Energy costs

Heh. According to this Reuters article, the Bush administration spent over $130,000 of the DOE's solar/renewable/conservation budget to print 10,000 copies of the Bush energy plan, which recommends drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

At the same time that this was going on, "[the] administration was urging Congress to cut the renewable and energy efficiency research budgets by more than 50 percent."

"After all," said one administration official, "we only need a couple hundred thousand in that budget to cover our annual printing costs."

Okay, so I made up that last paragraph. But the rest is from the Reuters article.

At any rate, somehow I doubt that this news will prove to be terribly embarrassing to the administration.

(I always thought Reuters was supposed to provide pretty bare-bones reporting, but this article shows a definite anti-Bush bias; there's a sly little joke at the end, where it notes that funds from the fossil-energy program were also used—$100 for a hotel room. It ends by noting that the released documents don't specify "[whether] the hotel offered a government rate.")

(Oh, and the article doesn't say how big the renewable budget actually is, or what percentage of it $130K amounts to. I doubt it's a huge percentage of the budget. But it still seems like a nicely symbolic move on the administration's part, to quell any last doubts that anyone might have about how Bush et al feel about non-oil energy sources. I wonder if they printed the report on recycled paper.)

Join the Conversation