Skip to main content
CNN.com /transcript
CNN TV
EDITIONS

CNN TALKBACK LIVE

How Should U.S. Combat Energy Crisis?

Aired May 17, 2001 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If we fail to act, this great country could face a darker future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST: The White House says we're facing the most serious energy shortage since the oil crisis of the 1970s, but will the president's energy plan solve the problem?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: The plan addresses all three key aspects of the energy equation: demand, supply and the means to match them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Critics read the plan and see proposals for more power plants and oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. EDWARD MARKEY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: To drill in the Arctic wilderness, to construct a pipeline, to bring to oil down to California, to put it into the gasoline tanks of SUVs that average 14 miles per gallon would be a sin against nature and history.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO), MINORITY LEADER: We think the president's plan makes the wrong choices for America and for the American people.

SEN. FRANK MURKOWSKI (R-AL), ENERGY CHAIRMAN: We've got a president who's laid down his credibility behind his energy package. And it offers relief. Previously, what did we have? We just had kind of wishful thinking.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Is conservation the answer? Or will more supplies solve or energy woes?

Good afternoon. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. We'll get things started with our guests in Washington today. Charlie Coon is a senior policy analyst for energy and the environment at the Heritage Foundation.

Charlie, thanks for joining us.

CHARLIE COON, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Thank you.

BATTISTA: And from CNN's "TAKE FIVE," Jake Tapper is a Washington correspondent for Salon.com and author of the book, "Down and Dirty: The Plot to Steal the Presidency."

Jake, good to see you.

JAKE TAPPER, CO-HOST, "TAKE FIVE": Hey, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: All right, before we get into how to deal with this problem, first we have to establish that there is one, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of agreement on that, unless you live in California or you're paying three or four dollars a gallon for gas. Most people, including in out audience, don't tend to think that there is an energy problem out there.

How serious is it, Jake?

TAPPER: Well, out in California and the Western states, Oregon and Washington, it is a very serious problem. It is a crisis. The question is whether it's a crisis for the rest of the country. President Bush, in March, said there was an energy crisis.

A lot of environmentalists think that the reason behind President Bush saying that is so he can justify a whole bunch of aggressive energy acquisition measures, such as drilling in ANWR and the rest. They say that President Bush is trying to create a crisis mentality which will cause less than rational thinking. So that, even -- like everything in this entire subject, that, whether or not there's a crisis, is subject to debate.

BATTISTA: Charlie, it's good to have a plan, I think. I don't think anyone faults the president for that, but is he treading onto that territory of creating a crisis mentality?

COON: We have a situation. We have a problem now. We have not had an energy policy for the last eight years, or even before that. Right now, we've got a situation where we've got -- our infrastructure needs to be upgraded and we need to expand that in order to get the supply to the consumers. And demand is exceeding supply. We spent years working off our excess capacity, and now it's time that we increase the supply.

BATTISTA: Well, I was going to say, is the supply in danger of running out, or is it a management problem?

COON: We have -- we have resources. But the issue is getting those resources to the consumer. And well as with oil, we also are -- we are dependent upon foreign sources, over 56 percent.

BATTISTA: Whose responsibility is that? Is it the federal government's, or is it private oil and gas industry?

COON: The infrastructure is with private industry, but the issue there has been we had excess capacity and we've used that up. And now we need to ensure that the public can maintain their quality of life. And in order to do that, we have to get the supply to the consumers.

BATTISTA: So, Jake, the answer, is it more conservation? Is it more production? A combination of the two?

TAPPER: I think it is a combination of the two. I think that's what you'll see eventually when the House and Senate come up with a bill. I think President Bush's plan -- obviously, everyone is commending him for at least putting the subject on the table. I think there are a lot of components of the plan that have not a chance of making their way through the House or Senate; drilling in ANWR being the most notable example.

There are other debates going on. I went to a couple press conferences on Capitol Hill today on the Senate. And the Senate -- a bunch of Democratic senators were talking about how President Bush has his plan, supposedly -- when it was introduced to a bunch of us in the media last night -- supposedly it increases funding for LIHEAP, which is a low income home energy assistance program. Helping individuals who need help with their energy bills.

But actually, if you look, President Bush's plan reduces the amount of money that is given to individuals who need income assistance to pay their energy bills. So there are a lot of details in plan that are be housed out and picked apart. I think everyone's in agreement that it's good that the conversation's taking place, though.

