Given the federal government’s track record on energy policy, perhaps it’s best to leave the issue to the states.

In 1973, President Nixon launched Project Independence, which was designed to kick the nation’s oil import habit by 1980. President Carter had a more modest goal: Cut our dependence in half by 1990. President Bush has noted the problem during all six of his State of the Union addresses, but the reliance on imports has expanded by 7 percent since he took office. Today, we import 60 percent of our oil. During the Nixon years, it was 35 percent.

Bush spotlighted the issue during Tuesday’s address to the nation, but his plan is awfully timid given the long history of backsliding. No mention of conservation, which is unsurprising considering the government has yet to spend the $450 million that was set aside in the 2005 energy bill for public education campaigns. No inclination to raise the federal gasoline tax, which hasn’t budged since 1993, to ease demand.

The president did describe a plan that would reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years, but it’s unclear whether that means a reduction from today’s levels or merely a reduction in the projected increase. It probably doesn’t matter, because few energy analysts believe that the steps he outlined – outside of increasing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve – are realistic.

Our energy policy is ineffective because it’s geared more toward protectionism than independence. Ethanol producers get giant subsidies, but a 54 percent-a-gallon levy is slapped on sugar-based fuel from Brazil. Meanwhile, oil from the Middle East arrives duty-free. Federal funding for biomass-based fuels has dropped every year since 2000, but subsidies for crude oil producers have increased.

Congress has balked at meaningful increases in fuel mileage standards, because political leaders from industrial states – House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., for example – have blocked changes that spook powerful automakers. The fear is that mandating better mileage will tip business to Japanese automakers. Meanwhile, Ford just posted its worst year ever, because consumers have already discovered that Japanese models make more sense. And to further illustrate the nation’s contradictory approach, tax credits for purchasing hybrid vehicles are set to expire.

Many solutions have been proposed for lessening the nation’s dependence on foreign oil: raising the federal gasoline tax, creating incentives for conservation, aggressively pursuing alternative fuels and mandating higher mileage standards for automobiles.

So which should we pursue? All of the above. And for guidance, we should turn to the states that are meeting the problem head-on. For instance, Oregon, Washington and the Northeastern states have followed California’s lead and adopted legislation that presses automakers for cleaner-running autos that would get better mileage.

The feds’ response has been to take California to court. If they win, we all lose.