Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
"Energy Independence:" A Formula For Attacking Energy Production

"Energy Independence:" A Formula For Attacking Energy Production

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3 |Likes:
Published by James Dellinger
Environmentalist groups want
the new Congress to reject common sense
policies encouraging more domestic energy
production to wean America off foreign energy.
Instead, green groups want to discourage
energy production and consumption of
the most readily available sources: coal, oil
and natural gas, because they generate carbon
dioxide (CO2 ), and nuclear, which produces
no CO2 . For green groups, “energy
independence” seems to mean not depending
on energy! Will the new Congress yield
to their pressures?
Environmentalist groups want
the new Congress to reject common sense
policies encouraging more domestic energy
production to wean America off foreign energy.
Instead, green groups want to discourage
energy production and consumption of
the most readily available sources: coal, oil
and natural gas, because they generate carbon
dioxide (CO2 ), and nuclear, which produces
no CO2 . For green groups, “energy
independence” seems to mean not depending
on energy! Will the new Congress yield
to their pressures?

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: James Dellinger on Jun 14, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/25/2014

pdf

text

original

 
“Energy Independence”
:
 A Formula For Attacking Energy Production
by James Dellinger 
January 2007
CONTENTS
“Energy Independence”: A FormulaFor Attacking Energy Production
Page 1
Briefly Noted
Page 6 
Summary 
: Environmentalist groups want the new Congress to reject common sense policies encouraging more domestic energy production to wean America off foreign en-ergy. Instead, green groups want to discour-age energy production and consumption of the most readily available sources: coal, oil and natural gas, because they generate car-bon dioxide (CO
2
 ), and nuclear, which pro-duces no CO
2
. For green groups, “energyindependence” seems to mean not depend-ing on energy! Will the new Congress yield to their pressures?
G
reen groups say they want public policies that will make the U.S. lessdependent on foreign energysources, but they oppose efforts to produceenergy using the natural resources in the U.S.that are most readily available. What’s wrongwith this picture?At every turn, radical environmental orga-nizations block the creation of a domesticenergy infrastructure for the large-scale en-ergy-generating technologies (e.g. nuclear  power, coal, oil and natural gas) that have been proven cost-effective, efficient, andreliable. Instead, they champion technolo-gies that are not economically feasible with-out massive government subsidies (e.g. so-lar power, wind power). These groups pre-tend to support energy independence evenas they undermine energy development athome.Environmental Defense (ED), the network of Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs),the Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC), the Apollo Alliance, Greenpeace,Earth Island Institute, Defenders of Wildlife,the CERES investors’ network, RainforestAction Network (RAN), and the Sierra Clubare masters of obstruction. Well-connectedand well-funded, their power in Washingtonrests on a base of donors whose utopianvision of America’s future energy needs isradically at odds with the requirements of theAmerican public.Add to this the issue of climate change. For the environmental movement, “global warm-ing” is yet another monkey wrench to throwat domestic energy development projects. If the U.S. is to reduce its imports of foreign oiland its dependence on the Mideast, Venezu-ela and other troubled parts of the world, then policymakers must support the expansion of U.S. coal and nuclear facilities and the devel-opment of America’s own oil and natural gasreserves.America needs hydrocarbon-based fuel. Neither greed nor lust nor addiction explainswhy America runs on coal, oil and naturalgas. The Energy InformationAdministration’s newly released AnnualEnergy Outlook 2007 states:“Despite the projected rapid growth of  biofuels and other non-hydroelectric renew-
Rainforest Action Network is one of several environmentalist groups that espouses“energy independence” while simultaneously opposing all new energy developmentthat actually decreases America’s dependence on foreign energy.
 
