Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Papers Detail Industry’s Role in Cheney’s Energy Report
Michael Abramowitz and Steven Mufson, Washington Post
At 10 a.m. on April 4, 2001, representatives of 13 environmental groups were brought into the Old Executive Office Building for a long-anticipated meeting. Since late January, a task force headed by Vice President Cheney had been busy drawing up a new national energy policy, and the groups were getting their one chance to be heard.
Cheney was not there, but so many environmentalists were in the room that introductions took up “about half the meeting,” recalled Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth. Anna Aurilio of the U.S. Public Interest Group said, “It was clear to us that they were just being nice to us.”
A confidential list prepared by the Bush administration shows that Cheney and his aides had already held at least 40 meetings with interest groups, most of them from energy-producing industries. By the time of the meeting with environmental groups, according to a former White House official who provided the list to The Washington Post, the initial draft of the task force was substantially complete and President Bush had been briefed on its progress.
In all, about 300 groups and individuals met with staff members of the energy task force, including a handful who saw Cheney himself, according to the list, which was compiled in the summer of 2001. For six years, those names have been a closely guarded secret, thanks to a fierce legal battle waged by the White House.
…The list of participants’ names and when they met with administration officials provides a clearer picture of the task force’s priorities and bolsters previous reports that the review leaned heavily on oil and gas companies and on trade groups — many of them big contributors to the Bush campaign and the Republican Party.
…The development of a new energy policy was Bush’s first major initiative after he took office. He turned over responsibility of it to Cheney, a former chairman of Halliburton Co., a Dallas-based energy services firm.
…From the beginning, it was clear that Cheney was running the show, chairing meetings of the task force…
…Those who met with Cheney said he was intensely interested in waning U.S. energy supplies, even though prices of oil and natural gas were much lower than they are today.
…The task force issued its report on May 16, 2001. Though the report was roundly criticized by environmental groups at the time, some energy experts say that in retrospect it appears better balanced than the administration’s actual policy.
Divided into eight chapters, the report correctly forecast higher energy prices, stressed energy efficiency and conservation, and pushed for boosting domestic conventional energy supplies and increasing use of renewable energy. Although it advocated wider drilling and omitted climate-change measures, it also said that “using energy more wisely” was the nation’s “first challenge.”
Some key proposals, such as opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, have never won congressional approval, but some measures to encourage oil and gas production, coal output, and the development of biofuels and nuclear power have been included in Bush’s budgets and in the 2005 energy bill.
“Cheney had his finger on a critical issue,” said David G. Hawkins, a climate expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “He just pushed it in the wrong direction.”
(18 July 2007)
Also at the Washington Post: List of the Energy Task Force Meetings Participants.
Dingell’s energy bill blind spot
Editorial, Los Angeles Times
Once again, the Michigan Democrat is sabotaging energy policy in favor of playing politics
—
A MILLION YEARS of compression and heat may someday convert Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) into petroleum, just as it did the other dinosaurs. Unfortunately, by then there may be no humans left to pump a few gallons of Dingell into their Hummers, because the climate change he is so gleefully ignoring may have rendered us extinct.
Dingell, the powerful chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is at the center of a damaging split among congressional Democrats on energy policy and global warming. The Senate last month passed a progressive energy bill that for the first time in nearly 20 years would improve gas mileage for cars and light trucks sold in the U.S., but similar legislation has stalled in the House, largely because of a dispute between Dingell and more responsible Democrats represented by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco).
Dingell has a decent record on the environment, except when it comes to initiatives that target the auto industry. He initially backed a House energy bill that contained fuel economy improvements even weaker than the toothless measures proposed by President Bush. Pelosi saw to it that those provisions were removed, but it’s now unclear whether any fuel requirements will make it into the bill, or even when the House will get around to debating it.
Meanwhile, Dingell’s blind spot has widened – in addition to blocking anything that annoys his backers in Detroit, he now seems determined to poison the debate on global warming. Earlier this month, he said he would introduce a bill creating a carbon tax on fossil fuel use. Dingell admits he’s designing the bill to fail. Apparently, his aim is to demonstrate to fellow Democrats that Americans aren’t willing to pay a price to solve climate change and that politicians will suffer for trying.
Dingell’s mockery of a solution that many of the nation’s most prominent economists and environmentalists (as well as this editorial page) have endorsed is juvenile and destructive. Carbon taxes represent the simplest, most effective and economically least damaging option to fight global warming, because they encourage market solutions and their costs can be offset; higher prices for gas or power could be balanced by lower payroll taxes, for example. Yet a carbon tax comes with built-in political headaches, because voters are allergic to taxes and feel they’re already paying enough for energy.
To succeed, a carbon tax bill would have to be carefully crafted to avoid hurting consumers and the poor, and political leaders would have to explain its benefits. Instead, Dingell wants to propose an unpalatable tax that would be political suicide for any lawmaker to support. This could harm or kill more reasonable tax proposals and stall responsible policymaking for years – time the world can ill afford to waste.
Dingell is creating a woeful legacy after serving an otherwise distinguished half a century in the House. He can be forgiven for fighting to protect his district’s key industry, but there’s a warm spot in Greenland for leaders who play petty political games with the future lives and well-being of our children and grandchildren.
(18 July 2007)
My nominee for the best lead sentence in an editorial. Also the last line is noteworthy: ” a warm spot in Greenland for leaders who play petty political games ” -BA
House boosts energy efficiency programs
Andrew Taylor, Associated Press
The House voted Tuesday to award increases to programs aimed at making cars and buildings more energy efficient and boosting research and development of alternative energy sources.
By a 312-111 vote, the House passed a $32 billion measure funding the Department of Energy budget and hundreds of Army Corps of Engineers water projects.
The vote would in theory be large enough to overturn a promised veto of the measure by President Bush, who requested about 4 percent less for programs covered by the measure.
But GOP leaders promise a veto could be sustained given the fact that almost 150 Republicans have signed a letter promising to uphold any of his vetoes of Democratic-drafted spending bills.
(17 July 2007)
Action needed on climate change: Business group
Scott Malone, Reuters
A major U.S. industry body said on Tuesday that human activity is changing the Earth’s climate and urged Washington to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions nationwide.
But the Business Roundtable, representing 160 of the largest U.S. companies with $4.5 trillion in combined revenue, stopped short of advocating a specific policy to accomplish that, saying its members did not yet agree on methods.
“The thinking of U.S. CEOs on climate change is evolving significantly,” said Charles Holliday, chairman and chief executive of U.S. chemicals group DuPont, and a Roundtable member. “A growing number of CEOs view it as a major issue for their companies.”
In recent years, corporate America has dropped arguments that there is no proof human activity causes warmer patterns across the world, putting some business executives at odds with the Bush administration which rejected the Kyoto Protocol, the main U.N. plan until 2012 for curbing greenhouse gases.
…The Roundtable’s members include some of the biggest names in U.S. business, such as General Electric Co., Exxon Mobil Corp. and General Motors Corp..
Environmental group the Sierra Club dismissed the Roundtable’s statement as an attempt to appear environmentally sensitive while actually seeking to ensure any new regulations accommodate its members.
(17 July 2007)
