Hand in Hand

Americans should be encouraged that the Bush Administration is trying to develop a national energy strategy at the same time it seeks to build a strong record on the environment. The nation urgently needs a coordinated program that will provide sufficient energy without unnecessary risk to the environment. Environmental protection must be more than just a footnote to a market-oriented energy program--something to be compromised so long as public pressure does not become too great.

So far, the record is spotty. Rather than developing a coherent, understandable environmental program, the Administration is making decisions ad hoc, and not always with consistency. The early months have been dominated by the news out of Valdez, Alaska, and the Administration’s glacial reaction to that record oil spill in one of the nation’s outstanding natural areas.

The Administration has moved in spurts on problems like global warming and ozone depletion in the atmosphere, playing down an issue one day and seizing it the next. When he was in California, President Bush talked about protecting the coastal environment against potential accidents involving offshore oil drilling. A day or so later in Texas, he acted more like one of the good ol’ boys, ready to haul their rigs anywhere and drill anything.

Washington still awaits the Administration’s proposal for rewriting and updating the Clean Air Act and dealing with acid rain, although the President has said some encouraging things about--finally--moving away from gasoline and toward alternate fuels. Bush got high marks for appointing conservationist William K. Reilly as chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, but his selections for critical jobs in the natural resources area--primarily in the Department of the Interior--have been disappointing. There may be an emphasis on environmental protection at EPA, but it is not evident so far at Interior.

It is the Valdez accident, however, that symbolizes the conflict between energy and environmental policy. The massive oil spill in Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska has crystallized public opinion in favor of the environment much as the Santa Barbara Channel oil spill did in 1969. The Administration has delayed one Alaska offshore lease sale but plans to proceed with drilling in Bristol Bay, perhaps Alaska’s richest fishery. It remains a staunch supporter of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on the Alaskan North Slope for drilling and production.

At the Energy Department, officials are warning about the dangers of increasing reliance on oil imports and about the need to develop a coherent national energy strategy. They are correct on both items.

But the outline of the Department of Energy plan sounds like more of the Ronald Reagan nonpolicy: Let market forces be in control, keep going after oil and natural gas and revive the moribund nuclear power industry. There is mention of renewable sources and conservation, but on a voluntary basis. The policy contains nothing new or original, noted Deputy Secretary W. Henson Moore in one speech, adding: “But the difference is others have identified the problems. We intend to begin solving them.”

The oil industry is smarting from the Valdez accident, but also is seeking to capitalize on it by pressing for the opening of more federal lands and waters to drilling in the name of domestic energy security. And the nuclear power industry is using warnings about the greenhouse effect to leverage its product as the solution to atmospheric pollution.

But the nation cannot have an environmental policy only at the Environmental Protection Agency and not at the Energy or Interior departments. The nation cannot let the market cling to oil and expect the auto industry to convert to cleaner-burning fuels and alternative fuels on its own. Gloom over the atmosphere cannot be used as an excuse to push nuclear power that does not have the confidence of the people. There must be firm, specific environmental goals, not just shifting targets that are forced to yield every time someone raises the specter of an oil embargo.

The United States can have its environment and enough energy, too. One must be a counterpoint to the other. In many areas, sound energy policy translates directly to sound environmental policy: alternate fuels and conservation, for instance. But it will not just happen. This Administration must make it happen.