As the firecrackers and aerial bursts of our traditional Independence Day celebrations fade, Americans might ponder the need for independence in a 21st-century context.

Just as our Founding Fathers bristled under control of England, Americans today need to proclaim independence from imported oil, particularly from the volatile Middle East oil patch.

Yet, this is one of the topics we don't hear about in the presidential campaigns; it seems to be part of that unseen/unheard issue, the environment. Neither campaign is addressing an issue that polls consistently show resonates with a majority of voters.

In his 2004 State of the Union message, President Bush did not even mention the word "environment." The topic has fallen off the plate of the current leadership of the Republican Party, which has turned its back on the considerable legacy of Republicans in environmental policy. Richard Nixon presided over some of the most far-reaching environmental laws in our history, and Theodore Roosevelt is considered by many as our first environmental president.

If the Republicans have abandoned the field — and clearly they have in the past several Congresses and in the Bush administration — where are the Democrats, and Sen. John Kerry, once rated the top environmental advocate in the Senate?

Both sides are scared to step off a few predictable platforms — terrorism, Iraq, the economy, taxes — and venture into areas that might scare off swing voters. But the environment should attract, not deter, swing voters; certainly in the Pacific Northwest.

Energy independence cuts several ways, which should make it more attractive as a campaign issue.

It has always been an economic issue; oil shocks of the '70s showed how an increase in OPEC prices or a reduction in supply can shock the American economy. Until 2001, most of the congressional studies on oil imports focused on economic impacts.

But as long ago as 1997, Congress was warned of military implications from our dependence on oil imports. A Congressional Research Service study that year warned Congress to look beyond economic impacts. "Additionally, there is the argument that some U.S. military expenditures could be avoided if the United States were less dependent on Persian Gulf oil," the study noted, six years after the first Gulf War. On Sept. 11, 2001, that warning should have been recalled.

In addition to the economic and military implications of dependence on Middle East oil, our environment needs reduced emissions from oil-burning motors of all sorts, but primarily from automobiles. Emissions play a huge role in global warming, which simply cannot continue to be ignored in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

If we would heed that warning, and reduce our emissions, we would hit a trifecta: economic, military and environmental. Where is the candidate who has a program for this obvious need?

The Bush administration's answer is to find more places to drill, in particular, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But drilling is a short-term fix, not a long-term answer.

In response to the oil shocks of the '70s, we adopted conservation measures to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and they have helped us reduce in percentage terms our dependence on the Middle East. But we have not expanded those conservation measures to keep up with our growth in energy demands.

A 2002 paper for Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C., institute on environmental issues, sums up the choice in terms of national security: "Demand reduction outperforms supply increases because every barrel of oil we keep or take out of the economy reduces the harm of disruption, and demand reduction can proceed at a greater scale, longer life, and lower cost than supply increases, thereby diminishing the likelihood of disruption more effectively." We should worry about disruption.

It is increasingly apparent that the Middle East will be a very shaky place for years to come. Our military adventures in the region are forcing us to come to grips with our dependence on the gulf's oil. Yet, we remain in denial.

For reasons of the economy, national security and the environment, the pace car for the 2004 campaign should be the Prius, not the Hummer. Candidates should pledge to improve the mileage efficiency of cars, either by tax incentives or tougher regulations. National transportation policy should recognize that we are increasingly an urban nation and put a priority on moving people efficiently and with less fuel in urban areas.

We are too greedy to achieve true independence from foreign oil. Less reliance is a modest goal, one we must insist upon in 2004.

Floyd J. McKay is a journalism professor emeritus at Western Washington University.

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company

###