THE FORT PLTX

PTXXXXXXXXX LINKS
PTXXXXXXXXX LINKS.........................................................................................................................................................1 ************ALTERNATIVE ENERGY***********...................................................................................................................19 A2: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY LINKSSSSS.......................................................................................................................20 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................21 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................22 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................23 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................24 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................25 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................26 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................27 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................28 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................29 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................30 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................31 ALT ENERGY POP- PUBLIC.............................................................................................................................................32 ALT ENERGY POP- PUBLIC.............................................................................................................................................33 ALT ENERGY POP- PUBLIC.............................................................................................................................................34 ALT ENERGY POP- PUBLIC (AT: ECON).........................................................................................................................35 ALT ENERGY POP- PUBLIC (AT: ECON).........................................................................................................................36 ALT ENERGY POP- PUBLIC (AT: ECON).........................................................................................................................37 ALT ENERGY POP- CONGRESS......................................................................................................................................38 ALT ENERGY UNPOP- PUBLIC (ECON)...........................................................................................................................39 ALT ENERGY UNPOP-PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................40 ALT ENERGY UNPOP- PUBLIC........................................................................................................................................41 ALT ENERGY POP=GOP WIN...........................................................................................................................................42 ALT ENERGY POP=GOP WIN...........................................................................................................................................43 ALT ENERGY POP=GOP WIN...........................................................................................................................................44 ALT ENERGY INCREASES POL CAP...............................................................................................................................45 ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP..........................................................................................................................................46 ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP..........................................................................................................................................47 ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP..........................................................................................................................................48 ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP..........................................................................................................................................49 ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP..........................................................................................................................................50 ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP..........................................................................................................................................51 ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP (LOBBIES)......................................................................................................................52 ALT ENERGY UNPOP........................................................................................................................................................53 ALT ENERGY UNPOP- CONGRESS(OIL= OPPOSITION)...............................................................................................54 ALT ENERGY UNPOP (NO TURNS)..................................................................................................................................55

1

THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY BIPART.......................................................................................................................................................56 ALT ENERGY BIPART.......................................................................................................................................................57 ALT ENERGY BIPART.......................................................................................................................................................58 ALT ENERGY BIPART.......................................................................................................................................................59 ALT ENERGY BIPART.......................................................................................................................................................60 ALT ENERGY BIPART/POP-REPS....................................................................................................................................61 ALT ENERGY PART...........................................................................................................................................................62 ALT ENERGY PART...........................................................................................................................................................63 ALT ENERGY PART...........................................................................................................................................................64 ALT ENERGY PART...........................................................................................................................................................65 ALT ENERGY PART...........................................................................................................................................................66 ALT ENERGY PART...........................................................................................................................................................67 ALT ENERGY PART...........................................................................................................................................................68 ALT ENERGY-CON 2 DEMS..............................................................................................................................................69 ALT ENERGY PART/ COST POL CAP..............................................................................................................................70 ALT ENERGY PART/COST POL CAP...............................................................................................................................71 ALT ENERGY POP-REPS..................................................................................................................................................72 ALT ENERGY POP-REPS..................................................................................................................................................73 ALT ENERGY POP- REPS.................................................................................................................................................74 ALT ENERGY UNPOP-REPS.............................................................................................................................................75 ALT ENERGY UNPOP-REPS.............................................................................................................................................76 ALT ENERGY UNPOP-REPS.............................................................................................................................................77 ALT ENERGY POP-DEMS.................................................................................................................................................78 ALT ENERGY POP-DEMS.................................................................................................................................................79 ALT ENERGY POP-DEMS.................................................................................................................................................80 ALT ENERGY POP-DEMS.................................................................................................................................................81 ALT ENERGY POP-DEMS.................................................................................................................................................82 ALT ENERGY UNPOP-DEMS............................................................................................................................................83 ALT ENERGY UNPOP-OIL.................................................................................................................................................84 ALT ENERGY POP- CONGRESS......................................................................................................................................85 ALT ENERGY POP- CONGRESS......................................................................................................................................86 ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS................................................................................................................................87 ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS................................................................................................................................88 ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS................................................................................................................................89 ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS................................................................................................................................90 ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS................................................................................................................................91 ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS................................................................................................................................92 ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS................................................................................................................................93 ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS................................................................................................................................94 ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS................................................................................................................................95

2

THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP- SWING VOTERS...............................................................................................................................96 ALT ENERGY POP-CHRISTIAN RIGHT............................................................................................................................97 ALT ENERGY POP-MCCAIN.............................................................................................................................................98 ALT ENERGY POP-PELOSI...............................................................................................................................................99 ALT ENERGY POP-LGV..................................................................................................................................................100 ALT ENERGY POP-BUSH................................................................................................................................................101 ALT ENERGY POP– MICHIGAN......................................................................................................................................102 ALT ENERGY POP– COLORADO...................................................................................................................................103 ALT ENERGY POP– EVANGELICALS ...........................................................................................................................104 ALT ENERGY POP– EVANGELICALS............................................................................................................................105 ALT ENERGY POP- EVANGELICALS.............................................................................................................................106 ALT ENERGY POP- EVANGELICALS.............................................................................................................................107 ALT ENERGY POP- HUNTERS.......................................................................................................................................108 ALT ENERGY POP- HUNTERS.......................................................................................................................................109 ALT ENERGY POP- HUNTERS.......................................................................................................................................110 ALT ENERGY POP – COLORADO .................................................................................................................................111 ALT ENERGY POP-COLORADO.....................................................................................................................................112 ALT ENERGY POP- FLORIDA.........................................................................................................................................113 ALT ENERGY POP-FLORIDA..........................................................................................................................................114 ALT ENERGY POP- ARIZONA .......................................................................................................................................115 ALT ENERGY POP- BUSINESSES..................................................................................................................................116 ALT ENERGY = MCCAIN WIN.........................................................................................................................................117 ALT ENERGY = MCCAIN WIN.........................................................................................................................................118 ALT ENERGY= OBAMA WIN...........................................................................................................................................120 ****************BIOFUELS***************.............................................................................................................................121 BIOFUELS BIPART..........................................................................................................................................................122 BIOFUELS POP- PUBLIC................................................................................................................................................123 BIOFUELS POP- PUBLIC................................................................................................................................................124 BIOFUELS POP- PUBLIC................................................................................................................................................125 BIOMASS POP- PUBLIC..................................................................................................................................................126 BIOFUELS POP- CONGRESS.........................................................................................................................................127 BIOFUELS POP- OBAMA................................................................................................................................................128 BIOFUELS POP- BUSH....................................................................................................................................................129 BIOFUELS POP- DEMS...................................................................................................................................................130 BIODIESEL BIPART.........................................................................................................................................................131 BIODIESEL- CON TO DEMS............................................................................................................................................132 BIODIESEL UNPOP- PUBLIC..........................................................................................................................................133 ************BROWNFIELDS*********...................................................................................................................................134 BROWNFIELDS POP- OBAMA........................................................................................................................................135 BROWNFIELDS INCREASES POL CAP.........................................................................................................................136

3

THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS POP- PUBLIC........................................................................................................................................137 BROWNFIELDS POP- ENVIRO.......................................................................................................................................138 BROWNFIELDS BIPART..................................................................................................................................................139 BROWNFIELDS BIPART..................................................................................................................................................140 BROWNFIELDS POP- DEMS...........................................................................................................................................141 BROWNFIELDS POP- USCM...........................................................................................................................................142 BROWNFIELDS POP- LOBBY.........................................................................................................................................143 BROWNFIELDS POP- LOBBY.........................................................................................................................................144 BROWNFIELDS BIPART..................................................................................................................................................145 BROWNFIELDS BIPART..................................................................................................................................................146 BROWNFIELDS POP- LOBBY.........................................................................................................................................147 BROWNFIELDS POP- ENVIRO LOBBY..........................................................................................................................148 BROWNFIELDS UNPOP- CONGRESS............................................................................................................................149 BROWNFIELDS COST POL CAP....................................................................................................................................150 BROWNFIELDS UNPOP..................................................................................................................................................151 BROWNFIELDS UNPOP..................................................................................................................................................152 BROWNFIELDS UNPOP- OIL..........................................................................................................................................153 **************CAFÉ***********..............................................................................................................................................154 CAFE BIPART..................................................................................................................................................................155 CAFE UNPOP- AUTO LOBBIES......................................................................................................................................156 ***************CAP & TRADE***************........................................................................................................................157 CAP POP- PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................................158 CAP POP- REPS..............................................................................................................................................................159 CAP POP- PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................................160 CAP POP- CONGRESS....................................................................................................................................................161 CAP POP- PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................................162 CAP POP- PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................................163 CAP POP..........................................................................................................................................................................164 CAP POP- PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................................165 CAP POP- PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................................166 CAP & TRADE (LIEBERMAN WARNER BILL) POP- PUBLIC.......................................................................................167 CAP & TRADE POP- PUBLIC..........................................................................................................................................168 CAP & TRADE UNPOP- PUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................169 CAP & TRADE-BIPART....................................................................................................................................................170 CAP & TRADE PART.......................................................................................................................................................171 CAP & TRADE POP- UNIONS.........................................................................................................................................172 CAP & TRADE UNPOP- CONGRESS..............................................................................................................................173 CAP & TRADE UNPOP- CONGRESS..............................................................................................................................174 CAP & TRADE UNPOP (ENERGY COSTS).....................................................................................................................175 CAP & TRADE UNPOP- PUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................176

4

THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE UNPOP- PUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................177 CAP & TRADE UNPOP- PUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................178 CAP & TRADE POP- PUBLIC..........................................................................................................................................179 CAP & TRADE POP- PUBLIC..........................................................................................................................................180 CAP & TRADE POP-PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................181 CAP & TRADE BIPART....................................................................................................................................................182 CAP & TRADE UNPOP- REPS........................................................................................................................................183 CAP & TRADE POP- CONGRESS (A2: FIGHTS)............................................................................................................184 CAP & TRADE POP- REPS..............................................................................................................................................185 CAP & TRADE POP- BOTH CANIDATES.......................................................................................................................186 CAP & TRADE UNPOP- REPS........................................................................................................................................187 CAP & TRADE UNPOP- MCCAIN....................................................................................................................................188 CAP & TRADE POP- MCCAIN.........................................................................................................................................189 CAP & TRADE POP- MCCAIN.........................................................................................................................................190 CAP & TRADE POP- OBAMA..........................................................................................................................................191 CAP & TRADE UNPOP- CONGRESS..............................................................................................................................192 CAP & TRADE POP- MCCAIN.........................................................................................................................................193 CAP & TRADE POP- MCCAIN.........................................................................................................................................194 CAP & TRADE UNPOP-REPS.........................................................................................................................................195 CAP & TRADE POP-DEMS..............................................................................................................................................196 CAP & TRADE PART.......................................................................................................................................................197 CAP & TRADE COST POL CAP......................................................................................................................................198 CAP & TRADE UNPOP- CONGRESS.............................................................................................................................199 SAFETY VALVE POP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................200 SAFETY VALVE POP- LOBBIES AND ENVIRO.............................................................................................................201 SAFETY VALVE MEANS NO EFFECT............................................................................................................................202 SAFETY VALVE UNPOP-CONGRESS............................................................................................................................203 UPSTREAM CAP & TRADE UNPOP...............................................................................................................................204 UPSTREAM CAP & TRADE UNPOP- CONGRESS.........................................................................................................205 UPSTREAM CAP & TRADE UNPOP/DWNSTRM POP - CONGRESS...........................................................................206 *********CARBON CAPTURE & STORAGE**********........................................................................................................207 CARBON CAPTURE & STORAGE POP- MCCAIN.........................................................................................................208 *************CLEAN COAL*********....................................................................................................................................209 CLEAN COAL POP- MCCAIN..........................................................................................................................................210 *************EPA***************............................................................................................................................................211 EPA POP- WHITE HOUSE...............................................................................................................................................212 EPA UNPOP- WHITE HOUSE..........................................................................................................................................213 ***************ETHANOL**************.................................................................................................................................214 BRAZILIAN TARIFF- BIPART..........................................................................................................................................215 BRAZILIAN TARIFF PART...............................................................................................................................................216

5

THE FORT PLTX BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP- LOBBIES..........................................................................................................................217 BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................219 BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP- MCCAIN................................................................................................................................220 BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP- MCCAIN................................................................................................................................222 BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP- MCCAIN................................................................................................................................224 BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP- MCCAIN................................................................................................................................225 BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP- BUSH.....................................................................................................................................226 BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP- OBAMA............................................................................................................................227 BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP-MCCAIN/UNPOP- OBAMA....................................................................................................228 BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP-LUGAR...................................................................................................................................229 BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP-FARMS..............................................................................................................................230 BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP- CONGRESS.....................................................................................................................231 BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP- CONGRESS.....................................................................................................................232 BRAZILIAN TARIFF COST POL CAP..............................................................................................................................233 BRAZILIAN TARIFF COST POL CAP..............................................................................................................................234 CELLULOSIC ETHANOL BIPART...................................................................................................................................235 CELLULOSIC ETHANOL POP- CONGRESS..................................................................................................................236 CELLULOSIC ETHANOL POP-BUSH.............................................................................................................................237 CELLULOSIC ETHANOL – LOBBIES SUPPORT...........................................................................................................238 CELLULOSIC ETHANOL – BUSH SUPPORTS...............................................................................................................239 CELLULISTIC ETHANOL POP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................240 CORN ETHANOL POP- PUBLIC......................................................................................................................................241 CORN ETHANOL UNPOP-PUBLIC.................................................................................................................................242 CORN ETHANOL – GOP OPPOSES...............................................................................................................................243 CORN ETHANOL UNPOP- CONGRESS.........................................................................................................................244 CORN ETHANOL – DEMOCRATS ARE SPLIT...............................................................................................................245 CORN ETHANOL UNPOP- MCCAIN...............................................................................................................................247 CORN ETHANOL POP- OBAMA.....................................................................................................................................248 ETHANOL POP- PUBLIC.................................................................................................................................................249 ETHANOL POP-PUBLIC..................................................................................................................................................250 ETHANOL UNPOP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................251 ETHANOL UNPOP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................252 ETHANOL =MCCAIN FLIP FLOP.....................................................................................................................................253 ETHANOL POP- DEMS....................................................................................................................................................254 ETHANOL UNPOP- OBAMA............................................................................................................................................255 ETHANOL BIPART...........................................................................................................................................................256 ETHANOL UNPOP- CONGRESS.....................................................................................................................................257 ETHANOL PART..............................................................................................................................................................258 **************FED BUILDINGS**********.............................................................................................................................259 FED BUILDINGS BIPART/POP-PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................260

6

THE FORT PLTX FED BUILDINGS POP- PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................261 FED BUILDINGS POP- OBAMA......................................................................................................................................262 FED BUILDINGS POP- MCCAIN......................................................................................................................................263 FEMP UNPOP- REPS.......................................................................................................................................................264 **********GAS RATIONING***********................................................................................................................................265 GAS RATIONING UNPOP- DEMS...................................................................................................................................266 **************GEOTHERMAL*************...........................................................................................................................267 GEOTHERMAL BIPART...................................................................................................................................................268 GEOTHERMAL POP-REID...............................................................................................................................................269 GEOTHERMAL POP-DEMS.............................................................................................................................................270 GEOTHERMAL POP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................271 GEOTHERMAL UNPOP- CONGRESS.............................................................................................................................272 GEOTHERMAL UNPOP- REPS.......................................................................................................................................273 GEOTHERMAL UNPOP- BUSH.......................................................................................................................................274 GEOTHERMAL UNPOP- BUSH.......................................................................................................................................275 GEOTHERMAL POP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................276 *************GLOBAL WARMING***********.......................................................................................................................277 GW POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................................278 GW POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................................279 GW POP- RELIGIOUS RIGHT..........................................................................................................................................280 GW UNPOP- OIL LOBBIES..............................................................................................................................................281 ************HEMP**********..................................................................................................................................................282 HEMP POP- PUBLIC........................................................................................................................................................283 HEMP POP- PUBLIC........................................................................................................................................................284 HEMP POP- PUBLIC........................................................................................................................................................285 HEMP POP- PUBLIC........................................................................................................................................................286 HEMP POP- DEMS...........................................................................................................................................................287 HEMP POP- FARMERS....................................................................................................................................................288 HEMP POP- CALI, MONTANA AND ND..........................................................................................................................289 HEMP= CULVER WIN......................................................................................................................................................290 HEMP UNPOP- PUBLIC...................................................................................................................................................291 HEMP COST POL CAP....................................................................................................................................................292 HEMP COST POL CAP....................................................................................................................................................293 HEMP UNPOP- AGENCY.................................................................................................................................................294 HEMP POP- BUSH...........................................................................................................................................................295 HEMP UNPOP- BUSINESS..............................................................................................................................................296 *************HYBRID CARS*********...................................................................................................................................297 SUVS POP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................................298 HYBRID CARS BIPART...................................................................................................................................................299 HYBRID CARS POP- ENVIRO & AUTO LOBBIES..........................................................................................................300

7

THE FORT PLTX HYBRID CARS POP- DEMS.............................................................................................................................................301 ***************HYDROPOWER*************.........................................................................................................................302 HYDROPOWER POP- CONGRESS.................................................................................................................................303 HYDROPOWER POP- REPS............................................................................................................................................304 HYDROPOWER BIPART..................................................................................................................................................305 HYDROPOWER UNPOP- CONGRESS............................................................................................................................306 ************HYDROGEN***********......................................................................................................................................307 HYDROGEN BIPART.......................................................................................................................................................308 HYDROGEN POP- BUSH.................................................................................................................................................309 HYDROGEN POP- BUSH.................................................................................................................................................310 HYDROGEN POP- CONGRESS.......................................................................................................................................311 HYDROGEN POP- MCCAIN.............................................................................................................................................312 HYDROGEN POP- OBAMA..............................................................................................................................................313 HYDROGEN CARS POP- PUBLIC...................................................................................................................................314 HYDROGEN CARS POP- PUBLIC...................................................................................................................................315 **************LCFS*************............................................................................................................................................316 LCFS BIPART/BOTH CANIDATES..................................................................................................................................317 LCFS BIPART...................................................................................................................................................................318 LCFS POP- BOTH CANIDATES......................................................................................................................................319 LCFS PART......................................................................................................................................................................320 LCFS POP- OBAMA.........................................................................................................................................................321 LCFS POP- OBAMA.........................................................................................................................................................322 LCFS POP- DEMS............................................................................................................................................................323 LCFS POP- MCCAIN........................................................................................................................................................324 LCFS POP- MCCAIN........................................................................................................................................................325 LCFS POP- BUSINESS....................................................................................................................................................326 LCFS UNPOP- BUSINESS...............................................................................................................................................327 **********MASS TRANSIT**********....................................................................................................................................328 MASS TRANSIT BIPART.................................................................................................................................................329 MASS TRANSIT BIPART.................................................................................................................................................330 MASS TRANSIT POP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................331 MASS TRANSIT POP- REPS...........................................................................................................................................332 MASS TRANSIT UNPOP- BUSH......................................................................................................................................333 MASS TRANSIT UNPOP- CONGRESS...........................................................................................................................334 MASS TRANSIT UNPOP- REPS......................................................................................................................................335 MASS TRANSIT UNPOP- REPS......................................................................................................................................336 **************MILITARY*********..........................................................................................................................................337 MILITARY UNPOP- ENVIROS..........................................................................................................................................338 MILITARY UNPOP- DOD/LOBBIES/DEMS......................................................................................................................339 MILITARY POP- BUSH.....................................................................................................................................................340

8

THE FORT PLTX MILITARY POP- OBAMA.................................................................................................................................................341 MILITARY POP- MCCAIN.................................................................................................................................................342 MILITARY BIPART...........................................................................................................................................................343 MILITARY BIPART...........................................................................................................................................................344 MILITARY BIPART...........................................................................................................................................................345 DOD BIPART....................................................................................................................................................................346 MILITARY POP- GREEN HAWKS....................................................................................................................................347 DOD PART........................................................................................................................................................................348 DOD UNPOP- LOBBIES...................................................................................................................................................349 DOD POP- OHIO...............................................................................................................................................................350 DOD POP- NEVADA.........................................................................................................................................................351 MILITARY UNPOP- CONGRESS.....................................................................................................................................352 MILITARY POP- REPS.....................................................................................................................................................353 MILITARY UNPOP- OBAMA............................................................................................................................................354 MILITARY UNPOP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................355 MILITARY UNPOP- CONGRESS.....................................................................................................................................356 AIR FORCE POP- PRIVATE LOBBIES............................................................................................................................357 AIR FORCE (CLEAN COAL) UNPOP- ENVIROS............................................................................................................358 AIRFORCE BIPART .......................................................................................................................................................359 AIR FORCE= MCCAIN WIN.............................................................................................................................................360 AIRFORCE POP- OBAMA................................................................................................................................................361 AIRFORCE UNPOP(LOBBIES)........................................................................................................................................362 AIRFORCE BIPART.........................................................................................................................................................363 AIRFORCE UNPOP- OBAMA..........................................................................................................................................364 MILITARY UNPOP- CONGRESS.....................................................................................................................................365 ***************NANOTECH*************...............................................................................................................................366 NANOTECH UNPOP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................367 NANOTECH UNPOP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................368 NANOTECH IS POP- PUBLIC..........................................................................................................................................369 NANOTECH BIPART........................................................................................................................................................370 NANOTECH BIPART/POP- MCCAIN...............................................................................................................................371 NANOTECH UNPOP-CONGESS/POP-MCCAIN.............................................................................................................372 NANOTECH POP- MCCAIN.............................................................................................................................................373 NANOTECH POP- OBAMA..............................................................................................................................................374 NANOTECH BIPART........................................................................................................................................................375 NANOTECH BIPART........................................................................................................................................................376 NANOTECH BIPART........................................................................................................................................................377 NANOTECH BIPART........................................................................................................................................................378 NANOTECH POP- DEMS.................................................................................................................................................379 NANOTECH UNPOP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................380

9

THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH UNPOP- CONGRESS..................................................................................................................................381 NANOTECH POP- PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................382 NANOTECH POP- PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................383 NANOTECH POP- PELOSI..............................................................................................................................................384 NANOTECH UNPOP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................385 NANOTECH UNPOP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................386 NANOTECH UNPOP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................387 **************NATIVES************.......................................................................................................................................388 NATIVES POP- PUBLIC...................................................................................................................................................389 NATIVES POP- BOTH CANIDATES................................................................................................................................390 NATIVES POP- OBAMA...................................................................................................................................................391 NATIVES POP- CONGRESS............................................................................................................................................392 NATIVES UNPOP- CONGRESS.......................................................................................................................................393 NATIVES POP- DEMS......................................................................................................................................................394 NATIVES POP- KYL.........................................................................................................................................................395 NATIVES PART................................................................................................................................................................396 NATIVES = OBAMA WIN.................................................................................................................................................397 NATIVES POP- MONTANA..............................................................................................................................................399 NATIVES POP- OBAMA...................................................................................................................................................400 NATIVES UNPOP-MCCAIN..............................................................................................................................................402 NATIVES POP- DEMS......................................................................................................................................................403 NATIVES UNPOP- REPS ................................................................................................................................................404 PTC PART.........................................................................................................................................................................405 PTC POP- CONGRESS....................................................................................................................................................406 PTC POP- CONGRESS....................................................................................................................................................407 PTC BIPART.....................................................................................................................................................................408 PTC BIPART.....................................................................................................................................................................409 NATIVES BIPART.............................................................................................................................................................410 NATIVES POP- CONGRESS............................................................................................................................................411 NATIVES POP- CONGRESS............................................................................................................................................412 PTC POP- DEMS..............................................................................................................................................................413 PTC POP- DEMS..............................................................................................................................................................414 PTC UNPOP- MCCAIN.....................................................................................................................................................415 PTC UNPOP- MCCAIN.....................................................................................................................................................416 PTC POP- BLUE DOG DEMS..........................................................................................................................................417 *************** NET METERING***************.....................................................................................................................418 NET METERING UNPOP- UTILITY COMPANIES...........................................................................................................419 SMART METER POP- MCCAIN.......................................................................................................................................420 FEED IN TARIFFS POP- MCCAIN...................................................................................................................................421 FEED IN TARIFFS POP- PUBLIC....................................................................................................................................422