BATTISTA: Charlie, some people make the claim that conservation actually wastes energy. What is that argument?

COON: Well, I think that everybody agrees that we should conserve. The administration agrees that conservation is a component of this plan. This is a comprehensive plan. This has got -- we're trying to meet -- to increase supply to meet demand. You're going to see a diversity of fuels, you're going to see oil, you're going to see coal, you're going to see hydropower. You've going to see renewables and alternative fuels, natural gas. And it's a comprehensive plan, and obviously, conservation plays a role in that.

BATTISTA: Let me do a message from our CNN message board that came in a little bit earlier. Janice says: "Send a message straight to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Tell them that you're tired of spending your money on higher fuel bills when big oil is making millions."

I think a lot of people, Jake, have trouble separating Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney from the oil and gas industry, and the task force that came up with this plan. TAPPER: That's right. The Democrats were hitting Bush and Cheney for their plan even before the plan was released. The plan was not made public until 11:45 Eastern time today, and already, Democrats were hammering it. Fortunately for them, I suppose, unfortunately for President Bush, the truth of the matter is that there were very few surprises in the bill.

You saw Governor Gray Davis from California earlier -- had a press conference talking about how President Bush's plan does not offer much in terms of immediate relief. And this gets into the whole LIHEAP issue again, in terms of helping individuals pay for their energy bills. One of the -- there are parts of the bill -- Charlie's right, there are parts of the bill that focus on conservation.

And most amusingly was one -- during the campaign you might remember, then-Governor Bush constantly hammered -- made fun of Al Gore for supporting a tax credit in favor of hybrid cars -- researching tax credits in favor of hybrid, electric and gas cars. And President Bush, in his plan, offers a multi-million, if not billion-dollar tax incentive for that very thing that he had been mocking a few months before.

So there are conservation efforts. But you're right, there's not a lot in the bill -- in the proposal that would upset the oil and gas industry. In fact, I asked a White House administration official yesterday: "Is there anything in here that would annoy the oil and gas industry at all?" He said the fact that, one, they weren't going to get any tax credits, where some of the alternative energy industries would, such as solar, that would annoy them. And two, that there was an investment in clean coal technology, which is a potential competitor.

But the answer is really no, there's not much there to upset the oil and gas industry.

BATTISTA: So, Charlie, how does the president avoid the perception that this is some sort of campaign payoff to the oil and gas industry?

COON: Well, there's one thing that's very interesting that nobody has brought up yet, and that is that the president's plan does not include any tax incentives, any tax credits, any tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. And yet the Democrat plan that they proposed yesterday provides tax incentives for the oil and gas industry.

So that is just a hollow argument that the president is in -- is paying back campaign contributors. The oil is just one component of a large package where we're looking at oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear power and hydroelectric as well as renewable and alternatives.

BATTISTA: Jake, is that hollow argument one Democrats are going to pursue?

TAPPER: Well, I think the Democrats sense a real winning issue for themselves on this. Look, it didn't help Jimmy Carter in the '70s to have prices going through the roof, and it's not going to help President Bush. And regardless of the merits of the Bush proposal, and regardless of the substance of this issue in general the politics of this has already gotten very nasty and very personal.

And individual House members, democratic House members, are going at President Bush and Dick Cheney as Texas oilmen, you know, in bed with the industry. And there are a lot of very personal attacks that have been happening and are going to continue to happen because the Democrats, for the first time since Lieberman and Gore had their riverboat ride, Democrats sense a winner.

BATTISTA: We'll talk a little more about that after the break.

As we go to break, what is American way: to conserve or consume? Go online and vote; the address is cnn.com/TALKBACK, AOL keyword: CNN. And while you are there, sign up to get my personal note and read some great e-mails on all the topics that we've done this week.

A litter later on in this show, we'll meet a man who thinks the Bush plan does not go far enough, and who thinks it's our right to use as much energy as we want. We'll be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS ASKEW, ASSISTANT HOST: Would you give up your SUV or luxury car for the energy crisis?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, if it came to that extreme. Yes, I traveled quite a bit, so it's more of a necessity to for me.

ASKEW: Would you give up your beautiful SUV for the energy crisis?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't think so. I don't think I would give it up.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it's crazy that somebody puts $40 a week in their gas tank just to drive, you know.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I love it, I won't give it up for nothing, man. The air conditioner and it rides just like a plane, like I said.

