Most gutless Senate vote of the week

Yesterday the U.S. Senate voted 99-1 on the Landrieu amendment to the pending energy bill “to reduce the United States’ dependence on imported petroleum.” This was immediately followed by a vote to strip from the energy bill a measure to provide loan guarantees to encourage nuclear energy. This motion failed – just barely – by a vote of 48 for and 50 against.

In other words: the Senate stood up and loudly declared “Something must be done about our dependence on foreign sources for energy!” Then there were many “Harrumphs!” and they (almost) all agreed “Yes! Something must be done!” Perhaps a small cheer went up after the near-unanimous vote. Then, on the very next vote, the Senate declared: “Well…something….but not that.” Voting “to strike the provision relating to deployment of new nuclear power plants” were Senators Kerry (he showed up!), Graham, and Edwards of the Democratic Nine. Joe Lieberman skipped the vote.

So what are the positions of these Presidential candidates on energy policy? In the “Issues” section of their web pages, there is no separate section for “Energy.” Only John Kerry brings up the issue and he rolls it into environmental policy along with slogan “Energy answers for future generations.” And what are those answers? After bragging about helping to save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – which would reduce our dependence on foreign oil – Kerry lists exactly two things relating to energy policy.

Drumroll please: They are “Encourage Renewable Energy” and “Conserve Energy and Cut Pollution with Efficient Vehicles.” For the supply end, Kerry proposes more “wind, solar, geothermal, ethanol and biomass” even though these sources have never added up to more than a miniscule fraction of the total U.S. energy demand. The only renewable source that has reliably produced energy is hydroelectric, but Kerry doesn’t propose damming more rivers. On the consumption end, the Senator wants us to handout tax credits to people who drive Geos (watch for Kerry to weasel out of these proposals once he starts campaigning in Michigan.)

These vacuous proposals masquerading as energy policy reveal an unrealistic approach to federal energy requirements over the next decades. Kerry doesn’t make a serious proposal to reduce petroleum imports, which the Energy Information Agency predicts will rise from 55% of all demand today to 68% of all oil used in 2025. Needless to say, such a heavy energy dependence on unstable Middle East regimes is a source of serious economic – and military - concern. It’s not enough to shove more ears of corn into our car tanks. Serious decisions have to be made and it’s a complete waste of time and taxpayers' money to stand up on the Senate floor and bray that “something must be done.” Take a stand or take a seat.