We're unwilling to accept this pessimistic outlook. If we innovate boldly, the country has far more choices than the vice president has acknowledged. The administration today appears willing to build a new power plant every week and consume fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate with little interest in seriously pursuing renewable energy and conservation technologies, yet it is committed to spending almost unlimited amounts of taxpayer dollars in a missile defense system that - even after $68 billion in spending - has never come close to working. 

The administration argues that the goal of shooting down potential nuclear missiles is critically important and should be pursued in spite of past failures; we argue that developing an energy plan for the future is critical, and the proven success of renewable technologies after even minimal investment should encourage us to push forward more aggressively. It's time we tap into America's ingenuity and know-how to develop alternative energy sources, innovative efficiency and conservation measures to power our economy. 

Wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and fuel cells are just a few of the energy sources that could reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Gains in renewable technologies would reduce our dependence and insulate the nation from OPEC's market power. Many of these technologies are cost-competitive right now; the challenge is putting them to work rather than relying exclusively on the energy sources of the past. 

Consider the difference innovations in energy efficiency could make. Since the 1970s, we have doubled the efficiency of cars, saving 1.1 billion barrels of oil each year and producing cars that are safer and more reliable than they were 30 years ago. We can achieve those gains once again. 

The possibilities are far-reaching. Fuel cells have the potential to utilize a catalytic reaction with hydrogen and oxygen to create heat and electricity with virtually no waste. RamGen, a small company in Washington state, collects carbon dioxide - a byproduct of other power-generating plants - and converts it into energy. These innovators, along with thousands at MIT, Stanford and research institutions throughout the country, can change the way our country produces energy. We ought to support them with a national effort that rivals President Kennedy's challenge to put a man on the moon. 

Conservation is not deprivation if we properly harness technology. Recent studies make it clear that if we took aggressive steps to encourage energy conservation in homes, factories, offices, appliances, cars and power plants, we could reduce the growth in electricity demand by up to 47 percent. That alone would reduce the number of power plants Cheney wants to build by up to 610. 

Increasing the efficiency of new buildings could save more than 1 million barrels of oil each day, and boosting automobile efficiency by as little as three miles per gallon - well within Detroit's capabilities today - would save 1 million barrels of oil each day.

The question before us is not whether we can innovate and move toward a smarter energy policy, it's whether or not we will embrace that challenge. Americans have never been afraid to settle the next frontier; we simply hope the administration will stop looking backward and join us in defining where a new approach on energy could take this nation.