The concern which many have voiced is that the administration's energy policy may have been created at the request of and based solely on the recomendations of major oil companies, representing an inappropriate level of influence in the process of forming national policy. This has made a lot of environmentalists and political opponents of the administration quite angry, raising cries that our national energy policy is basically being run by "Big Oil".
That's the basic background. There are lots of questions about how the energy policy was formed and why it was so secretive, and some senators are annoyed that they didn't get better and more complete answers out of oil-company executives when they questioned them. This all makes great fodder for the press, which is playing it up for all it's worth - especially in a time of high gas prices. The problem is that all of the evidence suggests that these concerns are at best speculative and most likely completely unfounded.
Here are some of the many facts which undermine this entire controversy.
Regardless of where the ideas for the energy policy came from, the Senate voted on the bill (Energy Policy Act of 2005) which ultimately came out of that task force's ideas and passed it enthusiastically. Most senators seemed to think the measure was a pretty good idea at the time, and they voted in clear knowledge of how the policy was formed by the Task Force - most of these issues had already been raised in 2001 and 2002. The bill passed 74-26, with well over half of Senate Democrats voting for it.
The energy bill is far from being nothing but a big wet kiss for Big Oil as it has been accused of being. It may include a lot of support for building new refineries and expanding drilling and improving efficiency of oil production, but it also includes more money and support than any previous legislation for alternative fuels, renewable energy and energy research. This includes a $3400 consumer tax credit for buying a hybrid vehicle, government loan guarantees for clean-energy projects and conversions, setting a higher standard for ethanol in gasoline, subsidies for wind and other alternative energy sources, support for wind- and wave-based power generating technology, new support for geothermal energy generation, new tax breaks for making homes more energy efficient, converting an enormous portion of the federal fleet to alternative fuel use, and lots of support for revitalizing the nuclear-power industry, including tax cuts, loans and security assistance. All told the bill provides over $16 billion in tax incentives for alternative energy programs. Not only is it not unreasonably pro-oil, it's the most powerful bill ever passed in support of other forms of energy.
Dave Nalle has been a magazine editor, freelance writer, capitol hill staffer, game designer and taught college history for many years. He is Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, working to promote liberty in the GOP. …
Visit Dave Nalle's author page
— Dave Nalle's Blog
Article comments
1 - Maurice
Great job as usual, Dave.
As a side note: Most gas companies are making an average of 7 to 14 cents per gallon. Taxes on gas are at an average of 42 cpg.
Maybe we need a task force to find out why the ones taking all the risks are only making billions and the ones doing nothing (but carping!) are making TRILLIONS!
2 - Upright Simian
Damned fine article and I love the links. Who knew these oil companies were so heavily invested in renewable energy. I did have a clue about Chevron. Both of the biodiesel depots I know of are Chevron stations.
3 - Dave Nalle
Good point, Maurice. If gas prices go up again I may write something on how the 'rapacious' profits the gas companies made this summer resulted from nothing but mathematical inevitability.
But I can't agree with you on the tax. I think it needs to be increased enormously. To a total of as much as $2 a gallon.
Dave
4 - Upright Simian
Wouldn't a big gas tax have pretty regressive effect on the economy, especially food prices?
5 - Maurice
I agree with the vertical monkey and am puzzled as to why you think gas needs to be taxed more.
On another topic you should read the latest article by Thomas Sowell. He explains why the minimum wage is so destructive. I would be interested in your comments.
6 - Dave Nalle
Do you have a link for the Sowell article? I'd be interested in what he has in mind. I see the minimum wage as basically meaningless, but I could see how raising it enough to make it meaningful could be a problem.
As for the whopping big gas tax, it would indeed be regressive, but mostly for wealthier consumers who can afford it, and the side benefits fro public transportation, in potential tax reduction, in cutting the deficit and even in helping out locally-based agriculture would be more than worth the negatives.
I'm working on an article on it, but am still doing some of the research.
Dave
7 - Dave Nalle
I notice that David Mark has finally decided to propagandize this issue with his usual spin in another article here on blogcritics. Pity he didn't stop here first for some of the actual facts.
Dave
8 - Maurice
here
I have a bunch of questions about the benefits but since you are going to write a full article about it I will hold off.
9 - Upright Simian
BTW weren't the oil execs called before the congressional committee to explain price gouging, not this old news?
10 - Dave Nalle
Yes, as I understand it they were sent to the hearings with the expectation that they would be talking about company profits and current gas price issues - in other words they were prepared to be accused of price gouging. I doubt that any of them expected Frank Lautenberg to start grilling them on meetings 4 years ago involving company employees who in two cases had left or retired. No wonder they didn't know what to answer. And in fact, they didn't all say 'no' when asked if their companies had been at meetings with the Task Force. Most of them said they didn't know.
And as far as it goes, I think there are only two companies involved in all of this who are real bad guys - Conoco and Exxon. They've repeatedly shown themselves to be uncooperative, inflexible and defensive. They're the real dinosaurs here. They're the ones who don't have alternative energy or alternative fuel programs and they have other issues in play as well, such as Exxon's wretched environmental history and Conoco's problems with workers rights issues.
Dave