Energy Bill Has Some Merit, but Not As Environmental Law

Viewed as environmental legislation, the energy bill signed into law by President Bush on Monday is a failure. That doesn’t mean, however, that the bill is without merit.

Environmental lobbyists were hoping for an energy bill that would not only address the nation’s energy demands, but one that would steer the nation toward a cleaner energy future.

Instead, the bill signed into law is mostly aimed at increasing the supply of energy. And to the extent that having more energy available to use creates more pollution, environmentalists have reason to be disappointed.

There is no doubt, however, that the nation’s energy demands will continue to grow, and legislation aimed at trying to meet those demands has value.

The bill encourages the development of energy sources that do not contribute to the greenhouse gases responsible for global warming, including the nuclear power industry. It funds research into technology that would allow coal to be burned more cleanly. It has, too, some tax credits to encourage conservation and energy efficiency.

These are all good, positive steps. More controversial are incentives for big oil companies to expand refinery capacity and increase domestic production.

Also controversial were many of the ideas debated but not included in the bill. For instance, requirements for more fuel- efficient cars and trucks didn’t make it into the bill. That’s too bad, because such requirements could do much to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil.

Environmentalists can at least be encouraged that the bill does not open up parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. That’s good, because the supply of oil in the refuge doesn’t justify the environmental cost of extracting it.

Overall, the energy bill was much less than it could have been, particularly in terms of steering the nation toward a cleaner energy future. Still, it’s a start on meeting our energy needs.