By
Naftali Bendavid Members of the coalition,
including such groups as the National Association of
Manufacturers and the American Petroleum
Institute, said they have a $1.5 million budget and have
begun running newspaper ads. "We want to be heard early and
often," said Bruce Josten, executive vice president of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The coalition's announcement
foreshadows the coming fight over Bush's energy plan, a
critical battle for environmentalists and industry groups.
Due out in mid-May, the report's recommendations are
expected to include controversial measures ranging from
drilling in the wilderness to investing in nuclear power
plants to easing environmental rules. The debate will largely
revolve around one question: Can the country escape its
energy problems, as Bush has insisted since the campaign,
largely by opening the spigot--churning out more oil, gas,
coal and nuclear power? Or should conservation and energy
efficiency play central roles? "It's our job to kill the
policy if it's bad or make it better if it's somewhat bad,"
said Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global
warming and energy program. "We're prepared for both."
The fight, in fact, is
already under way. The Alliance for Energy
& Economic Growth, the business group that announced
its existence this week, is made up of groups with millions
of members, and alliance leaders made little secret of their
intention to flex those muscles. "We have been doing
mailings, posting information on our Web sites, going on
talk radio," said Karen Kerrigan, president of the Small
Business Survival Committee. "We are getting our members
to share with us how high energy prices are impacting their
businesses, and part of our effort will be asking our
members to bring their stories to members of
Congress." The Sierra Club, meanwhile,
has begun running newspaper ads, including one that
describes wilderness threatened by oil drilling and
concludes, "Americans didn't vote for this." Other groups
are airing spots on Sunday television talk shows. Environmentalist leaders
have been visiting news organizations to provide negative
previews of the Bush plan. And on Thursday, some religious
leaders with an environmentalist stance staged a protest at
the Department of Energy. "We have to be ready," said
Deb Callahan, president of the League of Conservation
Voters. "We know what the situation's going to be, we
know what cards are going to be on the table." These efforts face an
uncertain Congress awaiting the Bush plan. Sen. Frank
Murkowski (R-Ala.) has introduced a complex energy bill, and
many of Bush's recommendations may be tacked onto it.
Democrats have introduced their own version, focusing more
on conservation. "There is going to be a
titanic struggle, a titanic conflict, between the Democrats
and Republicans over energy policy," predicted Rep. Edward
Markey (D-Mass.), a member of the House Energy and Power
Subcommittee. In the end, the side that
presents itself as most centrist--favoring both conservation
and exploration for new sources--may be the
victor. "The key word here is
balance," said David Nemtzow, president of the Alliance
to Save Energy. "It's the word everybody uses to
describe their own plan. What it says to me is that everyone
is striving for the middle here." As part of that effort, each
side also paints the other as extremist. Environmentalists
portray Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who is heading
the administration's energy efforts, as oilmen bent on
wrecking the environment. Bush's supporters say the
environmentalists are naive obstructionists. "Their bottom line is `No,
no, no, no, no,'" said Charli Coon, an energy analyst at the
Heritage Foundation. "There is a problem, and the
president is looking for a solution. The environmentalists
don't have a solution." The Sierra Club's Becker
responds, "Their main thrust is the pillage-and plunder
approach to energy policy." The debate's most vivid
symbol is likely to be the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
a spectacular Alaskan region of snow-capped mountains and
coastal lagoons that is home to herds of caribou and packs
of wolves. Environmentalists argue that it is folly to drill
for oil there, as Bush envisions, but the administration
insists only a minuscule section would be
affected. More broadly, Bush's
prescription for the nation's energy woes is
straightforward: After years of neglect in the Clinton
years, he argues, the nation needs to boost fuel production.
It needs to pump more oil, drill for additional natural gas,
encourage the use of coal and promote nuclear
power. Environmentalists respond
that no matter how much fuel it churns out, the U.S. can
produce only a fraction of the energy it burns. Instead of responsibly
stressing long-term solutions, such as energy efficiency and
alternative fuels, they say, the White House is generating a
crisis atmosphere to ram through anti-environmental
laws. This is not an easy issue
politically for Bush, and the usually disciplined White
House has stumbled a few times on energy issues.
Environmental Protection Agency chief Christie Whitman, for
example, recently said the Bush's energy plan would not
include drilling in the Arctic refuge; White House spokesman
Ari Fleischer contradicted her the next day. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush,
meanwhile, has urged his brother's administration to prevent
drilling off Florida's shoreline. But the Interior
Department appears poised to allow it. And the president recently
found himself explaining reports that the White House is
considering easing sanctions on hostile oil producers such
as Libya and Iran. "It's one thing to consider,
it's another thing to act on sanctions," Bush said. "I don't
intend to do that anytime soon." The White House has been
criticized for the way Cheney's energy task force has
operated. The group, including several Cabinet secretaries,
meets once a week, and conservationists say the process has
been closed. "The process is eerily
reminiscent of the way Bill Clinton's administration and
Hillary Rodham Clinton put together its health-care
plan--behind closed doors, with little consultation with
Congress, very little consultation with environmental
groups," said Philip Clapp, president of the National
Environmental Trust. A White House official
dismissed that criticism. "This process has been open,
deliberative and transparent," he said. But both sides do agree that
the nation needs to act quickly. "We're at a moment in time
where we've seen, because of what's going on in California,
that our energy infrastructure has hit its limit," Callahan
said. "We have to make a choice now. We literally have to
make a choice right now."
Chicago
Tribune, May 4, 2001, pp. 1 and 23.
WASHINGTON --
Leaders of some of America's most powerful business
groups gathered this week in a small room at a Marriott
hotel to declare their support for the sort of
industry-friendly energy plan President Bush is expected to
release this month.