The following editorial appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on Sunday, Aug. 11:

Here's a scary thought: During the raging national debate on energy policy, Paris Hilton is making about as much sense as most others running their mouths.

It is a "hybrid," Hilton says, of Republican McCain's call for more offshore drilling and Democrat Barack Obama's push for new automotive technologies such as hybrid and electric vehicles that would reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

The ad by McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, flashes images of Hilton and singer Britney Spears, while intimating that Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is a similarly shallow celebrity whose energy policies would hurt America.

It's hard to quarrel with Hilton's energy policy, thin though it is. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board supports both expanded offshore drilling and development of new automotive technologies. But we've been troubled by some of the simplistic rhetoric, misstatements, shortsighted thinking and hypocrisy that have been part of the nation's energy policy debate.

Accordingly, we'd like to offer these observations.

GOP lawmakers, go home

In the wake of $4-a-gallon gas, some Republican members of Congress, rather than leave Washington for a five-week recess, are staying to protest Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's opposition to expanding offshore drilling.

The GOP wants to put the onus on Democrats for high gas prices. But most Republican lawmakers fought for years against substantially raising federal fuel economy standards, which finally were approved in December and won't be fully implemented until 2020. Had higher standards been adopted a decade ago, gas prices probably would be lower now as a result of reduced demand for fuel. The beleaguered U.S. auto industry also would be in better shape, having already geared up to produce more small cars.

The protesting lawmakers can't pass any energy legislation with most members of Congress having split the capital. They should abandon their protest and head home to spend time with constituents. Besides, someone might confuse their protest with cheap political grandstanding.

Drilling does matter

Some Democrats and environmental groups seemingly have a knee-jerk reaction against any expansion of drilling, whether it is off America's east and west coasts, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico or in a limited part of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Perhaps these critics don't realize that the U.S. is still the world's third-largest oil producer and second-largest natural gas producer. Domestic energy supplies remain important to us. Technological advancements have enabled both greater recovery of oil and gas deposits and a reduced environmental impact (as evidenced by the horizontal drilling success in the Barnett Shale of North Texas).

Opponents of expanded drilling argue that even if it were immediately authorized, it would take seven to 10 years to beget production and wouldn't lower today's high pump prices. So what? It's a pretty safe bet that we'll need that new production in seven to 10 years.

America is the world's largest oil consumer. Isn't it a tad elitist and hypocritical to think it's OK for us to devour oil produced off Nigeria's coast, but taboo to drill off our own coastline?

The less we drill in the U.S., the more we'll have to rely on foreign oil from countries that could cut off our supply overnight. Do you recall the skyrocketing oil and gasoline prices that resulted from the Arab oil embargo of 1973?

The no-action myth

Motorists fed up with high gas prices often blame Congress and the Bush administration for "doing nothing" to make us less reliant on foreign oil. One could logically argue that they haven't done enough in terms of energy conservation and developing alternative energy sources, but it's false to say they've done nothing.

In December, Congress passed, and Bush signed, the Energy Independence and Security Act, which boosted fuel economy standards; required a large increase in ethanol production for motor fuels; authorized loans to U.S. automakers to foster development of new technologies such as gasoline-electric hybrid, electric and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles; required more energy-efficient light bulbs; and raised energy-efficiency standards for buildings and appliances such as dishwashers and freezers.

Congress previously passed, and Bush signed, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It encouraged development of "clean coal" power plants and alternative energy sources ranging from biofuels (especially ethanol) to wind power; established higher energy-efficiency standards for commercial appliances such as air conditioners and refrigerators; provided strong financial incentives for building new nuclear power plants; granted tax credits for purchase of hybrid gasoline-electric cars; authorized tax breaks for oil companies doing risky, expensive deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico; and included incentives for energy conservation in commercial buildings and homes.

Energy independence?

We'll never achieve "energy independence," but we can make strong, steady strides in that direction. We must speed up development of alternative automotive technologies; develop better biofuels and clean-coal technologies; accelerate energy conservation on multiple fronts; develop more technologically advanced and cost-efficient wind, solar and nuclear power; expand domestic oil and natural gas production; and encourage sustainable, mixed-use development that increases use of mass transit and reduces auto traffic.

To accomplish those things, we need strong public-private partnerships and Americans individually committed to becoming more energy-efficient.

We want an energy policy that everyone -- that includes you, Paris Hilton -- can be proud of.