10

THE FORT PLTX FEED IN TARIFF UNPOP- PUBLIC.................................................................................................................................423 FEED IN TARIFF COST POL CAP...................................................................................................................................424 FEED IN TARIFF UNPOP- PUBLIC.................................................................................................................................425 WIND & SOLAR UNPOP- MCCAIN..................................................................................................................................426 ***********NIF*************...................................................................................................................................................427 NIF UNPOP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................................428 ****************NUC POWER***************.........................................................................................................................429 LOAN GUARANTEES POP-BUSH..................................................................................................................................430 LOAN GUARANTEES COST POL CAP...........................................................................................................................431 LOAN GUARANTEES POP- CONGRESS.......................................................................................................................432 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................433 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................434 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................435 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................436 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................437 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................438 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................439 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................440 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................441 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................442 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................443 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................444 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................445 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................446 NUC WASTE UNPOP- PUBLIC........................................................................................................................................447 NUC WASTE UNPOP- PUBLIC........................................................................................................................................448 NUC POWER UNPOP- PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................449 NUC POWER UNPOP- PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................450 NUC POWER UNPOP- PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................451 NUC POWER UNPOP- PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................452 NUC POWER UNPOP- PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................453 NUC POWER POP- OBAMA............................................................................................................................................454 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................455 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................456 NUC POWER UNPOP- OBAMA.......................................................................................................................................457 NUC POWER POP- BUSH...............................................................................................................................................458 NUC POWER PART.........................................................................................................................................................459 NUC POWER BIPART......................................................................................................................................................460 NUC POWER BIPART......................................................................................................................................................461 NUC POWER POP- DEMS...............................................................................................................................................462

11

THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER UNPOP- DEMS..........................................................................................................................................463 NUC POWER POP- GOP..................................................................................................................................................464 NUC POWER- PELOSI INDIFFERENT............................................................................................................................465 NUC POWER POP- BOTH CANIDATES..........................................................................................................................466 NUC POWER POP- INHOFE............................................................................................................................................467 NUC POWER POP- OBAMA............................................................................................................................................468 NUC POWER COST POL CAP........................................................................................................................................469 NUC POWER COST POL CAP........................................................................................................................................470 NUC POWER COST POL CAP........................................................................................................................................471 NUC POWER COST POL CAP........................................................................................................................................472 NUC POWER POP- BUSH...............................................................................................................................................473 NUC POWER POP- BUSINESS.......................................................................................................................................475 NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................476 NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................477 NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................478 NUC POWER POP- PRES................................................................................................................................................479 NUC POWER BIPART......................................................................................................................................................480 NUC POWER BIPART......................................................................................................................................................481 NUC POWER POP- DEMS...............................................................................................................................................482 NUC POWER UNPOP- DEMS..........................................................................................................................................483 NUC POWER POP- BUSH...............................................................................................................................................484 NUC POWER POP- OBAMA............................................................................................................................................485 NUC POWER UNPOP- OBAMA.......................................................................................................................................486 NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................487 NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................488 NUC POWER POP- OBAMA............................................................................................................................................489 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................490 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................491 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................492 NUC POWER POP- CONGRESS.....................................................................................................................................493 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC/MCCAIN.............................................................................................................................494 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................495 NUC POWER POP- OBAMA/MCCAIN.............................................................................................................................496 NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................497 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................498 NUC LICENSING POP- MCCAIN.....................................................................................................................................499 NUC POWER UNPOP- DEMS..........................................................................................................................................500 NUC POWER POP- REPS................................................................................................................................................501 NUC POWER POP- FLORIDA..........................................................................................................................................502 NUC POWER POP- MICHIGAN.......................................................................................................................................503

12

THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................504 NUC POWER UNPOP- OBAMA.......................................................................................................................................505 NUC POWER UNPOP- DEMS..........................................................................................................................................506 NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................507 NUC POWER (REPROCESS) POP- CONGRESS...........................................................................................................508 NUC POWER (DRY CASK) POP- CONGRESS...............................................................................................................509 NUC POWER (REPROCESS) UNPOP- CONGRESS......................................................................................................510 GNEP UNPOP- CONGRESS............................................................................................................................................511 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................512 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................513 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................514 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................515 NUC POWER POP- REPS................................................................................................................................................516 NUC POWER POP- CONGRESS.....................................................................................................................................517 NUC POWER POP- PENNSYLVANIA.............................................................................................................................518 NUC POWER POP- MICHIGAN.......................................................................................................................................519 NUC POWER POP-CONGRESS/PUBLIC........................................................................................................................520 NUC POWER= OBAMA WIN............................................................................................................................................521 NUC POWER =MCCAIN LOOSE/UNPOP-NEVADA.......................................................................................................522 NUC POWER POP- PELOSI............................................................................................................................................523 NUC POWER POP- DEMS...............................................................................................................................................524 NUC WASTE UNPOP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................525 NUC WASTE UNPOP- NEVADA......................................................................................................................................526 NUC WASTE UNPOP- REPS...........................................................................................................................................527 NUC WASTE UNPOP- DEMS...........................................................................................................................................528 NUC WASTE UNPOP- DEMS...........................................................................................................................................529 NUC WASTE UNPOP- DEMS...........................................................................................................................................530 NUC WASTE UNPOP- REID............................................................................................................................................531 NUC WASTE UNPOP- ENVIRO.......................................................................................................................................532 NUC POWER UNPOP- PELOSI.......................................................................................................................................533 NUC POWER UNPOP- DEMS..........................................................................................................................................534 NUC POWER POP- DOMENICI........................................................................................................................................535 NUC POWER POP- REPS................................................................................................................................................536 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................537 NUC POWER POP- REPS................................................................................................................................................538 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................539 *****************OCEAN POWER***************...................................................................................................................540 OCEAN ENERGY POP-KLEIN.........................................................................................................................................541 OCEAN ENERGY POP- DEMS........................................................................................................................................542 OCEAN ENERGY UNPOP- MCCAIN...............................................................................................................................543

13

THE FORT PLTX DEEP OCEAN POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................544 DEEP OCEAN POWER UNPOP- DEMS..........................................................................................................................545 OTEC UNPOP...................................................................................................................................................................546 OTEC UNPOP...................................................................................................................................................................547 ***********OFFSHORE DRILLING************.....................................................................................................................548 OFFSHORE DRILLING POP- PUBLIC.............................................................................................................................549 *************OIL D**********.................................................................................................................................................550 OIL D UNPOP ..................................................................................................................................................................551 OIL D UNPOP-PUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................................552 OIL D UNPOP-PUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................................553 OIL D UNPOP-PUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................................554 OIL D UNPOP-PUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................................555 OIL D UNPOP- PUBLIC....................................................................................................................................................556 ****************OIL SHALES**************...........................................................................................................................557 OIL SHALES POP-REPS..................................................................................................................................................558 ************PATENTS**********...........................................................................................................................................559 PATENTS KILL OBAMA..................................................................................................................................................560 COURT DECISIONS PERCEIVED...................................................................................................................................561 COURT DECISIONS PERCEIVED...................................................................................................................................563 ********REG NEG********....................................................................................................................................................565 REG NEG POP- CONGRESS/BUSH................................................................................................................................566 REG NEG POP- OBAMA..................................................................................................................................................567 REG NEG UNPOP- REPS................................................................................................................................................568 *************RFS**************..............................................................................................................................................569 RFS POP- PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................................570 CORN ETHANOL RFS POP- PUBLIC.............................................................................................................................571 ***************RPS*************** ........................................................................................................................................572 RPS POP- CONGRESS....................................................................................................................................................573 RPS BIPART.....................................................................................................................................................................574 RPS BIPART.....................................................................................................................................................................575 RPS BIPART.....................................................................................................................................................................576 RPS BIPART.....................................................................................................................................................................577 RPS POP- ENVIRO LOBBIES..........................................................................................................................................578 RPS UNPOP- BOUCHER.................................................................................................................................................579 RPS UNPOP- CONGRESS...............................................................................................................................................580 RPS UNPOP- CONGRESS...............................................................................................................................................581 RPS UNPOP- COAL LOBBIES........................................................................................................................................582 RPS POP- BOTH CANIDATES........................................................................................................................................583 RPS POP- OBAMA...........................................................................................................................................................584 RPS POP- MCCAIN..........................................................................................................................................................585

14

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................UTILITIES...........................................................................................610 RPS UNPOP............625 15 ........................................................................................599 RPS COSTS POL CAP.............OHIO.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................614 SOLAR POP-CONGRESS (STRONG LOBBIES).....................................................................................................................................................................................605 RPS UNPOP-DEMS.....................................................................................................................................597 RPS UNPOP..........................................................606 RPS UNPOP-BOUCHER/DEMS...................................................................................................................................................................................................................REPS........................................623 SOLAR POP-PUBLIC................................................................................................................................................................................624 SOLAR POP-PUBLIC...................608 RPS UNPOP...........................591 RPS BIPART................................................................................................................................613 ***************SOLAR POWER***************............................................CONGRESS..................................615 SOLAR UNPOP-CONGRESS (WEAK LOBBIES).......................................................................607 RPS UNPOP-DOMENICI.............................................................................611 RPS UNPOP-INDUSTRY LOBBIES....................................................................THE FORT PLTX RPS – CONTROVERSIAL IN CONGRESS......................................................................................................................................622 SOLAR POP-PUBLIC..PUBLIC.......................................590 RPS POP........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................586 RPS COST POL CAP.........................................................................600 RPS POP......................................................................................................587 RPS COST POL CAP................................................PUBLIC......................................................................................................................................604 RPS UNPOP..........................................................................617 SOLAR POP=PUBLIC..................................594 RPS POP-ENVIRO LOBBIES.........................................................................................OBAMA........609 RPS UNPOP.........................................................................................616 SOLAR POP=PUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................................................................................620 SOLAR POP-PUBLIC.......................................................................................................603 RPS UNPOP-CONGRESS..........................................................602 RPS POP........588 RPS UNPOP...........................................CONGRESS.....................................................................................................................598 RPS POP – COLORADO...................................................................................................595 RPS POP...............................................................................................................................................................................................................618 SOLAR POP-PUBLIC.............................................................601 RPS POP.............................................................................PUBLIC..............................................CONGRESS...............................................................................................................................................................BUSH.......CONGRESS.........................621 SOLAR POP-PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................592 RPS BIPART................................................................OBAMA......................................................................BUSH..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................589 RPS POP..612 RPS POP....................................596 RPS POP...........................................................................619 SOLAR POP-PUBLIC...............................................................................................................................593 RPS – DEMOCRATS SUPPORT...................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................635 SOLAR POP=DEMS....CALIFORNIA.............................................................................................................645 SOLAR UNPOP-REPS.......................THE FORT PLTX SOLAR POP-PUBLIC...................649 SOLAR UNPOP-REPS.............................................................................................................................................633 SOLAR BIPART..................................................................................................................................628 SOLAR BIPART.........................................REPS................................................................................................................................661 SOLAR UNPOP-PUBLIC................655 SOLAR POP.....................................................................665 16 ...............................................................................................................626 SOLAR POP................................................................................................................................634 SOLAR = PART (UNPOP WITH REPS)...................................................................................................MCCAIN...........................................................SEN REID....................................637 SOLAR UNPOP=REPS (OIL)..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................650 SOLAR UNPOP(LINES).............................................639 SOLAR POP..............................................................................................................................................................................646 SOLAR UNPOP-MCCAIN................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................629 SOLAR BIPART..........................................................................................................................................................................627 SOLAR BIPART........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................CONGRESS...............................................................................................................636 SOLAR POP=BUSH ...........................................................................................................................630 SOLAR BIPART................................................660 SOLAR POP-PUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................................................652 SOLAR BIPART...........................................................................................................................................PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................................................................................................643 SOLAR POP.........................................638 SOLAR UNPOP-REPS...............................656 SOLAR POP...................................................................................................................................................................................................654 SOLAR POP-FLORIDA..............................................................................................................................................................................................OBAMA.....640 SOLAR UNPOP=CONGRESS......................641 SOLAR ENERGY – BUSH SUPPORTS................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................653 SOLAR POP.............................................................................657 SOLAR POP-REPS...............................................................632 SOLAR BIPART.................................................................................................................................................651 SOLAR POP......................................................642 SOLAR POP.......................................................................663 SOLAR POP-BUSH...............................................................................................................FLORIDA...............TEXAS........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................SEN REID...........................................662 SOLAR UNPOP-LOBBIES.........................................................................................647 SOLAR POP-OBAMA....................................644 SOLAR POP...............................648 SOLAR POP..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................664 SOLAR POP-MCCAIN..........................................................................631 SOLAR BIPART...........659 SOLAR POP-REPS.............................................................658 SOLAR UNPOP-REPS......................

............................................699 TAX INCENTIVES UNPOP-REPS........................................................................................................PUBLIC..................................684 SPS POP...............................................................................................................................................691 NASA UNPOP...............................................................................................................................................................................................................687 SPS POP.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................OBAMA..........................................................................................................................................................673 SPS POP..................CONGRESS..689 NASA POP...........................................................................................................................................................................700 TAX INCENTIVES BIPART...................................................................................................................................................................PUBLIC...............................................MILITARY.........................................................................................669 SPS POP........................................................................................OBAMA.....................................................................................................PUBLIC.................................................................................................................................................LOBBIES...............701 TAX INCENTIVES PART......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................703 TAX INCENTIVES UNPOP..........................................................674 SPS BIPART....................................................................696 TAX INCENTIVES POP.........................................................................................................MCCAIN.......................................................................................671 SPS UNPOP.................................................................690 NASA UNPOP.678 SPS UNPOP..............................................................................................................................................................................679 SPS COST POL CAP............................................................................................................................................................................................................REPS....................................................697 TAX INCENTIVES POP.....................698 TAX INCENTIVES POP-PELOSI...............................................................................................................685 SPS NOT PERCEIVED.....................................CONGRESS...........................................CONGRESS........................................................675 SPS UNPOP..........................702 TAX INCENTIVES POP....................................................705 17 ......................................................................PUBLIC.....................CONGRESS............................................................................................................................................................THE FORT PLTX SOLAR POP-DEMS...............................................................................676 SPS UNPOP............................................................................................................................................................670 SPS POP....................693 NASA PART......................................................................................................................................................CONGRESS...................682 SPS COST POL CAP...................................................................................................................................................................................668 SPS POP...................................................................................................................................................677 SPS UNPOP................................................................................................................................PUBLIC...................................................683 SPS POP.................................686 SPS POP.......................680 SPS COST POL CAP..............................................CONGRESS.......... UNPOP.......................................................................................................667 ************SPS***********..............................................................692 NASA BIPART.........................................................................................................672 SPS POP.........................704 **********TYPES***********.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................695 ***************TAX INCENTIVES***************..................CONGRESS...........688 NASA NOT PERCEIVED....................................................694 NASA UNPOP.....................OBAMA........................................CONGRESS.....................................................681 SPS COST POL CAP.............................CONGRESS..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................666 SOLAR BIPART..................................................................................................................................................................................................................PUBLIC..................CONGRESS.......................................................................................................

..............................................................................................................................710 TAXING UNPOP............................FLORIDA................................718 WIND POP..........................CONGRESS...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................MCCAIN..........................................725 WIND UNPOP.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................BUSH................................................717 WIND POP.........................................................................................715 WIND POP..........................................................................................................727 WIND POP..........CONGRESS......THE FORT PLTX INCENTIVES POP..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................719 WIND BIPART.........PUBLIC....................................................................................................................708 REGULATIONS UNPOP...........716 WIND POP........................................................................706 PROCUREMENT POP..................714 WIND POP..................................712 VOLUNTARY ACTION POP...............................................................................................................................................................................................................713 *************WIND************..................................724 WIND UNPOP...............................................PUBLIC..............................................................DEMS...................................................726 WIND UNPOP..............................CONGRESS................................MCCAIN.........................729 WIND= CON 2 LOBBIES.....................................................723 WIND UNPOP..................................................................CONGRESS.CONGRESS.......PUBLIC................CONGRESS.....................................................................................................................................PUBLIC.........728 WIND POP..................722 WIND POP....................................................................................................................PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................711 VOLUNTARY ACTION POP.............................720 WIND PART.....................................................................721 WIND POP.....................................PUBLIC.................................................PUBLIC...............................................PUBLIC.............................................CONGRESS........CONGRESS........................................730 18 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................707 MANDATORY ACTION POP...................................709 COMMAND & CONTROL UNPOP.................................

THE FORT PLTX ************ALTERNATIVE ENERGY*********** 19 .

29 Energy L.THE FORT PLTX A2: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY LINKSSSSS Their “alternative energy popular” cards don’t apply – general popularity doesn’t translate into support for specific policies Fershee. The best methods for promoting and providing renewable energy . including the status quo. of course. If desired. lexis) Public support.S. as well.are issues in search of a solution. for renewable energy. 08 – assistant professor of law at the University of North Dakota (Joshua. But those risks face any energy policy. and perhaps long-term expense. ENERGY INDUSTRY”. does not translate into national support for a particular program. policy. That does not mean it would not require significant upfront expense. J. 49. “CHANGING RESOURCES. though.and who should pay for it . or fuel source. and even support from individual utilities. CHANGING MARKET: THE IMPACT OF A NATIONAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD ON THE U. Ultimately. a national RPS can be efficiently and effectively implemented. renewable energy has moved well beyond the theoretical stages. 20 .

tax cuts for companies to develop these alternative energy sources (78/18).americanprogress. According to Democratic pollsters Greenberg. 2007. What the Public Really Wants on Energy and the Environment.html The public’s especially strong interest in developing alternative energy sources is well-illustrated by a finding in a July. and increasing federal funding for research on ethanol (67/22). relaxing environmental standards for oil and gas drilling (20 percent). my evidence is comparative Teixeira 7 Ruy Teixeira. solar and hydrogen technology (82/14).org/thepriceofoil/clean-energy These energy subsidies are completely out of step with a nation that now broadly accepts the need to end our collective “oil addiction”. Independents. Democrats. March 5.americanprogress.americanprogress. http://priceofoil.html Americans want freedom and self sufficiency from our energy policies. The LAT poll asked respondents to choose the best way among a number of options for reducing U. 2006 Los Angeles Times poll. the public strongly supported the following proposals to address America’s energy supply: requiring better auto fuel efficiency (86 percent for/12 percent against). They see clean energy as a path to economic growth and new jobs. way ahead of the next most popular option.” Americans overwhelmingly support alternative energy Podesta 7 John Podesta. April 18. If the political will exists. Americans want accountability. alternative energy.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC Alternative Energies massively popular Oil Change International. Public has strong support for alternative energy. they believe we can do anything. Center for American Progress. Center for American Progress. Daniel J. reliance on foreign oil. More than half the respondents (52 percent) chose government investment in alternative energy sources. hybrids.org/issues/2007/03/wtprw. They want their leaders to show they will do the right thing. put money to Good use and act accordingly themselves. Laura Nichols. 2007. in the tradition of our “can-do” spirit. higher mileage standards. 2006 Pew poll where 85 percent agreed that America was “addicted” to oil. 2007. which was followed by requiring stricter mileage standards for cars (eight percent) and more nuclear power plants (six percent 21 . What the Public Really Wants on Energy and the Environment. Americans overwhelmingly support vigorous standards for clean alternative energy technologies and better mileage. “the public overwhelmingly supports the development of alternative energy. In the February. Quinlan and Rosner. believe we should be leading the world in clean. increasing federal funding for research on wind.org/issues/2007/03/wtprw. March 5. and Republicans believe the evidence of global warming is now clear and only strengthens the case for immediate action on energy independence. and. http://www. Alternative energies popular with the public-polls prove Teixeira 7 Ruy Teixeira.S. Blocking Alternatives. Americans Urgently Want Action on Energy Independence and Global Warming.org/issues/2007/04/environment_poll. They also support a cap and reduction on global warming pollution. downloaded 6-23-2008. Weiss. http://www. rail and bus systems (68/27). http://www. Americans. spending more on subway. and incentives to produce more energy-efficient appliances. Center for American Progress.html But attitudes are more positive toward proposals that would actively promote energy conservation and the development of alternative energy sources.

However. so this measure can become law and consumers and producers can begin to enjoy the benefits of more homegrown renewable fuels. agriculture groups. one or more Democrat Senators have placed an anonymous hold on this non-controversial bill. Despite this widespread support. biodiesel and other home-grown renewable fuels for all Americans. I hope my colleagues will drop their objections when I reintroduce this bill next Congress. These additional pumps would give consumers greater opportunities to opt for cleaner. US Fed News.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC Increasing access to alternative energy fuels is popular-Alternative Fuel Grant Program proves Thune 06. I have been working on ways to continue the growth of South Dakota's alternative fuels industry. Republican Senator from South Dakota. 22 . However. which will ultimately have a positive impact on our state's economy. it seems this bill will not be able to be sent to the President until next year at the earliest because of these secret holds on this common-sense. With the election season behind us. would provide grants (up to $30. Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike have stressed the need to enhance renewable energy research and provide consumers with more diverse energy options so America can become less dependent on foreign sources of oil. The Alternative Fuel Grant Program would address this serious gap in the distribution system. Out of 180.000 independently owned gas stations. compressed natural gas.000) to gas stations owners for the installation of alternative fuel pumps. With the backing of nearly every Democrat in the House. and countless renewably energy and agriculture groups. a majority of Democrats in the Senate. and the time for progress is now. just over 1. for the past four months I've met resistance with some Senate Democrat colleagues on a measure that would greatly increase access to ethanol. the time for partisan politics has passed. it leaves me to believe the hold-up of the Alternative Fuel Grant Infrastructure Program is purely politically motivated. The Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Grant Program.000 of them (less than 1 percent) offer alternative fuels such as E-85 ethanol. The legislation has wide bipartisan support in the Senate. which prevents the full Senate from passing this common-sense legislation. 12-8-2K6 (John. Home Grown Energy Held Up By Politics. our farmers and American consumers across the country. which I introduced with Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) and other Republicans and Democrats. was cleared by the relevant Senate committees.9. hydrogen and other alternative fuels. bipartisan legislation. The remarkable progress our state has made in the renewable energy arena has helped to transform South Dakota's agriculture industry and given our family farmers a market to sustain and enhance their way of life. Our nation's automakers have put more than 9 million alternative fuel vehicles on the road . bio-diesel. ln) GRodarte I recently had the opportunity to attend a groundbreaking ceremony for a new ethanol plant in Loomis-yet another impressive addition to South Dakota's budding alternative fuels industry. overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 355 . and enjoys the support of the nation's leading automakers. including E-85 ethanol. The missing link? Availability. and alternative energy organizations. American-grown sources of energy.close to 6 million of which are flex fuel vehicles that can run on E-85 ethanol or gasoline. In Congress.

2007. way ahead of the next most popular option. hybrids. According to Democratic pollsters Greenberg. 2007. Center for American Progress. They also support a cap and reduction on global warming pollution. reliance on foreign oil. http://www. spending more on subway. 2006 Los Angeles Times poll. and increasing federal funding for research on ethanol (67/22). http://www. Alternative energies popular with the public Teixeira 7 Ruy Teixeira. higher mileage standards. http://www. Weiss. March 5. Independents. March 5. More than half the respondents (52 percent) chose government investment in alternative energy sources. Blocking Alternatives. What the Public Really Wants on Energy and the Environment.org/issues/2007/04/environment_poll. tax cuts for companies to develop these alternative energy sources (78/18). 2006 Pew poll where 85 percent agreed that America was “addicted” to oil. my evidence is comparative Teixeira 7 Ruy Teixeira. alternative energy. “the public overwhelmingly supports the development of alternative energy.html Americans want freedom and self sufficiency from our energy policies. The LAT poll asked respondents to choose the best way among a number of options for reducing U.S.org/thepriceofoil/clean-energy These energy subsidies are completely out of step with a nation that now broadly accepts the need to end our collective “oil addiction”. in the tradition of our “can-do” spirit. and Republicans believe the evidence of global warming is now clear and only strengthens the case for immediate action on energy independence. solar and hydrogen technology (82/14). downloaded 6-23-2008. In the February. which was followed by requiring stricter mileage standards for cars (eight percent) and more nuclear power plants (six percent 23 .THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC Alternative Energies massively popular Oil Change International.” Americans overwhelmingly support alternative energy Podesta 7 John Podesta. and.americanprogress.html But attitudes are more positive toward proposals that would actively promote energy conservation and the development of alternative energy sources. Center for American Progress. Laura Nichols. and incentives to produce more energy-efficient appliances. Quinlan and Rosner. http://priceofoil. Public has strong support for alternative energy. If the political will exists.org/issues/2007/03/wtprw. relaxing environmental standards for oil and gas drilling (20 percent). Democrats. Americans. rail and bus systems (68/27). They want their leaders to show they will do the right thing. Center for American Progress. They see clean energy as a path to economic growth and new jobs.org/issues/2007/03/wtprw. Americans want accountability.americanprogress. April 18. increasing federal funding for research on wind.americanprogress. 2007.html The public’s especially strong interest in developing alternative energy sources is well-illustrated by a finding in a July. Americans overwhelmingly support vigorous standards for clean alternative energy technologies and better mileage. they believe we can do anything. believe we should be leading the world in clean. the public strongly supported the following proposals to address America’s energy supply: requiring better auto fuel efficiency (86 percent for/12 percent against). Americans Urgently Want Action on Energy Independence and Global Warming. What the Public Really Wants on Energy and the Environment. put money to Good use and act accordingly themselves. Daniel J.

