AUSTIN, Texas -- George W. Bush is threatening to give us an energy policy
that marches militantly in exactly the wrong direction.
Bush's views on energy are still those of a West Texas oilman. He once ran
for Congress from Midland because he thought Jimmy Carter was leading us
toward "European-style socialism.'' What oilmen want for energy policy is
Drill More.
At one point during a debate with Al Gore, Bush suggested we encourage
drilling in Mexico to lessen our dependence on "foreign'' oil. Startled the
Mexicans.
In addition to Bush, who took three oil companies into financial trouble,
the new administration boasts Dick Cheney, CEO of Halliburton; Commerce
Secretary Don Evans, chairman of Tom Brown oil; and Condoleezza Rice, a
director of Chevron. Two of Bush's biggest donors are Ken Lay of Enron and
energy player Sam Wyly, who put up the money for the phony ad praising
Bush's environmental record.
The first fight is likely to be over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Bush favors drilling in the ecologically fragile area, as does his choice
for interior secretary, Gale Norton. The object of all the drilling is to
bring prices down (not too far) so as to encourage consumption, thus causing
us to use ever more fossil fuel. This is the totally backward way of going
about an energy policy.
You can't get elected dog catcher in this country by advocating a sensible
energy policy, which would certainly include slapping an additional tax on
gasoline in order to discourage consumption. Even if that smart move is off
the table because of politics, one can still push for more fuel-efficient
cars.
There is a plan already in existence to ratchet up fuel efficiency, but it
has been on hold for years as automobile lobbyists successfully fought its
implementation by Congress.
Spencer Abraham, Bush's pick for energy secretary, was one of the leading
players in the fight to put off higher fuel-efficiency standards. Abraham
compiled a zero rating from the League of Conservation Voters.
Americans use five times as much fossil fuel as the other people on this
planet on average, so of course we are contributing the lion's share of
carbon dioxide, which is what causes global warming.
Bush would rather not think about that. Upton Sinclair once wrote, "It is
difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on
his not understanding it.'' The income of those in oil depends on their not
understanding global warming.
Understandably, the industry has put a significant amount of money into a
public relations campaign trying to convince people that global warming is
not happening, or not happening fast enough to worry about, or needs more
study. I suspect that someday -- before too long -- that campaign will be
seen as the wickedness it is.
The other part of the looming energy crisis was caused by the stupid
deregulation of the utilities industry, and don't say I didn't warn you.
Bush supported deregulation in Texas, and if his plan had been passed, Texas
would be in as bad a shape as California, which deregulated only wholesale
prices. We passed a more progressive version of deregulation, no thanks to
Bush.
The dereg movement is not working -- the new market-based system has not
produced needed generating capacity, and those who own the power plants are
ripping off everyone else.
Economist Paul Krugman points out that the problem is underinvestment, and
"part of the reason for that underinvestment was the excessive enthusiasm of
the financial markets for all things tech: When digital businesses are
valued at hundreds of times earnings, while utilities have multiples more
like 10, who's going to put money into boring things like generators and
transmission grids?''
The usual "leave everything to the magic of the marketplace'' crowd needs
to take another look at the consequences of deregulation. The same power
companies that failed to make the badly needed investments are now making
money out the wazoo. Some marketplace. Some magic.
The reason that the utility industry was regulated in the first place is
because it's a natural monopoly, and experience with monopolies indicates
that you have to regulate the things. This is one of those deals, like the
S&L mess, when you want to go back and check who pushed the ill-advised plan
and what promises were made. (More energy! Cheaper rates! Pie in sky!) You
would be well-advised not to listen to those same players again.
Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. To find out
more about Molly Ivins and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers
and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2001 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
