News outlets ignored Bush flip-flop on oil reserves
SUMMARY: In reporting on President Bush's announcement that he would suspend fuel deposits into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an effort to reduce rising gasoline prices, numerous news outlets failed to note that Bush had previously criticized both the Clinton administration and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) for proposing to use the reserve to lower prices.
In reporting on President Bush's April 25 announcement that he would suspend deposits into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in an effort to reduce rising gasoline prices, numerous news outlets failed to note that Bush had previously criticized both the Clinton administration and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) for proposing to use the reserve to lower prices.
On April 25, Bush announced his decision to suspend deposits to the SPR under a three-part plan purportedly intended to reduce gas prices in the short term. His plan also entailed limiting oil company tax breaks and promoting fuel efficiency. From Bush's speech before the Renewable Fuels Association in Washington, D.C.:
BUSH: One way to ease price is to increase supply. One immediate way we can signal to people we're serious about increasing supply is to stop making purchases or deposits to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for a short period of time.
I've directed the Department of Energy to defer filling the reserve this summer. Our Strategic Reserve is sufficiently large enough to guard against any major supply disruption over the next few months. So by deferring deposits until the fall, we'll leave a little more oil on the market. Every little bit helps.
Following Bush's announcement, most news reports noted experts' opinion that his plan to halt SPR deposits would amount to little more than a "drop in the bucket" in terms of its effect on gas prices. But only a few outlets also pointed out that, in taking this step, Bush contradicted his past opposition to using the reserve to drive down prices.
Indeed, as both The Washington Post and the Associated Press reported on April 26, during his 2004 re-election campaign, Bush denounced then-presidential candidate Kerry's proposal to relieve gas prices by diverting deposits to the SPR. At the time, Bush asserted that the reserve was to be utilized only in the case of "major disruptions of energy supplies":
BUSH: [W]e will not play politics with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That petroleum reserve is in place in case of major disruptions of energy supplies to the United States. The idea of emptying the Strategic Petroleum Reserve plays -- would put America in a dangerous position in the war on terror. We're at war. We face a tough and determined enemy on all fronts. And we must not put ourselves in a worse position in this war. And playing politics with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would do just that.
An April 26 Chicago Tribune article further contrasted Bush's decision to suspend the SPR deposits with his criticism -- made during his 2000 presidential campaign -- of the Clinton administration's decision to tap into the reserve. On September 22, 2000, at the urging of presidential candidate and then-vice president Al Gore, Clinton authorized the release of 30 million barrels of oil from the SPR to "increase supply and help consumers make it through the cold winter." In a statement made a day earlier in response to Gore's recommendation, Bush described as "bad public policy" the idea of taking such steps "in response to public outcry." As with his 2004 rebuke of Kerry's proposal, Bush invoked the issue of national security and noted that the reserve was intended "for a sudden disruption of our energy supply":
BUSH: Today, my opponent, in response to public outcry, proposed that our nation tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That's bad public policy.
The Strategic Reserve is an insurance policy meant for a sudden disruption of our energy supply or for war. Strategic Reserve should not be used as an attempt to drive down oil prices right before an election. It should not be used for short-term political gain at the cost of long-term national security.
By contrast to the Post, Tribune, and AP, numerous other news outlets reported Bush's plan without pointing out his prior opposition to such a move. These included April 26 articles by New York Times reporter David E. Sanger, Los Angeles Times staff writers Peter Wallsten and Richard Simon, and USA Today reporter David Jackson.
CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux's April 25 report on White House plans to address high gas prices also failed to contrast Bush's decision to suspend SPR deposits with his previous criticism of similar Democratic proposals. Malveaux's taped report appeared on Lou Dobbs Tonight, The Situation Room, Paula Zahn Now, and Anderson Cooper 360.
Fox News chief White House correspondent Carl Cameron went a step further. Discussing the president's plan on the April 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Cameron not only failed to inform viewers of Bush's past statements on the appropriate use of the reserve, he ignored experts' criticism of the plan as largely symbolic.
