It has been both fashionable and necessary – in the last two decades – for governments to have an energy policy. Energy policy relates to the selection of one of the energy alternatives based on the various energy options and the evaluation of the costs associated with the utilization of energy and fuels. If we make the right energy choices today, we can have cleaner air, less global warming pollution, vibrant public lands and reasonably priced power far into the future. Unfortunately, there are many reasons to believe that President Bush’s energy plan doesn’t work. His plan seems to focus on the wrong choices – to produce more coal, oil, gas and nuclear power – with insufficient emphasis on energy efficiency and cleaner alternatives.

        We have a multitude of energy choices at our disposal, but unfortunately President Bush is focusing on those that harm our public health and environment, which makes his energy plan very unreliable, unsafe and expensive. The current administration’s energy policy includes:

1. No efforts to cut the nation’s global warming pollution. The current energy plan fails to assess the plan’s global warming implications. In fact, the plan calls for weakening the environmental protections. As part of his energy plan, President Bush announced that the U.S. would not negotiate the existing Kyoto Protocol and is trying hard to convince the public that it is necessary to weaken the Clean Air Act and nuclear safety protections to build more power plants. Yes, we need the benefits of increased energy generation, but we don’t have to sacrifice clean, healthy air.

2. Massive electric power plant construction. Among the proposed energy choices are coal-fired and nuclear power plants. President Bush regularly refers to "clean" coal as the answer to our energy problems, while pointing to the merits of the so-called emerging "clean coal technologies". In reality, "clean" coal is an oxymoron. Even if the "clean coal technologies" are used, coal is still one of the most damaging forms of energy production, which pollutes our air and water, harms public health, and releases global warming gases. Bush also calls for increased nuclear power. We already know the numerous, unsolvable problems of nuclear power.

        However, Bush claims that fossil fuels and nuclear energy are superior and cheaper than renewable energy options and efficiency improvements. He wants us to believe that renewables cannot help us now and that the economy will suffer if we put too much emphasis on these alternatives. The reliability, cleanness, and productivity of solar and wind speak for themselves. Besides, renewable energy is the fastest growing energy market in the world. Even though, these industries don’t compete on the same level playing field with fossil fuels and nuclear, wind, for example, is already cost competitive with fossil fuels and uniformly outperforms nuclear. In this time of international conflict, the least-cost conservation and renewables options will allow us the possibility to displace all oil imported from the Persian Gulf while complying with our obligations in the global warming issue.

3. New oil extraction in ecologically sensitive areas. Bush’s idea consists on drilling in areas such as the Artic national Wildlife Refuge and the Rocky Mountains to decrease U.S. reliance on countries in the Persian Gulf. This is a very shortsighted policy because these regions don’t hold enough oil as to decrease significantly U.S. dependence on Middle East oil. Instead, several studies have shown that achievable improvements in our transportation system could cut off the need for any U.S. oil imports from the entire Persian Gulf. We must not satisfy the nation’s need for a stable energy supply at the expense of people, wildlife and wild places.