O
rganization
Trends
2January 2007
Editor:
Matthew Vadum
Publisher:
Terrence Scanlon
Organization Trends 
is published by Capital ResearchCenter, a non-partisan education andresearch organization, classified bythe IRS as a 501(c)(3) public charity.
Address:
1513 16th Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20036-1480
Phone:
(202) 483-6900
Long-Distance:
(800) 459-3950
E-mail Address:
mvadum@capitalresearch.org
Web Site:
http://www.capitalresearch.org
Organization Trends 
welcomes lettersto the editor.
Reprints
are available for $2.50 prepaidto Capital Research Center.
able energies and the expectation of the firstnew orders for nuclear power plants in over 25 years, oil, coal, and natural gas are none-theless projected to provide roughly the same86% share of the total U.S. primary energysupply in 2030 as they did in 2005…”
What Price “Energy Independence”?
Since the Arab oil embargo of the 1970sAmerican pundits and politicians have tire-lessly urged the nation to end its dependenceon foreign energy sources. The calls for “energy independence” have only grownlouder and more frequent since the terroristattacks of 2001, and they were endorsed byPresident George W. Bush who flatly statedin his 2006 State of the Union address:“America is addicted to oil, which is oftenimported from unstable parts of the world.”Regrettably, environmental groups believethis goal requires job-killing government regu-lations that will inflict long-term damage onthe U.S. economy and reliance on costly andunproven new technologies. Their pie-in-the-sky ideas are expensive and, if imple-mented, would do little to augment U.S. en-ergy supplies. Yet the mainstream mediauncritically echo the views of environmentalgroups that claim America’s energy prob-lems can be solved by installing millions of solar rooftop panels and micro windmills and planting fields of switch grass. Quick to chal-lenge the motives of industry groups, themedia seldom question the green groups thatlobby for higher energy taxes, want limits onindustrial and household carbon emissions,and demand the removal of energy-produc-ing dams said to threaten endangered spe-cies.Labor unions might be expected to rejectthis approach, but they too have bought intothe environmentalist view of “energy inde- pendence.” The AFL-CIO is eager to cementa political coalition against the Bush admin-istration, and unions like the United Steel-workers see prospects for job-creation-andunion-organizing-in many green policy pro- posals. (See the October 2006
 Labor Watch
,“The New Labor-Environmentalist Coalition:Blue and Green and Red All Over,” by RyanEllis, on the strategic alliance between theSierra Club and steelworkers.)In the post 9-11 world, almost every groupclaims to be an advocate for “energy inde- pendence,” but that’s because each definesthe concept to its own benefit.The Apollo Alliance for Good Jobs andClean Energy is an offshoot of the left-winggroup Campaign for America’s Future. Itsadvisory board is peppered with left-liberaland labor-backed officeholders and advo-cates, among them unsuccessful Californiagubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides, NAACP chairman Julian Bond, Steel Work-ers president Leo Gerard and the Sierra Club’sexecutive director, Carl Pope. The Allianceslogan: “Three million new jobs. No depen-dence on foreign oil.”But industrial labor unions, neo-conserva-tive hawks and farm state Republicans havefigured out a way to work together to promote“energy independence,” which they arguewill save the environment, create jobs, pro-tect national security and support agricul-ture.In March 2005 the Apollo Alliance an-nounced that it would conduct “joint efforts”with the conservative-leaning Set AmericaFree Coalition. The Coalition’s members in-clude Frank Gaffney of the Center for Secu-rity Policy, Mideast expert Dr. Daniel Pipes,former CIA director James Woolsey, Repre-sentative Jack Kingston (R-GA), Cliff May of the Foundation for the Defense of Democra-cies, and former Republican presidential can-didate Gary Bauer. However, the Coalitionalso includes former Senators Tom Daschle(D-SD) and Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), andChafee’s successor, Senator SheldonWhitehouse (D-RI). The tag-line for SetAmerica Free is “Cut dependence on foreignoil. Secure America.”Set America Free urges Americans not tosettle for easy answers. When politicians blame Big Oil, voters should tell them that it’sforeign governments that control most oilreserves. And when politicians mouth sup- port for alternative fuels to generate electric-ity, Set America Free urges voters to “remindthem that unlike in the 1970s, today only 2%of U.S. electricity is generated from oil, andthat most of our oil is consumed in the trans- portation sector - a good reason to encour-age plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.”Then there’s the Energy Security Leader-ship Council, a group of retired military offic-ers and corporate chiefs. It issued a state-ment in December calling for significantlytougher CAFE fuel efficiency standards, withthe goal of making America less dependenton foreign oil. The group is co-chaired byformer General P.X. Kelley, who was the top-ranked officer in the U.S. Marine Corps, andFrederick W. Smith, chief executive officer of FedEx Corp.Lawmakers have responded to such calls.In the 109th Congress RepresentativeKingston introduced H.R. 4409, the proposed“Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Se-curity Act,” a bill combining regulations andtax incentives to encourage automakers, farm-ers and consumers to reduce oil consump-tion by 20% in 20 years. In the House, 22 of its 26 original co-sponsors were Republi-cans. Kingston, whose home state is a major  producer of peanuts, also supports using peanuts to produce biodiesel fuel.A companion measure, S. 2025, was intro-duced in the Senate by Indiana DemocratEvan Bayh. Five of its ten Senate co-spon-sors were Republicans, including Alabama’sJeff Sessions, Sam Brownback of Kansas,and Minnesota’s Norm Coleman. Said DeronLovaas of the NRDC, “This bill specifies theends but leaves flexible the means.” He re-gretted that the bill did not mandate the
 