From the April 25 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
DOBBS: President Bush today announced a plan to tackle another major concern for middle-class Americans, the soaring price of gasoline. His plan includes a temporary halt of oil deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but it is early and certainly unclear to decide whether the president's initiative will do anything to stop what is part of now a war on our middle class.
[...]
MALVEAUX: Second, Mr. Bush pledged to boost the supply of U.S. crude oil and gasoline by temporarily suspending deposits into the country's strategic oil reserve.
BUSH [video clip]: So by deferring deposits until the fall, we'll leave a little more oil on the market. Every little bit helps.
MALVEAUX: But energy analysts say that's not likely to lower gas prices.
DANIEL LASHOFF (Natural Resources Defense Council) [video clip]: It is something within the president's jurisdiction, and I think it's largely symbolic.
From the April 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
CAMERON: To boost the U.S. fuel supply, Mr. Bush directed the Environmental Protection Agency to suspend certain rules for cleaner but more expensive blends of gasoline during the summer months. He also temporarily halted shipments of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve so that oil can supply the market now.
BUSH: By deferring deposits until the fall, we'll leave a little more oil on the market. Every little bit helps.
i am not so convinced this is a flip flop, bush criticized kerry for wanting to tap into the oil reserves. bush isn't proposing that now, only halting deposits into it. in any event, this is a problem with many parents that cannot be easily fixed. bush and cheney are too tied to oil to have any credibility here at all, who can deny that? however, many in the extreme environmental community are to blame here too for holding up refineries because nobody wants them in their own backyard, way too many additives and blends which raise prices, and way too many taxes. who knows who is really at fault. i tend to think it's a very complex issue brewing for thirty years. maybe the politicians will stop screwing around here and finally look to alternative energy sources and getting us weened off foreign oil.
“however, many in the extreme environmental community are to blame here too for holding up refineries because nobody wants them in their own backyard, way too many additives and blends which raise prices, and way too many taxes.”
WOW. Right On must be listening to Fox News. These are the talking points Fox News has been harping on for the last week. But lets look closer.
1. New refineries haven’t been built because Oil compnies don’t want to pay 1 trillion dollors for a new refinery. New refineries would have to be much cleaner than existing refineries that increase capacity. 2. The additives help decrease the amount of pollutants released into the air we breathe. Low supplies of these reformulated fuels is the fault of poorly managed oil companies who knew well in advance that they needed to produce these fuels. 3. Corporate taxes have decreased dramatically under the Bush regime 9as referenced in a different post in which you participated)
The left has prevented drilling in the US, stood in the way of building refineries and passed cumbersome and expensive legislation. These, along with high state and federal taxes, are principal reasons for the high gasoline prices we see today. I won't bother to go into supply and demand as these are utterly foreign terms to the left. The mistake Bush made was in pandering to the American people rather than using 30 minutes of prime time air to state these facts.
Yeah... I'm with you, man..SCREW the health of Americans and let the skies fill with pollutants! And...and, don't bring up the fact that most oil in the U.S. is SHIPPED OUT of the coutry... facts like these are just what the democrats want! So keep it quiet! And the ex-ceo of Exxon DESERVED to be paid $144,000 A DAY for EIGHT YEARS! New refineries??... effencient and cleaner??... I DON'T THINK SO! Big oil has enough problems...let us not compound them with laws that will benefit the economy and health of Americans...
If state and local taxes are to blame for high gas prices then why does Washington State have about the highest gas tax and among the lowest average gas prices at the moment? Something else is obviously at work and it is typical of Repubs to immediately seize on taxes as the problem. Gas taxes are really more of a user fee than a tax and ought to be a lot higher in my opinion. The high gas prices of today also have nothing to do with refinery capacity or environmental protections- it is all about supply and demand (terms which this liberal understands well thank you). And there is nothing at all wrong with caping the profits of the oil producers.
