Editorial: Energy bill falls short

Thursday, July 28, 2005 | 9:34 a.m.

It's becoming clear now why President Bush has been demanding an energy bill from Congress for the past five years. The bill that Congress is scheduled to have ready for the president's signature by Friday is a godsend to the nuclear power and fossil fuels industries, which constitute a significant portion of Bush's campaign contributors. A reasonable question for Congress, which is on the verge of passing the bill, would be: Is this a bill to enable energy producers to become more profitable, or is it a bill to help solve the nation's energy problems, including its dependence on foreign oil?

The early word is that U.S. dependence on foreign oil will not be reduced by the bill. And the word comes not only from those with environmental and liberal leanings, traditional critics of Bush, but from a well-known conservative group, the Heritage Foundation. In a story this week the Washington Post quoted Ben Lieberman, who tracks energy issues for the group, as saying, "We'll be dependent on the global market for more than half our oil as long as we're using oil, and the energy bill isn't going to change that."

The main reason the bill wouldn't change our dependency upon Russian, Arab and South American oil sources is that it doesn't demand enough from the auto industry. It contains no provision requiring automakers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. This is one of the reasons why we see this bill as severely flawed.

Another reason is that the bill would provide billions of dollars in new-construction subsidies for the nuclear power industry. Is it really a good idea to build a slew of new nuclear plants when the only plan for disposing of their deadly wastes is burial at Yucca Mountain? This site, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, poses monumental risks from the standpoints of transportation and safe containment. The bill's other subsidies are heavily weighted toward the oil, natural gas and and coal companies, rendering subsidies for forward-looking, renewable sources miniscule by comparison.

We recognize that our reliance on traditional sources of energy cannot be brought to a sudden end. But a worthy energy bill would be one that recognizes the finite supply of fossil fuels and what the needs of future generations will be. This recognition would show itself in greater support of the so-called green fuels, such as solar and wind power. It would also be evident in stricter fuel efficiency requirements for the auto industry, which on its own will apparently continue to forever produce old-style gas guzzlers while Japanese car makers capture greater and greater market share with their more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Five years in the making, and this energy bill is still not worthy. Congress is stuck on the idea of satiating the status quo. If it instead were focused on what's right for the future, it would send this bill back to the drawing board.