Nearly nine in 10 (88%) feel that in 10 years. while just 23% feel that enough new oil will be found. More than three in four (76%) believe that their government should make long term plans to replace oil as a primary source of energy.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC Massive public support for alternate energy – new polls prove Marshall E.worldpublicopinion. 6/11/08 The American public believes the time is now to reduce energy usage and reduce the impacts of climate change. Director.pdf) Of all countries polled. http://www. Overwhelming public support for alternate energy – perceive inaction now Kull. American Institute of Architects." In addition. Reducing energy use in our nation's homes would be a major step towards that goal. CQ Testimony.org. The Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners recently conducted a nationwide poll of voters and found that 74 percent of those polled agreed that "the government should take the lead in promoting real estate development that conserves our natural resources. 71 percent of voters agreed that "the government should immediately put into effect new energy policies that drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. World Public Opinion. the cost of oil will be much (63%) or somewhat higher (25%) than it is now. 4/17/08 (Stephen. Americans are the most negative about their government’s performance in making efforts to replace oil as a primary energy source.org/pipa/pdf/apr08/WPO_Oil_Apr08_pr. Purnell President. and believes that it is in the best interests of our nation and the world to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel produced energy and move towards a sustainable future. while just 41% believe it is making plans on the assumption that oil will need to replaced as a primary energy source." The American public supports conserving our precious resources. 24 . A majority (57%) says that the US government is acting based on the assumption that enough new oil will be found.

March 6) However. Democrats and independents support tougher auto fuel standards. solar and hydrogen technology. 47% for gas. “New Report Finds Majority of Americans Want Solar Power. 25% for nuclear. According to the survey. Sixty-three percent of those receiving the survey questionnaire completed it. support development and funding of solar energy. 41 percent of Americans picked solar. According to the study. there continues to be substantial agreement across partisan lines on several areas of energy policy. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVES ARE POPULAR AMONG THE PUBLIC Electrtic Light and Power Magazine. should be a major priority of the federal government. across all political parties. compared with 79% for hydro. 2008 (Electric Light and Power Magazine and Utilitu Automation & Engineering T&D Magazine (Joint Website). Democrats (72 percent) and Independents (74 percent) favor an extension of the federal investment tax credits (ITC) as a way to encourage development of solar power and fund continued development of the technology. a survey conducted by the polling firm Kelton Research. 25 . only 8 percent of Americans believe the ITC should not be extended. a very high percentage.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC PUBLIC STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ENERGY Grey. 22% for wood. such as wind. Eighty-six percent of Independents supported the statement. and about 80% in each group favor more federal funding for research into alternative energy sources. Of those responding. ninety-one percent of Republicans. and other renewable energy sources. 2008 (“Public Sends Mixed Signals on Energy Policy”. In contrast. 6% for coal.. Solar and wind together were favored nearly 20 times more than coal (3 percent). Roughly 90% of Republicans. AWEA Communications Director. 89% said they would like to see increased use of wind energy. MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Pew Research Center for People and the Press. June 19) A recent poll has found that a majority of Americans. “Wind Energy Views on the Environment: CLean and Green”) The Vermont survey was mailed to a random sample of residents in the town of Searsburg. The findings were reported in the SCHOTT Solar Barometer. When asked which one energy source they would support if they were president. 53% for municipal waste. The survey revealed that 77 percent of Americans feel that the development of solar power. and 5% for oil. 2001 (Thomas O. 97 percent of Democrats and 98 percent of Independents agree that developing solar power is vital to the United States. where a 6-megawatt wind farm was planned (and has since been built). nearly three-quarters of Republicans (72 percent).

26 . “Poll Finds Majority See Threat in Global Warming”. They also are nearly evenly split on building nuclear power plants to reduce reliance on imported energy sources. which is now made largely from corn. 59 percent to 36 percent. Americans broadly support using renewable energy sources like solar and wind power and say fueling vehicles with ethanol.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC MASSIVE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Broder and Connelly. they said no. is a good idea. When asked whether they would accept a nuclear plan in their community. and Marjorie. the survey found. New York times. 2007 (John M. April 26) The poll also found that Americans want the United States to support conservation and to be a global leader in addressing environmental problems and developing alternative energy sources to reduce reliance on fossil fuels like oil and coal.

The plant. The state of Ohio helped lure the plant. In return for the jobs and home-grown fuel supply..500 construction and 200 full-time jobs to impoverished eastern Ohio.is complex. 27 ." said the president and chief executive of Baard Energy. More importantly. In addition. While conservative Republicans see more drilling as the best answer to America's oil needs and liberal Democrats want to focus on wind. is just a happy coincidence. since coal mining is also a staple of his home state. That Baard's plant will be in Ohio. is an irresistible draw for the 2008 presidential hopefuls. but John Baardson knows the scent of alternative energy and undecided voters will lure America's presidential contenders before long.000 tons of coal a day will be liquefied into fuel suitable for use in jets and trucks . Baard wants the government to offer loan guarantees and Air Force fuel contracts. this is something you can give them . some 18.adding an estimated 750 mining jobs to the mix. the votes he gets could make the difference.even if he loses. I think at this stage it's a challenge for Obama but he doesn't have to carry it . but the economy is in lousy shape so Democrats should be able to connect. solar and biofuels. "McCain has already called and expressed interest. "Right now Obama has the more difficult challenge in this region than McCain. "The politics are fascinating. "We want to drive home the point that if you want the voters in this area. the price of oil is the number one issue out there and we have a clean solution. Bush 2004 election victory that could once again help determine the outcome of this election. Moderates on both sides have found something to like about Baard's coal-to-liquid plant." The plant will bring at least 1. and we believe Obama will too. an economically depressed but culturally conservative region that supported rival Hillary Clinton in the Democratic nominating process. With oil at $130 a barrel and gasoline at $4 a gallon. but the state is considered too close to call. But whether that will be enough to win over voters concerned about his race or reputation as a liberal elite is not clear. analysts believe embracing coal-to-liquid technologies and others like it may offer Obama a way to win over white working class voters in the area." Polls show Obama with a small lead over McCain in Ohio. 7/23/08. Obama has a track record of supporting coal.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC Alternative Energies are popular with the public China Daily." said Herb Asher.which supplies about 50 percent of America's energy needs . which is mostly privately funded. Before Americans go to the polls in November to choose Republican John McCain or Democrat Barack Obama to be the next US president. which gasifies woodwaste and coal and captures and sequesters about 85 percent of the resultant carbon dioxide emissions in the region's coal beds. the politically critical state in President George W. Illinois. the politics of coal .. and McCain and Obama have both sought to portray themselves as proponents of cheaper alternatives. energy and the economy has vaulted to the top of the political agenda. with tax incentives.only 10 percent of (Ohio's) vote but it can move back and forth." Baardson said. 08 (“Alternative energy popular stop in presidential campaign”.000 barrels a day of diesel and jet fuel. "It's an important area . Baardson plans to break ground on a $6 billion plant in Wellsville that will turn Appalachian coal into 53. a professor of political science at Ohio State University. Lexis) A small green clearing on a hilltop beside the Ohio River doesn't seem like much of campaign stop. designed to produce fuel that costs just $60 to $70 a barrel with 46 percent fewer emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than conventional diesel fuels.

"It is very exciting. has brought in more than $77.5 million to $2 million for candidates. In the meantime. Sierra Club Political Director Cathy Duvall said the group plans to raise $1. who have made clean energy a top priority for their well-established PACs." Resch said in the annual report.D.000 and intends to contribute to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif." The solar PAC's main fundraiser. "I also think people are very skeptical of current energy special interests. who are key wind supporters.com. has doubled since the 2004 campaigns. brought in $21. "At fundraisers and receptions. according to the latest FEC reports. according to the Federal Election Commission. "Fundraising for pro-solar candidates has become the new business imperative for solar industry executives. "I certainly think renewable energy will have a huge impact." 28 . Gregory Wetstone. but frustrating at times because we are so small. RenewPAC. PAC leaders are attributing the growth to the public's increasing interest in global warming and lawmakers' failure to extend tax credits for solar and wind power." And there are even bigger developments on the horizon. "We're all getting into political fundraising. "The popularity of renewable energy is very appealing to the American public. One prime target is Sen. The number of alternative energy production PACs. already considered an industry leader in its first two years.almost three times what the solar trade group raised altogether in the 2006 cycle. "I think it will be a record-breaking year for us. Many groups are also heading regional campaigns to unseat local members of Congress who have voted against clean energy bills.000 so far this election cycle . Headed by SunPower Corp. is expected to be led by clean-tech investors and businesspeople." Duvall said. the industry as a whole is showing signs of more influence. solar should be ubiquitous and on the minds of key lawmakers. will be the first industry-wide PAC for the clean energy sector. set to launch later this year. Wind power capacity has increased dramatically and we see our political activity accelerating. WindPAC has partnered with PPM Energy's new PAC to throw fundraisers for both senators. A lobbying boost for renewables may come from the greens. representing a handful of energy sources." said AWEA's senior director of legislative affairs. PPM Energy's PAC has raised at least $20. PACs "like these will continue to make energy and environment a lead issue into November. The oil industry has ramped up its lobbying this year after the House voted to transfer $18 billion of its tax credits to solar and wind producers.H. which include a number of renewable energy companies and trade associations.)." Experts believe the combination could give the budding clean-tech sector additional clout in this fall's elections. SunEdison and other big names in the solar industry. according to its annual fundraising report. being established by Renewable Energy for America. The PAC. I think eventually we will be a much bigger industry participant and be much bigger players in the political process.) and other congressional supporters of solar energy." said association President Rhone Resch. For example. a cocktail reception at the Solar Power Conference & Expo. "We're growing dramatically. many of Washington's energy interests are wondering whether the modest fundraisers can match the long-running influence of the oil and nuclear industries. the PAC wants to raise at least $100. and we're all getting to know candidates. These groups have contributed a combined $300.) and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee member Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). has raised nearly $50. John Sununu (R-N." The American Wind Energy Association's WindPAC." said PPM Energy Treasurer Richard Glick. 3/17/08 Renewable energy groups are hatching a growing number of political action committees in an expanding effort to boost their political clout.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC Public supports alt energies Politico.. "Two years ago. but almost every year is. The Solar Energy Industries Association's PAC. "Quite simply.000 to 2008 candidates so far this year." Expeditious growth has PAC leaders moving away from low-budget coffee fundraisers to planning upscale cocktail parties with leading renewable energy advocates such as Senate Energy Subcommittee Chairman Byron Dorgan (D-N.000 last year. The association is planning several additional fundraisers this year and is expanding its donor list.000 this cycle and organized several lobbying days for wind energy supporters. an energy researcher and policy expert at the University of California. according to the Center for Responsive Politics. pro-solar agenda while battling the resurgence of nuclear energy. one of the oldest renewable energy PACs. 2008 is critical for the growth of SEIA PAC. While many of the PAC fundraising numbers are small. the Sierra Club this year has largely focused on pushing a pro-wind. And the resurging nuclear industry is competing to become the top energy replacement for fossil fuels. Berkeley.000. that sum was zero." said Daniel Kammen.

and are contributing to expensive prices at the pump to the demise of soccer moms and middle Americans everywhere. The other party will emphasize national security and economic security concerns. imports from Saudi Arabia. This is roughly the same amount the U. environmental reasons. when the game is on. Six days out of the week. we will hear about some "villains" concerning our energy policies. solar and hydrogen technology. and ethanol can be produced at up to $0. 72 percent support increasing funding for mass transit. On Saturday or Sunday.S. Roughly 90% of Republicans. presidential elections. and about 80% in each group favor more federal funding for research into alternative energy sources. 2008 (“Public Sends Mixed Signals on Energy Policy”. and almost the same amount we import from Venezuela. but for perhaps different reasons. blood-thirsty beasts. A poll released late last week by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed that 90 percent of voters -. that the discussion can be distorted beyond any form of cognitive reality-and send us into the stratosphere of ideological derision. Europe and Asia. biofuels will win.S. and other countries have created an internet-like investment frenzy. such as wind. ethanol and biodiesel. Next year. Voting for your team D or R is analogous to soccer-hooliganism or fighting for your favorite football team. The decline was especially pronounced among Republican voters.S. it also showed a gap between the parties on issues such as nuclear power and tax cuts for oil companies. carnivorous. A majority of voters -. Petroleum Tax Biofuels production tax incentives by the U.also supported increased funding for ethanol research. Additionally. So leading up to the 2008 U. March 6) However.renewableenergyworld. Each of these countries have the potential to disrupt the U. MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Pew Research Center for People and the Press. Though the poll showed a high level of agreement on some issues. This is especially true for biofuels.57 percent -. economic and environmental security and clean air. loving type of people. And it's not likely Bush and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez will kiss and make up any time soon. we turn into rabid. Hillary Clinton has a plan to penalize these "villains" with a petroleum tax.support government efforts to boost vehicle efficiency and more than 80 percent support increased federal funding for alternative energy. One party will cry foul about war for oil in Iraq. let's remember that renewable energy is an "everybody" issue. Or will it? Production Tax Incentives vs. Democrats and independents support tougher auto fuel standards. biodiesel can be produced at up to $0. Let's not let our emotions get the best of us when it comes to the contributions biofuels and renewable energy will make to national. These villains apparently sent us to war in Iraq. and the rhetoric heats up.regardless of party affiliation -. put on our war paint. most of us are rational. When the pre-election cycle starts gaining steam. Cont…. and meet Dubya's (and Daschle's) ambitious plan to replace 20% of our petrol fuels with biofuels. In the next 16 months leading up to the elections. alternative energy development and greater use of mass transit but are more divided on policies such as nuclear power and tax breaks for oil exploration. and promote biofuels trade with Brazil. 7/25/07 (http://www. though 65 percent of Republicans voiced support for such a policy compared to 73 percent among Democrats and 76 percent of independents. but that figure has dropped over the last couple of years from a high of 67 percent in early 2006. the consumer. according to a new poll. and go fight for our team. military and economy as we know it.S. and cite other. with 59 percent favoring the additional funding this year compared to 72 percent two years ago. there continues to be substantial agreement across partisan lines on several areas of energy policy. Energy is such an emotional and political hot potato in the U. energy independence will be a vital issue in the debates. Both parties will support it. make unconscionable petrol profits. Alternate energy incentives overwhelmingly popular E & E News. 29 .99 per gallon tax credit. 3/10/08 Voters from both parties continue to strongly favor increased federal support for policies such as increased vehicle fuel efficiency. Either way. mandate. Literally.51 per gallon tax credit. Hillary or Barak probably won't have much luck with Chavez either. friendly.S.S. caring. Under the U.com/rea/news/recolumnists/story? id=49424) The corporatization of biofuels is helping to drive biofuels to the pump.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC Alternate energy overwhelmingly popular Emerging Markets Online.

Democrats (72 percent) and Independents (74 percent) favor an extension of the federal investment tax credits (ITC) as a way to encourage development of solar power and fund continued development of the technology. queried 1. Americans broadly support using renewable energy sources like solar and wind power and say fueling vehicles with ethanol. support development and funding of solar energy. “Poll Finds Majority See Threat in Global Warming”. in 2005. The survey revealed that 77 percent of Americans feel that the development of solar power.001 U. while 33 percent of respondents said they would consider doing the same to help American farmers. consumers (65 percent) are willing to pay more for products made with renewable resources. vice president and general manager of DuPont Applied BioSciences ." said Peter C. only 8 percent of Americans believe the ITC should not be extended. personal care products and others derived from renewable. is a good idea.S. Solar and wind together were favored nearly 20 times more than coal (3 percent). Conducted by MarketTools. According to the survey. 08 (Electric Light and Power Magazine and Utilitu Automation & Engineering T&D Magazine (Joint Website). with a growing understanding that being environmentally responsible is more than just recycling or buying products made with recycled materials. June 19) A recent poll has found that a majority of Americans. When asked whether they would accept a nuclear plan in their community. Tampa Tribune's recent article "A Changing Political Climate": 30 . ninety-one percent of Republicans. good things happen.org/story/2007/3/28/17117/2960) There has been an absolute sea-change in the popularity of renewable energy in this country. They also are nearly evenly split on building nuclear power plants to reduce reliance on imported energy sources. and other renewable energy sources. 41 percent of Americans picked solar. should be a major priority of the federal government. Politicians need to better understand this. -. textiles.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC alternative energy incentives are popular among the public Electric Light and Power Magazine. We recently polled voter attitudes towards solar in Tex. homeowners to identify consumers' personal attitudes and behavior toward environmental responsibility. nearly three-quarters of Republicans (72 percent). and Marjorie. which is now made largely from corn. and Fla. Renewably sourced products on the market today include carpets. Alternate energy overwhelmingly popular Broder and Connelly. "The survey confirms that people are becoming much savvier. New York times.S. http://gristmill. The nationally representative survey. they said no. Sea change in public opinion makes renewables overwhelmingly popular Grist Environmental News. ’07 (3/28. the survey found. In contrast. When they do. The findings were reported in the SCHOTT Solar Barometer. 07 (John M. the survey also revealed that global warming and helping American farmers were important drivers for consumers. Eighty-six percent of Independents supported the statement. Thirty-two percent of respondents said they would consider purchasing renewably sourced products that are more expensive to help deter global warming. sponsored by DuPont (NYSE: DD) and Mohawk Industries.and the results were nearly 20 points higher than a similar poll in Calif. across all political parties. To wit.Biomaterials. According to the study. a survey conducted by the polling firm Kelton Research. Alternate energy overwhelmingly popular with voters – even if it increases energy costs PR Newswire 4/14 (Survey says US consumers are willing to pay premium for Renewable Sourced Products” Proquest) A new survey released today shows that nearly seven out of 10 U. “New Report Finds Majority of Americans Want Solar Power.grist. 59 percent to 36 percent. When asked which one energy source they would support if they were president. farm-grown sources rather than petroleum. Hemken. April 26) The poll also found that Americans want the United States to support conservation and to be a global leader in addressing environmental problems and developing alternative energy sources to reduce reliance on fossil fuels like oil and coal. 97 percent of Democrats and 98 percent of Independents agree that developing solar power is vital to the United States.

reliable.html With members of Congress paying special attention to Big Oil.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics. the money-in-politics reporter for the Center for Responsive Politics.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC Alternative energy’s publicly popular – majority wants renewables. By LINDSAY RENICK MAYER. 31 ." Slocum says. clean sources of energy. the policy that elected representatives have developed does not reflect the interest of the public. which wants "affordable. http://www. Big Oil. A 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center found a majority of Americans across the political spectrum want an energy policy that emphasizes renewable and alternative sources of energy. Big Influence.pbs.

THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP. Other people say using renewable energy sources are a bad idea because they are too expensive and can be unreliable.pollingreport.com May 2008 http://www. to generate electricity is a good idea because they are readily available and better for the environment.com/energy.htm "Some people say using renewable energy sources.PUBLIC People overwhelmingly support alt energy Pollingreport . like solar and wind power.is using renewable energy sources to generate electricity mostly a good idea or mostly a bad idea?" Good % 4/20-24/07 Bad % Unsure % 9 4 87 32 . What do you think -.

org/programs/pubs/402energy.ncsl. he says. 02 (Troy Gagliano.PUBLIC Alternative energy popular National Conference of State Legislatures. but more has to be made available. "It's something we all have to look at." he says. "Legislators and regulators can provide minimal or no-cost incentives to individual landowners. which is not only popular with the public. "because it's cost-effective and can be used in concert with traditional fossil fuel plant operations." 33 . utility managers and other interested parties to invest in renewable technologies that enhance a state's energy self-sufficiency. “Renewing the Energy Debate”. but can be beneficial to rural landowners and increase energy self-sufficiency. http://www." Sloan says.htm) Kansas Representative Sloan says the public doesn't need to be coaxed to use power generated from renewable resources. State Legislatures Magazine: April 2002. "Public opinion polls show that citizens overwhelmingly support it.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP." State lawmakers need to consider incentives to stimulate electricity generation from renewable resources.

"We have been drilling for more oil.. What the Democrats have been saying about the Bush administration's energy record is certainly true: The money that taxpayers threw at the oil and gas industry in Vice President Cheney's energy plan did nothing to help consumers at the pump. and the prices have gone up." they continue." "A majority of voters.THEY WANT ACTION AND DON’T TRUST OFFSHORE DRILLING Dionne. and to act now for achieving energy independence in the medium and long-term. “Gore's Energy Oomph”. Pg." But voters have this odd view that when they face a problem.J." 34 . "believe that coupling an investment in alternative fuels with increased domestic production of oil is preferable to alternative fuel investment combined with energy conservation alone..PUBLIC ALT ENERGY POPULAR WITH THE PUBLIC. A17) Democrats should be concerned about where they are on the gas-price issue right now.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP. they warn that the public "wants the government to act to address the immediate price consequences. Washington Post columnist. they want their politicians to do something." In an otherwise upbeat report on Barack Obama's chances. In a survey report released last week by Democracy Corps. Gore uttered the disturbing truth that "the exploding demand for oil. Drilling offshore sounds better than not acting at all." Gore said in the interview. 7-18-8 (E. Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and strategist James Carville concluded that their party has "not yet advanced a compelling narrative" on the problem of high gas prices and that "John McCain enters the offshore drilling debate with voters' favor. a lot more has been produced. "A lot more oil has been found. is overwhelming the rate of new discoveries by so much that oil prices are almost certain to continue upward over time no matter what the oil companies promise. especially in places like China. That's why John McCain flipped on the issue and now backs drilling. The Washington Post. and the party's own strategists are worried that its response so far is inadequate." In his speech. Jr. And promises that more offshore drilling will magically bring down prices are not backed by the evidence.

accessed 7-14-8) NEW YORK (CNNMoney. "In truth.S. but nearly three in four favor offshore drilling. instead. economy – poll Americans still say protection should be a priority over the economy." [5] Similarly. with 51% volunteering an amount of $10 or more per month. Americans still believe saving the environment is more important than fixing the economy. 49% of Americans say protection of the environment should be given priority." Sixty percent said they were. But consumers are more closely divided on the issue than they have been in the past. "It's a false dichotomy. more like an individual who "believes that some increases in the cost of gas." said Carroll Muffett.” http://money. majorities were willing to pay an extra $5 (73%). and the government should focus on economic growth even at the expense of the environment." Support for alternate energy overwhelms opposition to cost increases Global Public Opinion. But environmental advocacy groups say the government may not have to make that choice.000 a year per household. In a September 1998 Mellman Group poll. CNNMoney.com writer. $10 (75%) or $20 (64%) monthly "to buy environmentally clean energy such as solar and wind power from your electric utility company in order to cut down on emissions of carbon dioxide and reduce the threat of global warming.PUBLIC (AT: ECON) PUBLIC STILL THINKS THE ENVIRONMENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE ECONOMY Goldman.htm?cnn=yes.cnn. even at the risk of curbing economic growth.org ‘07 (http://americansworld. economy mired in a slump." [7] 35 . According to a CNN/Opinion Research poll. “Environmental support dips vs. CNNMoney.With the U. [6] A September 1998 Wirthlin poll even found that a strong majority did not back away from a possible increase in costs of $1.000 a year for the average American household.cfm Other polls also have found a significant willingness to incur costs toward reducing global warming even when the cost is quantified in concrete terms. That compares to 44% of those surveyed who said the economy is the top priority. according to a new poll released Thursday.com/2008/07/03/news/economy/environment_economy/index.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2. because a shift to better energy solutions would create jobs.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP. energy and consumer products are expected and worth the price if it can reduce the threat of global warming.com) -. only 39% said they were more like the one described as "worried" that compliance with the Kyoto Treaty "would add up to more than $1. a September 1997 Ohio State University National Survey found 68% said they were willing to pay more for energy to reduce pollution. Presented a description of the attitudes of two hypothetical individuals. 7-3-8 (David. deputy campaigns director at Greenpeace. what is truly good for the environment is what is truly good for the economy.

