Browsing through the
official RNC website yesterday, I ran across a May 1 news release entitled,
"Dem Energy Agenda: The Cost To American Families If Dems Had Their Way" (
click the link, if you've got time, to see the hilarious doomsday banner they use to begin the news release). Amidst more-than-questionable claims of the dire consequences of Democratic energy policies, I encountered this graphic:
Before I even touch on the dubious "truthiness" behind the data used by the RNC to produce this news release, I want to take a moment to recognize the sick premise on which the GOP works when developing policies. Even if their data were accurate, consider the prioritization of Big Oil interests over those of the environment that must be so ingrained in the minds of the GOP leadership and policy-makers that would lead them to take such positions.
Now, GOP priorities aside, the news release is filled with outdated and illegitimate data.
Taking a look at the sources used to justify the accusations within the news release, one finds that the majority of their statistics are based on two specific citations. The first is testimony from a Senate Committee on Natural Resources hearing that took place on February 23, 1993. In the ever-changing world of energy-related environmental technology, 13 years is more than enough time to antiquate data and testimony; furthermore,
using beyond-outdated sources to justify devastating environmental neglect and blatantly deceive the public is tantamount to treason.
The second frequently cited source is a June 1998 Boston Herald article detailing a study looking at the economic effects of the Kyoto Protocol. This study, published by Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates (WEFA, now known as Global Insight), was funded by none other than the American Petroleum Institute (API).
-----------------------------------------------------
- That's right, the very same American Petroleum Institute ... on whose board of directors once sat Vice-President Dick Cheney.
- Yup, the very same American Petroleum Institute ... that, only months before the release of the WEFA study, was embroiled in a leaked-memo scandal, in which the New York Times revealed a $5,000,000 API campaign to discredit the Kyoto Protocol and misinform the public, including plans to "identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach."
- Uh huh, the very same American Petroleum Institute ... whose members enjoyed almost exclusive access to Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force.
- Indeed, the very same American Petroleum Institute ... that drafted a suggested policy requiring governmental agencies to consider any
inordinate complications in energy production and supply [caused by] any substantive action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a rule, regulation or policy, including, but not limited to, notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rule-making, notices of proposed rule-making, and guidance documents, (emphasis provided)
less than a month before President Bush issued Executive Order 13211 requiring governmental agencies to consider any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution or use [caused by] any action by an agency . . . that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rule-making, and notices of proposed rule-making. (emphasis provided)
- Indubitably, the very same American Petroleum Institute ... whose official position opposing the Kyoto Protocol reads:
Because developing nations are exempt from the Protocol, many American businesses would lose out in the international marketplace. They would find themselves unable to compete against companies whose goods do not carry the high price of complying with Kyoto requirements.
- Unequivocally, categorically, and absolutely, the very same American Petroleum Institute ... whose former "climate team leader" and lawyer, Philip A. Cooney, was exposed when he abused his Bush-appointed position as chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality by "repeatedly edit[ing] government climate reports in ways that play down links between [greenhouse gas] emissions and global warming."
-----------------------------------------------------
Besides the obvious funding concerns, the oft-cited WEFA study was not peer-reviewed and leaves out any considerations of technological improvements, the reduced healthcare costs of decreasing pollution, "joint implementation" programs with developing nations, and many other cost-reducing options.
Apparently, the RNC can't come up with a better way of criticizing Democratic energy policy than using skewed priorities, oudated testimony and 8-year-old BigOil-funded "research."
Well done, worthy Republican opponents, well done.