More Energy Follies

April 14, 2003
www.nytimes.com

Given the war in Iraq, the possibility of further turmoil
in the Middle East and the volatility of oil markets, this
would seem the right moment for a reassessment of the
nation's energy strategy. Unfortunately, the uninspired
energy bill approved by the House on Friday would do little
to rescue the country from its precarious dependence on
imported oil. One hopes for more enlightenment from the
Senate.

There are bound to be a few good things in a bill that runs
to 772 pages and carries a price tag of $50 billion over 10
years, and there are. While bowing deeply to the needs of
the energy producers, the bill gives at least a nod to
energy conservation, allocating one-third of its $18
billion in tax breaks to increasing energy efficiency and
alternative energy sources like wind power. There is also,
thanks to Representative Sherwood Boehlert of New York,
serious money for "coal gasification" - the one technology
that shows any promise of making coal burn more cleanly and
efficiently.

But like last year's energy bill, which mercifully
disappeared when the Senate and House failed to reconcile
differences, this year's measure is on the whole a
compendium of tired ideas favoring the oil and gas
industries and special-interest groups like farmers. These
include a $3 billion subsidy to encourage the
environmentally destructive extraction of coal-bed methane,
as well as subsidies of dubious value for the producers of
corn-based ethanol. In addition, the bill would erode
environmental protections for public lands, primarily in
the West, to encourage oil and gas exploration in
wilderness areas that are best left alone.

Even worse is what the bill does not do. It does little to
encourage industry to reduce the greenhouse gases that
contribute to global warming, but its most serious defect
is its failure to require meaningful improvements in fuel
economy - the quickest and surest way to ease America's
dependence on foreign oil. And while the bill provides
money for aggressive research on a hydrogen-powered
fuel-cell car, it fails, perversely, to provide the tax
breaks President Bush had requested for buyers of
fuel-efficient hybrid cars.

Alarmingly, the White House said it was generally pleased
with the bill and was particularly "gratified" that it
would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil
drilling. The Senate, which has already rejected drilling
in the refuge, will now have to do so again. Indeed, it
will have to do much more than that if it is to bring the
country the rational energy policy it deserves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/14/opinion/14MON2.html?ex=1051347396&ei=1&en=bb24fa3daa6a911f