63% opted for the strongly stated argument that "Global warming is a serious threat.” A slight majority of 55% said “No. and continuing environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP. only 24% opted for the one that said. In fact a majority of Americans is inclined to believe that reducing greenhouse gasses will be economically beneficial in the long run. In a June 2005 PIPA poll Americans were asked which position was closest to theirs.PUBLIC (AT: ECON) Public supports action to cut emissions – willing to accept costs and perceive long term benefits in competitiveness Global Public Opinion." [32] Asked about accepting economic costs to address environmental issues Americans will sometime express readiness to accept very high costs.cfm Most Americans are not persuaded by the argument that taking action to reduce global warming will incur unacceptable economic costs. "The US (United States) should avoid any Global Warming treaties that put the US at a competitive disadvantage.” These results are relatively unchanged from June 2004 when 67% chose the efficiency of these efforts over aggregate costs (29%). saving money in the long run. Only 23% said “efforts in the United States to reduce the release of greenhouse gases will cost too much money and hurt the US economy. In August 2005 Harris Interactive asked respondents whether they agreed with a rather extreme general statement that “protecting the environment is so important that requirements and standards cannot be too high.org ‘07 (http://americansworld. Taking drastic steps to reduce fossil-fuel emissions could be bad for our economy and way of life.” [31] Americans have also rejected arguments against participation in global warming treaties based on economic arguments. 71% said that “the US economy will become more competitive because these efforts will result in more efficient energy use.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw1. A June 2005 poll by the Winston Group asked whether “global warming is a significant enough problem such that America should be willing to limit job growth to address it. An overwhelming 83% said it is "possible to have both a growing economy and a healthy environment" in an April 1999 Rasmussen poll. [34] 36 .” A strong majority of 74% agreed with this statement while only 24% disagreed. When poll questions require respondents to assume that this is the case they resist taking action based on that assumption. We should take all necessary actions to cut down on fossil-fuel emissions and cooperate with other nations to make that happen. [30] This helps explain Americans resistance to taking high cost steps: most are not convinced that reducing greenhouse gasses requires high costs. Asked to choose between two statements in a January 1999 Zogby poll of likely voters." Rather.” Instead. [33] But here again some of this readiness may be rooted in optimism that the economic costs of environmental protection do not have to be severe.” while only 35% said “Yes.

though in all cases clear majorities agreed ranging from 56% to 61%. Harris Interactive found almost three-quarters (74%) of Americans agreeing that “protecting the environment is so important that requirements and standards cannot be too high and continuing environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost. [1] More specifically Americans also show a readiness to accept increases in energy costs to support the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. [2] The same number expressed support even if it "would increase the cost of gasoline and electricity" (33% opposed).pdf) Americans also appear to be ready to accept significant costs in support of the legislation.org ‘07 (http://americansworld. http://65. respondents were told that “According to an estimate done by MIT. Shortly before the 1992 Rio conference—at the time the Rio Treaty was under consideration—58% said then-President Bush should "sign the treaty if it harms our economy now. ’04 (Stephen. The response was neutral overall." Imposing the requirements was favored by 78%.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP. Americans show a readiness to accept some increased costs to deal with environmental problems. [3a] In a March 2002 poll (that did not specifically mention global warming) Majority supports emission cuts despite increased costs Kull. cutting greenhouse gas emissions as much as this draft of the new bill would require will increase various costs to the average American household by about $15 a month. two-thirds said they favored the McCain-Lieberman legislation (Climate Stewardship Act) even if it costs $15 a month for an average household. They were then asked if they would favor the bill “If in fact it appears that it would likely cost $15 a month for an average household. January 2002 and November 2002 by CBS/New York Times.cfm Americans show a readiness to accept a moderate increase in their energy costs to deal with the problem of global warming and to comply with the Kyoto Treaty. [1a] (See Appendix A for MIT study used to calculate costs) Support for accepting costs to abide by the Kyoto Protocol was fairly strong even before President Bush’s decision to withdraw. At the same time Americans show an optimism that reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved without a harmful economic impact and that technological innovations will be effective.109.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.167.” They were then asked how they felt about this estimate. PIPA.” This is up substantially from when it was previously asked in March 2001.” Two out of three (67%) said they would. First. which would reduce our energy supplies at a time when we desperately need and would put people out of work. but helps the environment in the long run" (26% opposed. 37 . while 30% said they would not. only 13% were opposed. As discussed above. though offered the argument that these plants would be "forced to close down. USA Today). with a plurality of 34% assuming that it is “approximately correct” and nearly as many saying that it seems on the high side (29%) as saying it seems on the low side (31%).PUBLIC (AT: ECON) Support for Emission cuts swamps fears of economic cost Global Public Opinion. Director.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2. In August 2005. In general. [3] an overwhelming majority showed a readiness to accept the economic hardships that would come from requiring older power plants to meet current pollution standards.

CONGRESS THE SENATE RECENTLY SUPPORTS CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES BECAUSE OF ECONOMIC REASONS FERGUSON. (2) a mounting scientific consensus concludes that human activity has significantly caused the increase in greenhouse gases.. the resolution expresses the view that such a program should not significantly harm the American economy and should encourage comparable efforts by other countries that contribute to global emissions and are major trading partners of the United States.ORG/PUBLICATION/13104/NUCLEAR_ENERGY. stop. Moreover.HTML) ACCESSED JULY 10TH Despite the failed efforts to pass the emission reduction legislation. FELLOW OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY FOR THE COUNCIL OF FOREIGN RELATIONS. and (3) mandatory steps will be needed to slow or stop the growth in greenhouse gas emissions. (CHARLES D. in 2005 the Senate passed a Sense of the Senate resolution on climate change. 2007. and reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. HTTP://WWW. The resolution calls on Congress to enact a comprehensive national program using market-based mechanisms to slow. The resolution finds that (1) greenhouse gases are increasing and raising average global temperatures.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP.CFR. APRIL. "NUCLEAR ENERGY: BALANCING BENEFITS AND RISKS". 38 .

cnn. 7-3-8 (David. CNNMoney. The average price of a gallon of gas rose to an all-time high of nearly $4. Americans have said it is more important to prioritize the environment. and in 2000. in 2003.10 a gallon Thursday. economy – poll Americans still say protection should be a priority over the economy. CNNMoney. especially when the economy is booming.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY UNPOP. 72% said record gas prices have caused them to make changes in their daily lives. In a section of the poll released Wednesday. “Environmental support dips vs. but nearly three in four favor offshore drilling. 62% favored the environment. For instance. 39 . accessed 7-14-8) Wallet's impact Historically. But when the economy is struggling.com/2008/07/03/news/economy/environment_economy/index.PUBLIC (ECON) ECONOMIC CONCERNS REDUCE SUPPORT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Goldman. people weigh the issues more equally.com writer.have hurt Americans in the wallets. In 1995. Rising prices . according to a survey from motorist group AAA.” http://money.htm?cnn=yes. and 30% said those changes were major ones. 70% said the environment should be the government's top priority. when the economy was coming out of a recession and gas prices started soaring.especially record fuel prices . only 47% said the environment should be a higher priority for the government than the economy.

It’s even more dire news for Americans on fixed and limited incomes. At the same time. 8 -. 40 . Who can blame them.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY UNPOP-PUBLIC Renewable energy legislation is extremely unpopular with the public – citizens believe that their interests and economic needs are not being accounted for Nothstine. The poor and middle class would be hardest hit. the bill would greatly increase hidden taxes and costs on consumers. Jim Ball of the Evangelical Climate Initiative.A. free-lance writer for Institute on Religion and Democracy. “Washington’s Unpopular War on Energy” 06-18-2008 http://www. B.S.” But even many expert economists who support cap and trade admit that it will have a negative effect on the economy. However.php) // DCM Most Americans have little faith in the federal government to represent their interests. rallying around a supposed “green” policy at the expense of the economically marginalized. staff member for U. federal lawmakers wreaked more havoc by trying to pass heavy-handed regulatory legislation known simply as “cap and trade.acton. in Political Science from The University of Mississippi in Oxford. The religious left and even some evangelicals are supportive of the legislation. With their support come odd statements like this one from the Rev. “We agree that a cap-and-trade policy will spur innovation and will create new markets.Associate Editor at the Acton Institute. many environmentalists admit that the legislation would have little to no impact on climate change. With energy prices already skyrocketing. and Managing Editor of Religion & Liberty. presidential and congressional approval ratings are hovering around an all time low.org/commentary/459_washington_unpopular_war_on_energy. Just 17 percent of American voters believe the federal government represents the will of the people. when their fears are constantly affirmed by Washington’s shenanigans? According to polls. That this skepticism is well placed is bad news for citizens who are looking to Washington to solve the problem of rising fuel and energy prices. Action Institute. Congressman Gene Taylor (Ray.” The legislation would impose stringent emission limits on energy and manufacturing industries.

a new survey by the [7]John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress at New York University suggested popular concern about global warming was beginning to ebb. two news outlets that are hip-deep in the US mainstream. The New York Times said in a story headlined "[2]A Shift in the Debate Over Global Warming" that the popular policy goal of imposing caps on greenhouse gas emissions to force energy conservation and spur non-polluting technologies is now doubtful. However. it will be too little and come too late.and they suggest a small but telling shift in public opinion. with recent data showing an unexpected rise in global emissions and a decline in energy efficiency. from 77% to 69%. To be sure. other focused media and government studies for considerable time. really. the centre's survey also found that the percentage of Americans who believe global warming requires immediate legislative action also declined over the same two-year period. and has been reported here and elsewhere on ICIS news. the news reports said that biofuels might not be the panacea for US energy and environmental problems and that emissions caps might damage the US economy without any effect on climate change. According to the centre. 41 ." the Times said. Citing various scholars and scientists. scientists and students of energy policy are saying that whatever benefits the cap approach yields. the number of people who said they were "very worried" or "somewhat worried" about climate change fell from 70% in 2006 to 67% this year. None of this is very new stuff. The fact that those grand dames of US media are questioning basic tenets of climate change philosophy indicates that a sea change in opinion may be under way. As reported by Environment & Energy Daily. but the survey results and mainstream media challenges to what once were sacred cows of US environmental policy suggest that the issue may have peaked. 4/10/08 The tide may be changing on US climate change issues By Joe Kamalick WASHINGTON (ICIS news)--Recent US news reports have challenged popular and congressional wisdom about global warming but the reports were significant more for their venue than content . these new challenging reports appeared in recent issues of Time magazine and The New York Times. In its 6 April edition. Perhaps most surprising and damning was the Time magazine story of 27 March titled "The Clean Energy Myth" on the newsstand magazine's cover and [1]"The Clean Energy Scam" on its Web site. "Now.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY UNPOP. a growing chorus of economists. 4/10/08 These arguments against the environmental value of biofuels and the efficacy of mandatory emissions control measures are not new and they face counter-challenges from environmental circles but the fact that they are beginning to percolate in the mainstream US media is noteworthy. Permits and emission restrictions declining in popularity – warming no longer key issue Chemical News and Intelligence. In addition.PUBLIC Public opinion changing – support for alternate energy and emission limits are declining Chemical News and Intelligence. these are not major shifts in public sentiment.

And both make it sound as if only their proposals would chart the path to lower fuel prices and a final cure for what President Bush once labeled the nation's addiction to foreign oil. Writer. 10/20/07 As was indicated in the story on the energy bill in thatsame National Journal issue ["Fizzling Out?" p. In a USA Today-Gallup Poll released Monday. nine in 10 people said energy. 48]. People said Obama would do a better job than McCain on energy issues by 19 percentage points. Oil and gas prices that have doubled in the past year have squeezed aside the war in Iraq as the No.and for apparent congressional paralysis. Obama and McCain have made high gas prices a top issue in their campaigns and have offered dueling remedies aimed at easing them. Supporting Alternate energy steals key issue from democrats Raum. he'll promise you cash back from the windfall-profits tax he plans to slap on Big Oil. ethanol and other alternative-energy projects? The Illinois senator likens his energy package to the Kennedy-era space program. would be very or extremely important in deciding their presidential vote in November. lexis) If you pull into the Obama station. This debate is certain to get louder as the November election approaches. Lewiston morning tribune. 42 . Their positions are being echoed daily by their surrogates on Capitol Hill. including gas prices. This data and a follow-up survey suggest that this tendency will be even more pronounced in the 2008 elections.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP=GOP WIN GOP must strengthen credentials on energy and environment to avoid election defeat National Journal. Check the tires? How about promises to go after oil-market speculators who help drive up prices as well as big subsidies for solar. 6/24/08 (Tom. tying it with the economy as the top issue. associate press. wind. a GreenbergQuinlan poll for the League of Conservation Voters after the 2006 elections showed huge numbers of independents voting to change the leadership of Congress because they were dissatisfied with GOP leadership on the energy issues that are so critical in the debate over addressing global warming. 1 issue this election year and both parties are blaming each other for the price spike .

Playing both ends against middle Presidential candidates are aiming for pleasing the political middle. Oil would need to hit $150 to $200 a barrel and stay there before private investment moves heavily into alternative fuels and transportation. steals a key issue and inaction hurts incumbent party Staunton.With consumers fuming over the high cost of gasoline. however. supported cutting demand by boosting fuel-efficiency standards. energy analyst at MF Global in New York. The problem. Voters want anything that might work. 60 percent backed encouraging domestic drilling. Republicans argue that drilling in coastal waters. Democratic strategists suggest giving solutions that include cracking down on oil speculators and pushing gas alternatives. is that neither solution will cut prices right now. and 54 percent endorsed the use of alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. Lawmakers know they must offer fixes. or do we want leadership that's fighting for us on this?" 43 . In a Zogby International poll this month asking what government actions people favored to lower fuel costs. Democrats counter that alternative-energy development will free consumers from fossil-fuel captivity. Even over the long term. Marilyn Musgrave of Fort Morgan have held news conferences at gas stations. Mark Udall of Eldorado Springs and Ed Perlmutter of Golden and Republican Rep. "The parties have a lot of incentive not to solve the problem and blame the other side. a spokesman in Democrat Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Irish Times EU Correspondent. Political advisers are coaching Republicans to talk about more drilling and renewable energy. energy analysts say. 6/24 (Dennis. with pollsters for both sides saying voters list fuel costs as a top concern. "Unhappy voters are the voters people think can be swayed. The survey did not ask people to pick one option over another. "Do we want leadership that's been tied to the folks making money from (high gas prices). political-science professor at Princeton University and author of several books on Congress. only a marriage of the two approaches will work. analysts said. lexis) WASHINGTON ." said Hari Sevugan. Alaska and the Rocky Mountain West will boost oil supplies.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP=GOP WIN Alternate energy incentives cause GOP win – coopts criticism. Repealing Environmental Protection Agency limits on the sulfur content in diesel fuel would increase fuel supplies. "There is a choice that is before folks. said Philip Verleger. But that's politically difficult. Almost as many. 59 percent. an Aspen-based energy economist. Democratic Reps. Republicans and Democrats each want to prove they alone offer the path to lower pump prices." said Julian Zelizer." In the last month. And neither party will agree to a wedding in an election year with the Oval Office at stake. said John Kilduff. There are no clear-cut solutions. They also advise blaming President Bush. High gas prices have started to prompt less driving. but they're still too low to force rapid change.

“Yes. Energy policy has become a flashpoint this campaign season. We’re going halfway Republicans increasingly see an advantage on the energy debate. Democrats have long opposed expanded offshore drilling. And it could throw cold water on Democratic attempts to link McCain with President Bush and the oil companies reaping record profits. to the moon”?’ ” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky. “Lamar likes to say. market-driven incentives for renewable energy and an expansion of nuclear power — all part of McCain’s campaign platform. McCain has long opposed drilling in Alaska. Sen.. less energy use by the federal government and increased oversight of market speculation on oil futures. highlighting environmental concerns and claims that there is enough land to drill and that more is an unnecessary giveaway to oil and gas companies. Charles Schumer (N. to argue they will do whatever it takes to stop soaring gas prices. The move could be perceived as a shift toward McCain. to call for increased energy production and less oil use.html) Senate Republicans aim to undercut Democrats’ claim to be the environmentally conscious party by combining their own conservation message with a longstanding push for more oil drilling. along with other members of the Republican leadership.3 billion square feet of federal office space nationwide. allows Republicans and their presidential candidate. like plug-in hybrid cars. arguing that energy could be conserved in the 3.causes GOP win Raju. it also allows the GOP to rally behind one party message and unite in one attack against Sen. echoed the talking points. Republicans are urging their rank and file to take that message home during the upcoming recess. June 24. About 30 Senate Republicans huddled behind closed doors Tuesday afternoon to craft an energy package they plan to unveil later this week. “Republicans will do BOTH — find more oil.). He called the Democrat’s support for half of the energy solution “Obamanomics. the Senate Democrats’ chief campaign strategist. In one slide of Tuesday’s presentation titled “No. “They have for seven years done exactly what the oil companies Republicans are trying to debunk that claim with a greener message: more investment in plug-in electric cars and trucks. The Republican proposal also calls for moving away from the party’s bedrock position of emphasizing oil drilling in the Alaskan wilderness and instead promoting oil-shale extraction and offshore exploration. we can” — Alexander tried to make the case that the presidential candidate has repeatedly voted against offshore drilling and expanding domestic supplies of oil. Even though that reversal gives Democrats the opportunity to link McCain with Bush. “GOP going for green”. 2008 (Manu. obtained by The Hill. and both sides are jockeying over who has the best plan to handle gas prices that top $4 per gallon.” Following the lunch. use less — Democrats won’t. “That wouldn’t have been a very inspiring message. that Sen. “We’re not going to the moon. would it?” 44 .com/leading-the-news/gop-going-for-green-2008-06-24. called the GOP message a “defensive and sort of last-gasp effort. http://thehill. John McCain (Ariz. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn. who has been at odds with many in his party on cutting greenhouse emissions and has used environmental issues to distinguish himself from Bush. saying that positive news coverage will emerge from events to talk about more efficiency rules.Y. Alexander. But the public is also skeptical that such a move would effectively reduce gas prices. The shift. as well as authorized funding on carbon sequestration technologies.).). Barack Obama (Ill. the Democratic presidential candidate.” McCain called for more efficiency rules in a campaign stop Tuesday in Santa Barbara.). wanted.” “Two words: oil companies. Calif.) gave at a closeddoor lunch on Tuesday. ‘What if President Kennedy said. along with calls for more supplies. we can’t” — a play on Obama’s popular slogan. but last week made a reversal to support a state’s right to allow exploration along the coastal United States.” according to a presentation.” Schumer said. Sen. With gas prices putting the economy in greater turmoil. Items under consideration included the drilling and conservation measures.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP=GOP WIN Renewable energy incentives NOW shifts the energy debate in favor of McCain. public sentiment is starting to shift towards offshore drilling and conservation measures.

"We are more dependent on foreign oil today than we were on 9/11. a Tucson Democrat who introduced HB 2664." she said. but unfortunately I don't see much indication that's going to happen in the remaining months of President Bush's term. The Arizona Republic. and crack down on market speculators who are causing the price of a barrel of oil to skyrocket." said Rep. Steve Farley.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY INCREASES POL CAP Alternative Energy could start up Bush’s agenda The Post Standard. Panelist and Sierra Club lobbyist Sandy Bahr said the Bush administration and Legislature have displayed a "lack of leadership and political will" by failing to adequately fund and develop alternative and renewable-energy sources. Shame on us that we let that happen. ln) GRodarte "The high price of gas is not just the price you pay at the pump ." She said President Bush and Congress should pass renewable energy production tax credits. Ableser introduced the bill to make streets safer for the blind. 45 . "There's a lot that could be done." House GOP spokesman Barrett Marson said Democrats are forgetting the House also quashed a bill that would have required carmakers to make hybrid vehicles noisier. "I'm very disturbed by the lack of leadership coming out of the White House and the difficulties we have in the Senate passing something over the Republican opposition because of our rules. Clinton said. The high price of gas is the hundreds of millions of dollars we are spending in Iraq. 6-25-2K8 (Scott Wong. 7-3-2K8 (Mike McAndrew. “Clinton Brings Energy to CNY” ln) GRodarte In her speech to the public. tax windfall profits of oil companies. Ariz." Then Clinton climbed into the rear of a black Chevrolet Suburban that gets 16 miles per gallon and rode out of Syracuse. require higher gas mileage for cars. Bush is weak because of failure to develop alternative energy sources – Plan would reinvigorate his agenda. summit focuses on oil solutions. "The high price of gas is the pollution we are breathing in our lungs. but Marson said the proposal would have destroyed the state's hybrid industry.

"> * Victor is a law professor at Stanford University and a senior fellow on the Council for Foreign Relations." Victor said.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP Energy policy is controversial Mayer. 46 .org/now/shows/347/oil-politics. “Big Oil Big Influence” 11-23-2007 http://www. because energy policy in reality is very controversial and often very expensive. But it's not clear Congress will actually be able to do very much in terms of getting the votes for legislation.pbs.html ) <"I think [the new leadership] generally puts the issue on the agenda for legislative action. "That's something that both parties have a difficult time dealing with. PBS. 7 – Money-in-politics reporter for Center for Responsive Politics (Lindsay Renick. It puts it higher on the agenda.

Establish Solid Political Leadership The primacy of “least-cost” in the procurement culture is detrimental to PV and other renewable energy alternatives. Past experience with federal executive orders suggests that procedural barriers can prevail over the “bully pulpit” due to their longevity and routinization within the procurement system.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP PLAN WILL REQUIRE POLITICAL CAPITAL TO OVERCOME BARRIERS TO RENEWABLES Virinder Singh. payback periods shorter than effective system life). 1998 [ Government Procurement To Expand PV Markets. http://www. Renewable Energy Policy Project. as well as a comprehensive revision of the existing government procurement system to remove imbedded barriers (e.16 47 .org/repp_pubs/pdf/pv4. Overall. Overcoming this barrier will require concerted leadership that clearly communicates to government purchasing agents that political leaders are willing to accept the higher price of renewable energy purchases.repp.g..pdf] E. effective political leadership requires an explicit commitment to purchase renewable energy.

High prices are sapping economic growth.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP POLITICAL OPPOSITION TO NEW ENERGY POLICIES ENSURES PLAN SPENDS CAPITAL Victor. That's because serious policies to change energy patterns require a broad effort across many disconnected government agencies and political groups. it is likely that energy issues will figure more prominently in the election than at any time in the last generation. Global warming has become a bipartisan worry. Whenever the public seizes on energy issues. which is hoping that a new regime in Washington will put the United States on a more sustainable energy path. Approvals for these new plants require favorable decisions by state regulators.S.newsweek. It is extremely unlikely that Washington will ever supply a coherent energy policy. backed by a grand new political coalition. and solving that problem will require radical new energy technologies as well. 8 (David G. It may be a vain hope. Accessed July 8-08) Democrats voting in Ohio and Texas may well decide the shape of the U. because such plants are much more costly than conventional power sources. most of whom are not yet focused on the task. Higher efficiency for vehicles requires federal mandates that always meet stiff opposition in Detroit. A more aggressive program to replace oil with biofuels requires policy decisions that affect farmers and crop patterns-yet another part of Washington's policymaking apparatus. requires new federal and state standards. “Why the United States is doomed to be an energy outlaw”. Security hawks would welcome reduced dependence on volatile oil suppliers. And so on. All this is good news in the rest of the world. Gasoline is now approaching $4 a gallon. with its own political geometry.. Expanded use of nuclear power requires support from still another constellation of administrators and political interests. Higher energy efficiency for buildings and appliances. 3-3-8. especially in the Persian Gulf. Stanford Law School professor & Freeman Spogli Institute's Program on Energy & Sustainable Development director. natural gas and electricity are also more costly than a few years ago. New power plants that generate electricity without high emissions of warming gases require reliable subsidies from both federal and state governments. The energy experts dream of a coalition so powerful that it could rewire government and align policy incentives. and labor would seize on the possibility for "green-collar" jobs in the new energy industries. http://www. 1 concern across most of the country. Regardless of who they choose to run against Sen. regardless of who takes the White House in November. the all but certain Republican candidate. presidential election. Greens would favor a lighter tread on the planet. 48 . the No. Newsweek. the cabal of Washington energy experts imagines that these problems can be solved with a new comprehensive energy strategy.com/id/118087/output/print. Farmers would win because they could serve the energy markets. a major energy use area. John McCain.

