Excuse Me, Mr. President, But About That Energy Policy …

By Nancy Jacques, 4-24-06

As my Rite of Spring, my hope blooming eternal for Earth Day, I decided to write President Bush a letter a few days ago.

I realize my letter stands as much chance of reaching the president as Wal-Mart going broke, and I have no illusions that my words could dent a megalomanical mind bent on Rapturesque stardom, nevertheless my need to catharsisize outweighed reality. The outspoken ignorance of our Commander-in-Chief compelled me to write.

I opened my in-no-way-Harriet Myers-type-letter by reminding Mr. Bush of his words to the press a year ago. Anyone with enough memory winced upon hearing President Bush claim at a press conference: “Ten years ago, if we’d had an energy strategy, we would be able to diversify away from foreign dependence.”

“Excuse me, sir,” I wrote, figuring kindness first might win him into reading further, “but in the 1970’s (during your—as you put it—‘nomadic period’), perhaps you were too busy consulting with tennis stars and learning what not to do in congressional campaigns back home to have noticed some energy policy details that, coincidentally, spotlights your family. Therefore, so not to embarrass yourself again, may I suggest a short review of that era?”

I recalled for our current leader how President Jimmy Carter, on April 18, 1977, introduced the nation’s first energy policy, which included implementation of strategic petroleum reserves, development of gasohol and solar power industries, and programs for insulating millions of offices and homes.

I tried tactfully to inform him: “Thirty years ago President Carter told us how the world was sucking up 60 million barrels of oil a day (Sir, that’s before China began striving to consume like Americans, before they owned us), the demand increasing five percent each year, which, of course, has now changed to an increase of 2.5 million barrels of oil per day.”

“Carter told how, for supplies to stay even—then—we’d need a new Texas annually. Now, you might find this exciting, sir, but I doubt that was Carter’s intention. We’d also need a freshly oil-sodden Saudi Arabia every three years, which your Saudi friends would love but, again, not Carter’s intention.”

“’Obviously,’ Carter said, ‘we can’t continue.’ ”

At this point I couldn’t contain my disdain for the Bush Administration’s disdain of the public. I scrawled: “Carter’s words weren’t empty slogans, the simple sentence mantras meant for you to memorize and for us to ingest as the Rovarian New Reality. Carter respected our intelligence. He spoke substantively. Honestly. He warned listeners his topic would be unpleasant. His upcoming policy would be the moral equivalent to war, demanding inconvenience and personal sacrifice, but he wanted to build the future, not destroy it.”

“Carter implored us not to act selfishly, if we hoped for a decent world. Acknowledging, even then, that we are the most wasteful nation on earth, he outlined ten principles upon which America would implement energy goals based on conservation and diversity of resources. Government would provide the leadership needed to stimulate, through policy, enhancement of economic enterprise and innovation. He warned us: Should we refuse, we would face economic, social and political crises threatening free institutions. There would be war. Americans would die in the Middle East. There would be nuclear escalation and the removal of environmental protections in a mad search for fuel.”

“Carter wasn’t a prophet, sir, he was smart—and principled. So, Mr. President, after five years in the White House, what would evaluations of your policies reveal? Might we say to you, ‘Brownie, you’re doin’ a fine job?’”

I reminded George W. that when Carter was inaugurated our country still reeled from the 1973 Arab oil embargo.

“Americans rose to that challenge. We respected ourselves, cutting oil use over 15 percent in six years. If we cut back our oil consumption by 15 percent now, we could omit Middle East imports and spread the need for the other 10 percent we import from that area between the other unstable countries we already import oil from. And we could save about $17 billion dollars annually.”

“How come, if I can figure this out from information widely available, you and Rummie keep spending $10 billion dollars a month, not to mention lives, remodeling the Middle East to service our slimy thirst?”

I figured his retort to this point would be how the economy during the Carter era started to stink. It did, for complex reasons. So I asked him, “What is your economic legacy going to be?” Then I added:

“Okay, I admit you said Americans should be cutting back their oil use. Care to back that up with some ballsy policy? Many of us have cut back, but obviously not enough. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions for 2004 increased by 1.7 percent, the largest annual amount any country has ever produced. So, take a lesson from tobacco companies when it comes to an addicted public: Leadership that sold them into addiction must un-sell them.”

“Yes, sir, you’ve sold us to the highest spending campaign funder and pocket liner. President Carter knew his energy plan would anger powerful special interests, like your friends, but he persisted. By 1979, he was creating the nation’s first solar bank, which would have produced 20 percent of our energy from solar power by the year 2000. And this was only the beginning of what could have been possible had not your father, along with President Reagan and the special-interest company they kept—whom you know all too intimately—scuttled Carter’s initiatives as one of their first White House acts. Does this refresh your memory?”

“I know you know the economic advantages of renewable energy. As Governor of Texas, you passed the most progressive wind energy program in the nation, benefiting West Texas. How about using this homegrown ethic on the rest of us?”

“Your approval rating hovers at 36 percent, while 70 percent of us anxiously wait for stronger environmental protections. Local efforts to curb energy use and emissions are underway throughout the nation, but it isn’t enough. Carter knew that no-pain-no-gain had to come from the top, that this can’t be left to “personal conscience” because the world is in this together.”

“You might be stuck between an oil slick and an iceberg with your slimy friends expecting loyalty, but don’t you think it’s ironic that your other cohorts, those running scared for their offices in November, might be hungry for some positive press—you know, about you doing something in harmony with what Americans want for a change?”

I signed with a heart-felt “sincerely.” And a PS: "Say of 'Hi' to the NSA."
[End of article]