Randall--you think Washington has lower gas prices? 'fraid not. [link to www.gasbuddy.com] And the high gas prices have nothing to do with refinery capacity? If there were more refineries, they'd be refining more crude, in order to make a profit on that asset, thus there would be MORE gas available. Part of supply and demand. And cap profits? Should we cap losses too? The amount of taxes in the price of a gallon of gas is greater than the profits of the refiner. [link to www.eia.doe.gov]
I didn't claim Washington had the lowest gas prices, I was responding to the nonsensical comment that state taxes have much to do with the current high price of gasoline. Washington's tax is among the highest in the nation I am proud to say and yet our gas prices now are lower than many places with lower taxes. How can that be? It is all about supply and demand and one of the supply factors is proximity to production. Washington is lucky in that regard as we hav e a large refinery here. The whole point of this current situation is supply and demand and there is nothing wrong with that. But conservatives try to seize the opportunity to ignore reality and blame taxes and environmental rules as usual. As to your flippant comment about capping loses in reply to my call for caps on profits- show me the oil company suffering losses right now and we'll talk. Capitalism is a great market system but it needs government limits and a cap on profits is a reasonable response when supply and demand tilt too far out of balance just as tax incentives to promote production or conservation are appropriate when the balance tilts the other way.
The price of oil is determined more by the future availability of crude oil than by anything else. Because of the wars and tensions in the middle east the price of a barrel of crude is now worth more than $70 a barrel.
5 of the top 10 countries with the largest oil reserves are in the Middle East. The seventh largest is Venezuela. 2 are African Nations Libya and Nigeria). Russia is number 8 and Canada is number 2.
Until the areas producing the most oil are secure and on more friendly terms with the largest consumer, the price will continue to rise.
another WAR is afoot! This time it's the middle class...
Right On, we agree here. Not depositing oil into the reserves is not the same as removing it. Of course this amounts to little more than putting on a Band-Aid where stitches are needed. Along with withholding deposits, suspending certain rules for expensive blends and limiting oil company tax breaks there is one other thing that could lower prices for consumers--remove all federal and state taxes on fuel--at least temporarily. Of course I won't hold my breath waiting for Bush or Congress to even consider that.
and politicians love issues like this close to elections so they can use it and manipulate for their own political gain. they want it around, they don't really want to fix it at atll. and all at the expense of the american consumer who is shelling out more bucks every day to fill up, not to mention every single thing we buy is trucked in, and airline prices, and plastics, and nearly everything else will be affected. we the people get what we deserve, it's ultimately our fault. not the republicans. not the democrats.
Build China's and India's economy up at the expense of America's and this is what you get. Brazil got smart in the '70's and now they're almost to energy independence. The GOP has controlled the presidency 26 of the last 38 years... and now we're dependent on Iran and Venezuela. What a joke.
ANTI-WAR... ANTI-GLOBALIZATION... AMERICA FIRST
Actually, that doesn't quite explain the situation either. Refineries were actually closed in order to increase utilization and profits. All other things being equal, an increase in gas prices is a predictable result. (Think about the supply and demand curves to see what I mean.)
In all fairness, I can't criticize companies for business decisions that seem sound. The analogy that comes to mind is airlines cutting flights in order to improve aircraft utilization. However, refining companies and politicians throwing the blame on environmentalists for higher gas prices is hardly fair either.
Environmental regulation is only part of the cost, but gets blamed for much more. Those costs that can be attributed to regulation seem fair. The product should reflect the true cost to produce and use, removing as many externalities (e.g., pollution) as possible.
The real long term issue, however, is that we're dependent on an energy source that's increasingly coming from unstable sources, e.g., Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, etc. The impact of ANWR, based on estimates, isn't enough to have an appreciable effect. When one considers the political, economical and environmental impacts of oil, alternative energy sources seem very appealing. Rather then send troops to Iraq and men to the moon, I advocate an Apollo-like effort to radically reduce our dependance on oil. That, of course, is the last thing the oil companies want.
"The real long term issue, however, is that we're dependent on an energy source that's increasingly coming from unstable sources, e.g., Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, etc."
Canada, if I am not mistaken is number 1 or 2, in our imported oil providers. Then there is Venezuela, a little more unstable than Canada, but it is still not the Middle East. We get very little of our oil imports from Africa and the Middle East, but then there is the world and someone has to fill that demand -- particularly that of China and India. This will have to be an agreed upon world effort to have any real effect. I've heard this call from Democrats and Republicans calling either for radical new energy policies or the invasion of the Mid-East, granted the ones who call the for the later are less likely to be honest regarding their intentions.