The coalition. Stanford Law School professor & Freeman Spogli Institute's Program on Energy & Sustainable Development director. demonstrating that the government is incapable of making a credible promise to help industry develop these badly needed technologies over the long haul.. legislation late last year to increase the fuel economy of U." a government-industry project to develop technologies for burning coal without emitting copious greenhouse gases.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP PLAN SPENDS CAPITAL – ENERGY COALITIONS TOO FRAGILE Victor. never lasts long enough to accomplish much.S. (The project had severe design flaws.com/id/118087/output/print. “Why the United States is doomed to be an energy outlaw”. it must send credible signals to encourage investment in new equipment not just for the few months needed to craft legislation but for at least two decadesenough time for industry to build and install a new generation of cars. Newsweek. and make back the investment. is politically too diverse to survive the kumbaya moment.newsweek. 8 (David G. Democrats and Republicans alike claim they want to end the country's dependence on foreign oil. but neither party actually does much about it. but what matters most is that the federal government was able to pretend to support the venture for as long as it did and then abruptly back off. Accessed July 8-08) This coalition. alas. 3-3-8. automobiles will have such a small effect on the vehicle fleet that it will barely change the country's dependence on imported oil and will have almost no impact on carbon emissions. http://www. Just two weeks ago the feds canceled "FutureGen. though. For an energy policy to be effective. 49 . appliances and power plants.) Similarly.

to James Madison's delight -.8 billion for a Clean Coal Power Initiative aimed at cutting pollution from coal-fired power plants. and excessive government spending -.081 billion for research into "fusion energy". a vigorous supporter of renewable energy technology. $1 billion for an experimental power plant capable of producing hydrogen. It ends up pleasing no one and offending nearly everyone. Others labeled the bill a Christmas tree for oil interests.much of it on futuristic energy technologies better left to the private sector. it seems.big energy bills die a congressional death. The Bush initiative received a predictable and often unfavorable reaction from many quarters. no comprehensive energy legislation has emerged. $2. Conservative critics saw the Bush initiative as an example of needless. and probably decisive on particular votes. Republican Governor Jeb Bush has vigorously opposed off-shore drilling in Florida -. the interests in the energy debate are not simply philosophical -. a federal mandate to produce five billion gallons of the fuel additive ethanol. accessed 7-8-08) More often than not -. $500 million for extracting oil and gas from "unconventional" locations. and after three years of debate. The Bush energy initiative is so far no exception. which would be an eyesore for those with beachfront property. The result is that several versions of energy legislation have all dissolved under the weight of contentious "poison pills" -.15 billion to get hydrogen-powered automobiles on the road by 2020.Democrat and Republican.remain more important in shaping the terms of the energy debate.saying explicitly that it is different than drilling in Alaska. where they would face the dream-destroying gauntlet of the marketplace. or restructuring electricity markets. http://www. $18 billion for a natural gas pipeline stretching from Alaska's North Slope to the lower 48 states. Consider the major initiatives in one iteration of the Republican energy package: $1." "three-dimensional" seismic techniques. an unbreakable stalemate. a license for industry profiteering.from the Sierra Club to Taxpayers for Common Sense. $2. But over the long run. liberal and conservative. Liberal critics called the administration a bunch of "fossil fuel dinosaurs" and condemned their devotion to "petro-politics" and "traditional" energy sources.pinning pro-development conservatives against pro-conservation liberals. Two newspapers that rarely agree both saw the energy bill as an abomination.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP INTRODUCTION OF SWEEPING ENERGY LEGISLATION ELICITS AN OVERWHELMING BACKLASH – PRESIDENT CAN ONLY LOSE FROM THE PLAN BECAUSE IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD A COALITION AROUND ENERGY COHEN." The Wall Street Journal described the bill as "one of the great logrolling exercises in recent congressional history.thenewatlantis. ASSOCIATE EDITOR OF THE NEW ATLANTIS. industrialist and naturalist -. The bill drew the wrath of interest groups across the spectrum from the green left to the libertarian right -. and that we need to protect the "pristine natural environment" that Florida tourism depends upon. and "enhanced recovery" of energy sources. For example. The "not-in-my-backyard principle" and the "more-jobs-in-my-district principle" are always important. The New Atlantis.such as permitting oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. No single faction is able to impose its vision of the energy future on the country as a whole. The clash of interests has created an unpassable beast and thus. 2004 (Stephanie. from the Wilderness Society to the Heritage Foundation. Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy. 50 . Of course. The Washington Post said the bill was "stuffed with more goodies than a Thanksgiving turkey. the larger philosophies of energy -. and funding for "horizontal drilling. Spring.com/publications/energy-dreams-and-energy-realities. or a wide-ranging assault on the environment. despite Republican control of both Congress and the White House. Meanwhile. has vigorously opposed the creation of high-tech windmills off Cape Cod. exempting manufacturers of fuel additives from product liability claims. and the effort to please every faction often degenerates into incoherence. Republican senators from coastal states have advocated similar positions to protect state aesthetics and commerce. “Energy Dreams and Energy Realities”." and said that the "GOP leadership has greased more wheels than a NASCAR pit crew" in its attempts to buy votes. reckless.

policies to promote economic development (which can be true of policies to promote sustainability. 6) Now. In the case of wind power. An RPS. with too many dollars chasing too few deals resulting in a herd mentality and over-valued private offerings. keep in mind who they are and what they want from the policy. Sustainable Energy and the States: Essays on Politics. Venture capitalists. WILDER. Switching to Renewable Power: A Framework for the 21st Century. UNIVERSITY OF SALZBURG PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE. including external costs in Germany means that wind power. Pg. Any policy change—whether at the state or national level. CLEAN EDGE. As Jacobsson and Labuer show in this volume. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER LECTURER. they usually mean that it’s good or bad for them. we will see occasional increases in pricing for certain clean-tech goods and services. Pg. ENTRENCHED INTERESTS WILL FIGHT TO MAINTAIN FOSSIL FUEL DOMINANCE PERNICK. it is in the allocation of those costs. if presented as such. MAKING THE EXTERNALITIES COUNT REQUIRES POLITICAL CAPITAL LAUBER. INC. 51 . whether about energy or defense or anything else—means that some parties will gain and some will lose. So when you hear spokespersons evaluating a policy. In contrast. policy positions are a function of the amount of perceived gain or loss. and Leadership.” Internalization of external costs – required in order to optimize welfare – will lead to a reorientation of the energy sector in a more sustainable direction. regardless of causation. 2007 (Ron & Clint. in other words. There are two implications of this truism. 146) Policy can best be understood in terms of winners and losers. Supply constraints will create momentary stumbling blocks to clean-tech development in the form of shortages of critical materials like processed steel and silicon. Second. But serious internalization of external costs will also require a major change in politics. such as an RPS) are much more likely to see significant support. Markets. Some groups will continue to vehemently deny human impact on climate change. don’t directly translate into significant gain or loss for anyone and therefore are unlikely to garner much interest. is good for the wind industry but potentially bad for the coal industry. edited by: Dianne Rahm. Another way to say this is that energy policies are often neither “good” nor “bad” in general—only in the particular. if people say a policy is good or bad.. INC. they are partially borne by the general public. The major difference between coal-generated electricity and wind power is not costs. they are “externalized. too.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP ALL ENERGY PROMOTION POLICIES CREATE WINNERS AND LOSERS KOMOR. may fall prey to this behavior. it is already the cheaper option. this would indeed make many renewable power technologies immediately competitive. And when demand outpaces growth. First. 2005 (Volkmar. 284) Entrenched interests will fight to hold to a business-as-usual scenario—working to protect their livelihood and incentives. Investors. for example. CO-FOUNDER CLEAN EDGE. which in 2004 came under heavy attack there for supposedly being uneconomical when compared with coal. Policies to promote sustainability. Pg. in the case of coal. Others will be so busy building up their economies they won’t realize the detrimental impact to their people and society in the form of disease and pollution caused by fossil fuels. even in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Indeed. at times. The Clean Tech Revolution: The next big growth and investment opportunity. if subsidies for coal and factored in. 2006 (Paul. is actually quite competitive with that fuel. if external costs were taken seriously. CONTRIBUTING EDITOR. may exhibit irrational exuberance—running up the prices of stocks with valuations that outstrip their real value. they are borne by electricity consumers.

. Rural agrarian counties in the midwestern United States for instance.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP (LOBBIES) MANY INTEREST GROUPS EXERT LOBBYING PRESSURE ON CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT REGARDING ENERGY POLICY. government interest groups seek the economic aid of governments at all levels. In order to accomplish this significant goal. SIMON. 1970s. usually members of the two major political parties. Many of these family farmers were forced to sell their farms. too has significant time constraints and relies heavily on appointed officials to represent his views. however. Through lobbying efforts and information campaigns. 52 . Economic and Social Feasibility. Urban government interest groups. Environmental groups generally do not seek personal economic benefit from their efforts to protect the environment but tend to be driven by a notion of societal benefit. Interest groups. Government groups at the state and local levels.S. The budget and committee oversight are tools Congress uses to shape policy postulate. interest groups shape policy outcome. city of twentieth century. Alternative Energy: Political. The supply of abundant and cheap energy is the cornerstone of the U. which meant that the next generation of farmers and ranchers disappeared from the rural landscape. Social changes led many mid-western youth to migrate to the cities for greater opportunity. In the 1970s and 1980s in part due to rising energy costs—family farmers in the heartland were faced with serious economic depravation. city. curtailing demand but maintaining quality of life will be the challenge of the twentyfirst-century U. it is natural that government interests will jockey for financial opportunities to promote the policy innovations unique to their locale and the needs of their communities in relation to other urban areas. A centuries-old movement. such as the League of Cities. UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE. however. Many groups have significant resources needed to keep group to promote legislative action. making farming a more lucrative enterprise. and 1980s in the United States. Elected officials. The president. often to large corporate farming interests. interest group influence grew tremendously in the 1960s. Given Tiebout’s (1956) overarching thesis. 204) Interest groups have shown themselves to be a highly effective at influencing public policy in all stages of the policy process. often face significant time and resource constraints (and limited incentives) in shaping public policies following the creation of statutes. but time limitations and disincentives often mean that Congress eschews large-scale regular oversight. have significant time to follow individual policy arenas and to advance their goals throughout the policy process Environmental groups have and will likely remain very influential in energy policy. 2007 (Christopher A. have faced economic and social decline for several decades. such as associations or counties. began to pressure state and national policymakers to promote the use of corn in the alternative energy paradigm—federal ethanol subsidies have played a major role it making this aspect of farming much more profitable and. have also played a major role in shaping regulations and distributive policy incentives to promote sustainable communities. which has varying impacts on policy postulate. Pg. as a consequence. Economic groups have played a significant role in shaping the energy policy debate and in a variety of different ways.S.

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY UNPOP
Alternative energy’s divisive – controversial and expensive. By LINDSAY RENICK MAYER, the money-in-politics reporter for the Center for Responsive Politics, Big Oil, Big Influence, http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html Battles on the Horizon With Democrats now in control of Congress, the oil and gas industry is finding that it's getting less for its money on Capitol Hill. Other industries with competing interests and far less cash to spread around, such as environmental groups and alternative energy producers, are now finding more support for their legislative goals. For example, the Clean Energy Act of 2007 seeks to repeal the 2004 and 2005 tax breaks to Big Oil and re-direct the money to renewable energy efforts. Because of the change in power, the oil industry faces the possibility of stricter oversight and fewer goodies from Congress. The industry "definitely has to be worried that there will be anti-oil legislation of all types, and also possibly regulations, depending on who takes over the White House," says David Victor, a law professor at Stanford University and a senior fellow on the Council for Foreign Relations. Victor was part of the council's task force on energy security. "I think [the new leadership] generally puts the issue on the agenda for legislative action. It puts it higher on the agenda. But it's not clear Congress will actually be able to do very much in terms of getting the votes for legislation, because energy policy in reality is very controversial and often very expensive," Victor said. "That's something that both parties have a difficult time dealing with."

53

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY UNPOP- CONGRESS(OIL= OPPOSITION)
OIL LOBBY POLITICALLY POWERFUL, ENSURING OPPOSITION TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Elhefnawy, University of Miami political science professor, 8

(Nader, Survival, pp. 27-66, April-May)
The second difficulty, the exceptional strength of the oil lobby in the United States, reinforces this. It was largely because of oillobby pressure in the early 1980s that the US Federal Government abandoned tax credits and regulations aimed at fostering alternative energy sources, measures intended to create a ‘free market’ in energy.54 Abandoning these measures tilted the market in favour of more established sources, not least because coal, oil, gas and nuclear energy attained their market position because of a long history of government subsidy. Given the complexity of the issue and that many forms of government assistance are indirect, such as favourable terms on leases of government land to oil drillers, estimates of such support vary wildly. Nevertheless, the figure easily ran into several hundred billion federal dollars during the last century – investments never made in renewable energy. This remained the case even after the 1973 embargo, the federal government spending six times as much on researching energy production from fossil fuels and nuclear energy as on renewables between 1972 and 1995. Such support of oil is actually increasing, at least when the ‘security subsidy’ of military protection for energy production and transport is taken into account. As a result of these two factors, the ‘US alternative energy industry was not only left to sink or swim among more mature competition, but was put at a disadvantage and withered’, while the ‘oil, gas and nuclear lobbies received the lion’s share of government support’. To give one example, the US share of the world’s installed wind-energy capacity fell from 92% in 1988 to a meagre 35% by 1995, with American energy production from wind actually registering negative growth for several years during the 1990s. While growth since 1999 has been rapid, as of 2005 the US share of world capacity was still a mere 15%, behind Spain and Germany, the latter country producing twice as much electricity from wind as did the United States. Not surprisingly, wind energy’s contribution to American electricity production remains modest, well under 1% – compared with 6% for Germany and over 20% for Denmark.

54

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY UNPOP (NO TURNS)
No turns – alternative energy’s divisive regardless of consensus. Stephanie I. Cohen, marketwatch staff writer, 2/19/2008, Perking up the economy with energy tax breaks, Congress stalls on green tax credits again, http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/perking-up-economy-enery-tax/story.aspx?guid= %7b6E4B70B7-B947-40A5-9E33-2035F30E3050%7d&print=true&dist=printMidSection [ND] For years, lobbying groups have pleaded with Washington for long-term extensions of investment and production tax credits that benefit solar, fuel cells, wind, geothermal and biomass energy sources only to see the measures locked in a political drama that they say leaves alternative energy investors in a lurch. Groups like the Solar Energy Industries Association and American Wind Energy Association say U.S. jobs are at stake. Despite claims of support from both parties for increased funding for cleaner energy alternatives, Congress has repeatedly squeaked out one-year extensions for the incentives only when they are about to expire. The efforts to extend what most Americans seem to support -- increased incentives for alternative energy production -- has proven to be divisive despite a general consensus on the policy.

55

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY BIPART
OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN CONGRESS FOR THE USE OF ALTERNAITVE SOURCES OF ENERGY

NYT, 2006 (New York Times, December 10) Now some analysts and money managers are hoping the imminent Democratic takeover of Congress will also be bullish for alternative energy stocks by improving prospects for favorable legislation for the industry. One likely initiative, known as a national
renewable portfolio standard, would require utilities to derive 10 percent of their electricity output from renewable sources by 2020. Currently, less than 3 percent of electricity is generated from such sources. Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, the presumptive chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, says he hopes to pass “some version” of a renewable portfolio standard in the next Congress. The details of such legislation — as well as whether it would be approved by Congress and signed by President Bush — are very much uncertain. But that hasn’t stopped investors from placing their bets. Democrats may be in the forefront, but they aren’t the only ones to jump on the alternative energy bandwagon, said

Randy Gwirtzman, a research analyst at Baron Capital, which is based in New York. “Both sides of the aisle have shown they’re in favor of alternative energy sources,” he said. Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, for example, is concerned about the nation’s reliance on imported oil. “With the surging prices of oil,” he said, “there’s a strong feeling among Republicans that our economy and national security can be damaged if we don’t decrease our dependency.” Mr. Gwirtzman
recommends shares of SunPower, which he said has a highly competitive solar-cell product line that is well positioned to benefit from a more sympathetic Congress. Stuart Bush, technology analyst at RBC Capital Markets based in Austin, Tex., also likes SunPower, which is a spin-off of Cypress Semiconductor. Mr. Bush says SunPower solar cells are more efficient than the industry average in converting solar energy into electricity. Unlike many other alternative energy companies, SunPower already generates a small profit, and its revenue could reach $600 million next year and $1 billion in 2008, Mr. Bush said. A renewable portfolio standard should help alternative energy move closer to parity with traditional energy sources, Mr. Bush said. “Each technology individually is on a path to reducing costs and achieving parity with traditional energy sources, some very dramatically. The wind industry is probably closest to achieving economic viability without any support” from the federal government. One company he favors is Zoltek, which makes lightweight carbon-fiber blades for wind turbines. Zoltek could also be helped by a longer extension of federal renewable energy tax credits, a legislative goal of wind-energy lobbyists. The production tax credits, which reward electricity producers for each kilowatt of energy they generate from renewable sources, are scheduled to expire next year. In the past, the credits have typically been extended for two years at a time, which the wind-energy industry maintains is too short a period to stimulate long-term investment.

Democrats will support a longer extension, Senator Bingaman said. “Clearly, we do need to extend those tax credits that relate to renewable energy, and we need to do so for a longer period,” he said. A consensus on alternative energy is perhaps closest in biofuels, which have the support of many Republicans, particularly from farm belt and southern states. “I do think we need to increase the use of biofuels as much and as quickly as possible,” Senator Sessions said.

56

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY BIPART
There is bipartisan support for a shift to renewables Whitman, 6 – President of the Whitman Strategy Group, a management consulting/strategic planning partnership servicing both government and business clients,
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for President Bush, 50th Governor of the State of New Jersey (Christine, Hall Institue of Public Policy, “Open Dialogue on Environment Key to Improving Faith in Government” 6-27-06 http://www.hallnj.org/cm/document_handler.jsp?dId=1000156) // DCM

With gasoline prices at record highs, Americans have a renewed interest in the development of more fuel-efficient cars. Majorities of voters in both parties would like to see auto manufacturers create cars that use less fuel and produce less pollution. As such, the tax credits for hybrid cars, recently signed into law by President Bush, received strong bipartisan support in the Congress. The policy was so forwardlooking and logical that it even received the enthusiastic support of the environmental lobby and the auto industry. Similarly, representatives of both parties have shown support for increased production of renewable fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, and biomass fuels. Domestic production of these renewable fuels is not only good for the environment, but also promotes rural economic development and may lessen the international trade gap. American innovation, in this case to improve the environment and stimulate economic growth, can always count on bipartisan support.

57

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY BIPART
Alternative energy’s bipartisan – oil prices force interest in incentives. By LINDSAY RENICK MAYER, the money-in-politics reporter for the Center for Responsive Politics, Big Oil, Big Influence, http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html The Democratic Congress has made clean energy legislation a priority because of rising gas prices and concerns about the nation's dependence on foreign oil sources, in addition to a scientific consensus that human activity is the root cause of today's global warming. Many Republicans, too, are on board and looking for solutions. "The single most important thing that's happened in the last five years is the price of oil has shot up," Stanford's David Victor says. "That run-up has changed the politics and incentives for people to take an interest in conservation, and that's completely bipartisan. There are people in the left wing and the right wing that say we need to do something about this problem." GOP is on alternative energy bandwagon – it’s bipartisan. The Colorado Springs Gazette, 12/7/2007, Our View, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20071207/ai_n21172265/print?tag=artBody;col1 [ND] Political colors Republicans roll out plan for environment In the world of political fashion, green is the color stylish politicians are wearing these days, and this has some in the GOP jumping on the bandwagon. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has a new book out proposing a "contract with the planet" for conservatives. Political support for biofuel production quotas and alternative energy mandates is becoming bipartisan. Colorado Republicans last week got into the act, unveiling their own plan for balancing economic and environmental interests. It leans toward markets and away from mandates, which is a welcome alternative to the command-and-control approach preferred by Democrats. There's nothing here as dramatic (or Draconian) as what Democrats have to propose, but these are worthy proposals. "Republicans are committed to sound environmental policies that do not impose heavy- handed mandates on consumers and businesses," House Minority Leader Mark May said. Energy’s bipart – gas prices ensure compromise. UPI, United Press International, 7/9/2008, Senate pressured to find energy compromise, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/09/Senate_pressured_to_find_energy_compromise/UPI-45951215619569/ [ND] WASHINGTON, July 9 (UPI) -- A group of U.S. senators says public anger about high gas prices is spurring them to push hard to find a bipartisan compromise on an energy bill soon. "This is the No. 1 issue on people's minds, very clearly," Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., told The New York Times (NYSE:NYT) in comments published Wednesday. Conrad was one of a bipartisan group of 10 senators meeting Tuesday to hammer out ideas on how to reach an energy plan compromise.

58

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY BIPART
Energy is bipart – only common ground on the agenda. Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writers, 11/10/2006, Bush Meets With Pelosi; Both Vow Cooperation, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110900953_pf.html [ND] Despite deep philosophical differences and sharp election-year rhetoric from both sides, the White House and congressional Democrats may share some interest in finding common ground on such issues as overhauling the immigration system, education and energy, according to lawmakers and administration officials. Democratic leaders seem anxious to show they can deliver as a governing party after years in opposition, while Bush is aware that his final two years will be bereft of any significant initiative unless he can work with the party he demonized on the campaign trail. Despite conciliatory rhetoric, there were flashes yesterday of the potential obstacles ahead. The White House once again asked the Senate to approve the nomination of controversial U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton, who holds the post after a recess appointment, but Democrats -- and a key Republican -- quickly moved to block the action. In her interview with reporters, Pelosi said Democrats will act immediately to reinstate lapsed budget rules, which mandate that any new tax cuts or spending increases be paid for with equal spending cuts or tax hikes. That would all but shut the door on Bush's main economic priority, making his first-term tax cuts permanent. The new House and Senate leadership will also quickly challenge Bush on stem cell research, Pelosi said. Democrats expect to pass legislation early next year that would be almost identical to the only bill he has vetoed, a measure to expand federal funding of stem cells beyond the few lines already in existence. The addition of 29 Democratic seats in the House and six in the Senate is probably not enough to override a veto, Pelosi conceded, but Democrats hope to "build public support for a signature." But Pelosi and the House's No. 2 Democrat, Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), who also attended the White House lunch, indicated they came away from their meeting with a sense that they could work with Bush. In an apparent effort to demonstrate goodwill, Pelosi added that Democrats will take up the "innovation agenda" laid out by Bush nearly a year ago in his State of the Union address, and pass his proposals to increase funding for basic scientific research and alternative energy programs.

59

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY BIPART
Bipartisan support for alternative energy incentives exist Mayer, 7 – Money-in-politics reporter for Center for Responsive Politics (Lindsay Renick, PBS, “Big Oil Big Influence” 11-23-2007 http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html ) The Democratic Congress has made clean energy legislation a priority because of rising gas prices and concerns about the nation's dependence on foreign oil sources, in addition to a scientific consensus that human activity is the root cause of today's global warming. Many Republicans, too, are on board and looking for solutions. "The single most important thing that's happened in the last five years is the price of oil has shot up," Stanford's David Victor says. "That run-up has changed the politics and incentives for people to take an interest in conservation, and that's completely bipartisan. There are people in the left wing and the right wing that say we need to do something about this problem." * Victor is a law professor at Stanford University and a senior fellow on the Council for Foreign Relations.

