BY SULLIVAN S. MARSDEN JR

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, President Bush has sought to enlist moderate Arab countries in the campaign against terrorism. But at least in the case of Egypt and Saudi Arabia this has proven to be extremely difficult, considering the unease with which the leaders of both countries are approaching the present crisis. More to the point, the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan would have collapsed long ago without the aid of Saudi Arabia.

Though Saudi Arabia has since broken off relations with the Taliban, albeit belatedly, it wants to avoid direct association with any military action against Afghanistan or other countries harboring terrorists.

This suggests that now is the time to decrease dependency on Middle East oil with the use of efficient and cost-saving energy alternatives.

Since 1973, when the Arabs imposed their first embargo and the OPEC cartel tripled prices, the level of imports has jumped from 33 percent of the oil we use to 57 percent today. Persian Gulf countries account for 25 percent of U.S. imports, with Saudi Arabia providing 14.5 percent and Iraq providing about 8 percent. Think about it: Saddam Hussein's Iraq is our second largest source of oil in the Middle East, providing about 600,000 barrels daily. And Iraq is using its oil revenue to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

It's estimated that currently one-third of America's $300 billion annual defense budget goes toward safeguarding the transport of oil from the Persian Gulf. Rising dependence on foreign oil is largely responsible for the worsening U.S. trade deficit, which climbed to a record $368.9 billion last year.

If we fail to act, U.S. oil imports could reach 70 percent by 2020, a dependence so great that no combination of conserve-and-produce could save us. But if we reverse that trend by just 5 percent, even with increased overall demand for oil, we could help stabilize energy supplies and prices, reduce the trade deficit and lower the military cost of protecting the mass transportation of oil from the Middle East.

Sounds easy. But is it? What would it take?

Conservation and efficiency are intertwined. Certainly there needs to be a major effort to produce cars and SUVs that get more miles per gallon of gas consumed, and to produce more cars that do not use gas.

This alone won't solve the problem of energy security, but it will help.

Replacing Middle East oil with supplies from oil-producing countries in Latin America, Africa and the Caspian Sea region should be done without delay.

And we can increase domestic oil production in ways that don't despoil the environment if we use appropriate drilling techniques in the Arctic and in deep water. With new technology, it might even be possible to make use of unconventional sources like oil shale and tar sands.

We must act quickly and decisively to expand the use of natural gas, clean-coal technology and nuclear power. These and, wherever possible, renewable energy sources can provide the electricity needed to reduce the direct burning of oil in industry and transportation.

Natural gas consumption has risen by 13 percent over the past decade and is projected to increase another 50 percent by 2020. To meet this demand, nearly 400,000 miles of new transmission and distribution pipelines must be built at a cost of more than $150 billion.

The basic attractions of coal, the nation's No. 1 power-plant fuel, are abundance and low cost. The United States possesses more than 240 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves, or about one-fourth of the world's total.

We have a greater share of the world's coal than Saudi Arabia does of the world's oil. No longer the dirty fuel of the past, coal is being burned much more cleanly, due in part to the growing use of fluidized-bed combustion and coal-to-gas systems. Even as the amount of coal-based electricity has nearly tripled since 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency says that coal-fired plants now produce 33 percent less pollution than they did then.

Those who dismiss nuclear power for security reasons fail to recognize that nothing really is immune to terrorist attacks, not oil refineries, gas pipelines or nuclear plants. Shutting down our economy because such an attack might be possible is not an option. Nuclear power, now safe and reliable, still provides 20 percent of the nation's electricity. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is wisely renewing the operating licenses of many nuclear plants for another 20 years.

Unfortunately, the revival of nuclear power remains in doubt, because of the continuing political stalemate over the disposal of nuclear waste. Nevada politicians and anti-nuclear groups are practicing a kind of mindless ideological environmentalism, spurning the results of a decade-long scientific study of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. Done at the direction of Congress, the site "characterization" study shows that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site for an underground repository to hold nuclear waste from power plants as well as waste from the nation's weapons program.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham can help break the logjam over nuclear waste. Before the end of this year he should recommend approval of the Yucca Mountain site so that President Bush can announce a timetable for its opening. Congress should concur in this decision.

Energy is the lifeblood of our economy. An effective energy policy ­ one that reduces oil dependence ­ is certain to be controversial; it is not one everyone will like. Creating a workable energy policy is difficult but not impossible. The real issue is not the administration's environmental policy or "special interests" influencing President Bush and Congress. Instead, we are dealing with the energy security of this nation.

Sullivan S. Marsden Jr. is professor emeritus of petroleum engineering.

• Sullivan Marsden's faculty profile