Morning Sentinel
Weaning the U.S. off foreign oil
Higher fuel efficiency is first step
Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel Monday, May 14, 2007

Today's Top Headlines
from the Kennebec Journal


All of today's: News | Sports
from the Kennebec Journal

Let's go back in time to the week after Sept. 11, 2001.

Our nation has just experienced one of the worst attacks in its history. While the specifics are still emerging, it's already clear that Middle Eastern terrorists are behind what happened. The United States most definitely will respond, but when considering military or other action in that part of the world there's always a wild card -- oil.

Wouldn't it have been great if President Bush, or some leader in this country, had turned the Sept. 11 tragedy into something we all know should have been started decades ago: America's determined march to energy independence? None of us would have opposed such a campaign at that time. By now, 51/2 years later, we would have made substantial progress.

Instead, our leaders failed us then on this issue, as they have for too long. We remain as reliant on foreign oil as ever. That means we're vulnerable too, vulnerable to anger in the Middle East, to shenanigans in Venezuela, to the profit demands of our own Big Oil.

But there may be a glimmer of hope.

A bill is advancing in Congress that would require mile-per-gallon standards for all cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. to increase by 4 percent annually. Come 2020, the average fuel-efficiency standard would be 35 miles per gallon for the U.S. fleet, up from 25 miles per gallon today.

The Senate bill, sponsored by Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and Senate Democrat Dianne Feinstein, is criticized in some quarters for having too many loopholes.

The Christian Science Monitor quotes experts saying there are ways for automakers to avoid the benchmarks if meeting them proves "too onerous." American automakers, who rely more on SUV and pickup truck sales than their foreign competitors do, also have resisted parts of the proposal.

What we like about the legislation is that it could, if enacted and consistently enforced, simultaneously ease our reliance on foreign oil, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and -- this may be the best part -- put our country on stronger footing when dealing with Arab oil barons and mercurial world leaders like Hugo Chavez.

This measure won't solve our energy and national-security ills, not by a long shot. Bolder steps and greater vision are still sorely needed, as is conservation to diminish our demand. But passing the fuel-efficiency standards would be a step in the right direction.

With gas selling here in Maine for close to $3 a gallon, our message to automakers in Detroit, Japan and Europe is, "Take your medicine. Meet or exceed 35 miles per gallon. And please, hurry."


Reader comments

Sort by: Oldest first | Newest First

Berserker of Freeport, ME
May 14, 2007 8:09 PM

Good grief, your premise is sort of hung out there. If any president had stated, after the worst attack ever visited upon our own soil, that we should turn this event into a.....fuel conservation effort, the Democratrs and Republicans alike would be screaming for his head.

This bill is so lukewarm as to be superfluous. By 2020 I can imagine a complete fuel substitute, not just a minor inprovement in fuel efficiency. Look to the hybrid vehicles making serious inroads. If the consumer wants cars with high MPG, then they will get one, and the same goes for electric cars. Mandating another Carter-esque government meddling into our sacred vehicles is like a counter revolution. It ain't gonna work.
report abuse
jm of Augusta, ME
May 14, 2007 7:26 PM
Of course, increased milage-standards are a good idea. Unfortunately, they collide head-on with the politically-charged craze of using ethanol as a gasoline additive. Ethanol significantly DECREASES the miles-per-gallon obtained.

A serious examination would expose the use of ethanol (especially that made from corn) as a serious fraud perpetrated on the American people.

Sadly, that may never happen. The combination of large energy companies and corn farmers (both of whom see $$$) means that politicians are afraid to rock the boat.

After all, the first presidential caucus is in Iowa.report abuse

You must be a registered user of MaineToday.com to post a comment. Register or log in.