Introduction

The costs of America's dangerous addiction to oil are mounting. Auto emissions are deeply implicated in global climate change, even if the Bush administration is still largely in denial about its risks. The wars on terrorism and with Iraq have highlighted the national security risks of our excessive dependence on imported oil. All of this is fueling a public clamor for a different, less petro-centric energy policy. Yet, the debates in Washington are still mired in political gridlock.

For nearly half a century, transportation has accounted for about one-fourth of total U.S. energy use and two-thirds of total oil consumption. Tailpipe exhaust remains a leading source of air pollution and accounts for roughly one-third of the nation's emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), a key contributor to global warming. Clearly, any serious strategy to promote a cleaner, more secure energy future must be aimed at accelerating the use of newer, cleaner, and more fuel-efficient technologies.

While everyone, including the president, is focusing on the long-range promise of hydrogen as a replacement fuel for oil, that future is still more than a decade away. America cannot afford to waste another decade in which our economic, environmental, and national security is held hostage to our undiminished appetite for imported oil. We need action now.

To make progress toward energy independence, our political leaders need to surmount three obstacles:

• The "Drain America First" strategy. Rather than taking immediate steps to reduce America's dependence on oil from whatever source, foreign or domestic, the Bush administration and its congressional allies insist on focusing the debate on increased domestic production, such as opening Alaska's Arctic Refuge to drilling. This is a phony debate. With only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, America will always be overwhelmingly reliant on imports to fill our tanks. And while boosting domestic oil supplies will have little impact on world oil markets, it will only worsen our environmental problems.
• Over-the-horizon panaceas. The White House last year launched an initiative purportedly aimed at putting children born today into clean and efficient cars that eliminate the need to import oil or drill in pristine areas. The $1.7 billion dollar, five-year "FreedomCAR" program is designed to harness hydrogen fuel cells as a way to reduce U.S. demand for foreign oil by 11 million barrels per day by 2040. Although the initiative sounds hopeful and promises funding, it requires nothing -- particularly in the near term. Replacing the internal combustion engine with hydrogen fuel cells may very well be the answer in decades to come, but we also need to make progress in the decade at hand -- to harness today's existing technologies to enhance our economic prosperity and promote a healthier environment.
• Gridlock over fuel standards. Created by Congress in response to the energy crisis of the 1970s, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards require automakers to build cars that get better gas mileage. But falling oil prices and stable supply during much of the 1980s and 1990s undermined the consensus for tough action to reduce consumption and made lawmakers more reluctant to raise CAFE. Automakers complain that CAFE forces them to make costly trade-offs in terms of vehicle performance and safety. They also claim that higher standards would force them to build vehicles that consumers do not want. Twice in these past two years, the White House sided with automakers to defeat proposals to up the standards for cars and light trucks.

Blueprint Keywords: Extra Emissions

Roger Ballentine is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute and president of Green Strategies, Inc. Jan Mazurek directs PPI's Center for Innovation & the Environment.