VIII
When are we going to stop denying that the energy policy of the United States is run by the oil cartel? Oil is behind the war in Iraq. Oil is the reason we give the fundamentalist, terrorist-breeding theocracy of Saudi Arabia a pass. Oil is the reason we can’t get a goddamn energy policy in this country. Almost every important administration official has a connection to the oil industry.
You may be thinking, “Lee’s going soft. Now that he’s not building cars, he’s becoming antioil.” But this isn’t about being antioil. It’s about taking an honest look at what our oil connections are doing to us. We’d better get our heads out of the Arabian sand and start facing some facts.
Can anyone tell me what our long-term energy policy is? I’ve been trying to figure that out, and I keep coming back to oil. Is our only energy policy to open up new drilling sites for oil? I don’t know. Maybe we should ask Dick Cheney.
Before I die, I want to read the notes from Vice President Cheney’s energy task force. Remember that one? Cheney convened his secret task force within ten days of taking office back in 2001. Who participated? What was discussed? What evidence was outlined? What options were studied?
Oh, you can’t ask that. Those details were private. It was a matter of executive privilege. That was Cheney’s position when Congress wanted to take a look at the process. This administration loves executive privilege. They define it as “we can do whatever we want.” Cheney went on to fight every effort for scrutiny all the way to the Supreme Court, where his duck-hunting pal Justice Antonin Scalia supported his position.
Well, even without the details it didn’t take a genius to figure out that the meetings had a certain tilt. All you had to do was read the task force’s recommendations. Oil, oil, and more oil. According to Cheney’s group, the energy priority of the Bush administration was to lift sanctions against oil-producing countries like Iran, Syria, and Iraq, so that American companies could take advantage of the plentiful opportunities for oil exploration.
To this day, we don’t know what actually transpired in those meetings. However, we now know who attended them. Six of the meetings were held with Enron executives. Others included representatives from ExxonMobil, Conoco, Shell, BP, and various utility companies. Chevron executives didn’t attend, but sent written recommendations, which, in some cases, were adopted verbatim.
What about the environmentalists, the alternative-energy companies, the scientists? They were lumped into one meeting at the very end of the process. To show how interested he was in energy alternatives, Cheney even paraded the solar and wind people out for a Rose Garden photo op—the day before the report was released. There were no Rose Garden photo ops for the oil execs. I guess they were just a little camera shy.
Over the years, bits and pieces of information have dribbled out about the task force, including its preoccupation with Iraqi oil. Documents released in 2003 include a map of Iraqi oil fields, pipelines, refineries, and terminals, as well as a chart detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and one titled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts.” So, in early 2001, the oilmen inside and outside the White House were already dreaming of a post-Saddam oil bonanza.
Like I said, before I die I want to read the minutes of those meetings. In the meantime, it’s really not that hard to connect the dots.
THE FRIENDS HE KEEPS
You can tell a lot about a person by looking at who his friends are. Bush feels comfortable around certain types who share his worldview—especially those who look at the world through oil-tinted glasses. There’s Dick Cheney, of course. The former Halliburton CEO brings the oil industry to the head table. But there are others.
A lot of people probably don’t realize that Secretary of State Condi Rice first came to Bush’s attention when she was serving on the board of directors of Chevron. The oilmen loved Condi so much during her ten-year stint on the board that they named an oil tanker after her. (It was quietly renamed when she joined the Bush administration.)
Then there’s Don Evans, an old buddy from the gas and oil business, who became commerce secretary in the first term. And Lawrence Lindsey, Bush’s former chief economic advisor, previously of the Enron Advisory Board. And don’t forget James Baker, the Carlyle Group honcho, whose firm represents oil companies, defense contractors, AND the Saudi royal family. Bush may not love Uncle Jim, but without his help he might not even be in the White House. Baker rode to the rescue during the Florida recount debacle in 2000, and saved Bush’s presidency. He tried to save it again in 2006 by heading up the Iraq Study Group, but that didn’t turn out so well.
Do you know who the secretary of energy is? Probably not. But if you’re keeping track, it’s a guy named Samuel Bodman. In the private sector he was a chemical engineer and an investment banker. Bush’s kind of people.
IS IT GETTING HOT IN HERE?
