The lead, front-page news article in this morning's New York Times, about President Bush's energy plan, says, "The report is far less tentative in the area regulations it identifies as hindering the oil, gas, nuclear and utility industries. It mentions about a dozen areas -- including land-use restrictions in the Rockies, lease stipulations on offshore areas attractive to oil companies, the vetting of locations for nuclear plants, environmental reviews to upgrade power plants and refineries -- that could be streamlined or eliminated to help industry find more oil and gas and produce more electricity and gasoline."
The front page "news analysis" reports, "Except for repeating a call to go forward with oil and gas exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a plan that Congress is not likely to approve, the Bush report offers little guide to where the administration might aim in seeking to accelerate energy development. Among the leading targets, though, have been the gas-rich public lands in the Rocky Mountains and the Gulf of Mexico."
Which article is a Times reader supposed to believe? The front-page article that says the report was "far less tentative" on this topic and mentioned "about a dozen areas" including "the Rockies" and "offshore"? Or the front-page article that says the report "offers little guide to where the administration might aim in seeking to accelerate energy development"? The two seem hard to reconcile.
Just For Fund: The New York Times front-page news analysis of the Bush energy plan makes reference to "a Seattle lawyer for the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fun." Those environmental lawyers have all the fun.