quote:[A] leader upholds the dignity and honor of his office. In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal, but also what is right - not just what the lawyers allow, but what the public deserves.
In my administration we will make it clear there is the controlling authority of conscience. We will make people proud again - so that Americans who love their country can once again respect their government.
- George W. Bush, 26 October 2000
This week, Natural Resources Defense Council, after reviewing documents released by the Department of Energy relating to the present administration's formation of a national energy policy, made the following charges.
quote:"Big energy companies all but held the pencil for the White House task force as government officials wrote a plan calling for billions of dollars in corporate subsidies, and the wholesale elimination of key health and environmental safeguards," John H. Adams, the president of the council, said at a news conference today.
Sharon Buccino, a senior lawyer at the resources council, said, "The oil companies seem to be putting words in our president's mouth."
quote:In one example cited by the natural resources council, the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group that represents the country's largest oil companies, submitted a proposed draft executive order on energy policy to the Energy Department on March 20, 2001. Two months later, Mr. Bush signed an executive order that the council's lawyers said was nearly identical in structure and language to the trade group's proposal. The executive order concerned government regulations that affect energy supply and distribution.
Papers released so far
quote: ...show that some senior administration officials, including the energy secretary, Spencer Abraham, heard advice exclusively from executives and lobbyists from large energy corporations.
Bringing honesty, fair play and big oil to a White House near you....
On a related note, Mr. Bush and Mr. Chenney continue to fight the GAO request to make public energy documents related to the formation of public national energy policy.
quote:I will repair the broken bonds of trust between Americans and their government.
- George W. Bush, 7 March 2000
[ March 28, 2002, 12:32: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
What did the Natural Resources Defense Council have to say about the sale of the Elk Hills Oil Reserve to private drilling concerns (the NRDC doesn't like drilling in reserves, as evidenced in their stand on ANWR) with strong connections to the administration in 1998?
Nada.
Unsurprising, it's a pretty partisan site.
Apparently, Libertarians are evil, and anybody who is or has ever been associated with them is evil by association, ie., the Secretary of the Interior.
(sounds familiar... are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Libertarian Party?... I have here a list of government officials who are Libertarians...)
I was reading the 'arsenic in the water FAQ with their 'chances of cancer from arsenic' rates, but the page detailing how they arrived at their rates was... 'lost.'
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I feel cheated. I knew the "well, these kinds of things happened in the Clinton administration too" card would come up, but is that all?
Sure, an organisation with a name like the Natural Resources Defense Council isn't going to be a paragon of impartiality. Like all lobby groups they'll never go away, even if they kept getting their way they'd never be happy until we were all living as hunter-gatherers.
But I'm really disappointed, Firsty O'Two! Your beloved Pres is allegedly saying whatever big business tells him to! And just because a bunch of treehuggers points this out, doesn't mean it isn't true! The New York Times themselves seem to have checked out some of these stories. Can you deny or defend this?
Now, c'mon, boah, lets see some of that there squirmin', or we be done wantin' ouah money back! 8)
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
A review of public national energy policy that only includes large energy companies is not inclusive and smacks of Mr. Bush being bought and sold by the only group of individuals at the table...because they are the only group at the table.
Executive orders that help create national energy policy that includes outlines written by and for large energy companies and appear in the Executive Order almost word for word is not inclusive and smacks of Mr. Bush being bought and sold by the only group of individuals at the table...because they are the only group at the table.
Libritarianism ain't got nothing to do with it you not very bright person.
[ March 28, 2002, 15:27: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:The New York Times themselves seem to have checked out some of these stories.
I dislike adding new accounts to my already overburdened list, so I'll admit I haven't read the NYT's story yet.
Given you already know that I believe the NYT has messed up stories before (see: shadowy pentagon office of disinformation), I wouldn't be surprised if the NYT's 'source' IS the NRDC.
(Reads article)
Nope, I'm not surprised. Fancy that.
although I did like this quote:
quote:"It's very flattering to think that one e-mail can determine energy policy," said Laura Gillig, a spokeswoman for the Southern Company.
And I really can't say that I see anything there that at all resembles "checking out the story." They took the NRDC's accusations, (note that no actual document quotes are produced, we're forced to take the word of the partisan organization's lawyers) and printed them as a statement of fact in the headline. Right at the get-go. The slant isn't blatant, but it's clearly there. So much for journalism.
*sniff* *sniff* hmm... rat.
[ March 28, 2002, 16:49: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Registration on the NY Times web site is free.
quote:For full access to our site, please complete this simple registration form. As a member, you'll enjoy:
The entire contents of The New York Times FREE Up-to-the-minute breaking news and developing stories FREE Exclusive Web-only features, classifieds, tools, and multimedia FREE
Excuses - 1 Actual Work - 0
And lest I be remiss, I love it when people post unfounded information without reading the link...or even looking at it which was apparently the case here. It's a thing of beauty when it hapens. Thanks First.
