House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said Tuesday - "We did not arrive at this energy crisis overnight; it is a direct result of years of unreasonable, burdensome regulations and obstruction on the part of radical environmentalists..." He followed saying "Democrats' obstruction results in energy crisis."
Even Virginia Republicans have been trumpeting this lie since energy prices have increased in recent months. Thelma Drake (VA-2) ridiculed the environmental cause in September 2005 in regards to the proposed (less strict) amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). After environmentalists were given less than a warm welcome at one several forums held in the West by House Republicans last year, Drake implied that in the Old West +óGé¼+ôthey might have gotten strung up+óGé¼-¥.
So what is the truth? Are the environmentalists causing high energy prices with their constant meddling in the regulatory process? Let+óGé¼Gäós look at the facts.
First of all, we go to the ends of the earth to find energy resources. If energy development was prevented, it was done so when energy prices were relatively low, which was the case when Clinton was in office. When Bush took office and gutted the EPA and appointed former big oil and energy lobbyists to numerous regulatory posts, I don't think he was too worried about the environmentalists restricting developments.
In fact, Bush has worked hard to restrict the ability of the environmental community to stop energy projects. He opened up more public lands to drilling; and he lowered environmental standards for gasoline twice to deal with high gas prices after Katrina and in reaction to the gas price surge over the last few weeks. Yet, despite these efforts that loosen environmental regulations, energy dependence and prices continue to grow at a rate unseen in a quarter-century. The Democrats have nothing to do with it.
Conservatives would have to be crazy to think some environmentalists could get in the way of Bush's oil and gas aspirations in the first place. He went to war in Iraq unilaterally against U.N. approval for God's Sakes. Do people really believe he couldn't stop the environmentalists from getting in the way of oil production?
Now ANWR is an interesting case. Perhaps oil prices weren't high enough to justify ANWR until recently. However, even many conservatives oppose ANWR. Furthermore, its long-term potential (10-20 years away) could fill no more than 100 days worth of world oil consumption.
ANWR is a band-aid for larger supply problems.
Consider the desperation to find those last available drops. We have spent in the vicinity of $350 Billion for the War in Iraq. Now consider that one major reason we went into Iraq was because Iraq has oil (who are we kidding, what other reason was there?) Iraq produced roughly 2.5 million barrels a day before the war, but it was believed that Iraq could produce up to 6 million barrels per day. That means if Iraqi oil production ever increased to full capacity, we could get another 3.5 million barrels per day. If you consider the cost of the war that would mean the United States is spending $1,000 per additional barrel. However, Iraqi oil production has not increased, and we have lost our own soldiers, as well as the respect of the world. So in essence, we are doing everything humanly possible to get oil at extremely high costs, and failing miserably. Isn+óGé¼Gäót it time to cut our losses and find another solution?
If you want to blame someone for high oil and gas prices, blame those who have prevented energy efficient products from coming on the market (including the oil, gas, nuclear, and coal industries). However, before we blame the corporations, we need to point the finger at ourselves. Americans are energy gluttons. China and India are joining in on the feast because we sent them all our jobs. I am sure that someone right now is sitting in a parking lot with their SUV that gets 12 miles per gallon. They are blaming the environmentalists for their high gas prices; and as they sit there complaining, their engine is probably running full blast. They were probably just listening to some conservative pundit claim the environmentalists won't let the poor oil and gas companies drill on public lands. Of course these are the type of people who leave the TV and the kitchen light on when they leave the house. They are the type of person who has 4 kids, all of whom sit at home at night watching television with the air conditioning going full blast. They are an energy nightmare sucking down kilowatts, while pappy blames the hippie in the tie die shirt for his energy woes.
The truth is that environmentalists' role in our energy prices are negligible compared to the role of BIG OIL and large energy companies blocking efficiency and alternative energy requirements to reduce their own bottom line costs. I will admit that some environmentalists are irresponsible. After all, a conservative may bring up several notable renewable energy projects, such as the Glass Mountain geothermal project in Northern California and Cape Wind off Nantucket Sound. Some environmentalists have gotten in the way of these projects (although Republicans haven't been much help either). What conservatives probably don't realize is that even Greenpeace is slamming environmentalists who don't support the Cape Wind project. That's right: Greenpeace.
Meanwhile, Republicans, in large numbers, opposed the National Renewable Portfolio Standard that would require all utilities to generate 10% of their power from renewable sources by 2020. Republicans, in large numbers, prevented a long-term extension of the Production Tax Credit for renewable energy. In 2005, it was extended until January 1st 2008, while Nuclear Energy got an equivalent tax cut that is good for another 20 years.
As for the "burdensome regulations", believe me, environmental regulations are not the big problem. Do conservatives really want massive pollution? Do they really want to gut all of our public lands? There has got to be some limit to what we are willing to do for low costs at the expense of trashing of our environment. We need some degree of clean air and clean water for our health, and environmentalists have led the way. If Republicans remain in charge, climate change will surely do us in before Big Oil ever makes any real concessions in this regard.
We don't have to agree with everything the environmental community has done. As discussed before, they don't even agree with each other. However, what is clearly the case is that Bush has done everything he can to stop environmentalists in their tracks. He has suppressed data on climate change. He had bankrupted the environmental non-profit community. He has changed laws when environmental regulations have been breached, to the benefit of polluters. He has allowed energy lobbyists to come to the White House and write our energy laws. All of this has been done since Bush took office, and energy prices have still managed to skyrocket.
The facts are clear. Roy Blunt is lying. He is misleading the American public. Thelma Drake wants Big Oil campaign money in an election she is afraid to lose, and she wants to allow drilling off Virginia+óGé¼Gäós coastline despite objections from members of her own Party. Any conservative has to ask himself or herself: Would you trade clean air for 20 cents less per gallon? Oh wait, maybe if Republicans like Roy Blunt and Thelma Drake actually promoted fuel efficiency standards, we wouldn't have to choose.
Roy Blunt Sources:
Source #1
Source #2