ASKEW: If you were asked to give up your SUV, do you think you could do it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I know; I drove an electric car, it's not fun. Sorry.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Oh boy, there you go. Let me go to the audience quickly -- and Sue (ph). SUE: I was just saying that I think Americans consume so much electricity than we produce and oil and everything, that maybe this is a wake-up call for America. We should increase production and try to conserve as well.

BATTISTA: That -- that's an issue, I think, most of audience agrees with you on that, but as we were just saying, everybody talks about conservation, Charlie, but very few people do it. I mean how -- it's going to have to get pretty bad, don't you think, for people to really seriously think about conservation efforts or giving up their SUV or whatever is necessary?

COON: Well, I think on conservation there is a lot of ways to conserve energy that people aren't aware of. For example, I mean, you help the whole process if you use your appliances and products in times that aren't peak times. Like in the evening. Like if you do your laundry in the evening. So, there is a lot of things that consumers can do that they're not aware of that would actually save energy. And I do think there needs to be an educational component to this plan, to let people know how they can conserve and easy ways that they can conserve. It doesn't mean that they have to turn off the lights, and they can't drive their car. It's just common sense ways of conserving energy.

BATTISTA: But we've been through those before, have we not? Back in the '70s we had to go through those common sense -- and we actually did cut, I think, our energy consumption by about 8 percent or so. But...

COON: Well, the one thing that we have now that we didn't have then, and I believe you're going to see this with the administration's proposal, is that they want to modernize conservation and energy efficiency. And how you do that is through new technology. For example, when I was growing up we did not have computers. And I'm not that old, but now we do have computers. And so you are seeing advances in technology, even with the hybrid cars. When I was growing up, we didn't have hybrid cars. We're talking about hybrid cars now. So you're going to see an effort to enhance conservation and efficiency through technological advances.

BATTISTA: And, Jake, what kind of conservation plans -- it's obviously the emphasis for the Democrats seems to be on conservation. What's their plan and their strategy for taking on the president's plan?

TAPPER: Well there strategy first of all, is they want a much more aggressive examination into the high prices that are going on right now. That is the first thing they talk about, getting the FTC or getting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to look into these high prices. I would like to say, though, there is one thing that you are not going to hear out of Democrats or the Republicans and that is the word: sacrifice.

You are not going to hear Bush and you are not going to hear, even perhaps more so, you are not going to hear Gephardt or Daschle or any of the Democrats talking about the American people having to give anything up. Both sides are paranoid about being thrown into Jimmy Carter's cashmere sweater and made to look weak on this issue.

And Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, a few days ago was talking about the American way of life being a blessed way of life. I think anyone -- any serious examination, as Charlie was just talking about, any serious examination of this issue, you have to come to the conclusion that Americans, at some point, are going to have to alter their lifestyle. You know, it doesn't have to be necessarily, you know, turning off all of your lights and living without, but there is going to have to be some sacrifice, whether it's your SUVs are a little less powerful, all in the name of improving conservation efforts.

But unfortunately we live at a time, maybe it was never anything but this, but we live in a time when politicians are so fearful of the American people turning on them that they refuse to turn and look at them straight in the eye on TV or in person and say, "You are going to have to give a few things up here." Yes, the oil industry is going to have to give some things up, and big business is going to have to give things up and so are you. And that's way that this problem needs to be solved.

COON: But I also think, if I can just add though, that this plan that the president has put forward will maintain a high quality -- the high quality of living that the Americans have become accustomed to. And that is the reason that we need an energy policy. We haven't had one. If people want to maintain the high standard of living that they have, then we are going to have to increase supply. Otherwise we're going to have a situation throughout the country like we have in California.

And I would like to add one other thing: Democrats keep talking about looking into the prices and alleged price gouging. Under the law, under the federal power act right now, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the power to look into prices and to make sure that they are just and reasonable, or not unjust and unreasonable. And in fact they have done that. In California they have already required refunds several times.

So there is already a mechanism in the law that precludes price gouging and if it does occur there are punishments and penalties for it.

BATTISTA: It is -- I think that's hard for the American people though to accept. It just seems that every May gas prices go up and every September they go down. I mean, there is no reasonable explanation for it most the time.

