it won't last much longer, particularly at our growing rate of energy consumption. This means future generations will curse our voracious use of a dwindling resource that has a multitude of uses beyond burning it for energy.

Despite all of this, Congress and the White House have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot draft a forward-looking energy bill. Given all that's known about fossil fuels and nuclear energy, Congress, beginning at least about 30 years ago, should have begun weaning the country from these energy sources. The early 1970s, after all, were not the dark ages. Much was known then about solar, hydrogen, wind, geothermal and bio-mass energy sources. These are clean, unending sources of energy that could by now be delivering a significant percentage of our energy.

Because Congress 30 and 20 years ago lacked foresight, the nation remains threatened by nuclear waste and pollution and international tension over oil. Unfortunately, we appear to be dooming future generations to energy crises as surely as past generations doomed us.

The current energy bill was created in secret by Vice President Dick Cheney and lobbyists whose companies will profit from it. The bill would subsidize the nuclear power industry, which means there would be even more pressure to open a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain. The bill's incentives are weighted toward continued use of fossil fuels. It would weaken federal air and water regulations and weaken environmental protections on federal lands. It would reduce the influence of consumers. It's laden with pork-barrel projects to capture congressional votes, even from those who recognize it's a bad bill. Its claims of job creation are overstated.

The bill was passed in the House but was stalled in the Senate, where Democrats led a filibuster. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., strongly criticized the bill and we appreciate their stance. Ensign, however, last month voted to end the filibuster and take a vote. Ensign was criticized by opponents of the bill, because the Senate is seen as having enough votes to pass it. We hope the bill remains blocked. If the bill ever does make it to the floor, we hope Ensign's vote to end the filibuster was not an indication that his opposition is weakening. Our country needs an energy bill that looks toward future generations, not toward energy companies that can't look past their next quarterly report.