60

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY BIPART/POP-REPS
Low carbon policies popular with republicans – they recognize need for environmental policies CQ 08 (Congressional Quarterly, “Stalled for Now, Climate Change Bill May Find Broader Support in Future”, June 6, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002890955)
Last week the Senate took up a sweeping climate change bill in what many hoped would be a historic debate. But it ended up fizzling quickly, and now any efforts at comprehensive global warming legislation will likely be shelved until next year. Progress on the legislation (S 3036) was thwarted by partisan sniping and procedural maneuvers. Still, there was evidence of widening bipartisan consensus on key points of energy proposals that are likely to resurface in the new administration. The debate over the climate change bill demonstrated that most Republicans aren’t yet ready to vote for a bill that would fundamentally transform the economy by putting a price on fossil fuel emissions. But last week’s debate saw even diehard

oil- and coal-state Republicans publicly acknowledging the reality of climate change and the need to transition to a low-carbon economy. It also highlighted a shift that is already taking place in Congress, as more Republicans support major incentives for low-carbon and renewable-energy technologies. “It wasn’t that long ago that if you were a Republican, you were looked at strangely if you talked about conservation, about these energy alternatives,” said Ryan Loskarn, communications director for the Senate Republican Conference. “In the past, Republicans have been vocal mainly on more drilling. But there’s been a perceptible shift in the mood of the party.” In speech after speech, GOP lawmakers called for more funding and research into solar, wind and geothermal power; plug-in hybrid cars; and carbon sequestration. While some Republicans have in the past voted for renewable-power incentives that could help their home-state industries,
now party leaders are getting out in front of the issue and seeking to define it as their own. New World Order As the climate change debate kicked off last week, the heads of the Senate Republican Conference, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and John Cornyn of Texas, hosted a forum on the need for what Alexander likes to tout as a “new Manhattan Project”: a policy centered on research and development of a raft of low-carbon energy initiatives, from plug-in cars to green buildings. “We need a crash program for carbon recapture and solar. We stand ready for an agenda for more clean energy, and we have the moment to marshal bipartisan support on this,” Alexander said. He said he’d like to see the heads of the Senate Energy Committee, Jeff Bingaman , D-N.M., and Pete V. Domenici , R-N.M., work with the National Academy of Sciences to determine the top alternative energy priorities, “and then say, ‘What should we do in Congress to put that on the fastest track possible?’ ” Shift in GOP Sentiment To be sure, this doesn’t mean Republicans are abandoning what has long been the center of their energy policy: increasing domestic oil drilling. As passionate as the newfound GOP support for renewables may be, even an advocate such as Alexander says the starting point has to be “exploring for more oil and gas. When you talk about a new Manhattan Project, you need to start with more oil drilling.” And Cornyn, who hails from the nation’s chief oil state, backs initiatives that would seek to boost solar and wind power, but dismisses ideas that do not also include drilling as part of the solution. There’s a large consensus of people who think we need to be good stewards of the environment. We all realize we can’t live on a petroleum-based economy indefinitely,” Cornyn said. “But the problem with our friends in the Democratic majority is that they do not believe in producing more energy as a solution.” Still, Democrats see promise in the new Republican renewables movement. “There’s greater support on the Republican side for conservation and alternative energy,” Bingaman said. “We are hoping to be able to move ahead in that area. I think the prospects are much better on those issues than they have been.” In the House, Adam H. Putnam of Florida, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said that skyrocketing gasoline and utility prices are the “game-changers.” “The lines that were drawn clearly about

what would or would not be supported by Democrats and Republicans in the 2005 energy bill — those are changing. Those old battle lines aren’t necessarily true anymore,” he said.

61

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY PART
ENERGY POLICY  PARTISANSHIP

The Island Packet, 6/30/2008, “Don’t hold energy policy hostage to partisan politics,” http://www.islandpacket.com/opinion/letters/story/536168.html
Dealing with our energy crisis should not be a partisan political issue, but it is. For more than 25 years, Republicans consistently have promoted fossil fuels and opposed federal funding for renewable sources, such as wind and solar energy. Our political parties polarized on energy policy in the 1970s. At that time, oil exporting countries created OPEC, which then quickly quadrupled the price of oil. In response, President Carter and the Democratic Congress planned for energy independence. Among other measures, they doubled gas mileage standards for cars, and they poured hundreds of millions of dollars into conservation and alternative energy sources. Carter even installed solar panels on the White House. When Reagan succeeded Carter in 1980, he removed those solar panels, and his budget gutted research and development funding for alternative energy. Most Republicans have followed Reagan's stand against renewables ever since. A story in the June 18 Packet reported that Senate Republicans had once again blocked a Democratic bill to fund renewable energy. And in the ongoing presidential race, Republican John McCain still preaches reliance on the fossil fuels that produced our present predicament. Isn't the case against fossil fuels obvious? Their production and distribution can devastate the land or sea; their consumption pollutes the air worldwide; rising global demand and limited supply mean ever escalating prices; and the cost of imported oil sends American treasure to foreign countries that fund terrorism. By contrast, Barack Obama and the Democrats advocate energy sources that are clean, inexhaustible and made right here in the USA.

62

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY PART
GRIDLOCK OVER FUNDING INCENTIVES Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau , “Congressional deadlock over renewable energy; Crucial tax credits for wind, solar power to expire at end of year if nothing is done,” The San Francisco Chronicle, 6/18/08, p. Lexis Even as lawmakers of both parties talk about the need to shift the country toward clean, renewable energy, Congress is in danger of letting key tax credits that have fueled the growth of wind and solar power expire at the end of the year. The Senate failed for the second time in a week Tuesday to pass a bill to help businesses and homeowners switch to renewable energy. The tax incentives have strong bipartisan support, but they have been caught up in a fight between Democrats and Republicans over how to pay for them. The stalemate is causing jitters among utilities and investors, including Bay Area venture capitalists and companies that are making billion-dollar bets on new technology, solar power plants and manufacturing sites to build solar panels and wind turbines. Many projects are being put on hold until Congress acts. Arno Harris, CEO of Recurrent Energy in San Francisco, which helps finance and operate large-scale solar power projects, said his company is rushing to finish projects before Dec. 31, when the credits expire. Because large solar projects can take six months to build, the company is delaying new U.S. projects until the credits are renewed. "It creates a hiccup that is very unfortunate," Harris said. The stalemate is a classic example of how even popular programs can fall victim to gridlock in Washington.

63

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY PART
There is bipartisan support for energy reform in theory but the details of legislation will cause serious battles. Johnson 08 ("Low-carbon fuels important to stem transportation sector’s emissions." Senator Tim - member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The Hill. 1/30/08 http://thehill.com/op-eds/low-carbonfuels-important-to-stem-transportation-sectors-emissions-2008-01-30.html) This year, few are predicting much in the way of bipartisan agreement on the thorniest issues of the day. Particularly in the area of energy policy there could be a temptation for Congress to take a legislative breather, having passed two comprehensive energy bills in the past three years. Resting on our laurels will not do when the public remains concerned with high energy costs and the growing recognition that the United States needs to address the effects of global climate change sooner rather than later. In 2007 Congress put the country on a path to reduce gasoline demand by passing new fuel efficiency requirements and boosting the amount of renewable fuels blended into the transportation fuel supply. This year the Senate will consider comprehensive legislation to cap carbon dioxide emissions. Any successful policy to require emission cuts will need an aggressive research, development and demonstration component to ensure adequate supplies of energy to keep our economy growing. The good news is that there is at least one existing technology offering an immediate solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Major lobby groups will fight against ethanol. The Washington Post 2008 (June 16, Vinod Khosla, “All Biofuels Are Not the Same”) Unfortunately, biofuels are the target of interested parties' paid campaigns. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, for example, is waging a multimillion-dollar campaign against ethanol; the American Petroleum Institute is more concerned about food prices than oil prices. Slogans about how much corn and water are required to produce a gallon of ethanol are repeated frequently. In fact, a 16-ounce steak takes about the same amount of corn and more water. Should we ban steaks, too? Similarly, hybrid cars are hyped, but we seldom hear that they reduce carbon emissions about as much as corn ethanol, and at a cost that is substantially higher than flex-fuel cars.

64

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY PART
ENERGY POLICY IS CONTENTIOUS CAUSING PARTISAN INFIGHTING AND CLASH OF SPECIAL INTERESTS Cohen, Associate Editor of the New Atlantis, 2004 (Stephanie, The New Atlantis, “Energy Dreams and Energy Realities,” Spring, p. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/energy-dreams-and-energy-realities) More often than not -- to James Madison's delight -- big energy bills die a congressional death. No single faction is able to impose its vision of the energy future on the country as a whole, and the effort to please every faction often degenerates into incoherence. It ends up pleasing no one and offending nearly everyone. The Bush energy initiative is so far no exception, and after three years of debate, no comprehensive energy legislation has emerged, despite Republican control of both Congress and the White House. Consider the major initiatives in one iteration of the Republican energy package: $1.8 billion for a Clean Coal Power Initiative aimed at cutting pollution from coal-fired power plants; $2.081 billion for research into "fusion energy"; $2.15 billion to get hydrogen-powered automobiles on the road by 2020; $1 billion for an experimental power plant capable of producing hydrogen; $18 billion for a natural gas pipeline stretching from Alaska's North Slope to the lower 48 states; a federal mandate to produce five billion gallons of the fuel additive ethanol; $500 million for extracting oil and gas from "unconventional" locations; and funding for "horizontal drilling," "threedimensional" seismic techniques, and "enhanced recovery" of energy sources. The Bush initiative received a predictable and often unfavorable reaction from many quarters. Liberal critics called the administration a bunch of " fossil fuel dinosaurs" and condemned their devotion to "petro-politics" and "traditional" energy sources. Others labeled the bill a Christmas tree for oil interests, a license for industry profiteering, or a wide-ranging assault on the environment. Conservative critics saw the Bush initiative as an example of needless, reckless, and excessive government spending -- much of it on futuristic energy technologies better left to the private sector, where they would face the dream-destroying gauntlet of the marketplace.Two newspapers that rarely agree both saw the energy bill as an abomination. The Washington Post
said the bill was "stuffed with more goodies than a Thanksgiving turkey." The Wall Street Journal described the bill as "one of the great logrolling exercises in recent congressional history," and said that the "GOP leadership has greased more wheels than a NASCAR pit crew" in its attempts to buy votes. The bill drew the wrath of interest groups across the spectrum from the green left to the libertarian right -- from the Sierra Club to Taxpayers

several versions of energy legislation have all dissolved under the weight of contentious "poison pills" -- such as permitting oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, exempting manufacturers of fuel additives from product liability claims, or restructuring electricity markets. The clash of interests has created an unpassable beast and thus, it seems, an unbreakable stalemate.
for Common Sense, from the Wilderness Society to the Heritage Foundation. The result is that

65

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY PART
ENERGY POLICY WILL BE PARTISAN IN AN ELECTION YEAR THE DENVER POST, EDITORIAL, 2004

(“How the West will be won”, July 17, Pg. C-15)
No surprise, Kerry -Edwards shape up to differ widely from Bush -Cheney on most if not all of these issues. Environmental issues haven't played a large role in the presidential race so far, but they will carry weight with many voters in a region that is being contested by both parties. We look forward to seeing both Bush and Kerry devote some serious energy to concerns of a region that is dominated in so many ways by federal land and resource ownership. Where, for example, do the candidates stand on a national drought policy - similar to the revised National Flood Insurance Program - that would enable farmers and ranchers to adequately recover for drought losses? Much of the West is in the midst of a six-year drought. This is no longer just bad weather. For many, it has become an economic tragedy. Since the West accounts for 75 percent of the nation's metals production, voters will be interested to learn the candidates' stand on a national minerals policy. Metals produced in the region are critical to the Western economy, and to national security - they provide vital base materials for satellites, aircraft, electronics and telecommunications. There are strong reasons to tap a reliable domestic supply rather than going overseas, and the federal approach must also include pragmatic environmental safeguards. Energy is a tough partisan issue, hotly debated. Both parties preach the need for energy independence, but neither has developed a unifying federal policy that would continue producing traditional fuels such as oil and natural gas while developing alternative energies.

66

that is. bill proponents have to line up not 51 but 60 votes. no matter how populous. And Senate tradition grants committee chairpersons enormous deference to bottle up or water down legislation that might impose unwanted changes on the states they represent. Senate itself.. gasifying coal and expanding offshore drilling).g. To shut off debate on a measure. mostly from oil and gas companies and redirected it toward renewable energy development. 67 .THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY PART Energy legislation causes partisan fights Vickerman. "Petroleum and Natural Gas Watch. debate continues even if 59 senators vote in favor of ending it and only one votes against the motion. Each state is equally represented in the Senate. 2007. The tax package was designed to be self-supporting. is enforced by a rule that expressly allows a minority of senators to thwart the will of the majority. Another Senate tradition. it would not have trigged additional borrowing to underwrite the pro-renewable energy incentives." RENEW watch. The energy bill passed by the Senate in June came tantalizingly close to incorporating a 10-year tax package that would have raised $29 billion. a body organized to magnify the power of individual states to block “national interest” initiatives from changing the status quo. especially one in which powerful economic forces and regional interests are pitted against each other. Further complicating matters is the very nature of the U.net/node/32648) Indeed Congress is institutionally incapable to pass a comprehensive energy bill that attempts to diversify the nation’s energy resource base and scale back its carbon footprint unless it contains elements that work in the opposite direction (e. http://energybulletin. Under the rule. July 27.S. 07 (Michael -Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin. the right of unlimited debate.

68 . 07 (Michael -Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin. http://energybulletin. with its narrow majorities.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY PART Energy legislation causes partisanship Vickerman.both the citizenry and the current Congress are far too complacent to entertain changes that might involve belt-tightening and discipline." RENEW watch. 2007. but they will represent the sum of state government initiatives undertaken to counter the policy vacuum that persists at the federal level. "Petroleum and Natural Gas Watch. But though the prospects for a truly coherent national energy policy are improving -.net/node/32648) It would take nothing short of a sea change to overcome Congressional inertia and recover the ground lost in the last 25 years or so. it would be unrealistic to expect this Congress.and the need has never been greater -. July 27. Given the current political dynamic. we will see some progress on the energy front this year and next. Yes. to be the one that jump-starts the federal government into meaningful action.

as a matter of public policy.html [ND] "Washington state is ahead of Washington. Neil Modie.S. At Saturday's press conference on the floor of the Ford plant. Pelosi and Yarmuth were joined by UAW President Ron Gettelfinger .THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY-CON 2 DEMS Pelosi wants alternative energy – plan’s a concession. reducing our dependence on foreign oil and keeping our environment safe and clean.com/local/311623_pelosi14.com/treypollard/926/pelosi-makes-energy-cornerstone-visit-yarmuth [ND] LOUISVILLE -. "I hope that what we get out of this today also is better public policy. U.politickerky. the United Auto Workers." "We can learn from experience that Ford has and recognize what they have done being in the lead in terms of having ecofriendly driving." said Pelosi. "This is the issue of our generation: the issue of transportation innovation.S. officials from Ford Motor Company. http://seattlepi.nwsource. At a news conference at the headquarters of Seattle Biodiesel. U. Trey Pollard. [so] how can we. home-grown fuel sources. "This issue of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and addressing the climate crisis is a flagship issue of our speakership.)." said Pelosi. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (DCalif. "One of the things we learned about today that is at the heart of the matter is the issue of battery technology." in alternative-energy policy.." Pelosi loves alternative energy – plan’s a concession. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared Friday in Seattle as she vowed to push legislation through Congress to make the country more energy independent. Pelosi said this sort of technology was fundamental towards her goals for energy policy. 6/22/2008. http://www. she assured local politicians and leaders of the city's emerging alternative-energy industry that the Democratic-controlled Congress recognizes the urgency of reducing carbon emissions and developing new. Ford's Vice President for Government Affairs. D. Pelosi brings promise to Seattle to keep energy dollars at home. The press event was staged next to a prototype of a Ford vehicle being developed with lithium-ion battery "plug-in" technology.C. and state government officials touched on Ford's efforts to develop "gasoline-independent" technologies for new automobile designs. during a brief press conference held at Ford's Louisville Assembly plant after the meeting.A Saturday afternoon closed-door meeting in Louisville between U. Lithium-ion batteries are the future. regular contributor to politickerky. SPI reporter." said Yarmuth of the meeting. 4/13/2007. Rep John Yarmuth (D-Louisville)." she added.a former employee of the Louisville facility . Pelosi makes energy the cornerstone of visit with Yarmuth. For me this is an educational visit. "What I think was impressive to me and the Speaker is that they are taking a very broad look at all the possible technological answers to our crisis.S. "and now we intend to get something done.and Bruce Andrews. help encourage that development in the United States so that our cars can be in the lead and competitive internationally?" 69 .

marketwatch.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY PART/ COST POL CAP Dems will push for oil and gas subsidy cuts to pay for alternatives – ensures GOP deadlock. Democrats repeatedly tried to extend these tax breaks last year as Republicans did in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These provisions were subsequently extended through December 2008 in the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. 70 . marketwatch staff writer. D-N. But this is also the most contentious path to passage of alternative energy incentives. Republicans have repeatedly warned Democrats that tying the fate of alternative energy tax breaks to the repeal of energy tax breaks for oil and natural gas developers ensures a deadlock. Congress stalls on green tax credits again. Stephanie I. http://www. Perking up the economy with energy tax breaks.Y. The obvious pair up for Democrats: oil industry profits and the elimination of tax credits for the oil and natural gas industries.com/news/story/perking-up-economy-enery-tax/story. according to Christine Tezak.aspx?guid=%7b6E4B70B7-B947-40A59E33-2035F30E3050%7d&print=true&dist=printMidSection [ND] Who's to blame Solar and wind seem to have become the ugly stepchild to biofuels and ethanol." said House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel. 2/19/2008. Democrats insist these provisions must be paid for by an alternative source of revenue or what is known as "pay-as-you-go" budget rules. long-term federal subsidies over the past two years that are meant to ensure a market and profits for the industry for the next two decades. a strategy that harms the renewable energy sector the most. Democrats are engaging in a take-from-the-rich-give-to-the-poor approach. energy analyst and senior vice president of Stanford Group. Cohen. Democratic leaders have targeted a manufacturing deduction granted to the oil and gas industry in 2005 at a time when the oil industry is reporting record quarterly earnings and generates little sympathy among voters. "The American taxpayer should not be subsidizing oil and gas companies during times of record profits and record prices at the pump. which have been the recipient of sizeable.

S. 7/9/2008.upi. Barack Obama. autos and big investments in alternative energy. presidential nominee Sen. the newspaper said. while many Democrats instead want to focus on alternative energy sources.com/Top_News/2008/07/09/Senate_pressured_to_find_energy_compromise/UPI-45951215619569/ [ND] Congressional Republicans advocate more domestic oil and gas production. Senate pressured to find energy compromise. http://www.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY PART/COST POL CAP Alternative energy costs capital – finding middle ground-NO RISK OF BIPARTISANSHIP UPI. 71 .S. Obama is calling for higher mileage standards for U. Finding a middle ground between them will be a hard task. United Press International. Complicating matters for the Democrats is reluctance among Senate leaders to sign on to a compromise that might be at odds with policies being espoused by likely Democratic U. D-Ill.

issued the following statement: “Washington is broken. House Republicans unveiled an energy plan that offers meaningful solutions for American families. Capitol today.’ Since Democrats took control of Congress. car or business. and it is the not the change Americans deserve. Congressman Adam Putnam (R-FL). Our House Republican plan provides real solutions to produce American-made energy.gop. They are impatient with a Democrat energy policy that is chock full of job-killing tax hikes. “Today. This is not the change Democrats promised Americans. That is the change America deserves. renewable and alternative energies – while protecting our nation’s natural resources.0 At a news conference on the steps of the U. gas prices have risen more than 60 percent and Americans are paying a hefty Pelosi Premium at the pump. the housing crunch and rising costs of living.” 72 . “The American people have had it with skyrocketing gas prices and a Democrat Congress that offers no meaningful solutions.8 (Adam. Speaker Pelosi promised a ‘commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. Real Solutions for American Families” http://www. natural gas. clean-coal. help lower gas prices and make us more energy independent. They are tired of waiting for the long-promised ‘commonsense plan’ to lower gas prices. Chairman of the House Republican Conference. “The American people are hurting from a slowing economy. 5-21-2008.gov/c/journal_articles/view_article_content? groupId=1&articleId=1647&version=1. “More than two years ago. burdensome regulation and no new American energy.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-REPS Republicans support alternative energy Putnam – Chairman of the House Republican Conference . as many European nations are doing. We will cut red tape and increase energy supplies by spurring the construction of new refineries and nuclear power plants. Through this agenda. House Republicans unveiled our plan to deliver real energy solutions and lower gas prices for Americans facing pain at the pump. we will increase production of American-made energy – including next-generation oil. And we will make America more energy efficient by offering significant conservation tax breaks to Americans who invest in green technologies for their home. “House Republicans Unveil Energy Plan. and it is no more apparent than on soaring energy and gas prices under the Democrat Congress.S.

S. Volume 6 Issue 5. the [bill] chips away at two important barriers to continued wind energy development in this country.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-REPS REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS SUPPORT ALTERNRATIVE ENERGY – 2005 ENERGY BILL PROVES Smith. Randell Swisher.” Mr. Businesses that purchase solar equipment will also receive a credit worth 30 percent of the system cost. following the past six years of boom-and-bust cycles caused by successive expirations. “These long-term reliability and transmission provisions could help level the playing field and brighten the long-term planning horizon for wind power.” Despite the president's investment of time and political capital. this year the political climate changed and with . “These tax credits will bring solar power costs over the tipping point in many areas of the country. The aim was to prepare a strategy to “address the nation's energy needs for the 21st century. and is a particularly critical factor in financing wind farms. 2005 (Don C. capped at $2. American Wind Energy Association executive director. For the first time since 1985. Swisher said. one of his expressed goals was to push through a new energy policy. 73 .” The bill also represented “the strongest national policy for solar power in two decades. “This is the first time that an extension of the production tax credit for wind energy has been approved before the credit expires.. Bush entered the White House in January 2001. Resch said. president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. and. the president assembled a major task force.” Mr.among other things . to study the country's energy situation. that is very good news for the industry. the “placed-in-service” date to which the 1. the energy bill stalled in the 107th and 108th Congresses. Nevertheless. At the top of the list was the extension of the production tax credit (PTC) for wind energy and biomass electricity. The wind industry was also encouraged by provisions requiring that utility system reliability rules to be developed be non-discriminatory and that incentives be provided to encourage construction of new and upgraded transmission lines. homeowners who install solar energy systems will receive a tax credit worth 30 percent of the system cost.the support of more Republican members of the U. headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.000. “RE Gains? The US Policy Act of 2005”. As a first step. The credit applies over the first 10 years of a project's operation.” according to Rhone Resch. “By requiring that new national reliability rules be non-discriminatory and by providing incentives to ease transmission bottlenecks. Senate the energy bill1was passed. September) When George W.” Consequently.9 cents per kWh credit applies was extended through 2007. however. the passage of the PTC portends strong growth momentum for wind energy at least in 2006 and 2007. lauded this provision and said. Under the legislation. Science Direct.

Director. ’04 (Stephen. Only a third--34%--of Republicans said no steps should be taken on global warming that would involve costs.pdf) Sixty-nine percent of Republicans.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt. Director. PIPA. http://65. 87% of Democrats and 78% of independents also say President Bush should develop a plan to deal with climate change. but the differences are not substantial. majorities in both parties support taking active steps—65% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt. ’04 (Stephen. as did 67% of Democrats and 63% of independents.109. For instance. http://65. 76% of Republicans supported higher fuel efficiency standards on cars.pdf) Though Americans’ beliefs about climate change do differ by party preference. while only 17% of Republicans and 29% of independents agree. PIPA. A plurality of Democrats (44%) said global warming is a pressing problem that requires immediate action.REPS GOP supports action on emissions – even considering economic costs Kull. Forty-eight percent of Republicans and a majority of independents (53%) said global warming is a problem that can be dealt with gradually. as did 89% of Democrats and 79% of Independents. 58% of Republicans still supported such policies.167. differences between Bush supporters and Kerry supporters closely mirrored the differences between Republicans and Democrats.167. When asked if they would still support a measure if this meant the cost of cars would rise. On regulatory initiatives--such as higher fuel economy--Democrats are more likely to support such initiatives than Republicans. but only 39% of Democrats agreed. In general.109. Even fewer Democrats and independents (16% each) took this view. 74 . GOP voters support environmental regulations on energy and emissions Kull.

