Marking a promising shift in the political climate, the U.S. Senate on Thursday approved a bill calling for an increase in both ethanol production and average fuel economy in vehicles, among other provisions

This is a pronounced change from just two years ago, when President Bush approved the Energy Policy Act.

The 2005 legislation promoted energy efficiency, provided tax credits for those who purchase hybrid vehicles and encouraged research into alternative fuels.

However, that same legislation also provided incentives for oil refineries to increase their capacity and for the construction of more oil pipelines in the U.S.

Because this current bill doesn’t promote domestic production of oil and natural gas, Democrats see it as a step toward reducing U.S. dependence on oil.

But are the long-term positives of this bill – decreased oil dependence, production of a fuel that has less impact on the environment than gasoline – enough to counteract the short-term problems for consumers?

For those who already spend staggering amounts on gasoline, this bill could do much less to reduce immediate fuel costs than what it would appear.

Ethanol, especially E85, a fuel blend of 85 percent ethanol, provides roughly 15 percent less fuel economy than the same amount of gasoline. What seems like a cost-effective solution to oil becomes just as expensive.

It is also unclear how efficient the production of ethanol is. A news release from Cornell University reported that David Pimentel, professor of agriculture and ecology at Cornell, said, “There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel.”

Pimentel, in a study with University of California-Berkeley, said production of corn-based ethanol “requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.”

In contrast, the Consumer Energy Council of America said corn-based ethanol can sometimes use the same amount of energy to be produced as it ultimately provides. The National Resources Defense Council and Climate Solutions, in its review of several ethanol studies, found technology advancements in ethanol production are creating much higher energy returns.

Because of these differing findings, this current legislation should be taken at face value. Ethanol may not be the ideal solution, but this bill should be a springboard.

What is certain is the bill’s demonstration of a change in political attitude and a growing concern for the long-term repercussions of a costly dependence on oil.

However, National Public Radio reports that senators rejected a proposal to include a tax hike on oil companies as a means to fund renewable energy source.

The U.S. House, currently crafting its own energy bill, must reconcile with the Senate before final legislation can be sent to President Bush.

This legislation is a start. There’s still a long to way to go.