Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Elect me and oil prices instantly drop, says Hillary Clinton in Iowa
Michael McAuliff, New York Daily News
Hillary Clinton predicted Saturday that just electing her President will cut the price of oil.
When the world hears her commitment at her inauguration about ending American dependence on foreign fuel, Clinton says, oil-pumping countries will lower prices to stifle America’s incentive to develop alternative energy.
“I predict to you, the oil-producing countries will drop the price of oil,” Clinton said, speaking at the Manchester YWCA. “They will once again assume, once the cost pressure is off, Americans and our political process will recede.”
Clinton argued that former President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s actually started moving in the right direction toward energy independence, but his successor, Ronald Reagan, “dismantled” that work.
(23 December 2007)
The Fuel Fixers
Peter Maas, New York Times
…What truly sets Giffen apart is that he has claimed in his defense that he was an operative for the Central Intelligence Agency. As a close adviser to President Nazarbayev, who in the 1990s agreed to a series of large oil contracts with American firms, Giffen says he was moonlighting for the American government as, basically, our man in Astana. Giffen’s lawyers have called him a patriot who helped ensure that Kazakhstan’s reserves of oil and natural gas would be controlled by American rather than Chinese or Russian companies.
…The case raises a number of questions, including this one: in an era of scarce oil, can America afford to punish anyone who cuts corners to win deals for American firms? In 2003, when oil sold for less than $30 a barrel, it was possible to believe we could have our anticorruption statutes and our cheap gasoline. Four years later, with oil going for $95 a barrel, it’s not so clear. The British government, citing-national security concerns, has called off an investigation into bribery of influential Saudis. Delays in Giffen’s case suggest that some federal agencies may be more concerned with protecting secrets than with seeing the prosecution go forward. Much of the pretrial evidence has been sealed, but what is known is that Giffen’s lawyers have asked for sensitive documents that they contend will show official approval of their client’s activities.
As an instrument of resource control, bribery has been the recourse of corporate executives and government officials the world over.
(23 December 2007)
Means’ empty gesture still makes point
Dorreen Yellow Bird, Grand Forks Herald
A group of Lakota Indians notified the State Department in Washington this week that, in the words of activist Russell Means, “We are no longer citizens of the United States of America, and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us.”
In my humble opinion, I think THAT ship has sailed.
As I sat and pondered the possibilities of American Indian independence, my first thought was, “Yikes, I’d need a green card to live in Grand Forks!”
Of the people who called or e-mailed me, most are chuckling at the absurdity of it. Means and his group, of course, would be speaking for themselves and not tribes, whose tribal councils speak for them. But Means and his group have some points – perhaps 200 years too late, but they do have some points
(22 December 2007)
Auto Emissions and Environmental Protection
John E. Bonine, Portland Oregonian
In turning down California’s request to set stricter limits on greenhouse gas emissions from new automobiles, George W. Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency has struck a blow against both states’ rights and the future of our grandchildren.
Unless the decision is reversed, new cars sold in Oregon and elsewhere in 2009 will not limit greenhouse gases, as they could and should, beyond the limits contained in the new energy bill.
Oregon should join California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who have announced they will “sue at the earliest possible moment” to overturn the EPA decision. The states should push for an expedited hearing.
How successful are the states likely to be? They have a good chance to win on legal grounds, but a court decision cannot be handed down quickly enough to affect 2009 models of automobiles. And if we have to wait until a new president is in office who can approve a new request from California, we will have lost at least two more years in the battle against global warming.
Can Congress make a difference? U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said she was “prepared to take all measures to overturn this harmful decision.” But that offers little hope, for “all measures” taken by the Congress would likely draw a veto by this president.
Probably the most effective response to this latest contribution to global heating (it’s not just warming) would be a strong political reaction. But let’s examine the likely success of a lawsuit by California, Oregon and others anyway.
First, some background:
The first government in the world to tackle the problem of pollution from automobiles was California, which started mandating standards for newly produced automobiles more than 40 years ago. The auto industry lobbied for national standards and a law that would block individual states from regulating automobile design. The prospect of numerous states having differing standards drove Detroit to seek a uniform, national program.
Although all other states were pre-empted from having their own standards, California was able to hang on to its legal right to act as a leader in forcing the development of new technology.
(23 December 2007)
Also at Common Dreams.
