Behind the rhetoric, though, lies more politics than price gouging.
The fact is, Americans are paying one-third less for gasoline, after adjusting for inflation, than they were paying 20 years ago, despite the seasonal price surge. "It's a bargain," said Charles Maxwell, senior energy analyst with Weeden & Co of Greenwich, Conn. "The cost of water in stores in these liter and gallon bottles has gone up more than gasoline."....
"It is not a crisis," said Trilby Lundberg, president of Lundberg Survey Inc., the Camarillo, Calif. company that tracks oil prices, "unless you are a taxi cab driver or a florist delivery service with a couple of vans."
Lundberg said the perception of a gasoline crisis is being fed more by Washington and the national media than by any real pain on the street.
The public is not in an uproar," she said,"it just looks that way because of the politicians and the interviews."
|
|
John Walke, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the plan "represents capitulation to an industry effort ... to weaken the Clean Air Act as they've been asking to do for quite some time."
Defenders of Wildlife President Rodger Schlickeisen said, "There's a cleaner, cheaper, faster way to solve our energy problems. We need a balanced national energy plan that combines increased production with improved efficiencies and new technologies."
|
|
|
|
|
|
And Washington has won little credit in Stockholm for agreeing to sign a U.N.
convention with almost 130 other nations on Wednesday to outlaw or minimise use
of a "dirty dozen" persistent organic pollutants (POPs).
POPs, used in a wide range of industrial and agricultural farming activities as
pesticides and additives, can trigger cancers or birth defects in people or animals. The
treaty was formally adopted in Sweden yesterday.
Kjell Larsson, the environment minister of Sweden, which holds the rotating EU
presidency, noted that Bush had made a high-profile announcement at the White House
in April that Washington would sign the POPs treaty.
SIGN OF COMPROMISE?
"There are those who interpret this as a way of coming back after the show they made
on climate change and other environmental issues. I won't necessarily do that," he
said.
In terms of overall U.S. environmental policy, he said: "It remains to be seen if the
POPs convention or the Kyoto protocol is the exception...
"I'm very disappointed that we can't continue to work globally within the Kyoto
process."
The POPs treaty will be far cheaper to implement than Kyoto, which Bush rejected by
saying it would be too expensive and was unfair because it exempted developing
nations. Many POPs are pesticides like DDT, long banned in the United States.
The director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Christine Todd Whitman,
rejected criticisms that the U.S. energy plan was skewed to favour energy producers.
"From an environmental point of view it in fact is a very good document," she told
Reuters. Asked if it would raise emissions of so-called greenhouse gases and so
contribute to global warming, she replied: "Oh, not at all, not at all."
But Larsson said: "It seems to be so focused on rapid development of fossil fuels. It
is, for me, unbelievable that this could be reconciled with the efforts needed in the
Kyoto protocol, or to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases."
Klaus Toepfer, head of the U.N. Environment Programme, said that the U.S. April
announcement on POPs, with Bush flanked by Whitman and U.S. Secretary of State
Colin Powell, had been an encouraging sign that Washington still wanted
cooperation.
Toepfer was German environment minister for six years until the early 1990s while
Helmut Kohl was chancellor. "The chancellor never came with me to make big
announcements," he told Reuters.
As this issue went to press, the Bush/Cheney Energy Plan was just being released from the White
House. Although the details of the plan were not available to critique for this article, the general
consensus of the plan (as gathered from press reports) was really no surprise, considering the big
oil/coal/nuclear backgrounds of those who put it together.
The Bush/Cheney Energy Plan stresses production, production, production. For instance, they say we'll
need to build one power plant a week for the next twenty years to keep up with the escalating demand of
electricity. They say we'll need to drill in the oceans and the wilderness to keep up with our escalating
demand for gasoline. And they say weıll need to revive the nuclear dinosaur to help out the fossil fuel
dinosaur.
Don't get me wrong. I think we're going to need some margin of increased energy production. But
perhaps, instead of the 35% efficient coal-fired electric power plants, maybe we could build smaller
distributed electric generation systems for buildings that utilize the waste heat to produce efficiencies of
70% or more. Perhaps, instead of the big oil/coal/nuclear powerplants, maybe we could develop
renewable solar/wind/biomass powerplants.
And this energy plan certainly wasn't put together by ³conserve²atives! Conservation is given
short-shrift and is equated with hardship and sacrifice. Americans do waste energy! We do leave lights
on, travel 75 MPH on the highways, let the screen-savers on our computers run, leave our motors
running, and commit other energy-wasteful behaviors that are unnecessary. We can use less energy by
changing our behavior.
But we don't even have to change our behavior to save energy! Thanks to the wonders of science and
technology, we can now get the same goods and services for a lot less energy. Itıs called
energy-efficiency. We can now buy automobiles that get 70 MPG of gasoline, heating furnaces that are
95% efficient, refrigerators that save 50% on electricity, and light bulbs that save 70% on electricity use.
