President Bush has a new energy plan. A few of the highlights include increased exploration for oil and natural gas, building more coal, nuclear, and hydro power plants, building more transmission lines, refining more petroleum, and easing the environmental regulations that govern all of the above. So, what’s new about it? The truth is there is nothing new in the Bush policy except that it is bigger. This would be a valid solution if the only problem was an energy shortage. But the energy policy as proposed completely ignores the real problems at the heart of the energy crisis, i.e., environmental repercussions and alternative solutions.

The cost of dirty power production should be apparent to anyone who breathes, and thus all should also be aware of the need for alternatives. Moreover, in light of the obvious need for environmental protection and the inherent need to explore clean energy alternatives, one must question the President’s motives and/or his wisdom.

On June 6th the National Academy of Sciences declared that global warming is real and further, that green house gases emitted from cars and power plants—mainly carbon dioxide—are major contributors to this problem. Yet President Bush continues to call for more study. In fairness, he has responded to the report with a pledge to look at alternatives. How much is this pledge worth? Perhaps as much as his campaign pledge to cut CO2 emissions, which he later abandoned. Vice-President Cheney’s answers to the energy crisis are equally, or even more, disturbing. Cheney chaired the President’s Task Force, which came up with the Bush Energy Policy saying that conservation was not the answer. Therefore, he steered the task force towards promoting more production of the same dirty power generation systems. The Vice President endorses drilling in roadless areas on the national forests, and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So the plan to solve the “energy crisis” crafted by the Bush administration seems to effectively ignore the science that clearly warns of increased environmental damage at the expense of ecosystems and human health.

Are there viable alternatives? Yes! Experts tell us that our energy systems in the U.S. are only 2 percent efficient. For example, if we improve the efficiency of our light vehicle fleet by only 0.4 miles per gallon, it would be the equivalent of extracting the 2 billion barrels of oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The possibility of switching to an electric car powered by fuel cells is looming on the horizon. Some of these cars are already in production in an experimental stage, and venture capitalists are investing heavily in the technology. But President Bush has cut the research budget for this technology by about 30 percent.

Economist Paul Hawkins points out that high-efficiency buildings alone could save 30 to 50 percent of energy costs. Simple conservation is also a viable solution. A recent letter in the Atlanta Constitution rebuking Mr. Cheney’s statement that conservation is not the answer claimed that he reduced his home energy bill by 50 percent by changing his lifestyle to waste less.

The Bush administration energy policy is also modeled to give us low-cost energy. This a dubious claim that may not sit well with the people in California who were gouged by electric power producers as soon as they became vulnerable. There is also the point of view that the true cost of dirty energy production is not factored into the cost of a kilowatt of electricity. How much does it cost to clean filthy air, and to treat associated respiratory illnesses? A LOT!

A responsible person, when presented with the facts, will probably agree that our current system is inefficient, damaging to the environment, and could be improved. They would also probably agree that there are good alternatives. If this type of logic drove politics, we wouldn’t have the “bigger is better” policy as presented by the Bush administration. Unfortunately, the land ethic that could demand alternatives has been overwhelmed by the power that “big business” exercises over our political system. Consequently, we may be destined to bring about reform only after the true costs hit us in the pocketbook and environmental problems surround us. Don’t wait that long. Contact your congressional representatives and demand change today.

Back to the Top