Ellington

We say we're upset by gasoline prices. We complain because it costs $30 dollars to fill up our car or perhaps $40 or even $50 to fill up our truck. But do we really care about the country's dependance on foreign oil? Are we really serious about reducing our dependency? Apparently not. In recent months it seems we've come to accept $1.80 and $2 per gallon fuel prices. Unless America wakes up and adopts a national energy policy, we're going to see increases at the pump again and again until one day Congress and citizens alike will be forced to make a sudden, sobering change in the way America lives, works and travels.

A few weeks ago a Mississippi reporter asked me, "Senator, wouldn't you say that given the talk about energy policy today that Jimmy Carter was ahead of his time?" Now that wasn't a real serious question about energy policy in 2004, but rather an attempt to spruce up a presidency that ended 25 years ago - one I presume was personally fancied by the writer. Still, I'm not getting many serious questions about energy from constituents concerned about energy prices anymore. The trivial treatment of the energy issue by the press, public and politicians concerns me because, outside of fighting terrorism, this is the most serious national security issue Americans face. It seems we've slipped into another period of denial which will last until gas prices hit $2.50 or $3 per gallon. Then what will we do?

Folks, we've got to do better than just have half-hearted, periodic, pie-in-the-sky talks about energy policy. We've got to act.

The energy policy plan that Congress has been trying to pass for several years doesn't resemble anything Jimmy Carter or anyone else proposed in the 1970s, and it shouldn't. That was a different time, and America was a different place. Since then, we've devised ways to find and retrieve oil and natural gas with little environmental risk. We've made our cars, air-conditioners and refrigerators more efficient and environmentally friendly. Emissions have been cut dramatically to the point where a vehicle today exhausts only a tiny fraction of the hydrocarbons produced by autos of the 1960s or '70s. Fuel cells are advancing rapidly. Auto companies are beginning to offer not only hybrid cars, but also hybrid trucks that run on
both gas and electric power. But, even with the advances, our economy has grown and so has energy consumption. We're not going to slow down our economy. We don't have to accept a lower standard of living. We simply must take the issue seriously and adopt a real energy plan.

Unlike any previous energy proposal, the energy bill before the Senate recognizes that reducing America's dependence on foreign oil must include a multi-faceted or what I call "whole package" approach. It contains incentives for more modern, clean energy exploration, particularly in the U.S. where we're not beholden to the politics of a hostile nation. And, it
provides incentives for alternative energy technologies like wind and solar power. It sounds sensible because it is. However, even though the plan is solid, its chance are 50-50.

Some folks in Congress still are not serious about energy policy because a majority of Americans don't seem to be concerned. Members of Congress make idealistic floor speeches about how they want less dependancy on foreign oil, but they're not very realistic. It seems they oppose any type of new domestic production. Whether it's proposed for Alaska or the Gulf of Mexico, they simply resist any type of traditional energy exploration or usage, even
if it poses little risk. That's got to change. America must become energy independent with an energy policy that simultaneously employs every resource and technical skill we have available in the 21st Century.

Outside of fighting terrorism, energy policy is the most daunting issue facing our country. We're either going to realize the seriousness of our dependence now and deal with it, or put it off until it deals with us. We can have both a clean environment and affordable energy if we really want it. So what will it be America?

Previous Comments

ID

69385

Comment

He really can't write without some snotty comment about some democrat somewhere, and it really damages his credibility. Why did he have to slam President Carter here? Waste of space, and adds nothing to his point, at all. Aside from that, I agree with the overall sentiment of the piece. Though I really don't believe that we can drill in Alaska with "little" risk. Nor do I think that our own domestic supply of oil is going to save us from a massive energy crisis, because there's not that much there. Oil's a finite resource, no matter how you slice it, so why not focus more on alternative, renewable sources. I've said it before: $97 billion on Iraq. What could we do with, for instance, alternative energy research with only 10% of that budget? Why do we say alternative fuels are too expensive, but war is not?

Author

kate

Date

2004-08-30T07:33:34-06:00

ID

69386

Comment

Lott is a not a bi-partisan Mississippian, you know. He can't seem to write a thing without taking swipes at "liberals" and other scum of the earth. Of course, that's why his seat at the RNC this week is on the subway, as someone joked yesterday. (What was that? It just popped into my head.) We should be so proud that he's out there, once again, making us look like idiots.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-08-30T10:18:07-06:00

ID

69387

Comment

A typical Lott obsfucation- never answer the question, just seize upon a phrase such as "Jimmy Carter" and proceed to evade from there. Lott complains the media is not covering the energy issue. Oh? This past Friday, I heard none other than T. Boone Pickens on NPR saying oil production has reached its peak, and the same report had input from at least three other sources regarding oil production and consumption. So, what does Lott do when asked a question about energy? Attack Jimmy Carter, then complain nobody is asking about energy policy. Nice going, slick. How's your golf game?

Author

corrosiongone

Date

2004-08-30T11:40:41-06:00

ID

69388

Comment

Hmmm .... "Jimmy Carter"... "French-speaking socialist more liberal than Ted Kennedy".... and whatever liberal-bashing he said before that (they're bound to be legion, but I forgot them all).... YEP! Sounds like a demagogue expoliting the voters' emotions to me!!!! (not that that's news)

Author

Philip

Date

2004-08-30T19:30:47-06:00

ID

69389

Comment

Just another day in the life of Mississippi.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-08-30T19:44:20-06:00

ID

69390

Comment

Just like a politician. Blame the constituents for the lack of an energy policy. Our dependence on oil could NEVER have anything to do with the fact that Bush and Cheney made millions from the oil industry. Industries that are currently posting record-breaking BILLION dollar profits. I agree with kate. We cannot drill for oil in environmentally sensitive areas with little risk. Living in Florida for the last 10 years, I've listened to "Little W" (Jeb Bush, gov. of FL) push for exploration off the coast of FL. I fear that he will eventually get his way. To Trent Lott: Don't sit back and blame your constituents!! Half of them cannot tell you who George Washington is and what role he plays in American history. Do you really think they have a stance on a national energy policy? We pay you to champion these issues for us. Don't sit around playing with your (golf) balls. Be part of the solution, and history will remember you kindly (you certainly need it!!).

Author

Steph

Date

2004-09-01T08:19:17-06:00