Since September 11, Republicans and Democrats alike have admitted that the U.S. should reduce its dependence on oil coming from the Persian Gulf. But since the attacks, President Bush and a divided Congress have barely budged from the dangerous status quo. The news that 17 of the 19 terrorists of 9-11 were citizens of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates-America’s number one and number six sources of oil, respectively-should have underscored the fact that our massive expenditures on petroleum products (30 percent of the $85 billion spent on oil imports in 2001 came from the Persian Gulf) supports political backwardness in the Middle East and furthers a major threat to our national security.

Instead, in April of this year, Congress passed the feeble Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE) act, which failed to take either of the important steps needed to reduce our energy problems, namely increasing fuel economy standards (which forces manufacturers to produce more efficient cars), or reducing subsidies to fossil fuel industries. Instead, the bill supports the maintenance of the low fuel-economy standards that keep us on a 12-million barrel a day diet of oil (and hence dependence on Persian Gulf exporters) and perpetuates the heavy favoritism of fossil fuel industries that keeps renewable energy-the only clean, safe, long-term solution to our energy problems-as a distant dream.

If this issue seems less than timely, it shouldn’t. Today, voters in 40 states, including Missouri, will go to the polls in 34 Senate and 15 House elections that will decide the direction of our energy policy at this critical juncture. This is an opportunity for us to express our support for a smarter, safer energy policy. And judging by a recent poll conducted by the Mellman Group-in which 71 percent of respondents named either alternative energy or energy efficiency as the best solutions to America’s energy problems-there should be broad electoral support on energy reform. Yet so far, legislators have shown themselves completely out of step with popular opinion.

Although on the whole, Republican candidates have voted against higher fuel economy standards and have supported drilling in the Arctic, while Democrats have voted the opposite, there are a number of notable exceptions in both directions, and voters should look closely at the records of each candidate in this regard (see www.vote-smart.org).

For example, in the relatively progressive voting atmosphere of Colorado, two Republican representatives, Scott McInnis and Joel Hefley, voted in support of a 2001 bill that would have increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for SUV’s and light trucks, reducing our dependence on foreign oil by 1.2 million barrels a day, or roughly the amount imported daily from Iraq. They were joined by 34 other House Republicans in support of the bill, but were overwhelmed by conservative opposition.

Missouri is currently host to one of the closest races in the country, between incumbent Jean Carnahan, and former congressman Jim Talent. Their views on energy are starkly different. Carnahan has stated that, “We need to promote renewable and alternative energy sources.We also need to find ways to help people conserve energy.” Talent has supported drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve as a corrective to our energy shortfalls and has expressed no support for pursuing alternative energy sources or conservation. On many other issues, Carnahan espouses traditionally conservative views, but her position on energy is a progressive one, and one that would make her an important addition to a reformist movement in Congress.

Since many are prone to thinking along stark party lines (present company included), it seems important to stress the bipartisan nature of this issue, even though it has hardly been treated as such by our representatives.

Specifically, higher fuel economy standards would benefit the consumer in terms of finance (reducing expenditures at the pump by from $3,000 to $5,000 over the lifetime of each car), health (promoting lower carbon dioxide emissions and cleaner air), and security (cutting off hostile Arab nations from billions of dollars in oil funds). While the alternative proposed to this-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve-has received support, in the next 50 years, it would still only produce one fifteenth the amount of oil as would a modest reduction in our fuel standards.

Politicians have long been dormant on issues of energy, fearful of startling with voters with a new direction policy, but we need a new direction, and fast. Let’s show our support for candidates who agree.

Popularity: unranked [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 5th, 2002 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Opinions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.