Earlier this week, editors and publishers from around the country met in Chicago for The Associated Press’ annual meeting as well as other newspaper-related gatherings.

Aside from topics dealing with specific newspaper matters, the one main topic of discussion was the energy crisis and oil. The AP put on an interesting program with the correspondents from Africa, China, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles reporting various aspects of this country’s dependence – or addiction – to oil.

The AP presentation was based on the possibility of oil reaching a price of $100 or more per barrel.

The reporters noted recent U.S. history with millions of persons leaving metropolitan areas for suburban communities with better schools, better law enforcement and a better lifestyle. This placed millions of automobiles onto our highways, inner-city schools were left with fewer students and the housing business in the suburbs mushroomed as did all the other facets of new communities built in areas that were once small rural communities or farmland.

With oil at $100 a barrel, these reporters said most persons may no longer be able to afford to commute. The price for most everything from clothes to schooling to food all would become far more expensive. The cost of heating and cooling homes would become almost prohibitive and consequently people would start returning to the cities to save money.

The reporters pointed out the major portion of Uncle Sam’s oil imports come from nations that are very unstable, such as Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Mexico.

Aside from neighboring Canada and Mexico, the governments in the other oil-producing countries are relatively shaky.

The consequences of oil costing $100 or more a barrel would be great. It could also heighten international tensions.

Several hours after the AP program, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama delivered a speech in which he hammered President Bush for not being more concerned about global warming and the need to reduce those factors that were contributing to warming trends, hurricanes and other major storms.

Sen. Obama told stories of Alaskan villages having to relocate due to the melting of ice-covered land on which small communities had been built centuries ago. He told of large chunks of ice breaking off Greenland; the melting of ice on the polar caps; the likelihood of the oceans rising several feet, flooding much of the eastern and western U.S. ocean shoreline.

He didn’t pull any punches in criticizing the president, saying little of any significance had been done by Bush to try to improve the environment or clean up dirty emissions, which are contributing to the Earth’s warming.

The interesting thing about both the AP and Sen. Obama’s presentations was the focus on the need to shake the addiction to oil, find ways to be more efficient, change lifestyles, buy smaller foreign cars rather than gas-guzzling American models and figure out ways to make better and cleaner use of coal.

However, not one word in either program mentioned nuclear energy. According to recent reports, this country is getting 19.4 percent of its energy from nuclear power.

It is clean, it is efficient and it has the potential to supply a great percentage of this nation’s energy needs. Unfortunately, no nuclear power plants have been built in the United States in years and none are planned.

The “fear” factor obviously is one contributing factor but also lawyers and environmentalists have placed so many stringent demands on nuclear power plants that costs have become almost prohibitive.

China has several nuclear plants under construction. Three are being built in Japan and four in Russia. Again, none in the United States. And yet the need to wean this country from its ravenous oil addiction, the environmentalists’ constant efforts to reduce dangerous and dirty emissions, and the ever-increasing costs of energy apparently have little to no effect in causing Americans to look to increased use of nuclear energy.

What will it take? Oil at $150 a barrel? The nation’s economy taking a nosedive? What?

Speaking of the economy, it wasn’t long ago during Bill Clinton’s presidential election efforts that leading Democrats were saying, “It’s the economy, stupid” when encouraging voters to support Clinton over Sen. Bob Dole.

If “It’s the economy, stupid” is indeed the No. 1 interest of the voters, Republicans should be heartened by recent reports on the nation’s economy: More Americans are working than at any other time in the nation’s history; 5.1 million new jobs have been added in the last two and a half years and the jobless rate is the lowest in 30 years.