And yet the Bush/Cheney Administration wants to lower existing energy-efficiency standards!
In my opinion, the Bush/Cheney Energy Plan places too much emphasis on the production of oil, coal,
and nuclear, and not enough emphasis on the production of renewables and increasing energy
efficiency. It appears that the Bush/Cheney Energy Plan is giving the power (pun intended) to the
corporations, not the people!
Maybe it's time that the people empower themselves! Let them know how you feel! Walk to work. Take
the bus. Carpool. Buy a 70 MPG car. Turn off the computer. Insulate the house. Buy a solar panel.
Think energy efficiency. Prove them wrong! Your comments are welcome. You can also participate in the "rolling-blackout" on June 21 from 7 to 10PM.
That's the clear message of the National Wildlife Federation's campaign to generate grass-roots opposition to Bush administration proposals for oil and gas development in one of the wildest, most pristine places in the United States. NWF plans call for petition drives and letter-writing campaigns to urge Congress to keep the Arctic refuge off-limits to drilling.
The 1.5 million-acre coastal plain that is the focus of proposed oil exploration is the most biologically productive part of the refuge. A total of 135 bird species from four continents, as well as more than 100 other wildlife species, depend on the habitat of the coastal plain. It also is the primary calving ground for the Porcupine caribou herd, the most important land-denning area for polar bears in the Alaskan Arctic, year-round home to musk-oxen, arctic foxes and wolverines and habitat for wolves and bears.
"America cannot drill its way to energy security in the Arctic or anywhere else," says NWF President Mark Van Putten. "The best way to meet our future energy needs is to develop new and existing alternative sources and to better conserve the energy we have."
NWF notes that 95% of the potentioal oil reserves of Alaska's north coast is already open to exploration. The additional 5% in the Arctic refuge has been off-limits since the 1950s. According to the latest government estimate, there is only a 50% chance of finding a nine-month supply of oil in the refuge--far too little to risk damaging such a special place.
To learn more about this issue and what you can do, click here: www.nwf.org/arcticrefuge
In a much-anticipated report from the National Academy of Sciences, 11 leading atmospheric
scientists, including previous skeptics about global warming, reaffirmed the mainstream scientific
view that the earth's atmosphere was getting warmer and that human activity was largely
responsible.
In the White House's first official acknowledgment of the academy's conclusions, Condoleezza
Rice, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, told reporters today, "This is a president who takes
extremely seriously what we do know about climate change, which is essentially that there is
warming taking place."
In response to critics who have suggested that Mr. Bush is ignoring an issue of mounting
international concern, Ms. Rice portrayed the group as feverishly committed to educating itself and
coming up with a proposal. "It has been a matter of bringing up to speed some of the highest-
ranking people in this government," she said. "I would dare say -- dare challenge you to find a
situation in which you've had so many high-ranking people sitting there week after week after
week, understanding the challenge that we face in global climate change, everybody from the vice
president, the secretary of state, the secretary of interior, secretary of agriculture. It has been quite
something to see all of these people grappling with the issue."
{ The article goes on to mention the letter from all the scientific
academies published May 18, 2001 in Science:}
In an indication of the headwind that Mr. Bush is sailing into next week in Europe, the journal
Science, published by an American scientific organization, recently carried an open letter signed
by 16 prestigious scientific panels in countries around the world calling for "prompt action" to
reduce the gases like carbon dioxide that trap heat like in a greenhouse.
The increase in temperatures, the editorial said, "will be accompanied by rising sea levels, more
intense precipitation events in some countries and increased risk of drought in others and adverse
effects on agriculture, health and water balance." It continued, "We urge everyone individuals, businesses and governments to take prompt action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases."
One climate scientist who critiqued a draft of the new report for the academy said no one in the administration should be surprised at the firm nature of the result. "They asked a string of questions that might have been appropriate in 1990," the scientist said. "Hello?" he said. "Where've you been the last decade?"
The link to the article is
www.nytimes.com/2001/06/07/science/07WARM.html
Undercutting an argument made by the Bush administration, a study by
the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has found that federal research
and development efforts to improve energy conservation and efficiency
have produced big environmental and economic gains. The academy
released a report yesterday detailing how a $13 billion federal
investment since 1978 has returned $40 billion. About three-quarters
of the economic benefits came from three programs that led to more
efficient refrigerator and freezer compressors, fluorescent light
ballasts, and heat-resistant window glass; the programs together cost
only $11 million. The Bush administration has argued that such R&D
doesn't get much bang for the buck, and its proposed fiscal year 2002
budget would cut spending in energy conservation and efficiency.
straight to the source:
Los Angeles Times, Elizabeth Shogren, 18 Jul 2001
While the rest of the world moves forward with the Kyoto treaty, the
Bush administration claims it is cooking up its own strategy to fend
off global warming. But some officials involved in the
administration policy review say there has been little real pressure
from the White House to come up with a new plan anytime soon. The
action may be shifting to the U.S. Congress, where several bills to
address climate change are already being considered. Some members of
Congress say American businesses will be hit hard by the
administration's decision not to participate in Kyoto -- businesses
in other countries will be first out of the gate with innovations to
reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, and U.S. firms will be left out of
new carbon-trading markets. Read more about the fallout from the
negotiations in Bonn from Elliot Diringer, a veteran environmental
reporter now with the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, on the
Grist Magazine website.
