[dohboi]

It kinda reminds me of Dr. Evil ransoming the world for $1 million. Just absolutely, stupidly pathetic, but in this case not in a very funny way

[dinopello]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dohboi', 'I')t kinda reminds me of Dr. Evil ransoming the world for $1 million. Just absolutely, stupidly pathetic, but in this case not in a very funny way

[Concerned]

Umm this one is a NO BRAINER: 17-18 million to help 'joe public' or 200,000 million to help yourself.
Wake up America you need more socialism. It's fun to be able to get rich but when the top 2% start to grab everything and the guy teaching your kids and collecting your garbage can't afford to buy milk, bread and gas for the drive to work. DO YOU THINK IT MIGHT BE TIME TO QUESTION THE DOGMA OF THE SYSTEM!!!!

[Concerned]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dohboi', 'I')t kinda reminds me of Dr. Evil ransoming the world for $1 million. Just absolutely, stupidly pathetic, but in this case not in a very funny way

[Graeme]

U.S. Energy Policy, as the Energy Secretary Sees It

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')our March 25 editorial “Pain at the Pump and Beyond” pointed to the strain that high energy prices are putting on America’s economy, families and businesses. As energy secretary, I agree that our nation is “far too dependent on oil.” We absolutely must lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, harness the power of clean energy, and increase our energy efficiency.

And so I strongly disagree with your statement that the Bush administration’s energy strategy is “focused on one thing: getting more oil.” At best, this suggestion demonstrates an incomplete understanding of the efforts under way across our nation.

Since the start of this administration, the federal government has spent more than $12 billion to research, develop and promote alternative energy sources. Last year alone, the Energy Department announced more than $1 billion to spur the growth of a robust, sustainable biofuels industry — with a focus on cellulosic ethanol. We also continue to make critical investments in solar and wind power, hydrogen fuel cells, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, cutting-edge clean coal plants and advanced nuclear power technologies. And we’re already seeing results — in our national laboratories and, more important, out in the marketplace.

This work has been under way for years and must continue at a rapid pace. After all, our energy challenges have been decades in the making and will not be solved overnight.

Our national strategy is not a reaction to high oil prices. It’s a comprehensive policy that seeks to address two of the most fundamental challenges we face: improving our energy security and combating global climate change. Today’s high energy prices only underscore the urgency of these efforts.

Samuel W. Bodman
Secretary of Energy
Washington, March 26, 2008

[ozkrenske]

Hmm, So the Bush Regime has spent 12 billion on Alternate energy research. That's what about a week of the annual defence and war budget, expended over 8 years and an awful big chunk of that was to pork projects.

That seems like a very pathetic investment when Oil has jumped up around 400% since Bush came to power.

[pup55]

Dear Sam:

Congratulations for your recent comments, and for your performance as Energy Secretary. For a pretty sharp, rich guy like you, I am sure you did not need the black spot on your legacy associated with working with a lot of war criminals every day. Also, working around Cheney, in particular must have been particularly annoying, because of his tendency to want to make the rules, policies and laws all by himself. These trips to Saudi to grovel for oil must be ticking you off big time. But, you only have another nine months to worry about it, which I am sure makes you happy. I can't wait for your tell-all book.

We particularly appreciate the job the DOE did after the pipelines were shut down during September 2005. We know that behind the scenes, you were working out logistics with the suppliers and shippers to minimize the impact of an event that could have brought the whole system to a screeching halt. I am sure we will never know how close the nation was coming to an energy-related shutdown during that time. We also know the last two springs, we came dangerously close to the MOL in unleaded, but were saved by timely injections of unleaded imports, which were no doubt coordinated by you guys.

Now about the alternate fuels policy: What shows more commitment: the $12 billion you are borrowing from our children to do research on cellulosic ethanol, or the $1 trillion you spent to take over a small country that happens to have a lot of oil reserves? From what we understand, the amount of research money you are so proud of is about the same as what you spent on the Baghdad embassy. I think you are putting your grandchildrens' money exactly where you think the problem can be most easily solved.

But, you are not an idiot like some of those guys are, and despite the public comments, I think you know exactly what needs to be done to solve the problem, which is, to tell a lot of people they are not going to be able to drive anymore. But, you are forbidden by the boss to talk about anything approaching conservation. If you had courage, and did your patriotic duty like David Walker or Admiral Fallon and warn the public of the iceberg we were headed for (Peak Oil), you would be out of a job.

So, you do what any politician would do, which is shut up and do the best job you can, and enjoy the limo and Air Force 1 rides for the next nine months. Sorry you missed the chance to be a national hero, but maybe it was not in the cards.

