Drilling, conservation can coexist

"I am proud to be an environmentalist and the worst environment that I can imagine is to be cold, hungry, out of work, and in the dark. If we don't change the direction we are taking, we will all find ourselves in that environment."

— Former Gov. Jim Edwards

Those words, the conclusion of Jim Edwards' recent column in The Post and Courier, captured Americans' frustration about energy policies.

Ron Brinson

With the Internet's powerful circulation and some eager conservative radio programs, his message is being repeated all over the country and all over Capitol Hill. Dr. Edwards' commentary seemed to put the energy crisis in precisely the correct context, a cautionary message every working American and members of Congress must understand: energy can no longer be a political game; energy is a bread-and-butter public policy issue that challenges every American family.

Dr. Edwards, Ronald Reagan's first secretary of energy, was unabashedly partisan. He noted he had "perspective," and he intended his essay to be a frontal blast to the congressional Democrats, whom he charged with stalling and foiling energy initiatives for more than 30 years.

At 81 and in excellent health, Dr. Edwards said he was motivated to give up some beloved "tractor time" to give voice to average Americans' frustration over energy policy inertia.

Partisanship aside, spiraling gasoline prices correspond with government's inaction. Congress has indulged a protracted storm of political stubbornness, during which the energy problem has become a crisis, leaving average Americans to wonder if congressional leaders are mad at the oil companies or at them.

Environmental arguments no longer add up. Offshore exploration and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) have environmentally responsible precedents. In other words, working Americans are now taking energy policy inaction personally and firming their views on energy.

Seven of 10 now favor expanded off-shore oil exploration. Last month, a Pew Research Center poll concluded that the number of Americans who consider energy supplies more important than environmental protection increased from 54 per cent to 60 per cent in February. The same poll concluded that support for crude oil drilling in ANWR is growing steadily. The Pew survey also showed that a majority of young Americans, 18-29, now consider energy exploration more important than conservation.

Think about the trend of public sentiment — it's not good news for the environment. The implication is that energy-policy inertia has eroded public support for conservation and environmental protection. But why do we have to prefer one to the other?

We Americans always favor initiative over inertia, and surely, most of us believe strongly that we can expand domestic oil production, build new nuclear power plants, develop wind and solar energy systems and build energy efficient vehicles, while fully protecting the environment. We can embrace technology as the force of progress and the factor of confidence that links domestic energy production to full protection of our environment.

When one faction or another suggests we can't do both, it registers as a sharp insult, especially at a time when, in the long term, gasoline prices threaten to upset financial stability for most Americans.

Average Americans understand the troubling trends of energy dependence evolving to a critical energy dependence.

As World War I began, Great Britain bought most of its crude oil from the United States. In 1940, on the eve of World War II, the United States had 55 percent of world's crude oil refining capacities. In 1970, we imported a quarter of our crude oil needs. Today, our dependence on foreign deliveries is 70 per cent of our needs and growing.

China's crude oil demands are rapidly equaling ours. China and the U.S. consume 35 percent of the world's production. We compete for sufficient energy supplies and annually we transfer some $700 billion of wealth to oil-producing nations. It's a vicious cycle that includes devaluation of the dollar and usually the compounding burden of inflation. Inaction seems irrational. The present is a tough time, the unknown future frightening.

There are promising signs that Congress, including its Democratic leadership, have read the changing polls — and Jim Edwards' op-ed, too. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared last week on the Larry King Show that she and her leadership colleagues would consider a floor vote to remove the ban on offshore drilling.

Barack Obama, earlier this month, said he was willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling. John McCain favors offshore drilling controlled by states. The bipartisan "Gang of Ten" (our Sen. Lindsey Graham is a member) has offered an offshore drilling "compromise" that troubles environmentalists and fiscal realists, who see it as an over-the-top tax-and-spend "wow them" initiative. Every initiative, it seems, brings the prospect of inertia.

As Dr. Edwards warned, the energy crisis and its impact on working Americans are worsening. It's time to follow the clear road maps of logic and common sense, and more importantly, trust ourselves that we can regain our energy balance and protect our environment.

Ron Brinson is a former associate editor of this newspaper.