2/19. “Perking up the economy with energy tax breaks”. energy analyst and senior vice president of Stanford Group. which have been the recipient of sizeable. according to Christine Tezak. Market Watch. have nonetheless rejected recent Democratic proposals and backed the White House's position against curtailing tax breaks. Democrats argue that freezing this deduction won't affect production or gasoline prices in the immediate future." said House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel. D-N. The manufacturing tax deduction was passed in 2004 as part of the American Jobs Creation Act. Democrats insist these provisions must be paid for by an alternative source of revenue or what is known as "pay-as-you-go" budget rules. “Perking up the economy with energy tax breaks”. Democratic leaders have targeted a manufacturing deduction granted to the oil and gas industry in 2005 at a time when the oil industry is reporting record quarterly earnings and generates little sympathy among voters. They say they support extending the tax credits if they are disentangled from the manufacturing deduction. The GOP supports alternative energy only if it’s untied from the oil and gas manufacturing deductions Cohen. Democrats are engaging in a take-from-the-rich-give-to-the-poor approach. In August. many who say they support bolstering incentives for wind and solar.com/news/story/perking-up-economyenery-tax/story.aspx?guid=%7B6E4B70B7-B947-40A5-9E33-2035F30E3050%7D) Republicans. 75 . These provisions were subsequently extended through December 2008 in the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.S. higher energy costs." the White House said in a policy statement released last summer when Democrats tried to advance the measures. 08 (Stephanie. Republicans have repeatedly warned Democrats that tying the fate of alternative energy tax breaks to the repeal of energy tax breaks for oil and natural gas developers ensures a deadlock. But this is also the most contentious path to passage of alternative energy incentives. "The House Leadership's Robin Hood approach may have political dividends but it is 'expensive' in terms of negative investor sentiment.marketwatch.aspx?guid=%7B6E4B70B7-B947-40A5-9E33-2035F30E3050%7D) Who's to blame Solar and wind seem to have become the ugly stepchild to biofuels and ethanol.Y. http://www. "The American taxpayer should not be subsidizing oil and gas companies during times of record profits and record prices at the pump. and can be used by a number of industries including major oil and gas producers.marketwatch. Market Watch.com/news/story/perking-up-economyenery-tax/story. the White House issued a statement saying the president will not sign legislation that "would lead to less domestic oil and gas production. http://www.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY UNPOP-REPS Democrats will try to pay for the plan by cutting oil and gas subsidies – the GOP will block it Cohen. industries at a disadvantage to their foreign competitors. Democrast repeatedly tried to extend these tax breaks last year as Republicans did in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 2/19. The obvious pair up for Democrats: oil industry profits and the elimination of tax credits for the oil and natural gas industries. a strategy that harms the renewable energy sector the most. 08 (Stephanie. long-term federal subsidies over the past two years that are meant to ensure a market and profits for the industry for the next two decades." "Repealing the manufacturing deduction for only the oil and gas industry is a targeted tax increase that puts U. and higher taxes." Tezak said in a recent research note.

you need to start with more oil drilling. When you talk about a new Manhattan Project. As passionate as the newfound GOP support for renewables may be. We all realize we can’t live on a petroleum-based economy indefinitely. said that skyrocketing gasoline and utility prices are the “game-changers. chairman of the House Republican Conference. “Stalled for Now. “There’s greater support on the Republican side for conservation and alternative energy. Those old battle lines aren’t necessarily true anymore.” Still. I think the prospects are much better on those issues than they have been. even an advocate such as Alexander says the starting point has to be “exploring for more oil and gas. who hails from the nation’s chief oil state.” And Cornyn. Those old battle lines aren’t necessarily true anymore.” Bingaman said.” In the House. “There’s greater support on the Republican side for conservation and alternative energy. this doesn’t mean Republicans are abandoning what has long been the center of their energy policy: increasing domestic oil drilling. Adam H. I think the prospects are much better on those issues than they have been. said that skyrocketing gasoline and utility prices are the “game-changers.” “The lines that were drawn clearly about what would or would not be supported by Democrats and Republicans in the 2005 energy bill — those are changing.” Lexis Shift in GOP Sentiment To be sure. even an advocate such as Alexander says the starting point has to be “exploring for more oil and gas.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY UNPOP-REPS Republicans won’t support alternative energy policies that don’t increase oil drilling CQ 08 (Congressional Quarterly. backs initiatives that would seek to boost solar and wind power.” he said. Climate Change Bill May Find Broader Support in Future”. “We are hoping to be able to move ahead in that area. There’s a large consensus of people who think we need to be good stewards of the environment. There’s a large consensus of people who think we need to be good stewards of the environment. “But the problem with our friends in the Democratic majority is that they do not believe in producing more energy as a solution. When you talk about a new Manhattan Project.com/wmspage. “Stalled for Now.” “The lines that were drawn clearly about what would or would not be supported by Democrats and Republicans in the 2005 energy bill — those are changing.” Bingaman said. backs initiatives that would seek to boost solar and wind power.” Cornyn said. “We are hoping to be able to move ahead in that area. who hails from the nation’s chief oil state. Adam H. chairman of the House Republican Conference. Putnam of Florida. 6/6/2008. We all realize we can’t live on a petroleumbased economy indefinitely. “But the problem with our friends in the Democratic majority is that they do not believe in producing more energy as a solution.” Still. Democrats see promise in the new Republican renewables movement. 76 .cqpolitics. As passionate as the newfound GOP support for renewables may be.cfm? docID=news-000002890955) Shift in GOP Sentiment To be sure. you need to start with more oil drilling.” Cornyn said.” In the House. Climate Change Bill May Find Broader Support in Future. June 6. REPUBLICANS WILL OPPOSE PLAN Congressional Quarterly. Democrats see promise in the new Republican renewables movement.” he said. Putnam of Florida. but dismisses ideas that do not also include drilling as part of the solution.” And Cornyn. but dismisses ideas that do not also include drilling as part of the solution. http://www. this doesn’t mean Republicans are abandoning what has long been the center of their energy policy: increasing domestic oil drilling.

but advocates say the Senate on Tuesday shot down a bill needed to give the sun power industry a jump-start. The vote Tuesday to move to the legislation was 52-44.. Republicans for the second time in a week prevented the Senate from taking up a tax bill providing more than $50 billion in renewableenergy credits and tax breaks for families and businesses. 2008 (John G. Only five Republicans voted to end the filibuster against action on the bill. “Bill To Lift Solar Power Halted By Republicans”.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY UNPOP-REPS REPUBLICANS OPPOSE GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Edwards. 77 . Las Vegas Review Journal. June 18) The solar energy industry is poised to pump billions of dollars into the Nevada economy and create thousands of jobs . eight short of the 60 votes needed. others objected to the Democratic plan to pay for the tax relief by making some hedge fund managers and multinational corporations pay more taxes.

com/cgi-bin/PrintStory. which he called the first step to increase domestic oil production after decades of restrictions." He cited Democrats' calls to tap the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Chris Van Hollen.pl? document_id=2008051044&zsection_id=2003925728&slug=apoffshoredrillingnorthwest&date=20080714. Associated Press. Bush says offshore drilling could yield billions of barrels of oil over time and eventually take pressure off gas prices. accessed 7-14-8) "But we know that drilling by itself will not solve the problem of high gas prices. http://www. DEMOCRATS PUSHING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Hunt. D-Md. says Bush is not really serious about addressing high gas prices." And he said the country must focus on new energy policies that focus on alternatives to oil. Bush on Monday lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling that has stood for 18 years. Both?: Who's To Blame For Energy Prices?”. Cantwell called on Bush to work with Congress to increase use of alternative and renewable energy sources.html. 7-14-8 (Terence.com/2008/07/14/bush-congress-both-whos-t_n_112492. http://seattletimes. Cantwell.nwsource. "We cannot drill our way to energy independence. [NOTE: Van Hollen = Rep. because it is full and "America's rainy day is now. 7-14-8 (Cantwell: Offshore drilling not the answer. although it would take years for production to start. Congress.] 78 ." Van Hollen said. Maria Cantwell says a plan by President Bush to allow offshore drilling will not solve the nation's energy crisis. Larry Craig hailed Bush's action. a Washington state Democrat. She says his proposal only continues failed policies of the past that feed the nation's oil addiction. “Bush. Idaho Republican Sen.huffingtonpost. accessed 7-16-8) Sen.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-DEMS DEMOCRATS CALLING ON BUSH TO SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Seattle Times. The Huffington Post.

If we aggressively promote innovation in solar. geothermal and hydro power.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-DEMS STRONG DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Mufson. and we have made real progress. wind. renewable fuels and other smart energy steps. Washington Post. such as solar. and plow the money into new tax breaks for renewable energy sources. wind. “Democrats Eye Cutting Dependence on Foreign Oil. Plan Pushes Renewable Energy Such As Wind.senate. we will be creating hundreds of thousands of good new jobs right here in America. DEMOCRATS SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVES Lengell. we can help lower energy prices. Washington Times. such as improving the energy efficiency of our buildings. turn the tide on global warming and strengthen our national security. Solar. and create new incentives for the use and production of renewable energy. DEMOCRATS SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Lautenberg. “Democrats Hope to take From Oil.a broad legislative push designed to make the nation less dependent on foreign oil. 2008 (Senator Frank. congressional sources said yesterday. Give to Green Energy”. democrats. investing in clean. June 29) The House's Democratic leaders are planning an end of summer energy onslaught . Weekly Democratic Radio Address. We passed a new energy bill that begins to turn the tide by improving gas mileage for cars and trucks. January 4) House Democrats are crafting an energy package that would roll back billions of dollars worth of oil drilling incentives. The developing plan would extend existing tax credits for the production of renewable energy. 79 . Geothermal”. 2007 (Steven. raise billions more by boosting federal royalties paid by oil and gas companies for offshore production. And while we’re doing all that. “The long-term solution to our energy crisis lies in alternative fuels and efficiency. 2007 (Sean.gov. biofuels and geothermal power. April 26) “Democrats are fighting hard for change. Washington Post Staff Writer.

What they won't have to be as concerned with is clean air." "Even though overwhelming scientific evidence shows that global climate change is a scientific fact.html) // DCM <"Democrats have regularly promoted renewable energy. into the hydrogen needed to electrochemically produce electricity. And it uses half the fuel because it is twice as efficient as comparably sized power plants. hydroelectric power. Fuel Cell Energy's DFC power plants generate power without combustion and. We support the expansion of new infrastructure to develop supplies from non-OPEC nations like Russia. minivans and trucks they choose. 2004. and reducing pollution that leads to global warming. combined with FuelCell Energy's 30 other customer installations throughout the world have generated more than 41 million kilowatt hours of electricity. while achieving high environmental standardss. the Bush administration bowed to energy industry lobbying and rewrote rules to allow 20. what is Kerry/Edwards proposing for the United States if they are elected to govern us in November? According to the 41 page Democrat platform." "Even though 133 million Americans already live with unhealthy air. renewable sources of energy." Renewable Energy "Our plan begins with commonsense investments to harness the natural world around us . more efficient manner. We will invest billions to develop and implement new. reliable domestic source of energy.Com. and we will make ethanol work better for farmers. and enhance our nation's infrastructure to help supply natural gas more effectively. are an ultra-clean product since they meet the most stringent air quality standards in the nation. develop Alaska natural gas pipeline. protecting the government doesn't matter at all. "Being the first fuel-cell powered Convention is just one of the ways this event will make history." Hydrogen "We are committed to developing hydrogen as a clean. biomass and solar energy.Founder of Carlist. recycling mass transportation. CAFE. national renewable energy goals. Fuel Cell Energy's DFC300A power plant has enough power to provide the base load electricity requirements of a 300-room hotel. "We are very pleased that Boston and the Democratic National Convention will be a showcase for how an environmentally sound energy policy is good for Boston and for America." Cleaner Air "We C will strengthen the Clean Air Act. The media centers at the Convention will use renewable sources including wind. where polluters actually write environmental laws and oil company profits matter more than hard science and cold facts. The DFC300A power plant produces 99." said Boston Mayor Thomas M. soot and mercury in the air. but we also believe American ingenuity is equal to the task of improving efficiency. Coal accounts for more than one-half of America's electric power generation capacity today. cleaner coal technology and to produce electric and hydrogen power. "We delivered. The DFC300A fuel cell. Guest Reporter on MSNBC for alternative energies and technologies. a Baltimore-based Fortune 500 national energy company).9 percent less harmful air pollution and 59 percent less carbon dioxide than traditional combustion-based fossil fuel power plants. generally known as city use. water. Our economy cannot convert to hydrogen overnight. the Democrats want. We support tax credits for private sector investment in clean air. Canada and nations in Africa. writer for Auto Aficionado. Menino. we will offer needed incentives for consumers to buy efficient vehicles. supplied by Constellation New Energy (a subsidiary of Constellation Energy Group. universities." Democratic Platform stance on OPEC. We will cut the federal government's energy use and challenge local governments. small businesses and hospitals to do the same.cerc04. reduced pollution. by controlling all of the top pollutants and offering new flexibility to industries that commit to cleaning up within that framework. Nock. set up and started the power plant in less than two weeks. energy incentives and vehicle manufacturing So." said Bruce Hamilton. Hybrids. like the western and central Gulf of Mexico. Energy-efficient vehicles "We support creating more energy-efficient vehicles. National Conservation Director of the Sierra Club. We support the American people's freedom to choose whatever cars. By mobilizing the amazing productivity of America's farmers. supplied by Keyspan Energy. and for manufacturers to build them. host of Motortrend rado.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-DEMS Democrats strongly support renewable energy. writer for Wired magazine. Each of these renewable energies emit lower levels of greenhouse gases and displace energy derived from power plants that depend on fuel from overseas. from today's hybrids to tomorrow's hydrogen cars. corporations. We believe coal must continue its important role in a new energy economy. which get the best mileage under 25 MPG. writer for Green Car Journal (Lou Ann. The DFC300A is the hardware that takes natural gas and internally creates hydrogen." said Herbert T. We support balanced development of domestic oil supplies in areas already open for exploration. so we will fund research to overcome the obstacles to hydrogen fuel and continue our other efforts to achieve energy independence. The power plant will directly convert natural gas. and because of the challenges this poses. wind. We will increase efficiency of natural gas use. supplied by Connecticut based FuelCell Energy Inc to power the Democratic National Convention to be held at the Fleet Center in Boston July 26-29. EPA. 4 -.org/press/inthenews_sa_071204. Coal "We will work to create new technology (scrubbing) for producing electricity in a better.." With temperatures looming in the 80s and humidity running around 30-70 percent Boston will be feeling the heat and added congestion during the Convention. we can grow our own cleaner-burning fuel. General Motors will be providing hybrid pickup trucks and buses to the Democratic National Convention Center. and cleaner mass transportation Hammond. due to their favorable emissions profile." "The DFC power plant clearly shows the flexibility of stationary fuel cells for commercial and industrial applications. Accusations by Kerry/Edwards against the Bush government "In President George Bush's government. “The Greenest Democratic Convention Ever” http://www." "We reject the false choice between a healthy economy and a healthy environment.000 facilities to spew more smog. geothermal and biomass sources and a rich array of crops to create a new generation of affordable energy for the 21st century. The Convention will also utilize a 250-kilowatt fuel cell power plant. The unit is so clean it can operate in downtown Boston with no impact on air quality.the sun. will provide 60 percent greater fuel economy and 90 percent fewer emissions than regular transit buses. We support improving fuel standards. Senior Vice President of Marketing and Sales of FuelCell Energy. And we will ensure that billions of gallons of renewable fuel are part of America's energy supply while striving for strong. We will seek more diverse sources of T oil around the world and here at home." Electricity "The Federal Government is the largest single consumer of energy in the world." To move beyond OPEC "We can improve our energy security in other ways. which in turn creates electricity without combustion Convention organizers are powering the convention with renewable energy. 80 . this administration has rewritten government reports to hide that fact. SUVs.

\Congress is a big step closer to its goal of tipping national energy policy away from oil and gas development and toward alternative energy sources such as wind. A Boost For Alternative Energy” http://www. 81 .THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-DEMS ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IS POPULAR WITH THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS – PAST LEGISLATION PROVES Gail Russell Chaddock – Staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor. Speaker Pelosi wants this year's energy bill to mark a clean break with energy policy of the past. At the heart of the House struggle over energy policy is a standoff between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. and biomass. where Democrats will be rolling out their own plan for America's energy future. a powerful committee chairman with long-standing ties to the auto industry. geothermal. With the Senate's passage of an energy bill June 21. John Dingell (D) of Michigan.com/2007/0625/p03s02-uspo. 6-25-07. are forcing House Democrats to postpone some tough issues until fall – a move that could complicate coming to terms with the Senate once an energy bill clears the House. “In Congress. Representative Dingell worries that new regulations could sink already-battered US automakers and cost more industry jobs.html?page=1 Washington . action this week shifts to the House. when Republicans controlled the Congress and enacted financial breaks for oil and gas producers. however.csmonitor. Rifts within their ranks.

” The legislation for the first time would establish a single fuel economy standard applicable to not only cars. and providing American consumers with broader. Fuel efficiency requirements would vary for different classes of vehicles based on weight and size.democrats. eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives.” The compromise. The car standard has not changed since 1989. Energy independence puts America in the driver's seat to pursue affordable and efficient energy solutions that will benefit all Americans. DEMOCRATS HAVE EMPIRICALLY SUPPORTED ALTERNATIVE ENERGY LEGISLATION Associated Press. who was in Alabama visiting a nuclear power plant. President Bush. raising efficiency standards that have not changed significantly for nearly two decades.. improve America's security. Bush believes the Transportation Department should be given increased flexibility to set a standard. but also SUVs and pickups which currently have to meet less stringent requirement. though the truck requirements have been increased slightly by the Bush administration. D-Calif.. Republicans earlier blocked Democratic efforts to raise oil taxes by $29 billion and use the money to promote renewable fuels and other clean energy programs.com/id/19352490/ WASHINGTON . Dianne Feinstein. 82 . “We will be continuing to oppose it. Automakers are currently required to meet an average of 27. referring to current requirements that allow much less stringent fuel efficiency standards for SUVs and pickup trucks than for cars. They deserve an energy policy that creates a cleaner and stronger America that reduces our dependence on foreign oil and also creates new jobs for American workers. greener and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil.The Senate voted Thursday to require average fuel economy of 35 miles per gallon for new cars. reduce the burden on American families. but senators close to the auto industry began an effort to derail the entire bill. “It closes the SUV loophole.org/a/national/clean_environment/energy/ We will create a cleaner. Democratic leaders hoped to complete the energy bill Thursday night. and investing in energy independent technology. But manufacturers would be required to meet an overall fleetwide average of 35 mpg. The measure tacked onto the energy bill would require a 35 mpg fleet average — including SUVs and pickup trucks — by 2020. The White House opposes having Congress mandate a specific mileage number for auto fuel economy.msn. “This is not over by any stretch. and help clean our environment. “Senators Reach Agreement on fuel economy” http://www.msnbc. July 2008.2 mpg for SUVs and small trucks. more responsible choices.5 mpg for cars and 22. was crafted over several days behind closed doors with the aim of heading off attempts by senators sympathetic to the auto industry to press a less stringent proposal. The fuel economy measure was added to a broad energy bill without a roll call vote even as senators were holding a news conference announcing the compromise. investing in our workers and infrastructure.” declared Sen. approved without floor debate. “This is a victory for the American public. toward real energy security for the 21st century. 6-22-07. the Democratic plan will provide the tools to help move America forward. American families should not have to pay the price for a failed national energy policy. said Congress must “be realistic” about the energy legislation.” said Sen. pickup trucks and SUVs by 2020. D-Mich. Democratic Party Agenda – “Energy Independence” http://www.org – official website of the democratic party.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-DEMS DEMS PUSHING FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NOW Democrats. and require that automakers make half of their vehicles capable of running on 85 percent ethanol fuel by 2015. By clearing the pathways to innovation. Carl Levin.

Congressional Democrats who supported more rigid standards missed a chance to pass such legislation. which is fighting against stricter fuel economy standards. The companies are also trying to prevent democrats from prosecuting them for jacking up prices excessively and they publicly oppose the bill's mandated use of alternative fuels. but is pushing again for increased domestic production of energy. Wentworth of the Union of Concerned Scientists says. Big Influence." Dingell has consistently defended the auto industry. rather than political party.html So far Congress has been slow to push through comprehensive energy legislation. During former President Bill Clinton's administration. Among all members of Congress. These standards have not been changed since the 1980s." he says." 83 . in part because issues related to renewable energy standards and fuel efficiency standards differ by region. The auto industry is a major player in Dingell's home state of Michigan. boost the fuel efficiency of the nation's vehicles. The industry joined the fight for coal-to-liquid fuel. [for more on the royalty issue. By LINDSAY RENICK MAYER. "They're fighting this tooth and nail. Dingell has received the second most in contributions from the auto industry at $869. "John Dingell is a democrat but doesn't see eye to eye with [Speaker of the House] Nancy Pelosi in some of these issues and so far you've seen somewhat of a stalemate. "Some of the southernbased coal burning power companies have killed or delayed efforts to set a renewable energy requirement for electric companies. among other things. which means not all democrats are on board. which relies heavily on the industry for jobs and is the corporate home of General Motors. but they had to grapple with a Republican-controlled Congress largely unsympathetic to the idea. see NOW reports "The Royalty Treatment" and "Crude Awakening"] The best Big Oil can do right now is slow down the legislation. The legislation is also meant to correct an error by the interior department during former President Bill Clinton's time in office that allowed many companies to drill in deep waters without paying royalties. The Changing Climate for Energy Policy As Congress wrestles with the comprehensive energy legislation. Michigan Reps. just behind Republican Spencer Abraham. in which oil companies have investments. the money-in-politics reporter for the Center for Responsive Politics. a former Michigan senator. Speaker Pelosi had hoped but failed to bring the measure to a vote. largely because negotiations stalled over the fuel economy standards. "The [legislation] is being held up because the oil and gas industry is concerned about closing loopholes for offshore drilling.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics. president of the environmental advocacy group Clean Air Watch. and others influenced by the car industry have also managed to put off any kind of tougher requirements for fuel economy. This is slowing down the clean energy solutions that the public wants." O'Donnell says. The industry has been one of Dingell's largest contributors during his career—second only to electric utilities. Congress just adjourned for the Thanksgiving break without voting on an energy bill that would. says Frank O'Donnell.200. but the controversial provision to encourage creating diesel fuel from domestic coal has already been eliminated from both the house and senate's versions of the bill. the oil and gas industry is not only fighting off repeals of its tax breaks. http://www.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY UNPOP-DEMS All democrats that matter oppose alternative energy– regional auto lobbies ensure disagreement.pbs. Ford and the domestic division of DaimlerChrysler. specifically permission to drill in certain coastal areas that have been off limits. Big Oil.

and make the car extremely popular. The first electric cars appeared on California’s roads nonetheless. There is $100 trillion of oil left in the earth. and a slew of celebrities like Tom Hanks. we also need a law to get toxic fumes and surplus global warming gases out of the atmosphere. But GM seemed reluctant to push this extraordinary product onto the consumer market. and 10 percent in 2003.9m to keep the last remaining models . Why? Why would a string of corporations turn down cash and scrap a potentially extremely profitable technology? Isn’t that contrary to everything we are taught about how market economies work? The oil companies had an obvious interest in stopping an alternative to fossil fuels. and they plan to mine it . It has not been seen since. airbags and catalytic converters into cars. The electricity costs the equivalent of 30p for a gallon’s worth of travel. 84 . Chelsea Sexton.but the company preferred to destroy them. They passed a law that said if you want to sell cars for California’s roads. Anything that could divert that cash away from them is a threat to be crushed.” Instead of marketing them with sexy women draped over the cars. “There’s no precedent for a car company rounding up every particular kind of car and crushing them.org/archive/2007/04/07/377/) // DCM General Motors (GM) had developed a prototype of an electric car with swelling consumer potential. You simply plugged it in at night. and drove off in the morning. The biggest drawback to the electric car had been its limited range: one charge lasted around 60 miles. The oil companies bought the technology.commondreams. So the California State Senate decided to give them a nudge. because they said he didn’t warrant a car. saying they were bad for the environment. while lobbying fiercely alongside Big Oil to have the law scrapped. a proportion of them have to be electric cars: 2 percent in 1998. But the people working on selling the electric cars noted something odd: GM was deliberately underselling them. GM’s ads had odd opaque graphics and the voice of an elderly woman. explains that the team had to fill in vast questionnaires for every customer. as if they’re afraid one will get away.even if doing so will make the planet uninhabitable. The car companies were immediately and irreparably enraged. A bemused Sexton says. They argued that since it took a law to get seatbelts. as opposed to the £4 Brits pay at the petrol pump. So the distinguished engineer Stan Ovshinsky created a battery that could run up to 300 miles at 70mph on a single charge .only with no exhaust fumes and no carbon emissions. It was a sleek.enough to get from London to Scotland. They began a two-pronged strategy: the most grudging and stuttering possible compliance with the law. This corporate coalition finally succeeded in repealing the law . like a mobile phone. The state senators envisaged a day when electric cars would turn the old fossil fuel beasts into relics.and GM immediately called in all their electric cars and sent them to the scrap heap. Exxon-Mobil followed its standard operating practice of setting up fake consumer groups to spread disinformation about the products. Chevron-Texaco came in with a final blow.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY UNPOP-OIL Big Oil is strongly lobbying against alternative energy – the possibility of electric cars threatens profits Independent News.” Their campaign almost complete. silver car that could drive at the same speed as a fossil-fueled hunk of metal . 5 percent in 2001. The drivers offered over $1. 7 (Johann Hari “Big Oil’s Vendetta Against the Electric Car” 04-07-07 http://www. only for most to be inexplicably rejected: “I had to fill in a resume for Mel Gibson listing his accomplishments and achievements. Ted Danson and Mel Gibson snapped them up and plugged them at every opportunity. then the car stopped. Big Oil speedily joined this anti-advertising campaign. one of the company’s electric car specialists.

from energy security and jobs to reduced dependence on imported oil. Worldwatch Paper # 169. Although this political support has not yet translated into the needed federal legislation.CONGRESS POLITICAL SUPPORT FOR RENEWABLES. and more and more governors are professing the benefits of renewable energy for their states.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP. p. Nevada. New York. accessed July 8-08) Even in the United States. 49. and Texas—have enacted pioneering laws.CONGRESS AND INDIVIDUAL STATE ACTION PROVES Sawin & Prugh. 85 . despite an oil-oriented White House. nearly half the members of Congress have joined the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus. WorldWatch Institute. California. and Thomas. 2004 (Janet L. Mainstreaming Renewable Energy in the 21st Century. May 30. many states—including Arizona.