COON: Well, the public also has to understand that there is a cost associated to the -- to clean air. For example, in the summer, one of reasons that the gasoline goes up is because you have what we refer to as quote/unquote "boutique fuels," and areas have got to meet certain standards, and to meet those standards during the summer, they have to have certain types of fuel. So each state has their own type -- their own blend of fuel. Now that adds to the refinery cost, that adds to complications if there is a breakdown or if there's a disruption in delivery, so some of it is, the regulations have a cost associated with them.

TAPPER: You know, Bobbie, the thing is in terms of asking American people to give up, I mean, SUVs, minivans, pickup trucks, these things are exempt from many of the same fuel-efficiency laws that regular automobiles are. That has to do with power of the auto industry and the auto industry lobby. To Bill Clinton's, not to his credit, to his blame. He did not -- he was not willing to take them on, and for that reason we still have this problem.

President Bush's plan said that it should be studied, whether or not these fuel-efficiency regulations -- limits, levels, should be increased or not. There really aren't, there really isn't any question as to whether or not raising fuel efficiency standards for SUVs will save fuel and provide some of that supply, of course it will. The question is: Does President Bush and do -- does the Congress, the Democrats also in the Congress -- do they have the cajones to stand up to the auto industry and say this needs to be done, and not according to the plan that I saw does President Bush, at least in this aspect of it, have the cajones.

Well, actually, that's -- there is an ongoing study, and the president is going to wait for the results of that study. It's not prudent to go ahead and legislate or recommend legislation until that report comes back, but there is going to be a report. I think it's from the National Council of Sciences as to whether or not we should increase cafe standards.

BATTISTA: Well, we'll see what kind of consensus we can get up there on this from Washington. Charlie Coon, Jake Tapper, thank you both very much...

TAPPER: Thank you, Bobbie.

COON: Thank you.

BATTISTA: ... for joining us. Appreciate it.

All right, we will take a break. Do you think conservation is un-American? Should you use as much as you want? Go jack up that air conditioning and learn more about the Ayn Rand way, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ASKEW: Do you think that there is an energy crisis here in the United States?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Actually (UNINTELLIGIBLE), you talk about it all the time.

ASKEW: Do you think that there's an energy crisis?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I do believe there's an energy crisis based on, basically, the American way, the way American cities are structured. ASKEW: Do you think there is an energy crisis?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't feel one. I mean, not personally. I go to my house, I turn on the lights, the lights come on.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gas prices going up, people complaining, blackouts, brownouts in California, it can't be good.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BATTISTA: Let me take David in Connecticut here, on the phone since he has been hanging on and tried to get him on in the last segment and couldn't. David (ph), go ahead.

CALLER: Hi, I just want to remind people that, laugh at me if you want to, but this is all stuff that Ralph Nader had based his campaign on, and they wouldn't even let him into the debate. You have got the energy company that are doing the same thing as the big drug companies. There's no checks and balances. Big oil, I guess is going to run the country now.

If I were California, I would succeed seed from the United States and I would make Jerry Brown president.

BATTISTA: All right, David. Thank you. Couple of e-mails: Ryan in Virginia says "It's an immoral that Americans should sacrifice their standard of living for the so-called rights of trees, rocks and rivers. Regulations on development should be lifted."

And Mirna (ph) in California says, "At first I thought it wasn't going to affect me in any way, but once those blackouts hit it was a wake up call. That's what the country needs to realize, that conserving energy in any way possible is very necessary."

All right, joining us now from Los Angeles is Yaron Brooks. He is the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. Thanks very much for joining us.

YARON BROOKS, AYN RAND INSTITUTE: Thank you for having me.

BATTISTA: You take a novel attitude on this because you agree with that first e-mail there that it is immoral that we should have to alter our lifestyle and conserve and make sacrifices, correct?

BROOKS: Yes, definitely. I think conservation is a call to sacrifice. It's a call to the American people to lower their standard of living, to give up their SUVs, to wash your clothes when the government would like you to wash your clothes, not when it's convenient to you. And it goes against the whole notion of the American way, of the pursuit of happiness, of the idea of the American dream that we leave a better world, a more prosperous world, and more wealth to your children than we had.

