| Advertisement |
|
Local Guides
|
|
|
BUSH'S PLAN: GOOD FOR BIG OIL, BAD FOR PEOPLE
|
by
View
May 4 - 10, 2006 |
|
In a speech to the Renewable Fuels Association on April 25,
George Bush outlined his four–part energy plan to reduce gas
prices and break dependence on foreign oil. “Gasoline price
increases are like a hidden tax on the working people,” he said.
“The fundamental question is what are we going to do? What can
the government do?”
The oil companies couldn’t be more pleased with Bush’s
answer to that question: Make it easier for Big Oil to reap profits
by relaxing environmental regulations.
Despite his outward concern, in actuality Bush’s plan does
little to ease the pain at the pump. Instead, it’s a measure that
subsidizes higher earnings for oil companies who, despite the
crunch, are reporting record profits. For Americans, the proposal
has a negligible impact on everyday pocketbooks and horrific
returns for the environment.
Big Oil maintains that environmental regulations, such as air
quality standards and long permit wait times, are responsible for
the high gas prices. It’s a dubious claim given that these
regulations having been in existence for ten years, a period in
which production expenses have remained steady, but the cost to
consumers has increased. Some say the price inflation has more
to do with energy trading on Wall Street than lack of availability
on Main St.
“What Bush is suggesting is that companies like Exxon
Mobil, which is the largest and most profitable corporation in the
world, are somehow overburdened with America’s environmental
regulations,” says Tyson Slocum, energy director for Public
Citizen, an advocacy group that stands up for both consumers
and the environment. He sees Bush’s proposal as both regressive
and unnecessary, “All that’s going to do is worsen air quality and
water quality for America’s communities and make things much
easier for a very profitable industry. It makes absolutely no
sense.”
Bush claims that one reason gas is so expensive is that
America doesn’t have the number of refineries needed to meet
consumer demand for gasoline. His solution is to cap the wait
times for new construction permits to one year. While it’s true
there has been only one new refinery built since 1976, the CATO
Institute suggests this is because it’s cheaper and more efficient
for oil companies to expand existing operations, something
they’re doing at a steady pace. Moreover, they estimate the costs
associated with environmental regulations are “a very small part”
of the $4 to 6 million dollar price tag.
But Bush’s environmental straight–jacket isn’t the only
reason for the dwindling number of refineries, the oil companies
themselves are just as much to blame. Mergers, streamline–
related shutdowns and the intentional forcing out of smaller
operations have all led to a large–scale decline in production. This
decline, however, works in the oil companies favour as it’s not in
their interest to have more fuel for sale. In fact, Congress has
found that Big Oil frequently uses a strategy of scarcity (such as
withholding gas supplies from market) in order to keep prices
artificially high. In light of this, limiting the ability of communities
to thoroughly review refinery permits is unlikely to increase gas
production, but it would make it more difficult, and in some cases
impossible, to ascertain the safety of these operations.
Reducing the use of blended, or “clean,” fuels is another
disturbing aspect of Bush’s energy manifesto. Over the years,
these fuels have not just become fashionable due to emissions
concerns, they’ve become mandatory. Many American cities are
legally obligated to use this sort of gasoline because their air
quality has been deemed so poor it doesn’t even meet minimum
federal air quality standards. Bush’s plan would allow such
sensitive areas to waive these obligations, increasing pollution in
areas that are already maxed out. “The impact of the president’s
proposal would be to make millions of Americans very, very sick,”
Slocum says. “Literally.”
Blended fuels don’t just reduce emissions, they also reduce
oil consumption by requiring less crude. Pro–ethanol groups
estimate that the increased use of ethanol could reduce yearly
importation of foreign oil by two billion barrels (Americans use
around eight million barrels a day for gas alone). While Bush
paints his administration as a 12–step program for oil addicts,
eliminating the use of blended fuels doesn’t help America wean
off the stuff, it ups the proof of the mix.
Luckily, even a Republican–dominated Congress recognizes
that Bush’s energy plan is nothing more than a presidential perk
for his campaign contributing buddies. While this latest initiative
narrowly passed through the House of Representatives, it’s yet to
be picked up by the Senate. Given the inability of the measure to
navigate Capitol Hill successfully, some see this announcement as
a ploy by Bush to smooth things over with a public crying foul at
an administration unable and unwilling to do anything about
rising gas prices.
But really, shouldn’t it be time for America to look past fossil
fuels and move on to real, long–term solutions? It’s painfully
obvious by now that the solution to the gas crisis isn’t more, it’s
less. Instead of rolling back ten years of environmental progress,
maybe it’s time Bush makes good on his promises to research
alternatively–powered cars by diverting oil subsidies and tax
slashes to the renewable sector. It should be incumbent on Big Oil
to bring cars back to the trough, not American taxpayers. And,
whatever the solution, it certainly should not be done at the
expense of the environment. Bush’s latest scheme doesn’t bailout
a bankrupt energy sector, reduce dependence on oil or help
everyday folks. It’s about his government further fattening up
already profitable businesses.
Then again, what else is new? V
[SARAH VEALE]
|
Share on
 |
No comments yet... be the first! |
|
