With energy prices continuing to creep up in the country, is it possible that conservationists have found a new ally in President George W. Bush? The trio of David Leonhardt, Jad Mouawad and David E. Sanger
examine this question in tomorrow's issue of The New York Times.

With fears mounting that high energy costs will crimp economic growth, President Bush called on Americans yesterday to conserve gasoline by driving less. He also issued a directive for all federal agencies to cut their own energy use and to encourage employees to use public transportation.

"We can all pitch in," Mr. Bush said. "People just need to recognize that the storms have caused disruption," he added, and that if Americans are able to avoid going "on a trip that's not essential, that would be helpful."

This certainly seems to be a great shift from the beginning of Bush's first term, as Leonhardt, Mouawad and Sanger report.

In 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it cannot be the basis of a sound energy policy." Also that year, Ari Fleischer, then Mr. Bush's press secretary, responded to a question about reducing American energy consumption by saying "that's a big no."

"The president believes that it's an American way of life," Mr. Fleischer said.

So is this a real shift in administration policy or rather an attempt to repackage the same old undesired nostrums?

Mr. Bush promised to dip further into the government's petroleum reserve, if necessary, and to continue relaxing environmental and transportation rules in an effort to get more gasoline flowing.

On Capitol Hill, senior Republicans called for new legislation that they said would lower energy costs by increasing supply and expanding oil refining capacity over the long run.

[...]

In Washington, two House committees are expected to consider proposals this week that have been blocked in the past by environmental objections. Beyond making it easier to build new refineries, one proposal would allow states to opt out of Congressional bans on coastal oil drilling, and another would allow drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which has been controversial for years. [emphasis added]

If the President truly believes in conservation, rather than just use it as a ruse to further benefit wealthy energy conglomerates, he ought to call on Congress to raise fuel efficiency minimums and further subsidize energy efficient alternatives, such as hybrids.

But of course President Bush does not actually believe in conservation, or at least he does not believe in the type of conservation that would actually affect America's demand for oil. Instead, he opts for a halfhearted measure to compliment further drilling, which would have no effect on the short-term crunch and relatively little effect on the medium- and long-term problems. And account of this, America's security and independence in the future is actually lessened.