In his 2006 State of the Union address, Bush said, “America is addicted to oil.” You want to yell, “It just hit you that we’re addicted to oil?” An oilman accusing the American people of being “addicted to oil” is like a drug dealer accusing junkies of being addicted to drugs.
What is this administration doing to help us break our addiction? Well, it started by presenting a budget that cuts spending for projects that improve energy efficiency. And its blind determination to ignore the environmental consequences of our energy expenditure is sheer lunacy. In spite of the unequivocal report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in February 2007, the Bush administration has continued to suggest that the jury is still out on global warming. What jury is that—the O.J. jury? The facts are getting pretty hard to ignore.
Since I spent my life in an industry that helped pollute the environment, it’s probably no surprise that I came late to enlightenment on this subject. One of the reasons I didn’t support Al Gore for President in 2000 was that I thought he was a little nuts on the subject of global warming. But then I saw Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth. I never thought I’d pay eight dollars to watch a PowerPoint presentation given by Al Gore, but I have to say it opened my eyes. The glaciers are melting, the sea levels are rising, and it’s all happening soon, like in the next twenty-five to fifty years. It reminds me of Bill Cosby’s old routine on Noah. When Noah ignored God’s command that he build an ark, God boomed, “How long can you tread water?”
As I thought about it, I realized that I didn’t really need to see Gore’s movie to know that something was off-kilter with the climate. During a trip to Boston in December 2006, I found everyone walking around in light sweaters, enjoying temperatures in the sixties. Who could complain—right? To tell you the truth, I was a little nervous about the price we might be paying for the balmy weather. Then in February 2007, the Midwest and Northeast got slammed with record snowfalls (over 100 inches in some places) and ice storms. These weather extremes are a warning. Who’s listening?
SHOWING LEADERSHIP ON ENERGY
It’s the job of a leader to make tough decisions—to look ahead and say, “What can we do right now to help solve the energy crisis?” There just has to be more to a long-term energy strategy than finding ways to get our hands on additional oil. We’ve got to take the long view. Will the oil that currently exists on this planet—including that which remains undiscovered—supply the earth for the next one hundred years? How about the next one thousand years? With the rapid development in China and India, demand for oil and gas is doubling right now. Even if there were enough oil, it isn’t going to come from our own shores, which means we’ll continue to be dependent on foreign oil. And when you’re dependent on people whose goal in life is to wipe you out, that’s a pretty sorry state of affairs.
So, we have to get creative. Start thinking about another way of approaching the energy problem. If I were in charge of energy, my policy would go something like this:
1. 1. I’d ask for sacrifice. I’ll admit that I spent nearly fifty years convincing people to buy more cars, but maybe it’s time to take another look at that. During my time in the auto industry the average family went from one car to two cars, and in some cases three cars. And that doesn’t even count the huge car rental industry. Americans love the convenience of being able to get up and go whenever they want and with whoever they want. The carpool lanes haven’t really worked so well. People don’t like to ride-share. But what if people carpooled two days a week? Or even one day a week. Surely we can take a little bit of sacrifice, can’t we?
We’re a nation at war. Why can’t our Commander in Chief call for sacrifice? During World War II, people grew their own vegetables, saved tinfoil, and submitted to gas rationing without complaint. Where’s the spirit of national purpose?
2. 2. I’d push for a gas tax. When Ronald Reagan was President, and my friend Tip O’Neill was Speaker of the House, I proposed to them that we could dramatically cut the deficit if we increased the gas tax by fifty cents a gallon. I figured we could raise $50 billion just like that. Reagan laughed. He said, “Lee, you’re a smart guy, but my pollster tells me I’d commit political suicide if I raised the gas tax. You know why? Because once a week when they were filling up their tanks, people would be reminded that Iraised their taxes.” He added, just in case I didn’t get the point, “That’s why you’re sitting on that side of the desk, and I’m the President.”
Nobody ever wants to raise taxes, especially on gas. But we’re already paying tax every time they spike the price at the pump. The only difference is, we’re paying it to the oil cartel, not to ourselves. And don’t kid yourselves. Some of this money is being turned into weapons to fight our troops.
