So what has been presented as an energy policy based solely on the input of oil companies and solely for the benefit of oil companies actually turns out to have been created with input from myriad sources and perspectives. The task force's outreach produced a final bill which does more for alternative and renewable energy than has ever been done before. And when you get right down to it, the majority of the oil companies involved turn out to be some of the real good guys in the alternative-energy field, doing more to advance research and development of better, clearner sources of energy than anyone else in the commercial sector.
These facts raise the question of where the controversy is actually coming from. Why is the confusion and innacurate testimony of some oil executives about meetings four years ago which other employees of their companies attended such a big deal? It's simple. Gas prices are high and consumers are pissed off when they go to the pumps. In that environment, a few Democrats like Sen. Lautenberg saw an opportunity to score some political points and stir up resentment against the administration based on distorting the history of its energy policy. The Washington Post eagerly played along and threw in its key bit of investigative journalism. Voila, you have a tempest in a teapot.
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