You name it we’re running out: oil, gas, coal. Conventional fuel and energy sources are rapidly vanishing from beneath our feet even as energy industries scramble to find new places to drill and mine. The national energy bill being drafted behind closed Congressional doors is the administration’s latest attempt to handle our growing demands for power, create jobs and reduce our dependency on foreign oil. But in creating a public land “free-for-all” and giving windfalls to a floundering nuclear power industry will we stem the demand for power or generate more cost for taxpayers and power outages for our children?

In 1950, the U.S. produced half the world’s oil; today, we don't produce half our own oil. At the current rate analysts say the U.S. will be required to import 64% of its oil by the year 2020. Once abundant, natural gas now critical to nearly every industry including electricity generation, is declining. Scrambling to feed the need punctures ranch lands for methane coal gas in the west and pristine tundra in Alaska. The energy bill will:

• Attempt to reduce foreign oil demand through further subsidies to domestic fossil-fuel industries and opening up majestic public lands and shorelines with reduced restrictions on drilling
  
  
• Boost research and development of nuclear plants and offer lucrative loan guarantees for 7 new plants
  
  
• Invest $865 million in subsidies for reprocessing nuclear waste while limiting nuclear accident liability
  
  
• Cost taxpayers $40.3 billion through 2008 and $52.6 billion over next 10 years

But drilling the ocean floor under 5,000 ft. of water in the Gulf of Mexico would supply just 2.5 years of oil. The Arctic Refuge yield would take 10 years to reach market and would supply the U.S. for 6 months before being exhausted. And what about that pesky nuclear waste? Analysts say there is no reliable way to handle nuclear wastes. The production of plutonium as a bi-product of reprocessing could provide a “civilian cover” for the development of nuclear bombs and create new terrorist targets.

Conservation anyone? A March 2003 Gallup pole indicates that 60% of Americans want a solution to our energy problems focusing on conservation of existing supplies over greater production of oil and gas and 73% of Americans favor increased fuel efficiency standards for cars. Yet the energy bill ignores these solutions. Why isn't congress listening? Observers note that the oil and gas industry invested $19.2 million in Republican campaigns in 2002 and $27 million in 2000 -- 80% of total industry campaign contributions.

• More than 120 billion gallons of gas was used by American drivers in 2002 price tag: $186 billion by 2020 fuel use will increase to almost 190 billion gallons.
  
  
• The average American family spends more than $3,000 a year on electricity, oil and natural gas. An increase in fuel efficiency alone would save consumers $3,000 to $5,000 dollars a year at the pumps.
  
  
• Raising fuel economy standards to 40 miles per gallon over the next decade would save 10-15% times more than the Arctic Refuge would yield and slightly more oil than we imported from Saudi Arabia last year.
  
  
• Introduced in 2002, Honda’s hybrid version of the Civic is rated at 51-mpg highway and 46-mpg city. Ford and GM plan to release hybrid SUVs in 2003 and 2004. Hybrid cars account for 1% of total auto sales.
  
  
• Improving energy and motor vehicle efficiency would generate more than 1.3 million jobs in 15 years - 185% more jobs than domestic oil production.

What does the future hold for the energy industry in the U.S.? Can we afford to go on pretending there is an unending supply of oil, gas and coal to draw on? Are we ready to spoil our mountains and shorelines? Are taxpayers disproportionately shouldering energy costs? Will consumption without conservation leave us stranded on the side of the road? What would a balanced energy plan look like?