Bush Admin., Scientists at odds over power issues.
May 6, 2001 11:02 AM   Subscribe

Bush Admin., Scientists at odds over power issues. I've been trying to give the President a chance, but it seems as though conservation efforts and alternative evergy sources are being completely ignored. Mere difference of opinion-or something else?
posted by black8 (14 comments total)
Living in California, I think what every Californian should be encouraged to do is replace regular lightblubs with those compact florescent ones. They use like 17 watts compared to 60 for a regular light blub. Just think of how much we could save. Instead of buying all that out of state power, why not give incentives to people to use things that use less power?
We do need more energy, that is a fact. But building energy sources takes time. I think one of the easiest things is to get those old lightblubs out of there.
posted by ericdano at 11:08 AM on May 6, 2001

We've seen this before.

"MR. JAMES JOHNSTON (Chairman and CEO of RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company): Mr. Congressman, cigarettes and nicotine clearly do not meet the classic definition of addiction. There is no intoxication."

Bush is just answering to his shareholders.
posted by owillis at 12:13 PM on May 6, 2001

Pretty interesting that both Bush and Cheney use "alternative" forms of of power production at their ranches. Have you ever heard of a conservative millionaire/billionaire that wasn't frugal? While they save money on their utility bills, they bilk the public because they also profit from their scorched earth energy policies.

It all adds up to maintaining their huge personal bankrolls.
posted by crasspastor at 1:48 PM on May 6, 2001

Bush has already ordered federal agencies in California to conserve energy. He has also required all other federal agencies nationwide to review their energy use and to come up conservation plans within 30 days.

The Federal Government is one of the nation's largest electricity consumers. The claim that Bush is ignoring energy conservation is ludicrous.
posted by techgnollogic at 6:34 PM on May 6, 2001

Yes, Bushie said they should cut back on using email to save power.

Never mind that he should investigate the power companies and Gray Davis for fraud and market manipulation...

California didn't vote for him - so f--k them, right?
posted by owillis at 6:44 PM on May 6, 2001

Basically having a seat in the White House never hurt a lobbyist either
posted by owillis at 7:05 PM on May 6, 2001

Barking about industry lobbyists being chosen for roles within the Bush administration is meaningless unless you present some evidence of wrongdoing.

Black8 wondered if Bush was ignoring conservation and alternative sources. Nobody panic, he isn't.

The Bush administration has responded to every request for federal assistance the California government has made. It's a regional problem and not a situation where heavy-handed Federal interference is necessary.

Yes, Secretary Abraham suggested that a power conservation philosophy that requires raising the thermostat to 78 degrees and turning off unecessary escalators and lights could possibly extend to reducing unnecessary e-mail. Not such a bad suggestion once you realize 34% of workplace email is a waste of time.

You're grasping at straws, owillis, and it's kinda pathetic.
posted by techgnollogic at 7:37 PM on May 6, 2001

Hm. I find it very interesting that as soon as the energy/oil lobby takes control of the Whitehouse, that a region affected by artifically high power prices and forced blackouts is refused again and again for any sort of federal assistance.

Coincidentally, at the same time the veep has decided to increase coal and nuclear power production without a thought to any sort of conservation.

On top of that, the power lobby feels empowered enough to propose clean air rollbacks...

Of course, I can't blame them. They bought the office fair and square.

I can't hold on to the straws, they're covered with oil.
posted by owillis at 8:14 PM on May 6, 2001

"More important, Cheney recalled, the Nixon price controls led to a series of "unintended consequences," including a decline in domestic production of oil, increased reliance on foreign energy sources and the failure of the U.S. automobile industry to build fuel-efficient cars."

Hmm, so he is reluctant to impose price controls because he's had first had experience with them failing in the past. What a jerk.

"Cheney said the administration has done "virtually everything" that Gov. Gray Davis has asked, except to impose price controls."

Told ya.

without a thought to any sort of conservation

Now we've already established that this is, at best, a gross exaggeration. Cheney said you can't conserve your way to power independence, which is true. Rising demand isn't going to go away, no matter what the administration's policy is. I've already mentioned that all federal agencies are currently evaluating conservation opportunities. What do you want?

And the power companies in that Time.com article don't appear to be asking for more lenient emissions standards. They just want to produce 40,000 more watts of electricity while decreasing emissions. Emission levels have been falling for thirty years, anyway.
posted by techgnollogic at 8:52 PM on May 6, 2001

owillis - why are you so desparate to blame this on Bush? It's never been anything other than a state problem - one which the federal government shouldn't touch. A bipartisan group of corrupt politicians paid back their supporters and the current group is helping keep the money flowing. Why not send a little of that rage to people who are actually involved - e.g. Gray Davis or Steve Peace?

Speaking as a Californian, I hope Bush's next statement is something along the lines of "Vote for some politicians who aren't corrupt next time. Or not - we haven't laughed this hard in years.". Shortening some careers, whether for the original bozos or the lackeys like Davis who've resolutely refused to fix the problem, would be a good thing. Even better would be if people became made enough that politicians are recalled and corruption investigations start. Who knows - perhaps people would even think before they vote? (Okay, that last one is a bit far-fetched)
posted by adamsc at 11:33 PM on May 6, 2001

adamsc: If you read my first post, you see I don't give Gray a pass on this either...

techgnollogic: I would like Cheney to devote as much effort to conservation and alternative power sources as he devotes to oil/gas
posted by owillis at 11:41 PM on May 6, 2001

why are you so desparate to blame this on Bush?

Bush has made this his issue. An issue that he and his dusty cabinet see fit to open up the American National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration. When indeed, petroleum mining really only serves the kind of energy which is used in internal combustion engines and has virtually nothing to do with the electricity that powers your local, well lit Target store, server farms and personal microwave ovens.

The idea is. . .much more can be done to encourage conservation. . .

Bush could have been pushing conservation for the last 100 days for starters.

The question arises--why hasn't he?
posted by crasspastor at 4:31 AM on May 7, 2001

adamsc - The corrupt governor you are talking about is Pete Wilson. He is the one who was at the helm and pushing to put the crappy legislation in place that allows the power companies to decrease supply and jack up the prices. Grey Davis has had to deal with the mess. But, Gov. Davis has not taken the problem head-on on too well. Davis has tried to keep from doing the unpopular, raising prices, which exacerbated the problems. Now prices have gone up and the legislation is still in place. Wilson put in to play an oligopoly that was largely unregulated and had free reign, go figure what will happen.
posted by vanderwal at 5:32 AM on May 7, 2001

Especially given the information contained in the original article, which really should be read before interpreted. The federal scientists found enormous available savings from conservation if it were applied aggressively; the Bush administration is ignoring their recommendations and instead pushing for aggressive construction of power plants and thus endorsing increased consumption.

In other words, there are questions and decisions before us this moment that have nothing to do with the economic and structural issues facing California due to the botched deregulation.

I would ask adamsmc why we're supposed to give Bush a pass on this. I thought he wanted to run the country -- now he's not responsible? Welcome to being in power. Cuts both ways.
posted by dhartung at 5:37 AM on May 7, 2001

« Older Wow,   |   'The new market fundamentalism is more dangerous... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments