Yesterday evening, less than 15 miles from where I live,
President Bush put in an appearance to promote the report released earlier in the day by the National Energy Policy Development Group. In case you\'ve been living in a cave the last few weeks, rolling blackouts in California coupled with precipitously rising gas prices have pushed energy-related issues to the forefront, and Bush has seized the opportunity to shape policy.

Skeptical of the media\'s overviews of the report (typically pieced together by journalists simply writing down what the Administration has told them rather than what the document contains), I elected to download the 17-page summary outlining the NEPD Group\'s 105 recommendations. Here are some highlights of what the document contains:

• A recommendation that the Secretary of Energy (SoE from here on out) develop educational programs and public awareness campaigns. Such programs \"should be funded and managed by the respective energy industries, and should include information on energy\'s compatibility with a clean environment.\" Presumably (since the proposal makes no mention of them), the educational programs should not teach the advantages of conservation.
  
  
  
  
• Countless recommendations to promote \"solutions to environmental concerns,\" provided said solutions are \"market-based.\"
  
  
  
  
• A recommendation that we open up parts of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling, and use the money made from doing so (via granting bids and whatnot) to A) fund land conservation efforts and B) fund research into alternative and renewable energy resources. This suggestion would seem to suggest the Group is unaware of contradictions between funding conservation efforts by compromising them for oil, and between researching technologies after demand for the product they deliver has been met.
  
  
  
  
• A recommendation not that we up the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, but that the Secretary of Transportation review the idea while keeping in mind that \"Responsibly crafted CAFE standards should increase efficiency with negatively impacting the U.S. automotive industry.\" Note that the US Automotive Alliance already opposes higher CAFE standards and that the nearly-70-mpg car Bush referred to in his speech announcing the release of this report is made by Honda, a Japanese company.
  
  
  
  
• A recommendation not that the Secretary of Transportation come forth with a national program for fostering mass transit, but that he review and promote \"congestion mitigation technologies\"—presumably so we don\'t waste gas while driving alone in our cars to and from work.
  
  
  
  
• Sweeping structural reforms to our transportation network in order to reduce demand for petroleum fuels such as \"working with the trucking industry to establish a program to reduce emissions and fuel consumption from long-haul trucks at truck stops by implementing alternatives to idling.\" Seriously, this is about as fudmentally habit-changing as the proposal gets.
  
  
  
  
• A recommendation that \"the President direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a national priority for improving energy efficiency,\" because of course the SoE holds much more power and sway than President Bush himself.
  
  
  
  
• A directive that the SoE develop \"next generation technology\" such as hydrogen and fusion. This directive comes with no recommendations to earmark funding for this particular purpose.
  
  
  
  
• A recommendation that we allocate $2 billion over ten years for clean coal technology, and that we allocate a whopping $39.2 million in additional funds to the Dep\'t of Energy next year to support R&D of renewable energy resources.
  
  
  
  
• A recommendation to work on legislation to provide a tax credit for residential solar energy, up to a whopping $2000, which should really spur adoption by the richest Americans who typically lie at the beginning of the technology adoption curve.
  
  
  
  
• Seven recommendations from the \"Increasing Domestic Energy Supplies\" chapter relating to oil and gas, two each for nuclear, coal, and re-examination of land use policies, and one for hydroelectric. Also from this chapter comes a recommendation that the SoE propose legislation to deregulate the electric industry and repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act. This recommendation, predicated on the idea that deregulation \"promotes competition\" and \"protects consumers\" is in direct conflict not only with the recommendations of the The Consumer Federation of America and the Consumers Union, but with prior deregulation experiences in, say, telecommunications, and even taxicabs.
  