Let us know when you are able to join a web forum. We would be happy to have you on here for an honest discussion of what is happening. Maybe you can tell us what you actually know about the Saudi reserves, and whether, like we think, they are really ticked at us after we put the Shiites in power in Iraq, and debasing the dollar so much, which cost them a lot of spending power.

Talk to you later,
pup55

[drew]

Pup, send it to him, seriously!

Drew

[pup55]

The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov

If I end up on the no-fly list, I am going to blame you.

[Ferretlover]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'D')ear Sam: Congratulations for your recent comments, and for your performance as Energy Secretary. For a pretty sharp, rich guy like you, I am sure you did not need the black spot on your legacy associated with working with a lot of war criminals every day. Also, working around Cheney, in particular must have been particularly annoying, because of his tendency to want to make the rules, policies and laws all by himself. These trips to Saudi to grovel for oil must be ticking you off big time. But, you only have another nine months to worry about it, which I am sure makes you happy. I can't wait for your tell-all book. ...

[drew]

Good on ya Pup, I hope you stay off that list.

It feels good to piss off the politicians with our petty concerns doesn't it?

Drew

[pup55]

letters@nytimes.com

At this point, why not? I feel like raising some hell this morning.

Had to modify it slightly to keep within their guidelines. Sent the same thing to the Huffington Post.

[Ferretlover]

That's great, pup!

Let us know if you get any kind of response, please?

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')a robust, sustainable biofuels industry

[Graeme]

Pup55, Great to see that at last somebody here from USA in this forum is willing to communicate with his Energy Secretary! I also would be very interested to see his response, and any response to the letters you've sent to NYT and Huffington Post. The consequences of this action may well be quite unexpected like your response to my initial post.

I've emailed letters twice to our NZ Energy Minister and published his responses in the NZ forum. I'll do it again if there is a change of government.

[pup55]

Surely with that letter, I will be dismissed as a crank from a forum.
But, Drew made me do it, and I was in the mood to be sarcastic.

If I get something approaching a reasonable response I will follow up with a civilized and professional letter, and maybe we can get a guest poster or two.

Seriously, I think Sam is a former prof at MIT, so I am sure he is well aware of the issues. But, I am also sure he is playing politics so as to keep his job.

[Graeme]

Wouldn't it be better to follow up with a professional letter now? Then it is more likely that you will get a response from the Secretary.

[catbox]

A great read from pup!
Funny but all too true....

catbox

P.S. Drew..nice avatar! A friend of mine spent a few weeks showing Drew and Cameron Diaz around Chile for that travel show on MTV...said Drew was very cool and always pretty w/o doing a thing!

[Graeme]

Pup55, You didn't have anthing to do with this, did you?

As Oil Touches All-Time Highs, Our Deparment of Energy Takes Us For Fools

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he New York Times editorial was a typical Times recitation of oil patch blather pinning high oil prices on "Soaring demand in fast growing developing countries like India and China and turmoil in the financial markets", and investors turning to commodities in lieu of stocks and the dollar. Never a mention of the machinations of OPEC, the vertical integration of the oil companies, nor the possibility of manipulated futures trading markets by hedge funds ("There is an orgy of speculation in the futures market. This is a 24-hour casino with unbelievable speculation" -- Sen. Byron Dorgan of the Senate's Energy and Natural Resource Committee), sovereign wealth funds and others who have a keen interest in high oil prices (see "Oil At $111 a Barrel. We Are Being "Sovereignly Screwed", March 17).

Then Energy Secretary Bodman, as is his wont, couldn't leave well enough alone, as was the case back in October with oil prices still in the $80 barrel range, he volunteered either out insouciance or malign intent that the U.S. economy was "remarkably resilient" in the face of surging oil prices, thereby giving free reign to a further surge to the current $111/bbl. Bodman responded to the Times with a vaguely chastising brief, advising them and the rest of us that he "strongly disagreed" with the Times' contention that the Bush energy strategy "is focused on one thing: getting more oil". Of course Bodman is quite right. If there is, the administration's focus it is not getting at more oil. Far more importantly, it is laying the groundwork for and successfully rationalizing to a gullible public the ever skyrocketing oil prices.

[pup55]

No, I didn't. I did see it though, and got a good laugh out of it.

The guy Learsy is a PO denier and is still caught up in the oil industry/government conspiracy thing, and believes that the whole problem can be solved by re-regulating everything.

Occasionally he says something that makes sense.


I never did get a response from either the NYT or the Huffington Post.