In a June 26 OpEd piece, Rep. Josh Tardy of Newport claimed that Democratic opposition to drilling offshore was the main obstacle standing between hardworking Mainers and affordable heating oil and gas this winter. Among other claims, he commented that he thought it was ridiculous that China can drill 60 miles off our coast “thanks to their agreements with Cuba” while the U.S. is prohibited from doing so because of our own laws.

I have several concerns with Tardy’s assessment of our energy crisis, but let’s start with the China claim. On this point Tardy is just wrong. No Chinese firm has leased any drilling options from Cuba. China is not drilling or extracting any oil 60 miles off our coast.

I know because Vice President Dick Cheney said so.

The vice president made the same China-Cuba claim a few weeks ago only to retract and correct his statement after Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida – a Republican – pointed out that the story was “a myth.” Since then, in a sadly typical election year scare tactic, several congressional Republicans – and now Tardy – have repeated the story and been rebutted.

Tardy forgot to mention that even if we lifted the ban on offshore drilling today, it would take years – decades, by some estimates – to produce market-ready petroleum products such as gas and heating oil from these reserves. According to estimates by the Department of the Interior, the oil offshore would give us a few years of supply at best. That’s more than we have now, but certainly not enough to be sustainable.

Tardy is a prominent Maine politician who is mentioned as a candidate for governor in 2010, which is why I’m surprised that he would even consider gambling with Maine’s coastal economy. It would take only one spill a fraction the size of the Exxon-Valdez disaster to cripple Maine’s fishing, lobstering and tourism engine for years. Proponents of offshore drilling like to say that a spill is five times more likely from a tanker than from drilling. Those odds are still far too high.

It is true that Democrats, for the reasons outlined above and many more, believe that we need a different direction for America’s energy policies. I believe that we must seize this moment to build a future around sustainable, renewable energy sources rather than continue our reliance on oil, which will run out. Solar, wind, and even nuclear power all must play a role in the American energy policy of the future, as should sensible conservation and greater efficiency. We need to dramatically improve our aging power infrastructure and support small-scale municipal projects that allow individual towns to produce their own clean power without being forced to rely on the regional grid and suppliers.

It is also time for a smart policy on biofuels. Corn-based ethanol is not good fuel: it’s only marginally cleaner than oil and producing it puts enormous pressure on food prices, as we’ve seen recently. On the other hand, cellulosic ethanol – gas and diesel made from plant waste and nonfood sources – will be much more viable. The University of Maine is leading the global research on this type of fuel. There is also promising research suggesting that algae can be used to produce cleaner biofuels on a scale that could replace, rather than simply supplement, our petroleum consumption. Cellulosic ethanol presents tremendous economic growth potential for Maine, without risking our coast. That’s energy policy that makes sense.

This is an important issue and it deserves thoughtful, honest debate to craft a policy that is future-forward. We can spend the next 10 years extracting finite, risky and unproven reserves on our shores, or we can spend that time building an energy policy that we can count on in the future. Half-truths and fear are not a way to solve anybody’s energy problems. Maine, and America, deserve better from our leaders.

Steve Butterfield is the Democratic candidate in House District 16, which covers part of Bangor.