[ March 28, 2002, 16:54: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
From an AP story:
quote:In March, Abraham held separate meetings with groups representing the nuclear industry, the oil industry and public utility industries to discuss the energy plan, according to documents released this week. He held no meetings on the plan with environmentalists or advocates for energy efficiency or renewable energy sources.*
*emphasis added
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I clicked it, saw a registration form, and clicked off before I saw that it was free. Give me a break, I'm working here. I posted that I wasn't paying for it before the 'free' bit sank in. As you can clearly see, I went back, signed up, and read it while you were posting.
[ March 28, 2002, 17:11: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
I am not worried that the White House would want privacy in its private meetings. I am, however, worried that this White House is not acknowledging the check and balances as defined in the US Constitution.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The AP story is ALSO entirely NRDC-derived in its contents.
What we have here is a partisan group trying to push its agenda.
Yeah, you send me a form letter, you'll pretty much get the same results.
Do you have anything which doesn't come from the NRDC? Any other group? I mean, essentially, you're citing the same story again. What the NRDC says, what the NRDC says, what the NRDC says. I looked at their home page, I looked at their page on global warming, which contains at least one out-and-out misrepresentation, if not a lie. (Yes, it's true that most scientists agree that global warming is taking place. Emphatically NO, they don't agree that humans are the cause or a major factor in it.) I don't buy what they're selling.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
targetemployee: how does "checks and balances" apply here? IIRC, neither the Congress nor the Supreme Court has had any problems with the Executive branch so far.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
What we have here is a group that is pointing out the simple fact that the current administration met exclusively with large energy companies and groups.
And that the present administration took almost verbatim, whole are parts of the written action plans that would benefit those large energy companies and groups.
The present administration still had not met with environmentalists or advocates for energy efficiency or renewable energy sources when it formed it supposedly inclusive public national energy policy.
Those, for the uninformed, are known as facts.
All the whining in the world about the group bring the charges does not make them less true.
All the whining in thw world about journalism does not change them.
[ March 29, 2002, 09:19: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
And I would say that there are members of Congress that have a problem with the executive branch or else there would not be a GAO suit in court.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Yes, but there are always SOME members of congress who have a problem with the executive branch... or they wouldn't have tried to impeach Clinton.
The question is.. are there enough who have enough of a problem to make it truly meaningful?
Doubt it. Too many would be staring at the proverbial logs in their own proverbial eyes.
"pointing out the simple fact"
I see. And it's been acknowledged to be a fact by...
Not that meeting with an environmental lobby to discuss energy policy would necessarily be a BAD thing, but they're generally experts (used loosely) on the environment, not on energy production. They may have something useful to say about when the two overlap... but prioritywise, they naturally aren't at the top of the heap.
To use another example... when putting together a policy on genetic engineering, you consult genetic engineers first and foremost, not PETA.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
I take it that Jay speaks more of the naysayers rather than just the environmentalists. Why not speak to them as a whole? Despite what they may know or not know about energy policies, big oil, and such. You don't ram in policy without full cooperation.
You're also forgetting that the Environment will bear the greatest impact from whatever energy policy will be affected. When drafting legislation which will affect another party, you have to consider that party in discussions.
Or you become like Mike Harris, soon-to-be former Premier of Ontario who stated clearly that he does not like the idea of consensus building as it interferes with the plans of the government (he wanted it to go much faster, forget the discussions with the leftists) and damn the consequences.
Like seven people in bodybags from drinking contaminated water.
[ March 29, 2002, 09:57: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Energy companies (and genetic engineers) are quite perfectly qualified to say "we can do this, and we can do that, and we can do the other" yet where they fall down is on the question of whether or not they should do this, that and the other.
This is where environmentalists come in. Of course they're extremists of another kind altogether, so whatever they say has to be taken with a hefty pinch of salt. But it can't be passed off as a coincidence that the current administration, comprised of representatives of the party of big business, is parroting whatever big business has to say about energy policy.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Thank you Lee.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
What's the phrase, follow the money...
quote:The industry representatives who met with the energy secretary have financial ties to the Bush administration and Republican Party. From 1999 to 2002, the 103 individuals and organizations donated more than $22 million to GOP causes, compared with $7 million to the Democrats, the [Center for Responsive Politics ] reported.
It seems to me little wonder why the present administration is trying to hide who it met with.
quote:Opening the deliberative process to more contrarian views would probably not have deflected Mr. Bush's advisers from the aggressively pro-industry strategy they favored from the start, a strategy that relies heavily on increasing supplies of traditional fossil fuels like oil, natural gas and coal. Still, it is distressing that on a matter of this magnitude so few opposing voices were heard. It is no less disturbing that the industries that had the most to gain — many of them major campaign contributors — played such an intimate and influential role in conceiving the final product.