McCain, Bush, and Crist offered a two-fold rationale for this change — to lower gas prices that now exceed $4.00 per gallon, and to protect states’ rights. While both justifications sound good, neither survives a review of the pertinent facts:

U.S. territory, including the off-shore and Arctic National Wildlife Reserve moratorium areas, contains 3 percent of the world’s petroleum reserves. Yet the United States consumes 25 percent of the 85 million barrels of petroleum used daily across the globe. That imbalance will only worsen if we adopt the McCain/Bush/Crist haste to drain America first.

So if the drilling and draining America’s oil is not the solution, what then is the answer? As the debate ensues, four proposals deserve specific consideration.

First, the United States must protect our dwindling domestic oil supply. The promise to make our nation energy independent now sounds good. But we are the most depleted of the world’s major oil suppliers. If we immediately tap every potential resource, including the protected off-shore and ANWR areas, the United States will run out of oil — from 3 percent of world reserves to 0 percent — when our grandchildren are graduating from college. The exhaustion of the domestic energy supply will make every family, business, and institution — including the U.S. armed forces —– entirely dependent on foreign sources. In that scenario, our economy and national security will hinge on the goodwill of oil producers in places like Caracas, Tehran, and Riyadh.

Second, Americans must learn to conserve. At present, approximately 75 percent of U.S. energy consumption goes to cars, trucks, buses, airplanes, ships, and other vehicles. The next president must lead the nation to conservation. If our 300 million vehicles were as efficient as the typical European fleet, we could reduce petroleum use by 2.5 million barrels daily.

Third, our nation should aggressively forego petroleum in favor of smart, sustainable, and alternative sources of fuel. Brazil has transformed its energy production with ethanol made from sugar cane. Cane ethanol is 800 percent more efficient than corn ethanol, and an acre of farmland can produce twice as much cane as corn. Since sugar cane can be reliably and abundantly produced in Florida, other southern states and our Caribbean neighbors, the United States can utilize a fuel that costs one-third less than petroleum. If we make that shift, domestic petroleum use will decline by another 2.5 million barrels daily.

Fourth, the United States must overcome its nuclear phobia. Not long ago, nuclear power generated nearly 30 percent of Florida’s and America’s electricity. Today, nuclear-generated electrical power is less than 20 percent of the total. While it will take a generation to return to prior levels, increased use of nuclear power would greatly improve air quality, reduce carbon emissions, and lessen our reliance on foreign petroleum. If we reach the point where 70 percent of electricity is nuclear-generated the United States would move from being one of the worst nations at reducing global warming gases to the best.

None of these changes will be easy, but making them will secure our national economy and our children and grandchildren’s futures. This new direction requires visionary leadership — the kind of leadership that rejects dangerous distractions like offshore drilling in favor of real solutions. In the next four months, we can determine which presidential candidate is most capable of that kind of leadership, and then re-energize America on November 4.