WASHINGTON, April 28 (UPI) -- The Bush administration is stepping up efforts to meet the nation's growing energy needs amid spiraling oil prices, but some analysts are skeptical about how effective the proposals will be to address the problem.
In his second major speech on U.S. energy policy in as many weeks, President George W. Bush told those attending a conference sponsored by the Small Business Administration Wednesday it is imperative for the United States to reduce its dependence on foreign oil supplies.
"We're not producing energy here at home, which means we're reliant upon foreign nations," Bush said. "At the same time we've become more reliant upon foreign nations, the global demand for energy is growing faster than the growing supply. Other people are using more energy, as well, and that's contributed to a rise in prices."
To provide the country with ample energy, the president acknowledged the need not only to secure more domestic oil production, but also to develop alternative energy sources and boost energy efficiency. Among the tactics he outlined were making more use of nuclear energy, boosting hydrogen research efforts and building new oil refineries on inactive military bases.
Some critics think what Bush is proposing will not result in an immediate decrease in oil prices or boost supply to meet current demand.
"I can see they're trying to be creative ... but they're not addressing the issue of (finite) global supply (of oil) and the problem of climate change," Frank Verrastro, director of the energy program at the non-partisan Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told United Press International.
He said the administration must look to curb the nation's demand for energy, rather than simply trying to cater to its seemingly insatiable appetite.
"I would give this (policy proposal) a D," said William Lowry, a political science professor who focuses on environmental policy at Washington University in St. Louis.
Lowry told UPI Bush is pushing for "more of the same, with heavy dependence on fossil fuels," while not providing enough incentive for research in renewable energy sources.
He also said if the administration actually were committed to tackling the energy issue, then it also would be looking for immediate solutions, such as raising vehicle fuel efficiency standards and increasing gasoline taxes to encourage vehicle owners to drive less.
Lowry said the administration has enacted a plan to allocate $1.2 billion over the next five years to hydrogen fuel-cell research, part of which will be granted to private companies, including car manufacturers. Nevertheless, the White House continues to push for more tax breaks and subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, instead of renewable energy research and development.
Verrastro said even though hydrogen energy may be a green and sustainable energy source in the longer term, it is unlikely that "'kids born now will be driving hydrogen cars to take their drivers' test,' like Bush likes to say -- unless you raise the driving age."
Regarding Bush's call to build new nuclear power plants, Lowry said it would not be such a bad proposition, provided the administration comes up with a comprehensive strategy to deal with nuclear waste and ensure security at the reactors, which are regarded as important terrorist targets.
Some analysts seemed more upbeat about the president's latest proposals.
On the prospect of making use of closed military bases to build refineries, Bob Slaughter, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association in Washington, said in a statement his group supports the plan, adding that boosting refining capacity, "whether in the form of additional capacity at existing sites or through new grassroots refineries, would help increase the supply of domestically manufactured petroleum products."
Woodrow Clark, a senior fellow at the economic think tank, the Milken Institute in Santa Monica, Calif., told UPI building refineries on former military sites would represent an opportunity to help communities that have suffered from the loss of their principal employer and client base.
Other analysts expressed skepticism about the government becoming heavily involved in developing an energy strategy in the first place.
"Why must the government establish a coherent energy policy? Generally, we've left decisions about energy investments to private investors," said Jerry Taylor, director of natural resource studies at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute in Washington, in a paper, "Energy Bill Illusions," released Wednesday.
"President Bush's contention that the energy bill promises a cure for everything that ails the economy is likewise preposterous," Taylor wrote, adding that such government efforts generally "transfer money from taxpayers to well-connected energy industries."
--
Shihoko Goto is UPI's Senior Business Correspondent. E-mail: [email protected]
