President Bush's Flawed Energy Policy

The Nation: The President Realized The Energy Problem In 2001. So Why Wasn't Action Taken?

(The Nation)  This column was written by Michael T. Klare.

---

As the pain induced by higher oil prices spreads to an ever growing share of the American (and world) population, pundits and politicians have been quick to blame assorted villains — greedy oil companies, heartless commodity speculators and OPEC. It's true that each of these parties has contributed to and benefited from the steep run-up. But the sharp growth in petroleum costs is due far more to a combination of soaring international demand and slackening supply — compounded by the ruinous policies of the Bush Administration — than to the behavior of those other actors.

Most, if not all, of the damage was avoidable. Shortly after taking office, George W. Bush undertook a sweeping review of U.S. energy policy aimed at expanding the nation's supply of vital fuels. The "reality is the nation has got a real problem when it comes to energy," he declared on March 14, 2001. "We need more sources of energy." At that time many of the problems evident today were already visible. Energy demand in mature industrial nations was continuing to grow as the rising economic dynamos of Asia, especially China, were beginning to make an impact. By 2002 the Energy Department was predicting that China would soon overtake Japan, becoming the world's second-largest petroleum consumer, and that developing Asia as a whole would account for about one-fourth of global consumption by 2020. Also evident was an unmistakable slowdown in the growth of world production, the telltale sign of an imminent "peaking" in global output [see Klare, "Beyond the Age of Petroleum," November 12, 2007].

With these trends in mind, many energy experts urged the White House to minimize future reliance on oil, emphasize conservation and rapidly develop climate-friendly alternatives, especially renewables like wind, solar, geothermal and biofuels. But Dick Cheney, who was overseeing the energy review, would have none of this. "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue," the Vice President famously declared in April 2001, "but it is not a sufficient basis...for sound, comprehensive energy policy." After three months of huddling in secret with top executives of leading US energy companies, he released a plan on May 17 that, in effect, called for preserving the existing energy system, with its heavy reliance on oil, coal and natural gas.

Because continued reliance on oil would mean increased reliance on imported petroleum, especially from the Middle East, Bush sought to deflect public concern by calling for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other protected areas. As a result, most public discourse on the Bush/Cheney plan focused on drilling in ANWR, and no attention was paid to the implications of increased dependence on imported oil — even though oil from ANWR, in the most optimistic scenario, would reduce US need for imports (now about 60 percent) by just 4 percent.

But this produced another dilemma for Bush: increased reliance on imports meant increased vulnerability to disruptions in delivery due to wars and political upheavals. To address this danger, the Administration began planning for stepped-up military involvement in major overseas oil zones, especially the Persian Gulf. This was evident, for example, when then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gave early priority to enhancement of American "power projection" to areas of instability in the developing world. Then came 9/11 and the "war on terror" — giving the White House a perfect opportunity to accelerate the military expansion and to pursue other key objectives. High on the list was the elimination of Saddam Hussein, long considered the most potent challenger to U.S. domination of the Gulf and its critical energy supplies.

But the invasion of Iraq — intended to ensure U.S. control of the Gulf and a stable environment for the expanded production and export of its oil — has had exactly the opposite effect. Despite the many billions spent on oil infrastructure protection and the thousands of lives lost, production in Iraq is no higher today than it was before the invasion. Iraq has also become a rigorous training ground for extremists throughout the region, some of whom have now migrated to the oil kingdoms of the lower Gulf and begun attacking the facilities there — generating some of the recent spikes in prices.

Then there is the dilemma posed by Iran. With Saddam out of the picture, the Islamic regime in Tehran is viewed in Washington as the greatest threat to US mastery of the Gulf. This threat rests largely on Iran's ability to attack oil shipping in the Gulf and ignite unrest among militant Shiite groups throughout the region, but its apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons has inflated the perceived menace significantly. To restrain Tehran's nuclear ambitions, Washington has imposed economic sanctions on Iran and forced key US allies to abandon plans for developing new oilfields there. As a result Iran, with the world's second-largest reserves after Saudi Arabia, is producing only about half the oil it could — another reason for the global constriction of supply.

But the Administration's greatest contribution to the rising oil prices is its steady stream of threats to attack Iran if it does not back down on the nuclear issue. The Iranians have made it plain that they would retaliate by attempting to block the flow of Gulf oil and otherwise cause turmoil in the energy market. Most analysts assume, therefore, that an encounter will produce a global oil shortage and prices well over $200 per barrel. It is not surprising, then, that every threat by Bush/Cheney (or their counterparts in Israel) has triggered a sharp rise in prices. This is where speculators enter the picture. Believing that a U.S.-Iranian clash is at least 50 percent likely, some investors are buying futures in oil at $140, $150 or more per barrel, thinking they'll make a killing if there's an attack and prices zoom over $200.

It follows, then, that while the hike in prices is due largely to ever increasing demand chasing insufficiently expanding supply, the Bush Administration's energy policies have greatly intensified the problem. By seeking to preserve our oil-based energy system at any cost, and by adding to the "fear factor" in international speculation through its bungled invasion of Iraq and bellicose statements on Iran, it has made a bad problem much worse.

What can be done to reverse this predicament? There is no realistic hope of substantially increasing the supply of oil — drilling in offshore US waters, as favored by President Bush and Senator John McCain, will not reverse the long-term decline in U.S. production — so it is only by reducing demand that fundamental market forces can be addressed. This is best done through a comprehensive program of energy conservation, expanding public transit and accelerating development of energy alternatives. It will take time for some of these efforts to have an impact on prices; others, like reducing speed limits and adding bus routes, would have a more rapid effect. And if this Administration truly wanted to spare Americans further pain at the pump, there is one thing it could do that would have an immediate effect: declare that military force is not an acceptable option in the struggle with Iran. Such a declaration would take the wind out of the sails of speculators and set the course for a drop in prices.

