Transcript for April 30
MEET THE PRESS NETCAST & PODCAST |
Get Meet the Press when & how you want Click here to see Sunday's MTP netcast. (After 1pm ET each Sunday) |
SEN. DURBIN: Well, at this point, I think that we have to see other alternatives. There are sustainable and renewable sources as well. You know, I drive a hybrid car at home. My wife and I, we bought a Ford Escape hybrid. I think it’s a move in the right direction. We need to promote more hybrid vehicles, more electrical-powered vehicles. We need to move away from this carbon consumption that could endanger this planet we live on. I think it’s sustainable and renewable fuels. Also looking for more efficient ways to use the vehicles we have today.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you think you will one day head up the American Ethanol Institute?
MR. CAVANEY: Well, we look forward to using more biofuels, more ethanol, but we have to also square with some of the facts. There’s a huge amount of use of oil and natural gas in order to make ethanol. So ethanol doesn’t come to you free from nothing. So we have to use about 80 percent to as much of 95 percent of the energy just to get a gallon of ethanol. It has a proper place, but the big breakthrough is going to come when cellulitic ethanol comes. And the difference between the two: you need one set of enzymes—if your raw material is just sugar cane you need one set if it’s just ethanol. But if you’re going to use everything: yard debris, wood chips and all of these, you need a very complex mixture. But that is where the real breakthrough opportunity may well be, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: And the oil companies are willing to convert to that kind of fuel?
MR. CAVANEY: We, we have already started to incorporate—four billion gallons are already being used right today as we speak, and we’re going to continue to be able to use more. We’re in the process of serving the consumer, and what we’ve always done is try and find the lowest affordable price. And if ethanol can be competitive, we’re going to use more of it. This past year, ethanol was more expensive than gasoline almost every single month.
MR. RUSSERT: Daniel Yergin, based on all your study and research, what do you believe has to be done in the next decade in the United States of America regarding energy, and what do you think will be done?
DR. YERGIN: I think we need a broad range. It’s technology, it’s research and development, a very broad range, very intensive to do it. I think we see a lot more momentum now to, to have it happen. And despite the differences we hear here, around this table, there’s actually a lot of consensus on what the elements are. So I think that the...
MR. RUSSERT: What are the elements?
DR. YERGIN: Well, the elements are A: a lot more efficiency, and that means automobiles, transportation. And how do you get there? It’s either regulation or tax or price, but some way it’s going to happen. And then I think it’s a kind of continuing to diversify what goes into the gas tanks, what we use for energy, and I think as you look around the world, and you see the problems around the world, and the, the risks above the ground, you see a sense of urgency about that.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe we become, can become energy independent in a decade?
DR. YERGIN: No, I don’t think so. I think that we’ve gone from importing a third of our oil in the 1970s to importing 60 percent, but we’re going to be importing more natural gas. So I don’t think energy independence—I mean, it’s a, it’s a, it’s a motivator, but I don’t think it really describes our situation. The question is how do we manage the fact that we’re part of this global market in energy?
MR. BODMAN: But the first step, if I may say, is to take the pressure off that market. And that’s what ethanol will do, even in more modest quantities. It will start to take the pressure off oil markets. That’s where the issue is.
MR. RUSSERT: But if you look at the world in which we live, and where the United States gets its oil, we’ve already talked about it, the Iraq war, limiting production from Iraq; the situation with Iran; in Venezuela, Mr. Chavez not particularly fond of the United States.
MR. BODMAN: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: Saudi Arabia could topple tonight and we wouldn’t be surprised. We could wake up tomorrow, and oil could be 100, $150 a barrel with the right set of circumstances, all working against our national interest. And what would that do to our economy and way of life?
MR. BODMAN: It would be, it would be a real problem. It would be a very time to—it would be a very bad time to be the secretary of energy, I can tell you, I can tell you that. As, you know, as Dan has...
MR. RUSSERT: Do you worry about this?
MR. BODMAN: Of course we worry about it. Of course we worry about it, all the time. That’s what I, that’s what I do, that’s my job is to worry about it. And, you know, as, as, as Dan said, I think that, that the issues are trying to focus on the renewable problems, trying to focus on issues that, that we can deal with in a reasonable period of time. But this is not—this has been a problem that has taken three decades to be created, and it’s going to take a number of years—this is a huge industry, the scale...
