The Bush energy plan is based upon a wrongheaded assertion about the American lifestyle: that we will inevitably consume ever-increasing amounts of energy. Consequently, Bush emphasizes increasing the supply of energy and scarcely mentions conservation.

"The president believes that it's an American way of life [for Americans to be energy gluttons]," says presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer, "and that it should be the goal of policy-makers to protect the American way of life."

Vice President Dick Cheney puts it this way: "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Or as conservative Andrew Bernstein writes starkly in the San Francisco Chronicle: "Conservation is essentially the moral code of self-sacrifice applied to current energy problems. ... It is immoral because conservation repudiates the American Dream. ... The United States became great because it embodied a moral code of rational self-interest, the principle that men should be free to create abundance in pursuit of their own happiness."

Inherent in this conservative logic, which has been wholeheartedly embraced by the Bush administration, are three contentious points: that the supply of fossil fuels is infinite; that our lifestyle requires us to consume ever-increasing amounts of resources; and that such behavior is consistent with a moral code of rational self-interest.

Debating whether the world's fossil fuel resources are infinite is akin to discussing whether the world is flat. A massive body of evidence indicates that the earth is running out of resources. Beginning with the 1972 landmark study "The Limits to Growth," scientists and enlightened public servants have pointed out that within a generation or two, we will have depleted the world's supply of fossil fuels.

Bush administration officials maintain that we have ample fossil fuel reserves. It's not that those supplies are infinite, just that they are sufficient to feed our avaricious energy appetite during this administration. The long-term consequences will have to be dealt with by some other president. This is the standard conservative refrain: Live for today and damn the consequences.

Whether it is inherent in the American lifestyle to consume ever-increasing amounts of energy is, however, debatable. Surveys are mixed: Americans say they value protecting the environment over producing energy (58 percent to 32 percent). Unfortunately their purchasing behavior does not reflect this sentiment; witness the popularity of gas-guzzling SUVs and energy-consuming mega-refrigerators. On the other hand, it is encouraging to note that in the face of the rolling blackout crisis, California consumers voluntarily have reduced their energy use by 11 percent.

Is the American lifestyle dictated by a moral code of rational self-interest? That depends on which American lifestyle you are talking about. When Bush, Cheney and conservative ideologues talk about the American appetite for energy and its moral efficacy as an indicator of rational self-interest, they are speaking in defense of a business-oriented lifestyle dominated by marketplace values. From that perspective, self-interest dictates that consumers use energy without regard for social or environmental consequences.

But most progressives don't subscribe to the business lifestyle or its values. The challenge of the energy crisis is for progressives to come up with a response that translates into policy, promotes conservation while equally distributing the discomfort among all segments of society, and proposes a healthy alternative lifestyle.

This is why, for a start, progressives should emphasize the use of renewable energy sources (solar, wind, biomass and the like). These common-sense alternatives work well in a lifestyle that emphasizes conservation. They are inherently based on local resources, and therefore lend themselves to local control by distributed energy producers.

As always, I welcome your feedback (bburnett@inthesetimes.com).