With oil prices hovering at $55 per barrel, dependence on foreign oil growing, our energy system more vulnerable than ever to terrorism, and demand for oil in China skyrocketing, one is left puzzled by how little attention is devoted to America's growing energy problem in the 2004 presidential election campaign. Not one question in the three recent presidential debates was dedicated to the topic.

Both President George W. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry have presented an energy plan, but their plans differ in degree more than in kind. They both support hybrid electric vehicles, clean coal technology and research toward hydrogen fuel cell cars. The Bush plan tilts more toward increasing supply by opening new areas for drilling and diversifying international sources of oil. Kerry's plan is focused on reducing demand through conservation and biofuels. But the differences in their plans are not distinct enough to spark a vibrant debate about the issue. Whether we invest $5 billion in hydrogen fuel cell research as Kerry proposes or only $1.7 billion as Bush does this will have zero impact on our lives in the next four years.

For both candidates national security and the economy are the two top agenda issues. Both problems are tightly connected to America's increasing dependence on oil coming from the Middle East and other unstable regions. Yet, the candidates prefer not to talk about this. They mention repeatedly the monumental task of wining the war on terror, but can we really win the war while continuing to send billions of dollars every year to countries that don't particularly like us, enabling them to divert some of it into the coffers of terrorist groups or pay the salaries of those who preach radical Islam?

In their talk about economic issues both candidates, again, fail to recognize the heavy burden oil dependence imposes on the U.S. economy. The Kerry campaign blames the Bush administration for failing to close the trade deficit gap and fight for jobs at home. But a quarter of our trade deficit is due to oil imports and with oil prices almost double those of last year the deficit is only going to grow. Both candidates talk about jobs, but if every billion dollars of trade deficit cost the U.S. 27,000 jobs, as the federal government claims, isn't it clear that in order to bring jobs back to America we should treat our oil addiction?

Despite the fact that oil imports contribute to so many of America's problems, neither candidate found it fitting to connect the dots for voters and make the energy problem a top priority of his campaign. This spring Senator Kerry made some strong comments about the issue mainly in order to attack what he claims is the Bush administration's too-cozy relationship with the big oil companies and Saudi Arabia (a relationship that America's oil dependence has forced every administration in memory, regardless of party, to sustain.) But since then his focus on the issue has considerably diminished. President Bush, for his part, did not even mention the O word once in his acceptance speech at the Republican convention.

Many attribute the candidates' silence to the strong influence energy firms and their dollars have on the campaigns. This may be true but so do the pharmaceutical companies and yet this does not preclude serious debate about prescription drugs. Another popular explanation is that voters simply don't care about the issue because the recent spike in oil prices hasn't really hit their wallet in a way that could generate action. But an August poll by pollster Frank Luntz shows the opposite: 83% of Americans agree that "reducing our dependence on foreign oil must be a top priority for the next administration." Voters have also indicated they are willing to make sacrifices to reach this end. By an almost 3 to 1 margin, the public prioritizes "reducing our reliance on foreign oil" over "cheaper prices for oil and gas."

Considering the fact that Americans consume a quarter of the world's oil while owning less than 3% of global reserves it is time for the candidates to 'energize' their campaigns and present a detailed energy agenda explaining to voters by how much they pledge to reduce our oil bill, in how long and at what cost. Unless this root issue is addressed our country will be forced to grapple with far more challenging national security and economic problems.

Gal Luft is Executive Director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS). IAGS is part of a coalition of national security think tanks that joined together last month to call for reducing US dependence on oil. See: www.iags.org/safn.pdf

Top