At the recent Republican National Convention, the chants of “drill, baby, drill” that erupted from the audience during former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s speech show both the nearsightedness and speciousness of John McCain’s plan to address the looming energy question in The United States.

However well the policy may fit into mantras, a reliance on drilling to relieve prices at the pump and American dependence on foreign oil is a decidedly myopic and inadequate answer to what is a systemic problem, targeted at feeding our oil addiction rather than overcoming it.

While drilling in ANWR and U.S. coastal waters holds the allure of quick, cheap gas, the appeal is misleading. The Department of Energy estimates that the approximate 18 billion barrels of oil off U.S. coastlines wouldn’t have a noticeable effect on prices or production until 2030. And this is what McCain has said would “be very helpful in the short term for resolving our energy crisis.”

Moreover, it is important to emphasize that the oil produced by drilling wouldn’t belong to the United States, but to the oil companies that extracted it, who will sell it on a global market. Because of this, the drop in domestic oil prices would be even smaller and spread across a multitude of countries. Given these small benefits and the huge possibility of environmental repercussions — namely in drilling in ANWR — the Republican ticket’s insistence on drilling is illogical.

The fixation with drilling distracts from more pertinent issues in the United States’ energy dilemma, such as implementing alternative energy, encouraging the production of more fuel-efficient cars and addressing global climate change. People have been talking about alternative energy for a long time, but since the economic and oil crisis of the ‘70s, there has been astoundingly little done to meet what both parties identify as a crucial weakness. While McCain maintains that he supports measures to address the energy needs of our country, his means of engaging the problem are off the mark.

Obama’s goal is to cut carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 — as suggested by climate change scientists. McCain’s goal is 30 percent by 2050. And while McCain ‘supports’ alternative energy, he remains generally opposed to subsidies and tariffs that encourage the implementation of sustainable technologies. In 2003, he opposed legislation that would have required new automobiles to get 40 mpg by 2015 — a goal the European Union plans to exceed by 2012.

Though McCain’s support of nuclear energy does have promise, it is necessary to address concerns of how to store or dispose of nuclear waste, an issue which at present remains unsolved. However, McCain’s desire to build 100 nuclear power reactors is unfeasible at $10 billion a piece.

On a number of opportunities to improve some of the effects of the energy crisis, the Republican establishment has fallen drastically short. In a recent Senate bill, a section requiring states to obtain 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020 was struck down by Senate Republicans, despite the fact that 23 states already do so. Suggested fuel economy standards for new automobiles were likewise weakened. If the new standards are not deemed cost-effective, car companies won’t be required to meet them.

The election of John McCain as president would guarantee an extenuation of these lackadaisical policies that coddle auto companies, treat drilling as a panacea and expect change to happen without government incentives. If we wait to start implementing the renewable technologies we already have, come another true oil crisis — and this summer has been no such thing — we will be confronted by the ghost of our energy past. With gasoline still relatively cheap, it is absolutely necessary for the government to provide incentives. It may not sound as catchy in a chant, but it engages the meaningful questions we should be answering.

Reach columnist Sarah Gaither at opinion@dailyuw.com.