Boosting Supplies Won’t Solve Problem

Re “Bush Details Energy Plan, Calls for Boost in Supplies,” May 18: President Bush said that we should stop shouting at each other and start listening. Maybe he should take his own advice and start listening to the people of this country. We do not want more drilling, exploration, etc. We want sport-utility vehicles and light trucks to start meeting the same standards as the automobiles in this country. This would be a step in the right direction, but Bush leaves this out of his proposal entirely.

Donna M. Degnan

Anaheim

*

I am so sick of reading letters to The Times about how much gas is and fearing for the electric bills and how it is all Bush’s fault. Let us not forget that it was Bill Clinton who was in office for eight years with no energy policy, and it was Clinton who tapped petroleum reserves to keep prices low.

Price controls aren’t the answer; that falls under socialism. Countries in Europe under socialist economies pay almost $4 a gallon for gas. They drive economy cars and use mass transit. So, California, when you decide to give up the SUV and come off your anti-mass-transit platform, then and only then can you whine.

John McKiernan

Redondo Beach

*

With our system of leasing federal land for oil exploration and development, once the land is leased the final destination of the oil removed from the land is not a function of the U.S. government. The oil may be sold to any company or country the owner of the lease desires.

We the people of the United States have no guarantees that we will benefit from any oil recovered from any land, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Gary Pollock

Big Bear Lake

*

For all those who think the energy shortage was caused by the government or that conservation should be the biggest part of Bush’s energy plan, let’s have a yes/no vote on banning gas-guzzling SUVs. Oops; does that hit too close to home?

Roy Brown

Oxnard

*

We hear that the president’s solution to the energy crisis includes tax incentives for those who invest in energy-efficient appliances.

Will this plan be retroactive? Will it reward those who began conserving energy in the recent past?

Two years ago, we upgraded our central-heating system with an energy-efficient natural gas system. Two years ago, we installed an energy-efficient air-conditioning system. A year ago, we shut down our spa. Recently, we retired our electric clothes dryer and replaced it with an outdoor clothesline.

Louis St. Martin

Pomona

*

Re “Bush’s Tilt on Energy Policy May Widen Nation’s Political Rift,” May 17: Ronald Brownstein’s news analysis about the politics of Bush’s energy policy is amazingly hypocritical. His assertions as to the motivations of the plan are completely political, with absolutely no discussion of, or reference to, the practical realities of the problem. I’m certainly glad he has nothing to do with forming energy policy.

Dulaney Logan

Annapolis, Md.

*

As long as the people of the world continue to rely on fossil fuels (e.g., oil, coal) to move our automobiles and other heavy machinery, the citizens of this planet will be held hostage to the right-wing, reactionary fossil fuel cartels.

It is sickening to see and hear Vice President Cheney arguing that the solution to our current energy crisis is to simply drill for more oil or excavate for more coal--but then again, I don’t expect any different from a person who has earned millions of dollars from participating in the oil business.

Abdias L. Rodriguez

Burbank

*

Referencing energy, the environment and price gouging: Well, Ralph Nader, you still can’t see the difference between Bush-Cheney and Gore-Lieberman?

Manuel Nunes

Garden Grove