If you look at the world at large, we’re behind the eight ball when it comes to taxing and using gas. The United States has the cheapest gas in the world because of our low gas taxes, which, combining federal and state taxes, average about forty-seven cents per gallon. In Great Britain, the tax is around $4.25 per gallon. In Germany, France, and Italy, the tax is close to $4. Now, remember, the tax is on top of the price of gas. So, when I was in Italy in the fall of 2006, we paid a whop-ping $6.70 for a gallon of gas. Can you imagine the howls in the United States if we had to pay anything close to that price? The Italians didn’t seem so upset about it. Maybe that’s because they’re driving fuel-efficient cars, and they don’t drive as much as we do.
3. 3. I’d use the gas tax to develop alternatives. Let’s have an Energy Summit to explore the development and use of alternatives—solar power, wind power, electricity, ethanol, natural gas, biodiesel, and others. We might have to wait until Cheney and his friends are out of office. Don’t want to risk another energy task force. But then we should get aggressive.
Another obvious way to free up a few bucks for research and development would be to take it out of the hides of the grossly overpaid oil executives. Last year the chief executives of the five largest oil companies earned almost a billion dollars in compensation. Imagine what that kind of money could buy if it were invested in research and development. I hope that’s something the new Democratic majority sinks its teeth into.
4. 4. I’d break the oil cartel. If we want to stand for something in the Middle East, we should forget about establishing democracy, and pressure our friends and enemies alike to get rid of the oil cartel. The way it works now, we have no control over the price or distribution of oil. Is that acceptable? OPEC, which has been around for thirty-six years, controls the oil spigot at the whim of the cartel, and we’ve all been suckered in. I’m not naïve that it will be easy to break the cartel, but right now we’re not even trying.What’s the best way to start? Bring down the demand by vigorously exploring alternative energy sources.
5. 5. I’d demand higher standards from Detroit. In 1975, after the first Arab oil embargo, our government enacted something called the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. These standards have helped to more than double the fuel economy of cars in the last thirty years. There are plans in place to increase CAFE standards on light trucks. The car companies have become pretty good at figuring out ways to increase fuel economy. The technology is there. But we need a higher bar to reach for.
One way you increase fuel economy is to make cars lighter. Now, I know that people get all hot and bothered about lighter cars. They think they’re less safe. Is that true? No. For the most part, safety is a product of design, not weight. Instead of building heavier cars to protect ourselves from other people in heavy cars, let’s put the focus on building lighter, more fuel-efficient cars. Even the larger vehicles, like SUVs and minivans, can be built lighter.
6. 6. I’d consider restoring the nuclear option. I’d push for a reactivation of nuclear power as a viable option. It’s time to stop running scared from Chernobyl and start realizing that we now have the systems and technology to build fail-safe nuclear power plants. All over the European Union, they’re investing in building cleaner, safer nuclear power plants. Europe derives about one third of its electricity from nuclear power. France is the leader, at 78 percent. Even Russia is planning a major expansion of nuclear energy. This renewable source of energy is not only environmentally friendly, it’s efficient. Our problem is that when we got worried about nuclear plant safety, we turned it over to the lawyers to fight for safeguards. Here’s a tip: Never turn the future of your country over to the lawyers! The Europeans did it right. They turned the problem over to the engineers. The United States is lagging far behind in nuclear energy, when we should be on the leading edge.
Of course, you can’t fuel a car with nuclear energy, but you can run a car on electricity generated by nuclear power. In December 2006, I attended the Alternative Energy Show in Los Angeles, and the big news for cars was plug-in hybrids. They were being touted as the wave of the future, and I agree. That will happen much faster if we restore our investment in nuclear power. I can imagine a scene in the not too distant future when one spouse will turn to the other at bedtime and say, “Honey, did you remember to turn off the lights, bring in the cat, and plug in the car?”
7. 7. I would create a sense of urgency. Where’s the sense of urgency about solving this problem? There is none. But all you have to do is look at other times in history when we created a national purpose. We did it with the Manhattan Project when we built the A-bomb. We did it with NASA when we went to the moon. Do you mean to tell me that with all our technological genius and know-how, we can’t figure out a solution to a problem that is so devastating to our economy and the environment?
We’ve got options. This isn’t an unsolvable problem. I’m here to say that we can tackle this and win. And we need some leaders who will show us the way. Let’s hear their ideas. In the coming campaign, energy should be front and center, and we—the voters—can put it there.