Is Bush giving energy plan a hard sell or bait-and-switch?

Washington Bureau Chief FRITZ E-mail: Click here Archive

By SARA FRITZ

© St. Petersburg Times, published May 18, 2001

WASHINGTON -- New and improved.

It sells soap powder, but can it sell President Bush's new energy policy?

Bush chose to visit a brand-new, high-tech energy generating plant in Minnesota on Thursday to unveil his energy strategy. The plant burns a combination of coal, natural gas, oil and renewables such as wood biomass to produce electricity.

According to Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, the state-of-the-art facility was picked for Bush's speech to underscore the point that energy technology has improved dramatically since the 1970s, when President Jimmy Carter urged Americans to conserve energy and wear sweaters.

President Bush's emphasis on new and improved technology was, of course, intended to distract the country from coming to the seemingly inescapable realization that the president, a Texan who once ran his own oil company, was putting forth a plan that would mean a windfall for his former industry.

In truth, while Bush's new policy does mention the development of renewable energy sources and alternative fuels, it depends heavily on the tried-and-true solutions of expanding oil exploration and increasing refinery capacity. Oil industry executives issued a flurry of glowing press releases Thursday, all praising the president for protecting their interests.

Apparently for that reason, Bush's sales pitch met with intense skepticism within the White House press corps. One irate journalist even demanded to know why Bush had not chosen to go to an oil refinery to articulate his policy.

While questioning Fleischer aboard Air Force One as it headed from Washington to Minnesota, reporters fixed their attention on the notion that Bush, by focusing on new technology, was trying to mask his identity as an ex-oilman.

Question: ". . . Has (Bush) ever talked about feeling like he gets stereotyped because he's an oil man?"

Answer: "No . . . the president's focus is on the policy."

Question: "Does he have a hurdle because of his oil background?"

Answer: "I think the American people are grateful to have a president who, immediately, identified this problem that needed a solution . . . because people don't want their lights to go out, people don't want to pay sky-high bills, they don't want to pay $2 (a gallon) for gas."

Question: "He feels like his oil background has helped him understand the situation in a way he wouldn't have understood it if he didn't have that history?"

Answer: "I've not heard the president reflect . . ."

Question: ". . . I mean, 25 people in your administration come from the energy and auto industries. (Are you saying he) never thought that this could be problematic as you put together an energy plan that focuses mostly on supply and mostly on industry?"

Answer: "Again, if you look at the number of recommendations in here that deal with alternatives, that deal with renewables, there are a series of proposals on those items."

The questions and answers continued in this pattern until the questioners finally lost their patience.

Question: "Why can't you answer that with a yes or no?"

Answer: "I'm sharing with you the president's focus."

President Bush is right, of course, when he notes that energy technology has improved in the quarter-century since the nation last dealt with the prospect of widespread energy shortages.

As he has observed repeatedly, the safety record of the nuclear power industry is much improved in recent years. And new techniques of oil exploration have yielded a more environmentally friendly approach to drilling.

Polls show the American people are open to the president's arguments for increasing oil production and weighing them against the complaints of environmentalists that drilling would spoil such pristine places as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A recent ABC News poll found that Americans are about evenly split over Bush's handling of the energy situation, with 39 percent approving and 43 percent disapproving.

Not all of the numbers are running in Bush's favor, however. When asked whether they preferred conservation to increased oil and gas drilling, 56 percent of the respondents favored conservation. Only 35 percent supported exploration.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright