While Clinton Slept
Dexter Van Zile
LISTENING TO DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS complain about George Bush�s energy policy is like listening to supporters of Neville Chamberlain complain about Winston Churchill�s handling of the Dunkirk. Former President Bill Clinton had eight years to make the United States less vulnerable to
OPEC price increases, but he did little except to claim credit for the booming economy cheap oil gave him. The inevitable increase in domestic oil production that Bush is proposing is a consequence of Clinton�s inaction as much as it is a result of Bush�s ties to Big Oil.
Probably the best example of Democratic energy hypocrisy is U.S. Rep. Ed Markey�s (D-Mass.) efforts to lock up the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling. Markey, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D- Conn.) has proposed legislation that would designate the ANWR a wilderness making it impossible to tap the estimated 11 billion barrels of oil in the refuge.
Markey argues that increasing the average efficiency of automobiles in the U.S. by three miles per gallon will make drilling unnecessary.
"Slightly more efficient Mustangs and Cougars would mean significantly longer-living caribou and elk," Markey and Lieberman wrote in a recent opinion piece. "Now that is a tradeoff worth making." Nice rhetoric, but note that the two lawmakers made no reference to the gas-guzzling SUVs
which by 2000 caused the average fuel efficiency of vehicles in the U.S. to plummet to its lowest level in 20 years - probably for fear of angering soccer moms who propelled Clinton into office. And never mind that the
estimates Markey and Liebermann cite come from the same cabal of experts who asserted California could conserve its way out of having to build new power plants only to have two summers worth of rolling blackouts prove
them wrong. And never mind that Markey represents a state in a region which for the past two winters, has suffered from high heating oil prices because of reductions in OPEC oil production.
For some reason, Markey sees no contradiction between asking Clinton to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower fuel costs in the Northeast (as he did last February) and locking up 11 billion barrels
of oil in Alaska. Whether Markey wants to admit it or not, increasing domestic oil production will give the U.S. a valuable hedge against OPEC price increases and serve the interests of his constituents.
To be sure, conservation should play a huge role in the response to rising energy costs, but for the short term, increased fuel production is necessary, unless leaders are willing to risk an economic slowdown caused by higher energy costs. Such a slowdown could have been avoided if
Democrats had pushed for conservation while they held the White House, but they squandered their legitimacy keeping Clinton in power through scandal after scandal.
While Markey and other Democratic lawmakers complain publicly that Bush�s energy plan emphasizes drilling over conservation, they should be glad the chickens of Clinton�s lame energy policy came home to roost with Republican oilman in the White House. With Bush forced to sully his
hands with the hard choices on how to increase energy production, Democrats can get down to the business of skewering Republicans for trying to solve a problem their disgraced leader help create.
While Clinton Slept
A
anonymous
(view)
While Clinton Slept
Dexter Van Zile
LISTENING TO DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS complain about George Bush�s energy policy is like listening to supporters of Neville Chamberlain complain about Winston Churchill�s handling of the Dunkirk. Former President Bill Clinton had eight years to make the United States less vulnerable to
OPEC price increases, but he did little except to claim credit for the booming economy cheap oil gave him. The inevitable increase in domestic oil production that Bush is proposing is a consequence of Clinton�s inaction as much as it is a result of Bush�s ties to Big Oil.
Probably the best example of Democratic energy hypocrisy is U.S. Rep. Ed Markey�s (D-Mass.) efforts to lock up the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling. Markey, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D- Conn.) has proposed legislation that would designate the ANWR a wilderness making it impossible to tap the estimated 11 billion barrels of oil in the refuge.
Markey argues that increasing the average efficiency of automobiles in the U.S. by three miles per gallon will make drilling unnecessary.
"Slightly more efficient Mustangs and Cougars would mean significantly longer-living caribou and elk," Markey and Lieberman wrote in a recent opinion piece. "Now that is a tradeoff worth making." Nice rhetoric, but note that the two lawmakers made no reference to the gas-guzzling SUVs
which by 2000 caused the average fuel efficiency of vehicles in the U.S. to plummet to its lowest level in 20 years - probably for fear of angering soccer moms who propelled Clinton into office. And never mind that the
estimates Markey and Liebermann cite come from the same cabal of experts who asserted California could conserve its way out of having to build new power plants only to have two summers worth of rolling blackouts prove
them wrong. And never mind that Markey represents a state in a region which for the past two winters, has suffered from high heating oil prices because of reductions in OPEC oil production.
