In a presidential campaign rife with hollow slogans, one that demands more scrutiny is “energy independence.” Noble-sounding, yet as fluffy as its cousins “hope” and “change,” “energy independence” is part of any candidate’s response when pressed about the high price of gasoline.

But what, exactly, do they mean?

Like “quality education,” everyone is for energy independence. The question is what it entails and how we get there. For many politicians, the term is synonymous with “green” measures like cap-and-trade credits, hybrid cars, and ethanol.

The jury is still out on ethanol. Its proponents – also known as the congressional delegations from Nebraska and Iowa – hail it as a miracle biofuel, conjuring images of Doc Brown throwing table scraps into his nuclear food processor to gas up the DeLorean. But producing corn is very energy-intensive and uses fossil fuels at every step: planting the seeds; making and applying fertilizer; and transporting the product to market (ethanol can’t be piped around – it’s too corrosive).

And co-opting all that corn for ethanol production raises the “fuel or food” debate. The price of corn has passed $5 per bushel and milk, the production of which requires corn, has risen 36% since last January.

So this energy “solution” both consumes lots of gasoline and jacks up food prices - splendid results for a product we subsidize at 51 cents per gallon.

Bill Clinton focused on the green side of energy while stumping for his wife recently, saying, “We should have an energy policy right now, putting people to work in green collar jobs as a way to stave off the recession, moving us towards energy independence."

A new addition to the political lexicon, a “green collar” job is any occupation with an eco-friendly bent. But legions of new recycling haulers, bicycle repairmen, and organic gardeners, as much as they may cheer the heart of Al Gore, will do nothing to bolster the power grid.

Without diminishing our petroleum woes, the more significant component to any energy policy is just keeping the lights on. The Energy Department projects a 50 percent increase in U.S. demand for electricity over the next two decades, so the clock is ticking on an already strained power grid.

Renewable sources are frequently invoked on the campaign trail, and wind power is a great idea - at least until you have to drop 400-foot windmills across several miles of the landscape. Off the coast of Texas, the Kenedy County Wind Projects were slated to generate 388 megawatts of electricity - enough to power about 90,000 homes. In total, the two projects would cover 60,000 acres and include more than 500 turbines.

Enter the Coastal Habitat Alliance, a group of 11 organizations that filed lawsuits in 2007 to halt construction of the wind farms. The CHA sponsored a study that claimed “these proposed projects could result in the largest and most significant avian mortality event in the history of wind energy."

Who knew that going green could leave an environmental group seeing red? The CHA says that it is not opposed to wind power, but wants to ensure “that an irrevocable environmental tragedy is not caused in the name of saving the environment."

Fair point, but where else do you put the thing? Even in a place as large as Texas, it can’t be easy to find 60,000 acres suitable for such a project. Generally open, flat, and lacking trees, it follows that coastal regions are among the best locations for wind turbines. The Gobi Desert probably has some avian-friendly acreage available, but it won’t do Houston’s power grid much good.

Of course, coastal regions are as popular for rich snobs as they are egrets and loons. In Massachusetts, a proposed wind farm off Cape Cod is inching forward despite a long and bitter public fight. A draft environmental report has cleared plans by Cape Wind Associates to build 130 turbines across 25 miles of federal waters, saying it will have “minor” or negligible” effects on wildlife, navigation, fishing, and tourism.

The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, as the name suggests, is up in arms. "We're disappointed because there are still gaps in what's been put in the report," said spokesman Glenn Wattley. "Statements that there is minimal environmental impact, we think are wrong. There are very important and serious impacts.” (The most serious impact for Ted Kennedy is that the turbines would ruin the view for his evening cocktail.)

With wind power hung out to dry, that leaves the “dirty” options. We get 50% of our energy from coal and have plenty more of it. But coal-fired plants are Public Enemy #1 in the global warming debate, making their proliferation nearly impossible. Across 29 states, nearly four dozen coal plants are being challenged in the courts.

“Our goal is to oppose these projects at each and every stage, from zoning and air and water permits, to their mining permits and new coal railroads,” said Bruce Niles, an attorney for the Sierra Club. Industry reps say the actions threaten to undermine the nation’s power grid, leading to blackouts and higher prices.

As for nuclear power, no new plants have been ordered since the Three Mile Island incident in 1979. However, nuclear is getting better press these days, even among those who spent decades fighting it: Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore is asking his brethren to give nuclear another look. (While Moore’s conversion is encouraging, it would have been nice to see a less militant stance thirty years ago - see Niles, Bruce, above.)

All of which leaves us paralyzed by conflicting interests, as one man’s solution becomes another’s cause. We should build forests of wind turbines, but not if they can be seen from the Kennedy compound or if some birds might run afoul of the blades. We should reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but not if it means drilling in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico - or pretty much anywhere known to have proven domestic reserves. As we squabble over a quixotic quest for legitimate, meaningful energy sources with no environmental impact, commodity prices rise and the threats of blackouts loom larger. “Investing in renewables” is all well and good, but what power company would be encouraged when Cape Wind has spent $30 million thus far - and hasn’t built a single turbine?

Something has to give. If the Alliance for (Insert Pet Cause) can bog down any project in the courts, “energy independence” and “comprehensive energy policy” will never move beyond what they are now...

...just slogans