"Rather then send troops to Iraq and men to the moon, I advocate an Apollo-like effort to radically reduce our dependance on oil. That, of course, is the last thing the oil companies want."
I have heard this call before and while I must admit a certain excitement for it. I can't see it taking off. Actually, it seems almost naive and the logic flawed. One has nothing to do with where we get oil -- we're in Iraq and supply is no greater and prices are outrageous. The other might help, space exploration has lead to many wonderous advances -- and maybe we will catch a break. Who knows? That being said, "Do we need a massive run to space?" Obiviously, we can't handle the planet we have or that will have us (for the time being). Also, let's not forget the vast array of market forces that will have to be drug kicking and screaming toward this goal and don't forget the columns of iron will that are the individuals that make up our government.
The simply truth is, if we are lucky we will manage a steady shift to alternative fuels. Certainly resources, and certainly more than have been, should be aimed at this issue. But let's look at all the missed opportunities an Apollo-like program will cause, and probably did, with its disproportionate hogging of funds. Some seemingly unrelated area of research could solve this problem or something greater.
While grand invasion and/or amazing invention seems to being the panacea for all our ills, they only works for so long. Think of the wonder that was and is antibotics, but look where they may be leading us. Super-viruses. We need to change the fundamental ways we look and trade in core necessities (food, fuel, and medicine) and the way we view their consumption. The much maligned President James Carter may have been right, "lower the thermostat and wear a light sweater inside". Drive a smaller car with a smaller engine. Realize that at this point in human history nothing will be an endless source of anything -- including nuclear power or renewable fuels. As who knows what long-term drawbacks they will have?
We must seek more and better fuel sources. We must seek better ways to conserve this fuel. We must not destory our planet doing this, we should already have colonies on the moon according to the zealots of the Apollo programs forecasts and the show "Space 1999", but here we are. And we must bring about greater equity in distribution of core resources world wide. It is a question of evolution or intellgent design (whichever, you believe and if it is the last we could really use some on a human level), not revolution this time. Otherwise, perhaps our fossils will be the source of fuel for the next "masters of the Earth".
"Then there is Venezuela, a little more unstable than Canada"
You should crawl out of your hole and visit these countries. You've obviously formed your opinions from an ignorant hyper nationalistic press.
...but nor did I claim it was. By the way, the top 5 sources for crude oil in February 2006 were Mexico, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela. Nigeria imports experienced the greatest increase from the prior month. (Source: Energy Information Administration.) Whether or not all sources are unstable, imports from unstable regions has been increasing.
One correction...I should not have implied that we import crude from Iran. More to my point was that a conflict with Iran could impact Persian Gulf imports.
As for an Apollo-like program to reduce oil dependence, there are obviously many other possibilities between that and war. My point was simply that, in a choice between the two, I advocate the former. Also, going to the moon again has some defined benefits, in addition to unforeseen benefits, but should not be a priority compared to many other programs.
I'm not naive about the resistance to such a program to reduce our dependence on oil. Note that I acknowledged it in my post. However, I'm also not willing to just accept the dominance of oil interests on our foreign policy.
Shifting the American mind set is also a significant challenge. Carter was one of our most intelligent preseidents. He also had great vision. However, he struggled with the realities of politics and was unable to capture the imagination of the public. Sacrifice without a grand goal just doesn't sell.
A leader who can establish the goal and set out the plan in Kennedy-esque fashion is more my thought, i.e., something that really does capture the public's imagination. Does it all need to be publicy funded? No. But I think it needs to be a far more focused and of much higher priority than current administration efforts. The cost of the status quo is far too high.
Didn't Tesla already solve the energy problem by figuring out how to harness the cosmic radiation which showers the Earth 24 hrs a day? What's the problem with following up on his work?
How quaint!
also had an idea to eliminate streetlamps but light "agitating" the ions in the atomsphere. I know the guy was smart, but I am not sure about everything he expounded. Anyone who says there is an unlimited supply is just trying to get you to buy into a limited supply.
..to get his approval rating back up to a stellar 40%.