The Sierra Club welcomed the findings of the National Academy of Sciences
that technology exists to safely improve the fuel economy of cars and light
trucks, but said the industry-weighted panel's report does not go far
enough.
A National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report released recently identifies
technologies that can significantly improve Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) Standards over the next decade, but largely ignores a range of
technologies that would make even greater improvements, such as high
strength lightweight materials, improved aerodynamics and better tires.
The Sierra Club also praised the NAS finding that the "The car/truck
distinction has been stretched well beyond the original purpose." Current
law holds SUVs and other light trucks to a much weaker fuel economy
standard, and it is time to close this "light truck loophole".
The panel also recognized that raising CAFE standards is important to
reducing global warming and our dependence on foreign oil, stating that
without CAFE standards the U.S. would be consuming an additional 2.8 million
barrels of oil daily. Additionally, the panel found that improving fuel
economy standards with existing technology does not have to affect the
safety or performance of the vehicles.
The NAS panel does make several concessions to the auto-industry, and
ignores a larger range of technologies that would make even greater
improvements to fuel economy. The New York Times described the NAS panel as
consisting "mainly of engineers and consultants who have worked for the auto
and oil industries, along with some economists and retired oil executives.
It does not include anyone from the environmental movement". The New York
Times also reported that the panel weakened its report under auto industry
pressure.
Importantly, the panel recommends ending the dual fuel vehicle loophole,
which allows automakers to garner credits toward meeting CAFE standards by
making vehicles that can, but never do, run on alternative fuels.
Updated fuel economy standards are an essential part of a balanced and
effective national energy policy. Cars and light trucks alone consume 40
percent of the oil used in the US - approximately 8 million barrels per day.
CAFE standards for cars have stagnated for more than a decade and the
standards for popular SUVs have gone virtually unchanged for 20 years. The
average fuel economy of new passenger vehicles sold in 2000 sank to its
lowest point since 1980.
"This country needs energy produced by Americans in America for
America," said Rep. Billy Tauzin of Louisiana. "Secure energy sources
for this country are critical."
Oil from the Alaskan refuge could replace all of our oil from Iraq for
the next 50 years, said Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, the House Republican
whip.
"We can't wait another day," DeLay said at a news conference outside
the Capitol. "The strength of our security, the health of our economy,
rests on expanding our domestic energy supply immediately."
With Senate Democrats in no hurry to pass an energy bill of their own,
House Republicans are trying to apply some pressure.
Terry Turner of the Seafarers International Union was even more
specific. Work on a new Alaskan oil field could provide decades of
work for oil tanker crews and other maritime union members.
Drilling in Alaska "could mean 30 years of solid, good-paying jobs for
American families," he said. "The Senate needs to act. This is a jobs
bill."
A letter Monday from the 11 Republican members of the Senate Energy
Committee suggested that such a bill could be ready for floor action
immediately and on the president's desk before Congress adjourns.
In a sign-of-the-times statement, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chair
of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said yesterday
that his committee would stop work on an energy bill for the rest of
year to avoid "issues that divide, rather than unite us." Prior to
the Sept. 11 attacks, a sweeping energy package was a top
congressional priority; now, broad legislation will probably be
shelved until 2002, although the Senate may consider a more limited
energy security bill. Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), who had hoped
to secure committee approval of a plan to open the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge to drilling, criticized Democrats for closing down
the discussions.
6. The Bush/Cheney Energy Plan
By: Dave Schmenk, Tecumseh Group Energy Issues Coordinator
7. GIVING CLIMATE CHANGE THE BYRD
8. ANWR: Too Wild To Waste
9. Administration Response to the National Academy of Sciences Report on Global Warming
From: 7 Jun 01 New York Times Article--Excerpt
10. TOP OF R&D CHARTS
straight to the source:, Miguel Llanos, 17 Jul 2001
11. MY BONN LIES OVER THE OCEAN
From: 25 Jul 01 Daily Grist
12. NAS FUEL ECONOMY REPORT LARGELY SIDES WITH ENVIRONMENT OVER AUTO
INDUSTRY
From: OHIO TRANSPORTATION ACTIVIST NETWORK: News and Information
13. RENEWED CALLS TO DRILL ALASKA WILDLIFE REFUGE
Washington -- A controversial plan to drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge has become a question of national security
since the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on New York and the Pentagon, a
group of Republican lawmakers said yesterday.
14. Senate Quits work on Energy Bill