Behind the Energy Policy Controversy - Page 3

Author: Dave Nalle — Published: Nov 17, 2005 at 4:21 am 10 comments

  • If you're forming an energy policy, doesn't it make sense to meet with representatives of the companies which produce energy? When you need medical advice, you go to a doctor. For legal advice, you go to a lawyer. For advice on energy, surely you go to an energy producer, right? So why is it so surprising and troubling that Cheney and his task force met with these companies?

  • One of the big complaints from the very start of the Energy Task Force was that it wasn't including enough information from environmentalists or alternative-energy supporters. Yet it happens that the oil companies who were invited to meet with the panel included some of the largest pioneers in the field of alternative and renewable energy in the world. Companies like to diversify and hedge their bets. For oil companies, that means investing in oil and in other forms of energy. And some of these companies do it in a really big way. Since 2000 Shell has invested more than $1 billlion in wind and solar technology, according to the BBC. Shell is also a leading developer of solar panels and wind-power generation technology under its Shell Renewables division. British Petroleum is one of the largest manufacturers of solar panels in the world - they're made from petroleum - and has worked hard to make the technology available to the home consumer. Chevron has spent $1 billion since 2000 on alternative-fuel research and development, particularly hydrogen fuel vehicles in cooperation with Hyundai Corporation. Chevron is also leading the way in alternative fuels. Nearly all the commercial stations around the country that offer E85 Ethanol or B99 Biodiesel for commercial sale are associated with Chevron. The company started with one station in Hawaii - now Chevron offers alternative fuels in almost every state. Chevron has also been a huge supporter of energy conservation, offering a consumer conservation award since 1954 and subsidizing the Solar Electric Light Fund to introduce solar energy to the third world since 1990. So when Cheney's task force was meeting with these oil companies, they were also meeting with the most powerful and innovative forces in the renewable-energy and alternative-fuels industries as well.

  • Cheney and his staff did in fact meet with environmentalists and other concerned groups. Spencer Abraham initially represented the task force in meetings with 118 energy industry and corporate groups, 13 environmental groups and one consumer group. When groups including the National Resource Defense Council raised concerns about the makeup and agenda of the task force, it and other groups they recommended and organizations suggested by the Department of Energy were brought in for a large number of meetings. They were encouraged to submit written suggestions as well. On April 4, 2001, Andrew Lundquist represented the Energy Task Force in meeting with representatives of NRDC, USPIRG, National Environmental Trust, Environmental Defense, National Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation Voters, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Defenders of Wildlife, World Wildlife Fund, EarthJustice, American Rivers, Union of Concerned Scientists and Center for Marine Conservation - a list that includes at least three ecoterrorist groups and some outright crazies. Then again, on March 31, Karen Knudsen (Lundquist's assistant) met with Patricio Silva of the NRDC to discuss air-conditioning efficiency. Then on March 7, Lundquist met with Dan Lashof of the NRDC and with representatives of the alternative-fuels industry, the EDF and Americans for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Lashof and Lundquist met again on May 10 to discuss energy efficiency with representatives of several other environmental groups in attendance. Then on June 5, representatives of NRDC, the Sierra Club, The Union of Concerned Scientists and USPIRG met with Cheney and 12 other task force members. So, far from exclusively consulting with oil industry representatives, the Energy Task Force actually spent considerable time over a span of several months meeting with representatives of all manner of consumer, industry and environmental groups and taking their input.

    Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2 — Page 3 — Page 4 — Page 5

    • Article tags

    Spread the word
    Bookmark and Share
    Profile image for dave-nalle

    Article Author: Dave Nalle

    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

    Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own

    Article comments

    • 1 - Maurice

      Nov 17, 2005 at 10:20 am

      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

      Nov 17, 2005 at 1:58 pm

      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

      Nov 17, 2005 at 2:28 pm

      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

      Nov 17, 2005 at 3:40 pm

      Wouldn't a big gas tax have pretty regressive effect on the economy, especially food prices?

    • 5 - Maurice

      Nov 17, 2005 at 4:46 pm

      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

      Nov 17, 2005 at 8:36 pm

      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

      Nov 18, 2005 at 4:53 am

      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

      Nov 18, 2005 at 9:24 am

      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

      Nov 18, 2005 at 9:59 am

      BTW weren't the oil execs called before the congressional committee to explain price gouging, not this old news?

    • 10 - Dave Nalle

      Nov 18, 2005 at 10:00 pm

      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

    Add your comment, speak your mind

    Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
    Please read our comment policy.
    Please preview your comment.

    blogcritics lists for Nov 09, 2009

    fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

    fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

    most comments Most comments in 24hrs

    top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for October

    top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs

    Politics Highlights