BATTISTA: But at what cost to the rest of world that we pursue that happiness? BROOKS: I don't think there is a cost. We don't live in a zero- sum world. It's not a zero-sum game. It is not at the rest of the world's expense. We create the wealth that we consume. I think Americans should be very proud to be a country wealthy enough to be able to drive SUVs, to be able to use as much electricity as we can. It's wealth that we created. It's not wealth that we somehow exploited from other people in other countries.

BATTISTA: So -- I take it then that you believe that we are not doing any damage to the air and to wildlife and to the flora and fauna around us, and if we should eliminate that overtime, that's OK?

BROOKS: I think the standards should not be flowers and trees. I think standard should be human life. Human life today is better than any time in human history. Life expectancy is longer than ever before. The standard should be what is good for human beings, not what is good for trees.

BATTISTA: OK, so, you do believe that if the air is a problem, that is something we would have to address, since human beings have to live off air, correct?

BROOKS: Sure. I think -- but the fact is, that you find the cleanest environments in the freest, most capitalist countries. Not in statist countries that are heavily regulated by government.

BATTISTA: Now, you are out there in California. Have you experienced those rolling blackouts?

BROOKS: Yes, we have. So -- California, there definitely is an energy crisis.

BATTISTA: Why do you think that is?

BROOKS: Well -- the reason for an energy crisis is regulation. It's the fact that the energy market in California was never deregulated. That is a complete myth. The regulations change.

And there was a series of things that was done as part of this so-called regulation that created this crisis. Maybe the most important thing is the fact that we have not built any power plants in California for 15 years. No new supply at all.

And the reason for that is, again, it's the environmentalists' insistence on no nuclear power plants, no coal burning plants, no gas plants, basically, no new power. If you don't build power, you don't have supply, you will get into the mess we have. Particularly, if then, you cap prices.

And we know from history from every country in this world from every period in history, that, whenever you cap prices, whenever you limit prices in a market, you create shortages. And that's was we are seeing in California.

BATTISTA: Let me go to Terrence (ph) here in the audience. You had a comment, Terrence? TERRENCE: I couldn't disagree with that gentleman more. I think that if we are in a culture of unemployment consumption, then we have the responsibility to look at increasing our production through alternative means to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels -- exclusive dependency on fossil fuels.

We need to invest in our children's future, which includes alternative technologies. Japan and Europe have out-stripped now the U.S. in regards to solar energy, wind energy, and all these other resources.

My son Jabu (ph), who is studying nanotechnology, is looking at this question of how to use nanotubes -- Jabu, you can explain it better than I can. But the point is that we have the potential to invest in alternative energy sources; therefore, maintain our lifestyles.

BATTISTA: We don't have time for a discussion on nanotubes. I'll spare you that. I have to take a quick break and we will continue right after the news.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: A couple more e-mails.

"Living in California, I do not believe there's a crisis, I believe there is a monopoly of resources."

Gary in Lake Forest, California:

"There's no supply problem, there is a price-gouging problem."

Joining the debate now from Washington is Dan Becker. He is the director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming and Energy Program.

Also with us is Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And spokesman for the Alliance of Energy and Economic Growth. Gentlemen, welcome to you.

All right, Dan, let's start with you. I would like some quick reaction to the Ayn Rand philosophy here.

DAN BECKER, SIERRA CLUB: We have serious energy problems. There are a lot of people having trouble paying their bills, we are addicted to oil, and nobody is happier about that than Saddam Hussein. We use too much energy in our homes, and factories and office buildings.

What we need to do, and what the president's plan doesn't do, is move to an energy efficient economy. We can easily and cost effectively change our light bulbs to be more efficient, our refrigerators, and our washer/dryers, and our air-conditioners. We can improve the efficiency of our cars and trucks without giving up SUVs, but making them vastly more efficient, so that you don't have to visit the gas pump all the time.

We can do that only if the president helps lead the way. His plan won't work.

BATTISTA: But as soon -- assuming we are still using gasoline in our cars, it is hard I think for most Americans to get mad at Kuwait over that, but if you make them more fuel-efficient, won't people just use them more, are we tackling the problem?

BECKER: Well, what we need to do, is we need to add better engines, improve transmissions, improve aerodynamics that will lower the amount of gasoline that these vehicles use, and cut the amount of pollution that spews out the other end.