MR. RUSSERT: Realistically, Mr. Secretary...
MR. BODMAN: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: ...how long before we could be energy independent?
MR. BODMAN: I think that the president’s instruction to us is by 2025, in 19 years, that we would have five million gallons a day of renewable energy, of ethanol in the marketplace to give—to, to square that with you, that’s about, that’s about 25 percent of what we use today, probably 20 percent of what we will use at that time.
MR. RUSSERT: Doable?
SEN. DURBIN: It’s doable, I think. To reach a point of 40 percent reduction over 20 years, which was the Democratic position on the Energy Bill is doable. It means making a commitment to doing some things we’re not doing, promoting energy independence and energy technology development that is environmentally responsible.
But it also means two other elements we shouldn’t overlook: punishing profiteering. All the market forces not withstanding, if the oil companies still insist on these outrageous profits, the consumers will lose and the American economy will lose.
MR. RUSSERT: To be continued. Thank you all.
We’ll be right back with our MEET THE PRESS MINUTE from three decades ago, talking about high oil prices with an oil company executive. Right here on MEET THE PRESS.
(Announcements)
MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. Nearly three decades ago, MEET THE PRESS was focusing on, you guessed it, the energy crisis, big oil and profit margins.
(Videotape, April 24, 1977):
MR. ROBERT NOVAK (Chicago Sun Times): You have led into what I think is the, is the great philosophical point confronting the oil industry and that is you have painted perfectly the importance of increasing production as a matter of national security and national interests. Since we’re talking about sacrifice and everybody is being called upon to sacrifice, is it possible for the oil industry to sacrifice some of its huge profits and dig a little more oil even though there may not be the incentives that perhaps you want from the government?
MR. SWEARINGEN: in the first place, I don’t agree with your figures about huge profits. I think you are parroting here the kind of things that you hear from the left wing element of this country.
MR. NOVAK: But they’ve gone up since OPEC, haven’t they?
MR. SWEARINGEN: Oh, yes, they have gone up and I think if you’ll read the papers this morning you will find that the profits of other companies have gone up, too, and this is largely as a result of the depreciation of our money here in this country and not as a result of any major price increase.
MR. ROBERT BAZELL (NBC News): Mr. Swearingen, you said a little while ago that only the left wing elements could say that the oil companies were making huge profits. And I think that many people would find that remark rather incredible. One only has to look at Wall Street figures to see the kinds of profits you’re making. Isn’t it true that most of your big profits are in production and that a lot of—that in refining and retailing sort of brings that down, but that you do make extraordinary profits in production?
MR. SWEARINGEN: No. I disagree with your numbers or your analysis of the numbers. I’ll have to repeat, again, that the absolute aggregate numbers are reported on a worldwide basis and must be related to the capital employed in the business which you have chosen to ignore. The second thing is the profit in the production end of the business is larger on a basis of the capital invested than the profits in the refining and marketing part of the business. This is due largely to the intensely competitive nature of gasoline marketing which any automobile driver can see as he drives down the street.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: And our viewers should know we did invite the representatives of the major oil companies, Shell, Chevron, BP, ExxonMobil, Sunoco and ConocoPhillips to be with us today. They declined. We hope they will join us in the future.
How about that populist reporter, Bob Novak? We’ll be right back.
(Announcements)
MR. RUSSERT: A reminder of two great resources on msnbc.com. Sign, sign up for our weekly MEET THE PRESS newsletter. Each letter—each Friday you can find out who’ll be meeting the press on Sunday delivered free via e-mail right here on your computer. Subscribe, our Web site: mtp.msnbc.com. Also, NBC’s ground-breaking political blog, First Read, has expanded its coverage and is now updated with breaking news and analysis throughout the day. Check it out, firstread.msnbc.com.
That’s all for today. We’ll be back next week. If it’s Sunday, it’s MEET THE PRESS.
- Discuss Story On Newsvine
- Rate Story:
View popularLowHigh - Instant Message
MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS |
Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: |

