Bush Picks Oilman for Energy Secretary

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2004-12-11 12:22pm

Thus proving that I too can be a sensationalistic shill.

Quick summary:

Bush picked Samuel Bodman, a chemical engineer who once lead Boston chemical supply firm Cabot. Undier his tenure, Cabot was fined a total of $175,000 by the federal government for environmental violations. Cabot also once supplied chemicals to the oil industry.

Bodman is expected to try to advance Bush's domestic energy plan, including controversial ANWR drilling. Though his experience is limited, he is praised for being a good manager.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-12-11 12:25pm

Between ANWR drilling and more nuclear reactors, I'm actually excited about Bush's energy policy. Hopefully this guy can deliver.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-12-11 02:15pm

Joe wrote:Between ANWR drilling and more nuclear reactors, I'm actually excited about Bush's energy policy. Hopefully this guy can deliver.

The question is whether an oilman will push for more nuclear reactors. Doing so would take money right out of the pockets of his buddies.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-12-11 05:30pm

Better than Spencer Abraham, who literally tried to disband Energy several times.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-12-11 06:16pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Joe wrote:Between ANWR drilling and more nuclear reactors, I'm actually excited about Bush's energy policy. Hopefully this guy can deliver.
The question is whether an oilman will push for more nuclear reactors. Doing so would take money right out of the pockets of his buddies.

But he's not an oil man. Doing business with oil companies does not automatically make you an oil man (by that reasoning, so am I, since I buy gas from the oil companies on a regular basis).

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-12-11 06:30pm

Howedar wrote:Better than Spencer Abraham, who literally tried to disband Energy several times.

To be more specific, Abraham tried to kill Energy as a member of Congress. He was later appointed to head DOE. Go figure.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-12-12 01:51pm

Joe wrote:But he's not an oil man. Doing business with oil companies does not automatically make you an oil man (by that reasoning, so am I, since I buy gas from the oil companies on a regular basis).

Doesn't follow. His company was on the supply side of the equation there, which makes any decrease in demand of oil have a negative spillover effect on his company. People act in their own best interest first and their buddies second (I believe that's the number one assumption behind all economics) and pushing for nuclear power over fossil fuel power wouldn't be in his best interest or him or his buddies. So how can he be trusted to to shape a pro-nuclear power policy if it's against in his own best interest? Fossil fuel companies, especially Big Oil and its associated industries (which includes his), have been fighting tooth and nail by lobbies to fight any technology that would dare to dip its hand in the energy cookie jar, and have even killed dozens of up and coming technologies with alot of potential that could potentially threaten them and have fought nuclear power time and time again in the past. Do you honest think his Energy policy will actually support it?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-12-12 02:14pm

Well, we have conflict of interest laws for a reason.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-12-12 02:16pm

And they would prove that his nuke stonewalling was conflict of interest and prove that he wasn't just defering to some evironmental belief how?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-12-12 03:26pm

Wait a minute, why am I on the defensive here? You prove that he's going to stonewall nuclear power. Prove that he's still going to be a shill to his company even after he's complied with all relevant conflict-of-interest laws and has no financial interest left in the company. Then prove that the company in question is even still doing business with oil companies because according to this article*, the division of Cabot that dealt with oil companies no longer exists. Then prove that even if he is still just a company man, whatever impact a policy of increased reliance on nuclear power has on the oil industry will actually be enough to materially influence his decision-making.

*("Cabot used to have a liquefied-natural-gas division and supplied chemical fluids to the oil-drilling industry.")

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-12 04:54pm

Nuclear stonewalling is the norm for the US these days, for a variety of reasons(Including cost; I saw a good article on that in SLAM.). Why should there be a huge scramble to prove he's gonna uphold the Status Quo?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-12-12 06:35pm

Howedar wrote:
Howedar wrote:Better than Spencer Abraham, who literally tried to disband Energy several times.
To be more specific, Abraham tried to kill Energy as a member of Congress. He was later appointed to head DOE. Go figure.