For some reason, Markey sees no contradiction between asking Clinton to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower fuel costs in the Northeast (as he did last February) and locking up 11 billion barrels
of oil in Alaska. Whether Markey wants to admit it or not, increasing domestic oil production will give the U.S. a valuable hedge against OPEC price increases and serve the interests of his constituents.
To be sure, conservation should play a huge role in the response to rising energy costs, but for the short term, increased fuel production is necessary, unless leaders are willing to risk an economic slowdown caused by higher energy costs. Such a slowdown could have been avoided if
Democrats had pushed for conservation while they held the White House, but they squandered their legitimacy keeping Clinton in power through scandal after scandal.
While Markey and other Democratic lawmakers complain publicly that Bush�s energy plan emphasizes drilling over conservation, they should be glad the chickens of Clinton�s lame energy policy came home to roost with Republican oilman in the White House. With Bush forced to sully his
hands with the hard choices on how to increase energy production, Democrats can get down to the business of skewering Republicans for trying to solve a problem their disgraced leader help create.
Dexter Van Zile
LISTENING TO DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS complain about George Bush�s energy policy is like listening to supporters of Neville Chamberlain complain about Winston Churchill�s handling of the Dunkirk. Former President Bill Clinton had eight years to make the United States less vulnerable to
OPEC price increases, but he did little except to claim credit for the booming economy cheap oil gave him. The inevitable increase in domestic oil production that Bush is proposing is a consequence of Clinton�s inaction as much as it is a result of Bush�s ties to Big Oil.
Probably the best example of Democratic energy hypocrisy is U.S. Rep. Ed Markey�s (D-Mass.) efforts to lock up the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling. Markey, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D- Conn.) has proposed legislation that would designate the ANWR a wilderness making it impossible to tap the estimated 11 billion barrels of oil in the refuge.
Markey argues that increasing the average efficiency of automobiles in the U.S. by three miles per gallon will make drilling unnecessary.
"Slightly more efficient Mustangs and Cougars would mean significantly longer-living caribou and elk," Markey and Lieberman wrote in a recent opinion piece. "Now that is a tradeoff worth making." Nice rhetoric, but note that the two lawmakers made no reference to the gas-guzzling SUVs
which by 2000 caused the average fuel efficiency of vehicles in the U.S. to plummet to its lowest level in 20 years - probably for fear of angering soccer moms who propelled Clinton into office. And never mind that the
estimates Markey and Liebermann cite come from the same cabal of experts who asserted California could conserve its way out of having to build new power plants only to have two summers worth of rolling blackouts prove
them wrong. And never mind that Markey represents a state in a region which for the past two winters, has suffered from high heating oil prices because of reductions in OPEC oil production.
For some reason, Markey sees no contradiction between asking Clinton to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower fuel costs in the Northeast (as he did last February) and locking up 11 billion barrels
of oil in Alaska. Whether Markey wants to admit it or not, increasing domestic oil production will give the U.S. a valuable hedge against OPEC price increases and serve the interests of his constituents.
To be sure, conservation should play a huge role in the response to rising energy costs, but for the short term, increased fuel production is necessary, unless leaders are willing to risk an economic slowdown caused by higher energy costs. Such a slowdown could have been avoided if
Democrats had pushed for conservation while they held the White House, but they squandered their legitimacy keeping Clinton in power through scandal after scandal.
While Markey and other Democratic lawmakers complain publicly that Bush�s energy plan emphasizes drilling over conservation, they should be glad the chickens of Clinton�s lame energy policy came home to roost with Republican oilman in the White House. With Bush forced to sully his
hands with the hard choices on how to increase energy production, Democrats can get down to the business of skewering Republicans for trying to solve a problem their disgraced leader help create.
