National Energy Policy

National Energy Policy: A Balanced, Responsible Energy Policy

Overview The energy proposals being advanced by the Bush administration constitute another slap in the face to public health, the environment and the economy while adding dollars to the accounts of energy interests. Instead of promoting an energy agenda that increases supply through renewable and alternative technologies while reducing demand through conservation and increased efficiency, the White House has embraced a short-sighted policy that maintains our nation's reliance on inefficient, dirty and expensive fossil fuels. Vice President Cheney, who is spearheading the White House Energy Task Force and recently called conservation "a sign of personal virtue" with little role in the national debate, is championing an agenda that would put the nation on an unsustainable course of drilling precious lands and polluting our air and water - a short-sighted solution that threatens the long-term health of our children, our economy and our natural environment. The Need For A Balanced, Responsible Energy Policy Americans need and deserve a well-rounded, responsible policy solution to the nation's energy problems that balances clean, innovative energy technologies with more traditional energy sources. Unfortunately, Vice President Cheney's plan was formulated behind closed doors by a task force of many former energy industry executives and not one independent environmental representative. In addition it relies on numbers come from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a unit of the Energy Department that is known for being production-oriented. Unfortunately, the task force failed to consider a much more comprehensive report published by a collaboration of five local Energy Department facilities, including the renowned Berkeley National Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory. The report, "Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future," finds that government investment in renewable energy and greater efficiency could play a major role in energy policy. Its conclusions deserved the attention of Cheney's task force: Renewable power capacity could expand by the equivalent of about 180 new plants; National energy use could be cut by 10 percent or more in 2010 and about 20 percent in 2020; New high-efficiency, natural-gas-fired plants should replace older, dirtier and less efficient plants. While Vice President Cheney claims the U.S. will need to build 1300 new power plants over the next 20 years to meet the nation's growing energy needs, the "Clean Energy Future" report found that energy efficiency measures could save enough energy to equal the output of 610 new power plants. Based on numbers from the report, the Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that energy efficiency and renewable power can meet 60 percent of the nation's need for new electric power plants over the next two decades. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy projects that energy efficiency policies covering transportation, electricity, and other sectors could lower national energy use even more than anticipated in the report - by 18 percent in 2010 and by 33 percent in 2020. Along with measures to promote renewable energy supplies, these policies could save American industry and consumers $500 billion over the next two decades, while dramatically reducing carbon dioxide emissions and other air pollutants. Real Solutions to Current Energy Problems Without energy efficient improvements developed over the past three decades, energy use in 2000 would have been 40 percent higher and would have cost the U.S. economy $260 billion. Today, faced with skyrocketing energy prices, these energy-efficient improvements are the only short-term solutions to the nation's energy problems. Energy-efficient cars and trucks, air conditioners, appliances, washing machines, light bulbs and other products already exist and deliver equal or better comfort and performance. In addition they cost less to use over their lifetimes than their energy-inefficient ancestors. By encouraging greater use of these technologies to increase the energy efficiency of homes, vehicles, offices and factories, Americans could save billions of dollars each year in lower energy bills. Demand for electricity, gasoline and other fuels would also decrease, helping to eliminate the need to build more power plants and drill for oil and gas in the nation's pristine lands. An increased focus on clean, innovative energy technologies would also eliminate millions of tons of air pollution that pose serious threats to public health and the environment. Significant progress could also be made by responsibly raising the average gas mileage on cars and requiring large SUVs, which are now exempt from the standards, to meet the same 27.5 miles per gallon threshold. Cars and light trucks guzzle nearly 8 million barrels of oil - or 40 percent of total oil used - in the U.S. everyday. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in Congress has prevented government agencies from raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Implementing these minimal requirements would save at least one million barrels of oil per day, curb global warming by reducing U.S. carbon dioxide pollution, and save consumers billions of dollars at the gas pump. Such a move is affordable and will ultimately create more jobs, save consumers money and protect public health. Budgeting For A Clean Future The current energy crunch will not fix itself and exposes a system that relies too heavily on outdated energy sources, such as coal and other fossil fuels. The Bush administration must demonstrate federal leadership and provide the financial support needed to promote conservation and spur new markets in renewable energy. Unfortunately, the president sent a budget to the Hill that cuts core funding for renewable energy by 37 percent, while increasing subsidies for coal and nuclear research. These funding decisions clearly suggest that the White House is intent on promoting an energy agenda that focuses new money and attention on dirty technologies that benefit anti-environment corporate interests and leave the average American with high energy bills and polluted air. The Bush administration energy plan pushes for increased coal productions and focuses on developing so-called "clean coal technology for new and existing power plants. Such a policy will expand the use of an industrial-age fuel that is the most polluting source of electric power. Coal-fired power plants emit more hazardous air pollution than any other industry and account for more than one-third of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, which have been linked to global climate change. Even power plants using "clean coal" will still emit substantial amounts of nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide. According to Department of Energy evaluations, clean coal technologies are 40 percent less effective at removing sulfur dioxide emissions than conventional scrubbers. It also encourages a major increase in the use of nuclear energy. Although nuclear power plants to do not emit the same harmful pollutants as coal-fired power plants, they do pose significant public health risks and have a range of adverse environmental impacts, including the potential for nuclear reactor accidents and problems posed by transport and waste storage. In addition, the mining of uranium presents long-term radiation hazards and the uranium "enriching" process uses substantial amounts of electricity produced mostly from coal-fired power plants. There are several reasonable, market-based alternatives to the Bush administration's proposals that can spur economic growth while promoting energy stability and preserving the health of the environment. Tax incentives for renewables is the most commonly touted plan and would help ease the initial economic burden of investment in sustainable technologies. Wind power is already cost-competitive with new fossil fuel plants, with a current production cost of three to six cents per kilowatt hour. In addition, the Department of Energy estimates that geothermal energy has the potential to supply 10 percent of energy needs in Western states. Economists also tout a Renewable Policy Standard (RPS), which would require a small but gradually increasing percentage of electricity to come from certified renewable energy sources. These commonsense proposals would not only conserve energy and protect the environment, but also spur new markets both domestically and internationally while creating jobs.

 
 

Download your copy today!

 
Help LCV Give Bush the Boot!