<Open ThreadThe Oil DrumGassing on some more>

30 comments on Government and Big Oil sitting in a tree

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Stuart Staniford on November 17, 2005 - 1:12am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
So, help me get with the program here. I've never been able to understand why anyone gets upset about this energy task force thing, and I can't understand this latest development either. Firstly, I can't imagine any remotely responsible government defining an energy policy without at least giving a hearing to the major energy companies. It would be ludicrous to proceed without at least understanding their perspective. So why is anyone upset they were there, and why all the secrecy about them being there?

I can understand the environmentalists being upset over being ignored, but I wouldn't have thought they'd be too surprised that a conservative Republican government was going to ignore them.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GreyZone on November 17, 2005 - 1:38am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The problem is that this is supposed to be a representative democracy and that government should be considering more than just corporate greed when formulating national policies. The fact that the meetings were held in secret and now with some of the evidence about what went on at those meetings (preparing to divide up Iraq 2 years before we invaded), it starts to look like Bush is nothing more than a whore for the oil companies, and American citizens be damned (and killed) for the sake of said oil companies.

Now that's probably reactionary on my part but at this point, the Bush administration deserves that reaction based on the inept handling of the entire thing.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jhm on November 17, 2005 - 6:55am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
For me, the issue shouldn't be framed by suggesting Hon. VP Cheney did or didn't do something shifty in seeking advice from industry, or even that they shunned 'environmentalists;' these truths are evident from his finished product (why waste time meeting with the Sierra Club, if you plan to ignore them in the end?).  The nodus of the issue (as I say, for me) is the fact that we are supposed to believe that puplic policy of the importance that energy has can best be made not only with only industies' input, but induststies' input when they are allowed to be frank in their statements (unvarnished), while we plebs have to not only live with the ramifications of these policies, but cannot know what the unvarnished truth actually is from these people.  To put it more bluntly: what was so important that it needed to be secret? not only secret, but protected so energetically.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Staniford on November 17, 2005 - 2:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
That makes a lot more sense to me.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Twilight on November 17, 2005 - 4:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
To me it comes down to whether the secret energy policy has a linkage to the Iraq war that followed it.  I am sure there is a connection, but of course just because B follows A is no proof of causality. The Iraq war is one of the costliest (in so many ways) blunders we've ever made, especially coming as it has at or near PO.  And if you count the opportunity cost, perhaps you need to double the dollar value spent on it.  If indeed the Iraq war was discussed in these meetings as an ENERGY strategy, then that means it was probably the highest act of treason ever committed in our history.  Aside for the criminal aspects, it means that the "profits" those oil companies have made of late are owed directly to the American people in payment for the US military serving as a mercenary force for the oil companies, a point I've made in recent posts about the profit issue.  And the failure to invest in conservation and alternate energy strategies may be catastrophic to the nation in coming years - the Hirsch report illustrates the costs of delaying action as the peak approaches.

No, we cannot get the billions spent on Iraq back, they are gone, wasted, but think of the wake up call to the American public if it were shown that this is what it was all about, as I believe.  Would there be much argument left that the coming oil crisis was real?    If the public knew that the Iraq war was really a premeditated attempt to secure ME oil because of impending decline, it MIGHT make people more willing to accept a serious national program, and therefore politicians more willing to propose it.

Far from being typical fat-cat business as usual, there is no more important political issue.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TJ on November 17, 2005 - 10:04am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Kind of depends on what they talked about.  If it was an Iraq carveout or a discussion of how to keep gas prices to benefit Republicans, it would be bad.  The secrecy does not bode good things.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on November 17, 2005 - 10:56am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It's a basic issue of democracy, and of course free market democracy, isn't it?

Democracy and markets both work best with informed players, and both are subverted when the powerful control information.

What I see as absurd (not here, but generally) is that people with a big belief in markets (current oil prices are purely supply/demand) get turned around, and defend what are clearly non-market and non-democratic events.

To me, it makes a great deal of sense for a market democracy to investigate things in open congressional hearings.  Not only does the goevernment learn, but each of us citizens learn right along with them.

(and of course if Iraq was discussed in early 2001, it takes this concern for democracy to a whole other level!)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on November 17, 2005 - 10:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
P.S. - special concessions are made in US history for such meetings in wartime, but note that these were (AFAIK) peacetime meetings between a few industry and government powerplayers.  This strikes me as different than the proverbial round of golf, or hunting party.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stormy on November 17, 2005 - 11:16am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Energy and oil dependence is at the very center of our present dilemma.  This administration and those before it have sat on their butts while the problem has worsened.  Furthermore, our use of energy is connected to our use or misuse of the environment, which. after peak oil, is going to be an even larger issue.

To fashion an energy policy, in secret, with only the players whose interest is profit in the room is stupid.  This problem is everyone's problem.   As some bloggers have pointed out, we presumably live in a democracy.  

The very premise of TOD is public awareness and support to do what we must do.

I am surprised at your position, Stuart.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
NC on November 17, 2005 - 12:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I'll throw my two cents in as well after agreeing with the above posts.

It seems oil companies are kind of psychotic about alternative energy.  On one hand there is all this data that says nothing can replace oil, NG & coal for EROEI.  At the same time it seems that oil wants no competition in the energy arena by helping craft policy that allows it to keep a lock on profitability over all other options.  

To me that is the heart of the matter.  If oil really is the cheapest energy why are they so worried about a level playing field with respect to taxes and environmental regulations?  Just a question.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Yankee on November 17, 2005 - 1:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yeah, I agree with those who came before me. 1) Why were the meetings secret (including who participated!) and 2) in a democracy, lots of parties should be brought to the table, and they were left out. Sure, Big Oil should have been part of the picture, but where were the academics, the energy analysts, the financial people, the environmentalists, etc? THAT'S the problem here. We should be suspicious about the fact that the oil execs had to lie last week about whether or not they were present in 2001.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.