  
  
  
• Multiple recommendations containing language such as \"continue supporting American energy firms competing in markets abroad,\" \"level the playing field for U.S. companies overseas,\" \"improve energy investment climate,\" and \"promote a more receptive environment for U.S. oil and gas trade, investment and operations.\"
  

Interestingly, a Gallup poll from early May shows that 12% more Americans favor a policy geared toward conservation than toward production—not a bad stance when one takes into account Americans\' gluttonous energy habits compared with much of the developed world:

This same poll shows that 91% of Americans favor increased use of solar power but only 64% favor new gas pipelines, and 57% oppose oil exploration in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. These American laypeople aren\'t alone in supporting a more eco-friendly energy policy: a massive scientific study recently concluded that promoting aggressive conservation methods could possibly cut energy consumption by more than 40 percent.

Why would the Bush administration even attempt to sponsor and advocate such an oil-and-gas-heavy policy, one that the head of the UN forum on climate change has already condemned as a \"disastrous development\"?

The answer crystallizes rather rapidly when one examines the Bush campaign contribution figures tracked by the Center for Responsive Politics, figures which suggest Nader made a grave error in lumping the two candidates together as one and the same: Bush received over $1.5 million from the oil & gas industry, more than 15 times what Gore received. Major contributors include Enron (\"the world\'s leading energy company\") and law firm Vinson & Elkins (ranked first worldwide in oil and gas law by Petroleum Economist). And let\'s not forget that President Bush\'s father, George Herbert Walker Bush, founded oil-drilling company Zapata Petroleum Corporation, giving the President a distinct interest in helping the U.S. oil industry.

But energy-related campaign money fails to tell the entire story, for this energy policy report was assembled not by Bush himself, but by a committee of Bush appointees. Members of the National Energy Policy Development Group include:

• Vice President Dick Cheney, who until last year was CEO of Halliburton, the world\'s largest oil field services company.
  
  
• Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, national chairwoman of a coalition funded by Ford and BP Amoco.
  
  
• Sectrary of Commerce Don Evans, who spent 25 years at Tom Brown Inc., a Denver-based oil and gas company, and who also was a board member of TMBR/Sharp Drilling.
  
  
• Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, a Michigander with a history of close ties to Ford, GM and DaimlerChrysler.
  
  
• EPA Administrator Christine Whitman, who oversaw severe cuts to her state\'s environmental law enforcement efforts as governor of New Jersey.
  

In the words of Jimmy Carter (who ought to know an energy crisis when he sees one, by now), \"No energy crisis exists now that equates in any way with those we faced in 1973 and 1979... World supplies are adequate and reasonably stable, price fluctuations are cyclical, reserves are plentiful, and automobiles aren\'t waiting in line at service stations.\" Yet the Bush administration continues to use the language of crisis with the media, for reasons best illustrated by the follow excerpt from Ivan Illich\'s \"The Right to Useful Unemployment,\" copyright 1978:

Crisis has come to mean that moment when doctors, diplomats, bankers and assorted social engineers take over and liberties are suspended. Like patients, nations go on the critical list. Crisis, the Greek term that has designated \'choice\' or \'turning point\' in all modern languages now means \'driver, step on the gas\'. Crisis now evokes an ominous but tractable threat against which money, manpower and management can be rallied... Crisis, understood this way, is always good for executives and commissars, especially those scavengers who live on the side effects of yesterday\'s growth... Crisis understood as a call for acceleration not only puts more power under the control of the driver, which squeezing the passengers more tightly into their safety belts; it also justifies the depredation of space, time and resources for the sake of motorized wheels...\"

On the surface the situation looks grim, and given how the Bush administration handled its first hundred days, moving to Canada (although not easy) might seem to be getting progressively more attractive. However, bailing on the American political system will likely do even less for the future than sucking oil out of Alaska will in 41 years. Instead, take some more Illich to heart —\"[Crisis] can mean the instant of choice, that marvellous moment when people suddenly become aware of their self-imposed cages, and of the possibility of a different life. And this is the crisis, that, as a choice, confronts both the Unites States and the world today\"—and make a decision to stand up against the special-interest driven core of this latest offering from the Bush administration.