Follow the Money for Energy Policy Insight
Re “Bush’s Painful Mix of Ignorance, Self-Interest,” June 15: I won’t argue with Steve Lopez’s contention that President Bush’s actions regarding energy policy are based on ignorance and political (not to mention personal) self-interest. However, we would be the fools to think that Bush’s ignorance on the matter is more genuine than willful. For an insight into Bush’s policy decisions since being in office, one has only to follow the money. Bush’s professional and social cronies showed him the money during his campaign, and he’s showing them the money in return. The man is cravenly selling this country to the highest bidder and guaranteeing his friends and himself a secure retirement in the process.
Linda L. Cordeiro
Los Angeles
*
Two articles on the same day (June 15) regarding money being made off energy companies: Page 1 of the California section criticizes Bush, his “Daddy” and his cronies for making millions from the oil industry. Hidden on page A14 are the facts that Sen. Barbara Boxer made quick profits from her trading in Duke Energy Corp., Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc., El Paso Energy Corp. and Halliburton Co., which allowed her to pocket “tens of thousands” of dollars while Californians struggled to pay the bills.
I guess publicly criticizing the companies makes her rewards from her partial ownership in these companies OK.
Sandra Ruh
La Quinta
*
Poor President Bush. Gov. Gray Davis and his tree-hugger buddies sent him a loaded question when they asked him to relax the air quality rules for gasoline in California. If he had gone along with Davis and said yes, he would have been criticized for helping his old petroleum buddies sell more gasoline, as well as for creating more air pollution. But because he said no and did not allow a relaxation in the federal air quality rules, he has been criticized for costing the poor California citizens more money to buy ethanol. (Of course we could go back to using MTBE [methyl tertiary butyl ether] but Davis ruled that out in the first place.) With these guys you can’t win.
Raymond Mullin
Santa Barbara
*
Advocates of using ethanol as a fuel additive are wrong on two grounds. Ethanol is praised as a renewable source of energy that uses corn to make fuel, thereby reducing our dependence on imported oil. Unfortunately, intensive agriculture as practiced in this country relies heavily on the use of chemical fertilizers, and chemical fertilizers are manufactured using petroleum ingredients.
Advocates for ethanol say burning it doesn’t add to net atmospheric carbon dioxide, because the corn used to make ethanol removes carbon dioxide by photosynthesis. This argument only makes sense if one assumes that the land used to grow the corn would otherwise lie fallow. But there is every reason to believe that if corn is not grown, the land would be used for other agricultural purposes, or returned to nature in the form of grassland or forest. When it comes to photosynthesis, any green plant will do.
Sidney Lewinter
Redondo Beach
