Energy sense and nonsense

Today's editorial page discussion on U.S. energy policy may not seem like the most exciting topic -- certainly not on the order of another Bengal being arrested -- but all of us ought to feel a sense of urgency for the nation to finally adopt a coherent plan, not just talk about it.

As syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer noted (Washington Post; requires free registration) late last week, energy "solutions" have been proposed in 24 of the 34 presidential State of the Union speeches since the traumatic oil embargo of 1973 -- including President Bush's speech earlier this month touting a "Twenty in Ten" plan to cut gasoline consumption. Still, we are more dependent on foreign oil than ever, and demand will only grow.

Krauthammer advocates a three-part "tough love" approach that probably will rankle both liberals and conservatives, although for different reasons -- raise gasoline taxes dramatically, drill for oil in the Arctic, and build nuclear plants.

That third point most intrigues me. Ever since Three Mile Island and the "China Syndrome" in late 1979, the wide-scale use of nuclear energy has been near-political poison in this country. But safer technology has evolved since then, and now we're faced with the real "China Syndrome": China, with its rapidly growing middle-class consumer economy, is making petroleum deals and embracing nuclear technology to meet future demand. In short, they're following much of Krauthammer's advice.

Soon, China will be the world's other superpower, flexing tremendous economic muscle. It doesn't matter that we may be on friendly terms politically; it's going to be about resources. Conservation will help, but only so much. America could find itself in a long-term economic decline if we don't do something to at least even the energy playing field -- and fast.