We can do that for less than the money you save at the gas pump, so it's a win-win for the environment, for our pocketbooks. And people are already so busy, they don't have a lot of extra place they can drive. So, we don't -- I don't think we need to worry about people driving more. What we need to do is we need to cut our addiction to OPEC's oil.

And the president's plan is more expensive, it is inefficient, it is unsafe, because it will build new nuclear power plants all over the place, and increase fossil fuel burning. What we really need to do is have a different kind of plan that works that's faster, more efficient, safer and cleaner for all Americans.

BATTISTA: Bruce, you'll have you defend the president's plan.

BRUCE JOSTEN, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: Well, I would say that, largely in some of what Dan just said I would agree with, but i would also point out that the very things he talked about, such as increasing conservation measures, increasing efficiency throughout this country, has been exactly the policy that we have been utilizing as essentially the single policy directing this country for two decades.

The fact of the matter is: our economy is run on energy, the American business community has itself dramatically reduced the amount of energy used to produce a product and manufacturing. If we look at most our energy intensive industries, the production of steel, aluminum, both reduced their consumption of energy since the Arab oil embargo by about 50 percent. The cement industry by almost 30 percent. The average refrigerator in people's homes in your audience are about 40 percent more efficient today than they were.

And we need to do more of that, but you can't address the challenge that confronts this country by simply conservation, because you can't conserve 100 percent. And what we are going through right now, since we have dealt with one side of this ledger almost exclusively -- Dan didn't point out that we haven't built a refinery in this country in about a quarter of a century, and worse we have half the number of refineries in this country today than we did over 20 years ago. As was pointed out and from your guest from California, we haven't built a new utility out in California in some 15 years.

Since 1980, this economy has increased -- our GDP has increased by 90 percent. In the past decade, we've added 23 million new jobs. Most countries of the world would love to enjoy the kind of GDP growth, the standard of living and the quality of life that this country enjoys. What we are saying is at the moment, we have a rather fundamental imbalance between supply coming into this country and demand. And the demand is driven by the economic growth that we've just experienced, but I would suggest American people want.

BATTISTA: But people have a hard time understanding that whole supply and demand thing when the oil companies are still making record profits.

JOSTEN: Well, let me boil it down this way. You've got a country whose economy is growing so fast and so rapidly that it needs about 10,000 additional megawatts electricity a year, and we are only bringing on line about 8,000 megawatts a year. So, you can see immediately we've got a rather significant gap we are trying to fill, and you are not going to fill it by addressing it on one side of the coin.

I think what the president has proposed is exactly what this country needs. It is a comprehensive approach that looks at conservation, looks at energy efficiency, looks at ways to increase supplies of domestic resources that this country has, including those that are abundantly available to us, like coal, where we have more coal in this country than the entire supply of oil throughout the world.

BECKER: Let's be clear about what the president is proposing. He is proposing that we weaken the Clean Air Act so we can build more coal fire power plants, weaken nuclear safety so we can build more nuclear power plants. He's proposing to pillage the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the last pristine ecosystem in the Arctic for a six- month fix of oil.

We shouldn't be drilling for oil under the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We should drill for oil under Detroit, by making our cars and SUVs and other light trucks go further on a gallon of gas. It will save us money, it will cut pollution, it will tell Saddam what he can do with his oil, and it won't destroy our environment.

BATTISTA: Let me get Yaron in here.

BROOKS: Well, we should be drilling for oil wherever oil is available, and wherever property rights allow us to drill for that oil.

And we should be building nuclear plants. That will really tell Saddam Hussein, you know, where he should go. Japan and France get about 70 percent of their electricity from nuclear power. It is safe, it is clean, and yet it is being opposed by the environmentalists, because their agenda there is not really clean air, their agenda there is just to slow progress, to slow growth and to slow consumption into a lower standard of living.

BECKER: Nuclear power is the most expensive way ever devised to boil water. We didn't kill it, Wall Street killed it.

BROOKS: That's completely... (CROSSTALK)

BECKER: ... enormous amounts, and is building up, and will be extraordinarily radioactive for 250,000 years. Nuclear power is a silly thing for us to be discussing at this point.

BROOKS: It is interesting that you would call for Wall Street for the standard...

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: Let me -- I got to go...

BECKER: ... and responsible supplies.

BATTISTA: I will let Bruce answer that as soon as we -- I got to take a quick break here. I'm sorry I have to interrupt, but I will let Bruce answer that as soon as we come back.

