Of all the issues that George W. Bush and Al Gore would rather not debate during this presidential contest, none ranks higher than energy supply. Both candidates understandably regard energy politics--more specifically, petroleum prices--as electoral quicksand that can sink a presidential contender faster than you can say Jimmy Carter.

Gore and Bush fervently hope that the recent run-up in energy prices will not affect the political landscape until after November 7, but this is whistling past the graveyard. Higher oil and natural gas prices are here to stay, a product of escalating demand and flattening extraction rates. But for obvious reasons going back to 1980, both major party candidates are loath to tell the public that global oil production will peak sometime this decade, and that motorists will never again see gasoline priced as cheaply as it was in 1998-1999.

So why are energy prices rebounding so sharply 15 months after plummeting to the lowest levels in modern history?

Actually, the most recent price slump is partially responsible. When prices sink below production costs as they did in 1998-1999, oil suppliers invariably scale back throughput and exploration activity. As this occurs, global demand picks up, fanned in part by rock-bottom prices. Without the revenues needed to invest in additional capacity, however, oil suppliers are wont to sit on their hands and let the global economy burn through the excess inventory.

The trouble is, while global consumption climbed from 73 to 77 million barrels of oil per day since 1996, production capacity barely registered an increase during that time. According to published reports from the Middle East, global production this year will fall short of current demand.

Moreover, the measures needed to lift production levels to 80 million barrels per day, including replacement of aging infrastructure in Iran and Iraq, cannot be economically justified unless petroleum prices continue to climb.

And they will, no matter how many oil ministers Energy Secretary Bill Richardson visits between now and November. Even if the OPEC nations decided tomorrow to expand global extraction capacity by another 5%, which would necessitate up to $100 billion in investment capital, output from the Middle East wouldn't start rising until 2003 at the earliest.

Don't expect any relief from non-OPEC nations like Mexico, Norway, and the U.K, even though their domestic economies are no less insulated from the inflationary effects of higher oil prices than ours. All three countries are at their production peaks, with nowhere to go but downhill. As for the U.S., whose output as late as 1950 equaled domestic consumption, oil production has declined by 30% since peaking in 1970, and now accounts for barely 40% of the nation's current intake.

If production can't keep up with current consumption levels, then prices will go up until demand falls in line with supplies. Only once in U.S. history did demand for petroleum products decline. It happened over a five-year period from 1978 to 1983, when oil prices shot up from $12 to $33 per barrel. Conservation measures took hold during that time, though less a result of enlightened policy than economic necessity. Ironically, it was only when prices sagged to $12 per barrel early last year that daily consumption broke through the previous record set shortly before the 1979 oil embargo.

We've just about come full circle since those tumultuous times. The long reprieve from oil-induced economic disruption is rapidly coming to a close. It's early yet in the cycle; even at $1.50 a gallon, the price of gasoline is lower in real terms than in 1985. So how is the federal government addressing this developing problem? By issuing forecasts of lower gasoline prices this summer, in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

This sort of denial is to be expected as long as energy policy is regarded as the third rail of American politics. But an informed debate on this issue, encompassing a wide range of options to reduce demand for petroleum, is exactly what is needed before the November election. That debate cannot start until Bush and Gore pull their respective heads out of the sand and acknowledge the voters' growing unease over fuel prices, and propose some realistic remedies.

Michael Vickerman is Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin, a nonprofit organization promoting conservation and alternative energy strategies.