A High-energy argument
Bush and Kerry both want less dependence on foreign oil--but how?
The idea of energy independence is as American as apple pie. Presidents and presidential candidates from Ronald Reagan to Al Gore have thundered about the need to curb the country's addiction to foreign sources of oil, especially from the Middle East, to make us more secure through self-reliance. Indeed, recalling the staggering 1973 oil embargo, President Jimmy Carter proclaimed in 1979 that energy conservation is tantamount to patriotism. He vowed that "this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977--never."
But a burgeoning American economy wasn't about to keep that promise. In 1977, the United States imported 8.8 million barrels of oil per day; this year, the total was up to nearly 12.8 million--about 63 percent of total daily consumption. Nearly 20 percent of that foreign oil is from the Middle East. Reducing the dependence would take years and require more than a little political pain. For those reasons, it is "one of the hardest things you can ask a president to do," says John Byrne, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware, "and it's why the problem has festered for so long."
Plans. But the difficulty of the task hasn't stopped President Bush and Sen. John Kerry from arguing about it. Each man has a plan, but that's about where the agreement ends. Bush is mainly a supply-side guy; he respects the need for conservation and alternative energy but wants to guarantee energy security first by expanding domestic fuel production. Kerry doesn't want to abandon fossil fuels, but his plan emphasizes reduced demand for oil by promoting alternative energies and increased efficiency. Meanwhile, Americans like Lance Pinkham, a Huntington Beach, Calif., appliance salesman, just want action. Gas prices are up 60 percent in 2004. The Middle East is becoming more volatile by the day. And Pinkham, 48, puts 35,000 miles on his 1998 Nissan Altima each year. With gas hovering around $2.50 a gallon, he says, "it's an absolute panic."
Perhaps no issue symbolizes the rift between Bush and Kerry on energy policy more than their clash over drilling for oil in a pristine sliver of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Since the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush has maintained that the area could produce 1 million barrels of oil per day--in an environmentally sensitive manner. "I would rather that a million come from . . . our own country, as opposed to Saddam Hussein," Bush told Gore during their first debate in 2000. Just a few weeks ago, Bush expanded the thought: "That additional million barrels of oil a day would have affected world price," he said, "and would have helped America become less dependent on foreign sources of energy."
As often as Bush invokes ANWR drilling as a solution, Kerry reviles it as a sin. That remote coastal plain is home to dozens of species, he says, from caribou to polar bears, and is a critical resting spot for migratory birds. Drilling there, Kerry says, wouldn't help us anytime soon because it would take at least seven years to ramp up production. And a March report from the federal Energy Information Administration says the amount of crude available would not have a significant effect on U.S. oil prices or the amount of oil we import. In April 2002, Kerry talked about ANWR for nearly an hour on the Senate floor to help kill debate on the issue. "We cannot drill our way out of America's energy challenge," he roared. "This is a false promise to America."
advertisement
