NYTimes: THE MISSING ENERGY STRATEGY (about time it was noticed!)

[Nothing Without Hope]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/opinion/19tue1.html?th&emc=th
Editorials/Op-Ed

The Missing Energy Strategy

Published: April 19, 2005

The House is moving quickly and with sad predictability toward approval of yet another energy bill heavily weighted in favor of the oil, gas and coal industries. In due course the Senate may give the country something better. But unless Mr. Bush rapidly elevates the discussion, any bill that emerges from Congress is almost certain to fall short of the creative strategies needed to confront the two great energy-related issues of the age: the country's increasing dependency on imported oil, and global warming, which is caused chiefly by the very fuels the bill so generously subsidizes.

What's maddening about this is that there is no shortage of ideas about what to do. Step outside the White House and Congress, and one hears a chorus of voices begging for something far more robust and forward-looking than the trivialities of this energy bill. It is a strikingly bipartisan chorus, too, embracing environmentalists, foreign policy hawks and other unlikely allies. Last month, for instance, a group of military and intelligence experts who cut their teeth on the cold war - among them Robert McFarlane, James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney Jr. - implored Mr. Bush as a matter of national security to undertake a crash program to reduce the consumption of oil in the United States.

The consensus on the need for a more stable energy future is matched by an emerging consensus on how to get there. In the last two years, there have been three major reports remarkable for their clarity and convergence, from the Energy Future Coalition, a group of officials from the Clinton and the first Bush administrations; the Rocky Mountain Institute, which concerns itself with energy efficiency; and, most recently, the National Commission on Energy Policy, a group of heavyweights from academia, business and labor.

Homage is paid to stronger fuel economy standards, which Congress has steadfastly resisted. But all three reports also call for major tax subsidies and loan guarantees to help Detroit develop a new generation of vehicles, as well as an aggressive bio-fuels program to develop substitutes for gasoline.

(snip - much more at the link, a good article)

[shoelace414]

1. notice what's missing

among them Robert McFarlane, James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney Jr. - implored Mr. Bush as a matter of national security to undertake a crash program to reduce the consumption of oil in the United States.

this part of it says nothing about imported oil, just oil.

[Nothing Without Hope]

3. No, it mentions dependency on foreign oil right in the first paragraph:

But unless Mr. Bush rapidly elevates the discussion, any bill that emerges from Congress is almost certain to fall short of the creative strategies needed to confront the two great energy-related issues of the age: the country's increasing dependency on imported oil, and global warming, which is caused chiefly by the very fuels the bill so generously subsidizes.

It hits at the idea that the adinistration, including Congress, has consistently subsidized the special interests at the expense of the "national interests." Actually pretty hard-hitting, I was surprised. I wonder if they're getting lots of angry letters about expensive gas?

[shoelace414]

4. the article talks about it

but the Last month, for instance, a group of military and intelligence experts who cut their teeth on the cold war didn't mention imported, just oil. it's important that people stop talking about foregin oil, the problem is oil. it doesn't matter where it comes from.

[paineinthearse]

2. Whatever happened to the FOIA requests/court challange

...for transcripts of Cheney's 2001 energy policy meetings?

[Nothing Without Hope]

5. Good question - past time for an update. I don't have a clue where

it stands, and that really bothers me. So many scandals, they distract from EACH OTHER, you don't even have to be distracted by all the nonsense on TV to lose track of important issues.

[wabranty]

6. What do you think of this energy plan?

From the Set America Free organization (Partners with the Apollo Alliance) -
http://www.setamericafree.org/blueprint.pdf

I think it's a good plan but we need to also start considering green nuclear energy. I was against nuclear energy until I recently read a Wired article (http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html?pg=1&topic=nuclear&topic_set=)
and realized that it could work but it would take environmentalists to make it safe and reliable for everyone. Conservatives wouldn't care about the safety (unless the plant is in their neighborhood) but I'm convinced that new nuclear power plants can be safe and help start the hydrogen economy.

[rodeodance]

7. Cheney Won in the SC of the USA--7-2 decision sided with Cheney

[Nothing Without Hope]

9. DAMN!!! That is wrong on so many levels. Thanks for the update.

It's awful news, but it's best to know.

[rodeodance]

8. The case is Cheney v. U.S. District Court, 03-475.

[Nothing Without Hope]

10. No discussion of Bush oil/energy/geopolitical strategy would be complete

without mentioning Greg Palast's important March 17 article, "SECRET U.S. PLANS FOR IRAQ'S OIL." The fight between Powell's camp and Cheney's/Rumsfeld's/Wolfowitz's camp becomes much easier to understand, as does the continued total slavishness to Big Oil, whatever that may mean in terms of wars, environmental damage, and economic degradation.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=417&row=0

SECRET U.S. PLANS FOR IRAQ'S OIL

BBC News World Edition
Thursday, March 17, 2005
By Greg Palast
Reporting for BBC Newsnight (London)

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.

Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protestors claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.

In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists."

"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.

(snip – more of this long article, clips, and other links at the web site)