He was probably picked because he had been fairly involved in Michigans energy reforms as well as for pushing for cutting down energy-regulation.

SirNitram wrote:Nuclear stonewalling is the norm for the US these days, for a variety of reasons(Including cost; I saw a good article on that in SLAM.). Why should there be a huge scramble to prove he's gonna uphold the Status Quo?

Because it's contrary to the stated goals of the Administration? Bush is clearly trying to ease the nations need for oil (particularly foreign oil) for power applications and to meet our other demands from US sources.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-12 06:38pm

Stormbringer wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Nuclear stonewalling is the norm for the US these days, for a variety of reasons(Including cost; I saw a good article on that in SLAM.). Why should there be a huge scramble to prove he's gonna uphold the Status Quo?
Because it's contrary to the stated goals of the Administration? Bush is clearly trying to ease the nations need for oil (particularly foreign oil) for power applications and to meet our other demands from US sources.

You expect me to beleive anything a Politician of any stripe says on the campaign trail, Stormbringer? I'm not stupid, I'm not naive. I will beleive this the instant it bears fruit, but until then, I am keeping my skepticism. Call it experience.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-12-12 06:40pm

SirNitram wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Because it's contrary to the stated goals of the Administration? Bush is clearly trying to ease the nations need for oil (particularly foreign oil) for power applications and to meet our other demands from US sources.
You expect me to beleive anything a Politician of any stripe says on the campaign trail, Stormbringer? I'm not stupid, I'm not naive. I will beleive this the instant it bears fruit, but until then, I am keeping my skepticism. Call it experience.

Your paranioa is not a legitimate point in a debate. If you have anything better to offer then offer but simply ranting about it doesn't cut the mustard.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-12 06:43pm

Stormbringer wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Because it's contrary to the stated goals of the Administration? Bush is clearly trying to ease the nations need for oil (particularly foreign oil) for power applications and to meet our other demands from US sources.
You expect me to beleive anything a Politician of any stripe says on the campaign trail, Stormbringer? I'm not stupid, I'm not naive. I will beleive this the instant it bears fruit, but until then, I am keeping my skepticism. Call it experience.
Your paranioa is not a legitimate point in a debate. If you have anything better to offer then offer but simply ranting about it doesn't cut the mustard.

That's very ironic from you, Stormbringer. Have you considered the issues of cost, which I brought up in my very first post? Oh, wait, I'm 'ranting'. Sorry, I forgot the Holy Writ is that once you claim the other is ranting you don't need to deal with the fact they already brought up points.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-12-12 06:49pm

An oil man would have no particular reason to oppose nuclear energy, seeing as coal and natural gas are the primary fossil fuels used for generating electrical power. And if Bush wants nuclear energy, that's what his energy secretary is going to want, too. One of the reasons Bush has been surrounding himself with people who agree with him (or, less charitably, yes-men) is because he got frustrated when he gave orders to State or Treasury and then those orders weren't carried out. Bush doesn't want a cabinet full of advisors, he wants the equivilant of corporate vice-presidents who will carry out his policy within their departments.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-12-13 01:06am

SirNitram wrote:Have you considered the issues of cost, which I brought up in my very first post?

There are issues to actually implimenting Bush's policy. But those are not reasons to assume that the people Bush picks are going to fight against his policy.

SirNitram wrote:Oh, wait, I'm 'ranting'. Sorry, I forgot the Holy Writ is that once you claim the other is ranting you don't need to deal with the fact they already brought up points.

You're damn right you're ranting. And like it or not simply saying "because I know so" doesn't make valid points out of nothing. You've brought up one point of a little relevance to the actual appointment or of what Bush wants to do. Were this about the wisdom or actual plausibility of those being implimented that's another story. But for simply whether Bush's appointee will support him or not, it's not a particularly strong point.