Can you remember watching Walter Cronkite anchoring the nightly news discussing the issues around the OPEC oil embargo in the ’70s? I remember wondering whether the long gas lines would still be there when I got my driver’s license. I fully expected our country’s leaders to take us in a direction to free us of our dependence on foreign oil. The closest attempt came with President Carter’s unpopular efforts to introduce conservation measures to America.

Since then, I have watched automobile size increase, fuel efficiency standards stagnate, and funding for alternative sources of energy crushed by the oil lobby in Washington. So, as I read Dr. Donald A. Grant’s op-ed (BDN, Feb. 13) that described our dependence on foreign sources of both natural gas and petroleum, I expected to read about new, highly innovative solutions to the issue. Instead, we were presented with more of the same old-same old – a swap of one energy technology for another, and support for probably the worst energy bill ever to reach the Senate floor.

The need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and natural gas is real, but turning to “clean coal” and nuclear energy is hardly the solution. Unfortunately, Maine is situated downwind of the coal-burning power plants in the Midwest. Is it any coincidence that asthma is such a chronic health problem for children in our state?

If coal is the solution, what are we going to do about the carbon and the mercury? From the carbon perspective, you are simply trading one carbon-based fossil fuel for another. Global carbon loading (and its potential impact on climate change) represents a serious long-term threat to our economic future and national security, at least as much as another oil embargo. As well, mercury levels are already so high in Maine fish that women who are pregnant, women considering pregnancy, nursing mothers and young children have been warned against eating any warm-water fish (perch, bass and lake trout) from Maine lakes. Since we haven’t found a viable solution for the nuclear waste that we have already created, I’d suggest we not go there.

Finally, 23 billion in tax breaks for energy companies already reporting record profits this year is simply another example of this administration’s efforts to shift power and resources away from the American people to multi-national corporations.

Let’s think about the years lost by not forcing automobile manufacturers to increase gasoline mileage standards. The congressional record is replete with failed attempts to improve the corporate average fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards. They have failed because the oil/gas and automobile lobbies are very strong, and improved gas mileage doesn’t sell cars.

Hemi’s and hummers are apparently sexy; fuel efficiency is not. Well, neither is opening federal lands to the abuse that will come from this bill. Transportation is the largest consumer of petroleum in our economy. I appreciate Sen. Olympia Snowe’s leadership to improve mileage standards for SUVs and light trucks and to promote energy efficiency through the use of renewable energy sources. If we are to reduce our dependence on Persian Gulf oil, these are the ways to do it. Other possible innovations include growing oil crops like canola (rape seed) in Maine to pro-duce biodiesel.

By growing energy, crops recycle carbon. By promoting and supporting locally produced food systems in Maine, we can reduce some of the energy used transporting food across the country. Instead of providing tax breaks to polluting corporations, let’s consider creating tax incentives to reward businesses that reduce fuel use, to encourage citizens to purchase fuel-efficient cars, and to stimulate improved rail systems. Clean renewable fuel sources, conservation and education provide much better solutions to the dependence issues we face today than Dick Cheney’s closed-door energy policy. I hope our senators help bury the Cheney energy bill in the congressional graveyard.

John Jemison is an extension professor at the University of Maine.