Bill Press: Bush budget trashes energy conservation

By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services

WASHINGTON (Tribune Media Services) -- Are we in the middle of a severe energy crisis? The answer is the difference between what George Bush says and what he does. On energy, he says one thing, and does another.

President Bush says today's energy problems aren't limited to California. As a nation, he insists, we're experiencing the most serious energy crisis since the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s: a warning frequently echoed by Vice President Dick Cheney and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. The solution, they argue, is to reduce our dependency on OPEC by increased domestic production and development of alternative, renewable sources of energy.

But, given the opportunity, what Bush does about the so-called energy crisis is pathetically little -- and even counterproductive. Take a look at his 2002 budget. He does just the opposite of what he says. He doesn't expand the search for alternative energy sources; he shrinks it dramatically.

The Department of Energy suffers from some of the biggest cuts in Bush's budget, and they're all in the field of alternative energy. Its basic research program -- to develop solar, wind and other renewable energy programs -- is cut by 52 percent. And a companion project to explore ways of reducing energy usage through better technology and better building materials is cut by 48 percent.

Not only that. Having slashed funding for clean, new sources of energy, Bush then promises to reinstate it some time in the future -- from fees raised on leases for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Talk about making a pact with the devil. Bush promises to destroy the environment first, in order to raise enough money to try to save it later. What's wrong with this picture?

Bush deserves credit for trying to cut some of the pork out of the federal government. But on energy, his budget is simply bad public policy. It walks away from the cleanest, most promising and most readily available sources of new energy today, including wind and solar. It prolongs our dependency on fossil fuels by putting all our energy eggs in one basket: drilling for oil in Alaska. And -- penny wise, pound foolish -- it ends up costing consumers more money, not less.

According to the Alliance to Save Energy, the energy conservation programs Bush axes now save consumers $25 billion a year, through more energy efficient home appliances, for example. "These programs do deliver," Alliance president David Nemtzow assured me in an interview. "And they save money. Faced with the worst energy problems in 20 years, the nation needs to invest more heavily in energy efficiency, not less. It's the cheapest, quickest and cleanest way to lessen energy problems and extend energy supplies."

The fact that we are even having this debate, that this nation hasn't moved faster to develop wind and solar energy, is evidence of how much power the oil industry has held, and still holds, over presidents and members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat. Using big campaign contributions, oil and gas companies have managed to turn our energy policy into a one-trick pony: drill, drill, drill -- sweetened with big tax breaks, of course. It's a bankrupt policy. The biggest potential for more energy lies, not in non-renewable fossil fuels, but in nature's own, renewal sources, still largely untapped.

The potential for harnessing the wind is enormous, as anyone who has ever stood on a windy bluff knows so well. So is the power of the sun, to heat and cool homes. And we're not talking space-age Rube-Goldberg-type equipment, either. Take it from me.

Twenty years ago, taking advantage of a tax credit offered by Jimmy Carter, my wife and I built a passive solar home in California. No fans, no mirrors, no pumps, no machinery at all. Just double-paned windows, facing south, and a concrete slab floor to collect the heat and release it at night. Our home heating bill is zero. There's no reason why every home in California, and most homes in the West and South, couldn't be the same.

And we're not the only ones to learn how to save money by building an energy-efficient home. So did George and Laura Bush, much more recently. Their new ranch home in Crawford, Texas, is heated and cooled by geothermal heat pumps, totally independent of the electricity grid.

So, energy conservation works. And George Bush knows it firsthand. Too bad he didn't apply at the office the lessons he learned back home in Texas.

See related sites about Politics

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.