‘Are You Better Off Today Than You Were 10 Years Ago?’ — The ‘Cheney Energy Task Force’ recommendations would have spared America from high gas prices
Written by Italia Federici — Reprinted With Permission
Are You Better Off Today Than You Were Ten Years Ago
By Italia Federici
This month — May 17, 2011 to be exact — marks the tenth anniversary of the Bush administration’s National Energy Policy report, referred to colloquially as the product of the “Cheney Energy Task Force.” In fact, it was the product of the National Energy Policy Development Group, a body headed by Vice President Cheney that included thirteen cabinet members, administrators and senior administration staff whose positions were such that they held sway over America’s energy future.
This report was amongst the very first undertakings of the Bush Administration. White House meetings with NEPD Group non-member-advisors began in February 2001 a mere three weeks into the new presidency. The reason for the Bush administration’s sense of urgency was the then crumbling of America’s energy infrastructure and the need for new domestic exploration to meet the country’s energy needs. That crumbling continues today. Here’s why:
The report’s stated goal in its Overview was to make recommendations that would alleviate a number of America’s energy problems citing that “Many families face energy bills two to three times higher than they were a year ago. […] Some employers must lay off workers or curtail production to absorb the rising cost of energy. Drivers across America are paying higher and higher gasoline prices.”
The report made 105 policy recommendations aimed at fixing the above mentioned problems including recommending that the U.S. build new refineries, engage in new oil and gas exploration, construct new nuclear power plants, plus invest in renewable energy sources.
At the time of its release, so-called environmentalists and liberals from both parties on Capitol Hill vigorously resisted the recommendations in the report. These obstructionists were most vocal in their opposition to new exploration, the construction of new nuclear facilities and the construction of new refineries.
Key among their talking points was that America need not heed the recommendations in the NEPD Group report about domestic drilling because “it would take 10 years for any crude to be delivered to refineries.” Two of the Congressional leaders who voted against domestic exploration at that time were Congresswoman Pelosi and Senator Reid. Well, even under this 10-year worst case scenario, we’d have that oil now, not $5.00 a gallon gas. Are you better off today than you were ten years ago for …
Climate bill delayed over Kerry’s hip surgery? ‘Buck up there, tough guy.Take some of Obama’s pain pills and save the planet already’
Shock: Wash. Post Blames Obama For Failure of Global Warming Movement! President’s ‘mistakes may cost the planet dearly’
[Update – September 10, 2009: Wash. Post’s Own Meteorologist Counters Paper’s Claims! ‘I wince when hearing…science is ‘settled’ — Climate ‘hysteria’ may be ‘another bubble waiting to burst’ — Update: September 2, 2009: Washington Post Fires Back: Accuses Climate Depot of having ‘an anti-science and anti-science journalism agenda!’ – Climate Depot Responds Again]
The Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman of paper’s “The Capital Weather Gang”, has written a thorough commentary on why he believes the man-made global warming movement is failing politically and scientifically to convince the public and lawmakers of the seriousness of the issue. Freedman appears to lay the fault directly at the feet of President Obama, writing that Obama’s “mistakes may cost the planet dearly.” Freedman also cites Climate Depot (and the Heartland Institute) as having made a huge impact in shaping lawmakers and the public’s skeptical view of the latest climate science.
Freedman wrote in a September 1, 2009 Washington Post essay that the “influence of groups such as CFACT’s Climate Depot is only enhanced by White House’s low profile on climate science thus far.” Freedman lamented that Climate Depot has this impact “despite a lack of evidence to back up the claims of diminishing scientific concern.”
Freedman’s essay, titled “Obama Needs to Give a Climate Speech – ASAP,” notes that President Obama “needs to do [speak out] soon, before the debate slips farther away from him, and more years of inaction pass by.” Freedman asserts that the “increasing climate change skepticism among the public is troubling” and that Obama has “neglected to use his bully pulpit to hammer a climate science message.” Freedman frets that President Obama must give a big global warming speech “before the debate slips farther away from him, and more years of inaction pass by.”
Climate Depot Responds – ‘Delay’ is Essential
The reality is — contrary to Freedman’s assertions — “delay” is essential so that politicians and the public can continue to absorb the latest scientific developments casting considerable doubt on the climate claims of UN and other fear promoters. The more educated people are, the more skeptical they become. The public gets it and now even Democratic lawmakers in Washington are having their moment of global warming policy clarity. Now is the time for a sober reexamination of man-made global warming claims. It is not the time to support a “scientifically meaningless” climate bill. …
Delayers: Dem Senators Urge Climate Bill Should Be Set Aside This Year! View ‘cap-and-trade as being a real problem’
Moment of Clarity: 10 Dem Senators issue warning to Obama: ‘Climate legislation need to protect American jobs’
Senate’s Moment of Clarity? Climate bill may fall by wayside in Senate: ‘We’re being asked to pass bill in the midst of a very deep recession’
Fingers Crossed: Will Health Battle Wound Climate Effort?
Cheers! Joe Romm’s ‘memo to enviros, progressives: The ‘deniers’ and ‘dirty energy’ bunch are eating our lunch on the climate bill!’
Sen. Boxer planning Sept. 8 rollout for climate bill
Dem Sen. Bayh: ‘I’m not going to vote for something that costs jobs or raises energy bills and doesn’t achieve the goal of combating global warming’