Technology at President Bush's ranch in Texas uses geothermal energy drawn from rocks 300 feet below the ground.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: A person driving 12,000 miles a year in a car averaging 20 miles per gallon would pay $1,026 a year for gas, at $1.71 per gallon. If the price rises to $2 per gallon, the cost reaches $1,200.

Let me go to the audience quickly. Pat, go ahead, your comment.

PAT: Americans can be really sensitive or a little apathetic. We have evidence that something is going on in California, and I wonder why we don't care more. How bad does it have to get?

BATTISTA: Well, we talked about that earlier. Bruce, I know you want to respond to what Dan said a few moments ago, but we all know that it has to get pretty dire for folks in this country to change their lifestyle or to make sacrifices of -- even of the nature that -- specially of the nature that Dan is talking about.

JOSTEN: Well, I think the California situation is unique. And California clearly, I would say, is in a crisis. But to call what they did in California deregulation, which has been touched on with some of your earlier guests, is a complete oxymoron. I mean, what you had take place in California was dysfunctional re-regulation, if anything. And so, there's no quick fix to the mess that has been created out there.

What I was going to say with respect to what Dan pointed out is we need to remember that a car today, a single car today, emits about the same amount of pollution out of the tailpipe as 20 cars did 20 years ago. A car today gets, on average, double the fuel economy as a single car did 20 years ago.

Again, just to drive home the point that we have and will and should continue to make dramatic progress through technological innovation and protect the environment. But when we start talking about pillaging the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, I think it's important for everyone to understand what we are really talking about. We're talking about a parcel of land up there about the size of your average regional airport. The technology that exists today in the oil drilling industry is unlike anything that existed 25 years ago when we were doing the pipelines.

BATTISTA: Is it true that would only tap into six months worth of oil, though? It seems hardly worth it if that's true.

JOSTEN: Well, it depends on how people want to discuss and determine how much oil is under there and how quickly we're going to use it. And there's a lot of debates, and we're going to hear a lot of phony numbers thrown around all over the place in this debate.

I think what this country needs to, first, understand is the imbalance that's been created by a good economy that's employed more people than we've seen in any other type of recovery that this country has enjoyed. And we have to understand, as we're doing that, we're stressing this system.

The other part of this, by the way, that's just as critical: If everybody wanted to assume that we could tap into these sources, domestically, of natural gas in the North Slope of Alaska or in the Rockies or oil in ANWR -- and our view is, yes we should do that. Yes, we should embrace nuclear. But we have an infrastructure that's over 25 years old, and a transmission system and a power grid system that cannot support the current economy.

(CROSSTALK)

BECKER: Bobbie, I'm going to surprise you by saying that I agree with something that Bruce said. He's right when he says that our cars go twice as far on a gallon of gas now than they did in 1975, and that they're cleaner. But the reason for that is because we passed two laws: the Clean Air Act and the CAFE laws, the mile per gallon law. And both of those are now under attack.

The president is threatening to weaken the Clean Air Act and allow more coal-fire power plants. And they're studying, but not doing anything to raise those mile per gallon standards that save us $3,000 at the gas pump every -- over the life of our car.

So there's an enormous amount that we can do without sacrificing. I happen to drive a 50-mile-per-gallon hybrid car. I'm not sacrificing to do that. It costs the same as the average new car. I have compact fluorescent light bulbs that use 1/4 of the electricity of a standard incandescent bulb in my house. I'm not sacrificing to do that. What we need to do -- and, in fact, I'm saving money on my -- at the gas pump, I'm saving money on my electricity bills. And I can wave at the people at the gas pump who are filling up their SUVs because I don't visit it from week-to-week.

BATTISTA: I've got to jump in here, again, gentlemen. I'm sorry, it was a short segment. Take another break and be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: We are about out of time. Let's take a quick look at our poll question today, which was: What is the American way to conserve or consume? 72 percent say consume, 28 percent say conserve.

And I would like to thank all of my guests for being with me. Yaron Brooks, thank you; Dan Becker and Bruce Josten, I thank you both for joining us as well.

Tomorrow, talk show hosts from around the country join us for "Free-For-All Friday." We'll see you then.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

 Search   




MARKETS
4:30pm ET, 4/16
144.70
8257.60
3.71
1394.72
10.90
879.91
 














Back to the top