3January 2007
O
rganization
Trends
tightening of CAFE fuel efficiency standards, but added the chilling observation: “Still, it’sa very ambitious mandate, somewhat like theClean Air Act in its breadth and the flexibilityof its interpretation.”But keeping foreign energy out of Americais easier said than done. Despite efforts byOPEC member states to set high energy prices,as tradable commodities hydrocarbons (i.e.oil, natural gas, coal) and other energy re-sources instantly respond to changes insupply and demand in world markets. Advo-cacy groups that support real “energy inde- pendence” will favor public policies that al-low competition between energy sources,domestic and international. They will let themost efficiently priced sources generate buy-ers and sellers.By contrast, the Apollo Alliance, the pri-mary umbrella group for progressives in thisfight, parrots a Malthusian line:“Now America has an Apollo project for the21st century. Today the stakes are much,much higher. We face an economy hemor-rhaging its highest paying and most produc-tive jobs, cities falling apart with over a trilliondollars in unmet public investment in crum- bling schools, transportation, and infrastruc-ture. The middle class is increasingly inse-cure as career ladders are broken and notreplaced in new service sector jobs. And ona global scale we face never before seenenvironmental disruption, rising social ineq-uity, and the emergence of fundamentalistanger that threatens our very security.”
The Green Agenda:No Global Warming, No Nuclear Power
Business groups will have their hands fulldealing with an onslaught of new energylegislation from the Democratic Congress.They are weighing the odds of their adversar-ies’ success and will cut deals to accommo-date green demands. Even Bush Republi-cans are reassessing their positions on theenvironment.Global warming is one issue high on theDemocrats’ agenda. Truman Semans, direc-tor of markets and business strategy at thePew Center on Global Climate Change, toldthe Washington Post that, “at least half adozen of the companies that belong to thecenter’s Business Environmental LeadershipCouncil have recently hired staff membersfocused on global warming.”Bush administration insiders seem ready todo something on global warming as well.GOP pollster Whit Ayres will conduct poll-ing and grassroots operations work for Envi-ronmental Defense, which also has hiredformer Bush communications aide Tucker Eskew. Eskew embraced the green agenda aweek after the election, according to newsreports. “The president has indicated that amarket-based cap [on carbon emissions] ison his list of options. And it’s pretty high onthe list; it’s in second place,” he said.Not surprisingly, former EPA director Chris-tine Todd Whitman is urging the president toturn himself inside-out:“Bush must compromise and the Democratsmust meet him halfway. He has an opportu-nity in the next two years, but voluntary programs are not enough. There should be amandatory cap on emissions. The WhiteHouse has indicated they are willing to talk.The State of the Union address is the way tostate these views. The climate of politics hasto change. The president has an opportunityto work with the new Democratic leaders inCongress,” said Whitman, the former NewJersey governor.California’s Barbara Boxer, who is slated toreplace Oklahoma’s James Inhofe as the newchairman of the Senate Environment andPublic Works Committee, has announcedhearings on global warming and climatechange legislation. She expects her bill willlook much like the law signed by CaliforniaGovernor Arnold Schwarzenegger in Sep-tember. It is supposed to cut carbon emis-sions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, a 25%reduction.Some green groups downplay expectationsfor the incoming Congress. Vicki Arroyo,director of policy analysis at the Pew Center,is cautious. The “incoming two-year Con-gress is relatively moderate,” said Arroyo,and it is “likelier to go for a gradualist ap- proach, implementing climate-friendly lawsthat nibble at President George W. Bush’svoluntary approach on carbon emissionsrather than bulldoze it away completely.”Such a tack “may not be as sweeping as, for example, the EU [carbon] trading system…butit could lay the groundwork for a tradingsystem, for example, by requiring mandatoryreporting of greenhouse gas emissions.”Similarly, the Sierra Club’s Pope warns,“Over the next two years I don’t think envi-ronmental policy is going to change radi-cally.” But he added, “I think the environmen-tal agenda and conversation will change radi-cally.”Nuclear power is another priority issue for many environmental groups, and politiciansare targeting the Indian Point Energy Center,a nuclear power plant that opened in the1970s on the Hudson River in New York state.The plant generates 10% of the state’s elec-tricity.The center’s operating license is currentlyup for renewal with the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, which has provoked 70 groups,including Greenpeace, the Sierra Club andRobert F. Kennedy Jr.’s group Riverkeepers,to form a coalition to shut the plant down.They say Indian Point threatens public safety because it is located only 40 miles from“Ground Zero” in Manhattan and could betargeted by terrorists. The plant, owned byEntergy Corporation, is unnecessary, theysay, pointing to a report by the NationalAcademy of Sciences that claims that shut-ting down the plant would be relatively easyand inexpensive. Representative Nita Lowey(D-NY), who cites the risk that radiation could be released in the event of an accident or 
Environmentalist crusader Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->