In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 tragedies, some special interests are trying to use our fears about national security to campaign for fundamentally flawed energy legislation that would do little if anything to increase energy security.

Instead of promoting a real energy security agenda focused on oil-saving efficiency measures and diversification to clean renewable energy sources, big oil and energy companies and some Senators are pushing legislation that would open America’s special places to oil drilling and roll back environmental and public health protections. There is no reason to forfeit a safe environment or desecrate the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Senate should craft energy legislation that would increase energy efficiency and production of renewable energy. In addition to improving national security, this smart energy plan would create jobs, save consumers money, and reduce pollution.

With the U.S. holding only 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, we could never drill our way out of reliance on unstable sources of oil. To curb our dependence on foreign sources, we must reduce oil consumption overall. Making vehicles go farther on a gallon of gas is the most effective way to cut our oil dependence. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), or miles-per-gallon standards enacted in 1975 doubled auto fuel efficiency and save the U.S. 2.8 million barrels of oil every day. Unfortunately, fuel economy reached an all-time low this year because gas-guzzling SUVs are allowed to meet weaker CAFE standards than cars.

According to a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, each automaker could produce a fleet of cars and light trucks that meets a fuel economy standard of 39 miles per gallon. In 2012, this would save nearly four times the yield from the Arctic Refuge at peak production. Over the 50-year life of the oil field, the Arctic Refuge would only produce what the U.S. now consumes in six months, or less than 1 percent of the oil we are projected to consume. It would take 10 years for any oil from the Refuge to reach consumers. The 39-mpg standard would also boost the U.S. economy by saving consumers $9.8 billion at the gas pump annually and creating a cumulative total of 40,000 jobs in the auto industry by 2012. The first phase for implementing the 39-mpg standard would be to require light trucks to meet the same miles per gallon standard as cars. By 2012, this alone would save more than one and a half times the yield from the Arctic Refuge at peak production.

Meanwhile, other mechanisms for improving efficiency, such as raising appliance efficiency standards would reduce energy demand and overall dependence on fossil fuels. Best of all, energy efficiency also offers short-term solutions for reducing the threat of electricity shortages. It only takes a month to weatherize a home. It would take five years to build a new coal-fired power plant.

While improving efficiency would strengthen energy security by cutting demand, increasing production of clean renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal would reduce U.S. reliance on large, polluting power plants that are vulnerable to disruption. Following the Sept. 11 attacks, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recognized that the containment buildings housing nuclear reactors are not designed to withstand an attack of that magnitude. Increasing clean, renewable energy sources to 20 percent of power generation by 2020 would create a safer national energy system that would be more resilient and geographically dispersed.

Unfortunately, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an energy bill that would take us in the wrong direction. In the midst of economic challenges and a tight budget, the House bill gives away $38 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to the fossil fuel, auto, and nuclear industries, while giving short shrift to clean, sustainable energy sources. Poised at the crossroads of the energy debate, the U.S. Senate must ask the difficult questions that the House energy bill fails to answer. Do we continue to rely on dirty, unsustainable fossil fuels and nuclear power? Or do we choose an entirely different path toward a new energy future, characterized by reliance on clean, unlimited energy sources, energy efficiency, and a commitment to stop sacrificing all other natural resources for fossil fuels and nuclear power?

Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins should be commended for championing a proactive policy that rejects more drilling and more spilling and moves toward clean, sustainable energy solutions that improve energy security. Specifically, the Senate should prohibit oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and on public lands, increase miles-per-gallon standards for cars and light trucks, end taxpayer subsidies for polluters, require significant energy production from renewable energy sources, and clean up dirty power plants.

Christopher St. John is the executive director of the Maine Center for Economic Policy, which promotes a sustainable and equitable economy with a focus on how state policies affect low- and moderate-income people. Matthew Davis is the New England Field Organizer with U.S. PIRG.