[noloyalisti]

You can''t take action against oil policy when you invited the fascist corporations to the table to write it. The Greasy Old Pervert party having a plan is a complete oxymoron. They are reactionary simpletons, to put it nicely. They wouldn''t do something good for the people it their lives depended on it. They are fascists from the get go. Four more years, vote McSame. Oh and more war, it''s working great.

[doneal56]

Michael Klare got this wrong. Congress has the largest fault with the "do nothing" policy for the past decade. We need to do all the things Mr. Klare suggests as a way to wean our country from foreign oil. All of these alternatives, however, will raise the cost of energy to the consumers if we do not also drill here in the US to force the speculators down and ease our need for foreign oil. I''m affraid Mr. Klare''s possition sounds all so familiar. Right out of George Soros'' game plan. "It''s Bush''s fault". The real truth is ALL our politicians have let us down,perfering to stick with party lines than getting the job done.

[raven6470]

i want to know if the pres. is doing all that he can then why is there about 50 diffrent inventions already to be implamented that would remove our dependance on oil, but no buseness will back them. like the car that runs on hyrdgren. from the report that i saw on it the goverment should mandate that all auto manufactories produce alternent fuel car at the rate of one gas car to every two alternet fuel cars, and in 5 years they will no longer make gas cars. but that would endanger the money and power that he fights to protect. this would show that the powers that be are intersted in saving this country. since they don''t, it tells you some thing?

[joyous88]

and linymo??
what are you drinking? Oh Yes! It''s that kool Aid again, is it not?

you want some freedom fries with that Kool Aid?

Take you conservative self to the Earthshots web site

(This is a site run by your conservative government and the Bush administration)
and look at the photos of the polar ice caps now and as they were a few years ago,

if you don''t see evidence of global warming you must

be a liar, a fool, or a republicon.

[joyous88]

i see that the right wing noise machine has their

computer banks in full working mode for this blog,

what a bunch of fools, hillary is not running for president any longer don''t waste your vote.

And, hey wake up! we still have bush and now McBushCain trying to turn america into the next Fascisit state. why don''t you clowns concentrate on getting rid of the republicon Nazi''s

[toldyouso12]

PS...A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain....after the October
surprise when the Republicans tell us the things about Obama that the media hasn''''t. Don''''t take the chance.

Posted by TruUSA at 01:26 AM : Jun 22, 2008


Why say this? Why not say, we should throw the election if the person who lost the Dem primary is not snuck in somehow? Don''t take the chance? She lost--you want people to write in the loser? LOL.

Why not just be one of those people who really think if you throw gasoline on a fire --it will put it out. Your comments make about as much sense. So..you want people to write in a vote for HRc, so Obama will be sure to lose, so that McCain can''t win? LOL Is that you Mark Penn? Or is this a McCain/Rovian play to the stupid? LMAO

[toldyouso12]

Don''''''''t forget that more people actually cast their vote for Hillary than any other candidate in history!!

Vote the people''''''''''''''''s choice.
VOTE FOR HILLARY!!!

**WE WILL DO IT**


.....and do''''''''t forget to pass this on.

Posted by TruUSA at 08:13 PM : Jun 21, 2008


Cast their vote in a primary. If every single Hillary supporter would write her name in for the general, she''''d have almost 18 million votes.

Unfortunately, the general election voter electorate is about 110 million. If HRC only got her 18 million, do you think she could win? after all, there would still be 92 MILLION votes out there going to someone else.

HRC was the first candidate to get so many votes in a Primary--Primary--which as the experts say--is a popularity contest between like groups. The GE is something different--If HRC got 18 million, McCain got maybe 52 million and Obama got 40 million--guess who would get the least--and guess which party would not win? Do the math--failing to do it correctly is what killed HRC''''s chances the first time and what would kill the Dems chances in Nov--if they thought like you.

[toldyouso12]

If they just left off the "Energy policy" part--no truer statement was ever printed. ie "President Bush''s flawed"

[haroldk5]

Leave it to George Bush to step all over his Republican successor''s campaign.

The Bush administration has relentlessly promoted the consumption of oil. This shouldn''t be a surprise - both George Bush and *** Cheney are oil barons, swimming in the oil profits. And John McCain is promoting the continuation of Bush''s policies.

Oil isn''t the answer to our energy problems. Drilling for more oil won''t solve anything. Al Gore has been talking about this for years, and we are discovering he was right. Other forms of energy need to be implemented; and coal isn''t the answer either.

McCain''s slogan to drill in Anwar and off the ocean coasts is purely a campaign gimmick designed to win him votes. Should this succeed, as soon as the election is over, the slogan will be forgotten. America will again be holding an empty promise and more hardships.

Instead of complaining about the price of gas, get involved with alternative energy methods in your community.

The plan Obama is proposing is right for America.

[sebastian27-2009]

To cbscrash07. Give us a break, o7. The Repubs have had almost 8 years of mostly unfettered use of power in Washington. The so-called Libs had very little input. And what a mess it is.
George 1 left troops in Saudi A. after Gulf War 1, which served no purpose except to inflame the Arab street against " Infidel in the Holy Land " This inspired Bin Laden and his bunch and resulted in 9/11. Then the Bush Clan did it again with an ill-planned invasion of Iraq resulting in chaos and more hatred for America.