At the Bush White House, the very phrase “energy policy” evokes nightmarish images. There is a somber Jimmy Carter, wearing a cardigan sweater in front of a crackling fire, announcing a “moral equivalent of war” for energy independence. That sets off a sequence of frightening free associations: sweater … sacrifice … lowered thermostats … chilly voters … OPEC … hostages … gas lines … malaise … defeat. When Bush was criticized for chugging around in a gas-guzzling speedboat while soldiers prepare to fight in part for cheap oil, he responded that he wasn’t going to be held hostage in the White House, like You-Know-Who. Conserving energy, he added, need not conflict with the right to “prudently recreate.”
What Jimmy Carter wanted to do but couldn’t, George Bush could do–but won’t. Politics and technology have changed so much in the last decade that the government could actually design a highly effective national energy plan. Bush’s advisers are still winnowing a list of options gathered over the past year and a half by the Department of Energy. The president will likely make an announcement in late January, although the gulf crisis could affect both its timing and substance. Right now it looks as if Bush will miss an opportunity, taking no bold action to reduce energy consumption. If Bush agrees with the near-unanimous consensus of his advisers, the cornerstones will instead be two controversial measures to boost energy supplies: renewing the push for nuclear power and opening up the arctic wilds to oil drilling.
The similarities between now and the 1970s are obvious. America’s economy and citizens face peril as a Mideast autocrat exploits U.S. dependence on foreign oil. America now imports 50 percent of its oil, compared with 27 percent in 1985 and 35 percent in gas-line-plagued 1973. But the differences are just as important: they show how plausible energy independence is.
In the 1970s, experts spoke of energy-saving devices as if they were science fiction, exciting to contemplate but of little real help. Since then, much technology has truly arrived. New double-paned windows already on the market can cut home heat loss by 30 percent. Compact fluorescent bulbs available (but scarcely used) provide the same amount of light as regular incandescent bulbs, with one quarter the energy. One study showed a 21 percent increase in U.S. energy efficiency between 1973 and 1987. The implication: a national push to make better use of conservation technologies could pay off big–with little sacrifice.
Increased environmental concern over issues like global warming should make Americans more willing to conserve. The threat to lives in the gulf also creates a sense of urgency that did not exist when Carter proposed his first energy plan in 1977.
Transportation now accounts for about two thirds of oil consumed in the United States, compared with 55 percent in 1979. America drives, flies and sits in traffic more than ever. Fixes in this one area could reap large benefits. Increasing average fuel efficiency from 27 miles per gallon to 40 could save 2.8 million barrels per day in 2005–a one-quarter cut in car gas usage. A plan that doesn’t seriously grapple with transportation–and Bush’s doesn’t seem to–won’t significantly cut dependence on foreign oil.
The Bush approach instead emphasizes greater energy production. As the menu of options circulated throughout the executive branch, major demand-reduction plans were knocked off one by one. More gas taxes could reduce consumption and make alternative energy sources economically viable. But they would also violate Bush’s No-New-Taxes-For-Real-This-Time pledge. What about a tax credit to encourage use of renewable energy sources like solar energy? Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady doesn’t want to tamper with the tax code so soon after the budget fiasco. Lower speed limits? Never a contender. Requiring more fuel-efficient cars? Energy Secretary James Watkins and EPA chief William Reilly reportedly support such a move, but chief of staff John Sununu and economic adviser Michael Boskin consider it an unwarranted federal intrusion into the private sector. One researcher who helped the Energy Department prepare the policy said the White House seems to believe “real men dam rivers and build giant nuke plants–they don’t save energy.”
Environmentalists have attacked the preliminary proposals as incoherent. But the Bush plan does have a guiding principle: the production of more oil, gas and nuclear energy. In some cases the plan seeks more market competition; in others, it directly aids particular producers. “For oil and gas interests, the proposals represent a Christmas list of long-held wishes,” wrote The Energy Daily, an industry newsletter.
Bush can expect a major–probably losing–battle for his key proposals. The administration says arctic drilling could produce 290,000 new barrels a day, with minimal damage to the surroundings. Environmentalists say it would devastate an irreplaceable ecosystem. Just as controversial will be Bush’s expected effort to give strong government backing to nuclear energy, dormant since the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. He will probably propose speeding up licensing of plants and approval of a model nuclear-plant design. Nuclear politics aren’t what they used to be: some environmentalists will consider nuclear power because it doesn’t worsen global warming. The sticking point will be where to store the waste. Bush will likely win praise if he sticks to a tentative plan to spend up to $2.5 billion on research and development for new technologies.
Whatever he proposes will provoke mayhem in Congress. Energy policy incites the worst in interest-group catfighting, with each powerful industry blocking any statutory clause or footnote that might help a competitor. The vast differences between energy-consuming states like Maine (home of Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell) and energy-producing states like Texas, Louisiana and West Virginia (whose senators chair the Finance, Energy and Appropriations committees) only tighten the gridlock. Bush may worsen these troubles by repeating one of Carter’s real mistakes: offering too many proposals. Carter sent up about 100 recommendations; Bush’s cabinet has already approved 50.
Carter’s ultimate political fate has obscured two facts: he did get big chunks of his package approved and did focus national attention on saving energy. Bush has the chance to do much more. But he would have to take a few bold steps away from his business constituency, his conservative aides and his innate political cautiousness.
