[Mb-civic] Energy Insanity By Molly Ivins, AlterNet

Wed Mar 30 21:42:23 PST 2005

AlterNet
Energy Insanity
By Molly Ivins, AlterNet
Posted on March 29, 2005, Printed on March 30, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/21622/

As a general rule about Bush & Co., the more closely a policy is associated
with Dick Cheney, the worse it is. Which brings us to energy policy 
remember his secret task force? In the long history of monumentally bad
ideas, the Cheney policy is a standout for reasons of both omission and
commission. Dumb, dumber and dumbest.

Ponder this: Next year, the administration will phase out the $2,000 tax
credit for buying a hybrid vehicle, which gets over 50 miles per gallon, but
will leave in place the $25,000 tax write-off for a Hummer, which gets 10-12
mpg. That's truly crazy, and that's truly what the whole Cheney energy
policy is.

According to the Energy Information Administration in the Department of
Energy, last year's energy bill (same as this one) would cost taxpayers at
least $31 billion, do nothing about the projected over-80 percent increase
in America's imports of foreign oil by 2025, and increase gasoline prices.
(Since every bureaucrat who tells the truth in this administration  about
the cost of the drug bill or the safety of Vioxx  seems to get the ax, I'm
probably getting those folks in trouble.)

The bill is loaded with corporate giveaways and tax breaks for big oil.
Meanwhile, Bush's budget cuts funding for renewable energy research and
programs, and anyone who tells you different is lying.

Now, here's the Catch-22 we get with this administration: It is using the
exact language of the bill's critics  stealing it wholesale and using it to
promote its bill. It's our friend Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster who
specializes in "framing" issues (framing means the same thing as spinning,
and in the non-political world it is known as lying), at work again. Luntz
put out a memo in January: "Eight Energy Communication Guidelines for 2005"
telling R's how to talk about energy using language people like.

The Natural Resources Defense Council found a Bush speech on energy on March
9 in Ohio that parrots Luntz's suggestions to a laughable point  threat to
national security, diversity of supply, innovation, conservation and (my
fave) Point 4, "The key principle is 'responsible energy exploration.' And
remember, it's NOT drilling for oil. It's responsible energy exploration."

So there was Bush, as per Luntz's memo, talking about "environmentally
responsible exploration" and announcing one of his top energy objectives is
"to diversify our energy supply by developing alternative sources of
energy." Polling shows 70 percent of Americans support a drastic increase in
government spending on renewable energy sources.

I'm tired of arguing about whether Bush is so ignorant he doesn't know that
he is cutting alternative energy programs and subsidizing oil companies or
so fiendishly clever that he knows and doesn't care what he says. In the
end, it doesn't make any difference. You get wretched policy either way.

The Apollo Project, a sensible outfit dedicated to reducing America's
dependence on foreign oil, says 90 percent of Americans support its goal of
energy independence. Bracken Hendricks, the executive director, points out
that there is "remarkable agreement among many so-called strange bedfellows
 labor and business, environmentalists and evangelicals, governors and
generals, urbanites and farmers."

Meanwhile, what we are sticking with is soaring oil prices (ExxonMobil just
reported the highest quarterly profit ever, $8.42 billion, by an American
company) and declining discoveries. Several oil companies are reporting
disappearing reserves, and Royal Dutch/Shell admitted it had overstated its
reserves by 20 percent last year.

Nor are the major oil companies spending their mammoth profits on
exploration or field development  they're doing mega-mergers and stock
buybacks. ExxonMobil spent $9.95 billion to buy back its own stock in 2004.
The Chinese and the Indians are now buying cars like mad, and the result is
going to be an enormous supply crunch, sooner rather than later.

It is possible with existing technology to build a car that gets 500 miles
per gallon, but the Bushies won't even raise the CAFÉ (fuel efficiency)
standards for cars coming out now. The trouble with the Bush plan to develop
hydrogen cars is that while you can get hydrogen out of water, you have put
energy in to get it out, so there's a net energy loss.

Conservation is simply the cheapest and most effective way of addressing
this problem. If you put a tax on carbon, it would move industry to wind or
solar power. Wind power here in Texas is at the tipping point now 
comparably priced. Our health, our environment, our economy and the globe
itself would all benefit from a transition to renewable energy sources.

And as Tom Friedman recently pointed out, it would do a lot for world peace,
too: "By doing nothing to lower U.S. oil consumption, we are financing both
sides in the war on terrorism and strengthening the worst governments in the
world. That is, we are financing the U.S. military with our tax dollars and
we are financing the jihadists  and the Saudi, Sudanese and Iranian mosques
and charities that support them  through our gasoline purchases."