Lynne Kiesling
See this Business Week summary of the energy bill version that passed the House yesterday. The Washington Post opined that the bill is “new and unimproved”:
More to the point, it will fail to give this country the truly revolutionary energy policy it desperately needs. Instead of pointing the way toward an eventual transition from fossil fuels to other energy sources — a transition that would have environmental as well as national security benefits — the bill will simply make Americans even more dependent on oil and gas than they are now.
As before, the bill contains sizable subsidies for the oil and gas industries (and all kinds of other groups as well) although Mr. Bush himself has pointed out that in a time of high prices, this is hardly the economic sector that needs the most help.
Indeed. Then there’s the Orwellian protection of MTBE producers from liability for groundwater contamination, a distortion in response to the mandatory, federal oxygenate requirement that was implemented over a decade ago.
Although the Post editorial then goes steeply wrong by advocating more stringent CAFE standards on vehicles. This energy bill proposal is almost unchanged from last year’s, and it has all of last year’s warts. If you support a forward-looking, dynamic, creative, innovative approach to energy, this is not the legislation for you. If you are a fan of corporate subsidies to oil companies, and you are happy with the reality that “what gets subsidized gets done” (that is, increased oil production and consumption), then belly up to the bar.