8 (David. The energy experts dream of a coalition so powerful that it could rewire government and align policy incentives. Greens would favor a lighter tread on the planet. appliances and power plants. the United States has a stiff subsidy for renewable electricity-mainly wind and solar plantsbecause environmentalists are well organized in their support for it. and make back the investment. Thus America has a highly credible policy to promote corn-based ethanol. As a global warming policy it is even less cost effective. Newsweek. 86 . Democrats and Republicans alike claim they want to end the country's dependence on foreign oil.) Similarly.S.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP. it is a chameleon that takes on whatever colors are needed to survive. but what matters most is that the federal government was able to pretend to support the venture for as long as it did and then abruptly back off. since large-scale ethanol doesn't help much in cutting CO2 and other warming gases. legislation late last year to increase the fuel economy of U. Stanford law professor & Spogli Institute Program on Energy & Sustainable Development director. It is a farm program that masquerades as energy policy. it has been a farm program that masquerades as rural development. though. is politically too diverse to survive the kumbaya moment. as in FutureGen. Farmers would win because they could serve the energy markets. This coalition. especially in the Persian Gulf. backed by a grand new political coalition. because that policy really has nothing to do with energy. (The project had severe design flaws. at times.com/id/118087. alas. “The Energy Trap. As an energy policy it is a very costly and ineffective way to cut dependence on oil.newsweek. the cabal of Washington energy experts imagines that these problems can be solved with a new comprehensive energy strategy. Why the United States is doomed to be an energy outlaw”. The coalition. accessed 6-29-8) Whenever the public seizes on energy issues. Just two weeks ago the feds canceled "FutureGen. but even that powerful lobby has a hard time getting the government to stay the course. it must send credible signals to encourage investment in new equipment not just for the few months needed to craft legislation but for at least two decades-enough time for industry to build and install a new generation of cars.CONGRESS SPECIAL INTERESTS DICTATE ENERGY POLICY – SACRED COW PROGRAMS LIKE THE PLAN HAVE HARDENED POLITICAL SUPPORT Victor. Security hawks would welcome reduced dependence on volatile oil suppliers. automobiles will have such a small effect on the vehicle fleet that it will barely change the country's dependence on imported oil and will have almost no impact on carbon emissions. The coal industry periodically gets money for its favored technologies. The only policies that survive in this political vacuum are those that target narrower political interests with more staying power. http://www." a government-industry project to develop technologies for burning coal without emitting copious greenhouse gases. but neither party actually does much about it. demonstrating that the government is incapable of making a credible promise to help industry develop these badly needed technologies over the long haul. For an energy policy to be effective. never lasts long enough to accomplish much. Similarly. and labor would seize on the possibility for "green-collar" jobs in the new energy industries.com.

With McCain trailing Obama on most domestic issues in voter opinion polls. Obama favors a "windfall profits" tax on multinational oil companies." he said last week in Las Vegas. the Arizona senator has strived to link his energy plan to national security. anyway. "I won't support subsidizing every alternative.tax rebates for electric cars. and Al Qaeda as beneficiaries of America's dependence on overseas oil. The presumptive GOP nominee. McCain has refused to cede the "green" label to his Democratic rival.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS McCain frames the plan as a financial carrot to the alt energies sector. “McCain and Obama share energy goals not methods”.The war of words between the senators escalated throughout the week. and nuclear power is a lightning rod in Nevada. and the presidential candidates spent the past week trying to outflank each other on an issue that's thinning billfolds from Maine to California. environmental stewardship.to promote alternative sources of energy. and then let consumers choose the winners. a push for cleaner fuels . subsidize development of ethanol." Obama wants to reduce oil use 35 percent by 2030. No. taxes. home of the federal government's proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain." portraying him as an obstructionist with too narrow a view of the country's energy woes." He vowed Wednesday to wean America of its dependence on foreign oil by 2025 and gave his proposal no less momentous a title than "The Lexington Project. 2008 (Ariel.not anytime soon.steals key swing states from Obama Sabar." after the Revolutionary War site where "Americans asserted their independence once before.quarter of their energy from wind. An opponent of the gas-tax holiday. He would double auto fuel-efficiency standards within 18 years. He would offer motorists immediate relief in the form of a hiatus in the federal gas tax. from hybrid vehicles to biofuels like ethanol. McCain looks to domestic oil exploration and entrepreneurialism. Ethanol is an economic engine in corn-growing Iowa and Minnesota.less reliance on foreign oil. "We can't drill our way out of the problems we're facing. The campaigns are keen to the politics of their plans in important swing states. But where Obama sees stricter standards as key to a more energy independent and efficient America.but their methods differ sharply. opposes new offshore drilling and is wary of nuclear power. and regulation. energy now ties the economy in polls as voters' top concern. The Christian Science Monitor. McCain trumpeted his plan as a breakthrough after "three decades of partisan paralysis." 87 ." he said this month in Florida. McCain frames his proposals as a boon for consumers and another example of his "straight talk." "With gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon. pass a law to phase out all incandescent light bulbs. subsidies. They also agree that the federal government . His aides say his plan strikes the right balance among short-term relief for consumers. June 30. wants 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 and an end to the federal moratorium on new offshore drilling. lexis) With fuel topping $4 a gallon and oil at a record price." Obama last week called McCain's proposals a series of "cheap gimmicks" that "will only increase our oil addiction for another four years.should become a model of energy efficiency. a $300 million prize for a better car battery . On the Democratic side. Obama has said that new oil exploration would not lead to lower prices at the pump . and force power companies to generate one. with dueling conference calls for reporters and new standalone websites devoted to energy. On the Republican side. where his ratings are higher. Their plans share key goals . naming the Middle East. many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians. their approaches square with party ideology. we are enriching some of our worst enemies. Venezuela. They have taken to calling Obama "Dr. In a speech in Las Vegas Wednesday." McCain said in a speech last year. Both McCain and Obama support tougher government oversight of energy futures traders whose speculation has been blamed for spikes in oil prices. financial carrots and a significant role for the private sector." he said this month in a speech in Houston. While Obama's plan is more in keeping with traditional interests in those states. offshore drilling is a divisive issue in Florida. and spend $150 billion over the next decade to develop and market clean-energy technology. He would use market lures . "When we buy oil. solar. In many ways. and long-term energy independence.with its giant fleet of cars and square miles of office space . The presumptive Democratic nominee. and other renewable sources by 2025. But in a departure from GOP predecessors. "But I'll encourage the development of infrastructure and market growth necessary for these products to compete. or tariffs that restrict the healthy competition that stimulates innovation and lowers costs.

McCain faces an uphill battle to put this increasingly blue state into play in the fall. 88 . a registration surge in advance of the state's May 20 mail-ballot primary helped swell the Democrats' advantage to 190. of a reliance on fossil fuels that threatens America's economy and security.000 votes in 2004. Bush. Obama." McCain said. Pollster Tim Hibbitts said the global warming pitch probably won't get him "on the green side" of Obama or Clinton among environment-first voters but could help "take the edge off" among voters concerned with the environment but more focused on other issues. "The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention." Obama said in a statement. Analysts note that Oregon's electorate has shifted over four years. "particularly in Washington.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS Green issues appeal to key swing voters in the election. registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by about 63. "I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges. and both criticized McCain's remarks on Monday for not going far enough.000. McCain will keep up the environmental theme Tuesday with a round-table discussion in a suburb of Seattle. with stricter limits than under McCain's plan. that's not saying much. McCain's proposals may be improvement on President Bush's. Obama ripped McCain for his vote on a 2005 bill that contained incentives for renewable energy development. to decry melting polar ice. a 4-percentage-point margin over President George W. changes in animal migration and "rising temperatures and waters." Clinton and Obama both stressed energy policy in trips to Oregon last week. McCain championed nuclear power and warned that China and India must take steps to curb their own rising carbon emissions. near Portland International Airport. In it. with heated opposition to the Iraq War and Bush in general. "While Sen.sways important states towards McCain CHICAGO TRIBUNE 5-13-2008 John McCain launched a green-tinted courtship of West Coast swing voters on Monday. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee visited the wind-power technology firm Vestas. vanishing glaciers. The Portland speech expanded on an issue McCain has stressed throughout the campaign. "It is truly breathtaking for John McCain to talk about combating climate change while voting against virtually every recent effort to actually invest in clean energy." all products. This month. Clinton and some environmental groups criticized the reach of McCain's proposals. with a call to action on global warming and an indictment of the Bush administration's "failed" policies to combat it. compared to the 80 percent reduction proposed by Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama." McCain said. he laid out his targets for carbon emission reduction: 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. "I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both support such a "cap and trade" system." Clinton said in a statement her campaign released. before friendly and skeptical audiences alike. he said. he promised to lead the world in the effort. And analysts and voter-registration statistics suggest that even with his green appeal. In a veiled shot at Bush. McCain advisers believe the Arizona senator's environmental stances could help push the state his way this fall.000 voters. Voter registration reflects that: In November 2004." He endorsed a "cap and trade" system that would impose carbon-emission limits on industries and require businesses that exceeded those caps to buy credits from businesses that pollute under their limits. Democrat John Kerry won Oregon by 76.

is he “really hasn’t done anything to show these moderate and independents that he is one of them. July 3.” Towery warned.” said Matt Towery. Rick) Santorum. a victory in November could come at a steep price. the environment and pork-barrel busting could be a big help in tight congressional races where independent and swing voters could make or break the election. 89 .foxnews. compared to 78 percent of Democrats who said they were satisfied with Barack Obama. Throughout his campaign. he may not be welcome in those districts where he has the strongest role to play. “McCain is certainly an improvement over Bush and (former Sen. “If that’s beginning to develop. a Republican who was upset by Democrat Jason Altmire in 2006 in her Democratic-trending suburban Pittsburgh district. Melissa but those positions risk turning off moderate voters in swing districts. In a FOXNews/Opinion Dynamics poll in June.” However. when Republicans lost four seats in Pennsylvania. http://elections. The problem for McCain. For instance. and in doing so he may be pushing away some of the moderate vote that made him so attractive in the primary and caucus races. 2008 (Kelley Beaucar. political analysts say McCain could potentially help former Pennsylvania Rep. And while McCain needs conservatives to turn out and vote for him on Election Day. “He is right now being groomed by many in the Republican Party to create his conservative bona fides.com/2008/07/03/mcmoderates-coattails/ For John McCain. Hart.” McCain’s touch-and-go relationship with the GOP’s conservative base is no secret.key to McCain victory Vlahos. McCain longtime image of a moderate “maverick” who championed campaign finance reform. But if he continues to shift right to appeal to those base voters who are skeptical of him. “Moderates Could Find It Difficult to Ride McCain’s Coattails”. only 54 percent of Republicans surveyed said they were satisfied with their choice for president this year. the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has been shifting to the right in an effort to woo the GOP’s wobbly conservative base. so I think he will create a somewhat better environment” for swing voters than in the 2006 midterm. Ceisler noted. the Republicans most needing his help this year are moderates from mixed districts who rely on crossover votes and independents to win.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS Swing voters perceive the plan as a moderate move by the GOP. “the coattails may be far and few between. said Larry Ceisler. McCain’s recent turnaround on the issue of offshore oil drilling and his support for an amendment to California’s constitution barring same-sex marriages may appeal to conservative voters. But that shift could make it harder for Republicans to win or hang on to House and Senate seats in key swing districts this fall. who has worked in Republican campaigns and now runs the Insider Advantage polling company in Georgia. a Democratic consultant in Pennsylvania.

ironically. who is a little on the leading edge of some of the emerging issues. John McCain "could be the strongest GOP presidential candidate in decades on so-called green issues." Pawlenty.. The League of Conservation Voters gave McCain a zero rating for missing votes on 15 key environmental tallies while campaigning last year. whose objectively much stronger records are viewed as a matter of party orthodoxy.. in its cover story." 90 .. McCain's environmental record is good enough to win over moderate. Campanile. They charge he sabotaged his own Climate Change bill by inserting a provision promoting nuclear power.win over swing voters FRONTRUNNER 4-7-2008 The New York Post (4/7. . Plan allows McCain to undercut Democrats as the green party. said campaign adviser Charlie Black. Adler.. fat F. up from just 11 percent in 2005.key to McCain victory NPR. the national co-chairman of McCain's presidential campaign. like energy issues and climate change. Still.a big. Pawlenty says creative thinking on such issues will help the Republican Party seem more modern." and "once quipped: 'Nature is not a liberal plot.' But critics claim McCain's environmental record is worse than his rhetoric." According to Newsweek. 2008 (“ Mccain advisor: GOP must address climate change” http://www. eco-friendly swing voters. many environmentalists "breathed a sigh of relief when McCain locked up his party's nomination.npr.with a voting record that would put him at the bottom of the heap among Democrats -.org/templates/story/story. says Minnesota Gov. 3.key to election WHITE HOUSE BULLETIN 4-7-2008 McCain Could Undercut Democrats' Advantage On The Environment The White House Bulletin April 7. "We now have a candidate in John McCain who is viewed as independent-minded and taking different approaches." McCain "is an appealing figure to some environmentalists. "The environment. has emerged as a leading issue in this election cycle. according to pollster John Zogby. His lifetime rating since entering Congress is 24 . 2008 Monday Newsweek (4/14.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS McCain’s environmental record allows him to capitalize on the plan." Plan changes the perception of the Republican brand.php? storyId=91850623) The Republican brand needs some "freshening up" if the party is going to appeal to voters in swing states. McCain -. june 24. reports. tells NPR's Michele Norris. last year more than three voters in 10 said they would take a candidate's green credentials into account. but he was widely viewed as the most acceptable of the major GOP contenders. 648K) reports that some observers say that Sen.is sometimes perceived as more passionate about the environment than his Democratic opponents.12M). . Tim Pawlenty. which typically ranks somewhere around 'regulatory reform' among voters' concerns. So.

said the group might not endorse any candidate for president. McCain has co-sponsored legislation that seeks to reduce global-warming gases by creating a "cap and trade" system in which companies would buy and sell what amount to permits to emit greenhouse gases. John McCain is shifting his attention to independents and Democrats. The group endorsed Democrats in six of the past seven presidential elections. McCain also has supported California's efforts to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. Iraq and judges designed to appeal to conservatives. whose popularity is at a near-record low. a top official at the Sierra Club.the biggest environmental issue before Congress -. citing the refuge as a natural treasure on par with the Florida Everglades and the Grand Canyon in his home state of Arizona. and with independent voters across the country. http://proquest.S. a Democrat. The Wall Street Journal. 91 . McCain's support of regulating global-warming gases like carbon dioxide -. The McCain campaign believes his position will make him competitive in California. 2008 (Laura. McCain and many Democrats believe the U.umi. In a sign of Sen. one of the nation's most influential environmental groups. which in December blocked the state's bid to regulate such emissions from cars. but he said it once. "said that I was the Grand Canyon's best friend. Besides championing legislation to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. in contrast to the Bush administration. a Democratic stronghold. As for greenhouse gases. with proposals on climate change. I don't know if he still believes that. Sen. President Bush and many Republicans warn that binding targets could put the U. Bruce Babbitt. “McCain Woos Democrats on Environment”. McCain has opposed the administration's call to open parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling.com/pqdweb? index=0&did=1476903241&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1215292309&clientId=15 66) After spending several weeks staking out positions on taxes. May 12. such as China. Sen. In a campaign appearance last week." Sen. though he disagrees with them on how such regulations should be structured. Stephen Power. it declined to endorse a candidate in 1988. should force industry to reduce emissions through binding caps. McCain said he "was once honored" that former Interior secretary and Arizona Gov. at a competitive disadvantage against fast-growing countries. Sen. Sens.S. Sen. that haven't committed to emissions reductions.more closely resembles the stance of his Democratic rivals. Sen. McCain's potential appeal to environmentally conscious voters.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS Plan boosts McCain’s popularity with independents Meckler. The Republican presidential candidate also is using his stance on energy and the environment to draw distinctions between himself and President Bush.

he's also emphasizing some of his policies that appeal to independents and moderates.com/article/ALeqM5gmQEONZ9sodACWl8gD-8P_fRAxyAD91MAA000) MCCAIN The four-term Arizona senator is trying to distance himself from the unpopular President Bush and. and champion energy alternatives for better choices and lower costs. Two of his commercials emphasize fighting global warming and achieving energy security. His television advertisements don't mention that he's a Republican." 92 . pledging to make a broad overhaul of the immigration system his "top priority. July 3. Those are efforts to curb global warming and the need to free the country from its dependence on foreign oil. At the same time. he mentioned secure borders largely in passing and rejected the enforcement-only approach the far right advocates. http://ap. reduce dependence on foreign oil through domestic drilling. One says: "A comprehensive bipartisan plan to lower prices at the pump. five years ago" and praises "a plan that will help grow our economy and protect our environment.google. For example. He emphasizes bipartisanship — and his record of reaching across the aisle to work with Democrats — while talking up two subjects that resonate strongly with voters of all stripes. 2008 (“Candidates courting the center”. the Republican Party itself." Another says: "McCain stood up to the president and sounded the alarm on global warming. McCain focused largely on comprehensive immigration reform. seemingly." He wants a temporary worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants. speaking to Hispanic leaders last week.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS Climate change legislation sways independents towards McCain The Associated Press.

But green issues could be key to winning the purple-state moderates and independent voters who could decide the general election. frequently supported legislation to require auto companies to produce more-fuel-efficient vehicles. 4/23/08 When it comes to the White House. If the environmental community decides to campaign against McCain. "Linking clean energy and global-warming solutions to future economic growth is essential to appeal to swing voters in November. 93 ." Weiss said. environmental issues could matter more in the general election than they have in the primaries. he won't feel much pain in the deep-red conservative states. some political analysts say. noted that the Energy Department is predicting that gasoline prices will rise to $3.40 a gallon this summer as campaigns heat up. He argued that high energy prices could hurt McCain because of his opposition to rolling back tax benefits for the oil companies and requiring electric companies to use more renewable sources of energy. senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress. McCain has. where he has already been downplaying his green record. Daniel Weiss.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS Must Reverse stance on energy and environment to win crucial swing voters National Journal. however.

president of Lake Research Partners.. Weiss cited a Democracy Corps poll released last month. Weiss. reducing oil dependence and global warming is the second-most-important issue among independent voters. it's green jobs.a key to winning the open primaries and general election . "They believe new energy technology will create good-paying American jobs. "Energy is a huge issue. They don't like oil companies..THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS Reducing emissions and oil dependence are crucial issue for swing voters Christian Science Monitor. But independent voters ." Alternate Energy key issue for swing voters – extremely popular National Journal. which also found that among Democrats. 10/6/07 Democratic pollsters disagree.. it's the future." 94 . Lake noted."said Celinda Lake."After immigration." shesaid. "The war is top." The environment and energy are particularly important issues for independent voters. but then energy is part of the next level of issues that also includes the economy and health care. the director of climate strategy for the Center for American Progress Action Fund. it speaks to the environment. according to a survey cited in The New York Times." she said. it is the fourth-most-important issue. said Daniel J.view energy independence and climate change as very important. They like energy independence. 11/27/07 Environmental issues are typically low on the list of public concerns when choosing candidates and presidents. very big umbrella because it speaks to national security. Mr. "Energy Is a very. "They're among the top issues for Democrats to talk to independent men about.

the economy. I have continued until this time to endorse with all my heart the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. but have not yet found their candidate. and my passion for Barack Obama and will be working night and day in the coming days and weeks to bring the Obama and Clinton camps together and unify in Northwestern Pennsylvania as we begin our quest for that which all our futures and health depend. "As a network focused on showcasing independent thought. it is important to note the lasting effect and cultural importance the environment has on the average voter." 95 . It is clear to me though that Barack Obama has the required votes for nomination at the convention in Denver. Barack Obama's message of change and his positions on health care.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS Pro environmental policies swing independent voters Murray. where the environment fit into the grander political landscape and how his film and his recognition will effect the coming presidential race. but also a strong voice to those voters who are passionate about the issues. this epic contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has fortified in me the vitality of the Democratic Party and its hopes and vision for our future. Interestingly. and other issues vital to the Democratic Party have resonated with record numbers of voters including young voters. While this poll was meant to determine how significant an impact Al Gore's Nobel Prize had on the American political culture. supporting Barack Obama for the presidency of the United States and will be voting for him at the convention in Denver. the election of Barack Obama. a large majority (68%) of Americans agree with Al Gore's environmental views. the environment. I pledge all my support." Environmental issues key to swing voters PR Newswire. independents. I have been involved in running campaigns in Northwestern Pennsylvania since 1972. my heart. 6/3/08 (Ian. the Iraq war. despite the fact that 80 percent of those polled have not seen his film or read his book. after much thought and consideration. States News Service. we believe the independent voters will be the difference in the upcoming election. Across all political affiliations. the environment is seen as a major cultural issue of our time. 10/17/07 "As voters weigh the cost and benefit of each candidate. it is our hope that this survey not only provides insightful understanding of our nation. I have been a strong supporter of Hillary and Bill Clinton since 1991. having chaired and run Bill Clinton's 1992 and 1996 campaigns in Erie County. lexis) "I am now. DNC Member. and like-minded Republicans. She has been a true champion of the Democratic ideals that are so important to voters of Northwestern Pennsylvania.

"This questionnaire helps to focus not only on the work we do. including capping greenhouse gas emissions. (and) restoring the public advocate's office. Pro Environment popular with swing voters Straits Times." he said. the Clean Car Act. "Over the past five election cycles. 96 . at least two-thirds of the bills (the Sierra Club backed) have become law. 5/20/08 With his image of being a maverick." Tittel said past questionnaires have played a role in the enactment of important environmental legislation.SWING VOTERS Pro Environment stance key to win swing voters Star Ledger.the swing voters that the party needs to hold onto. Mr McCain has long irked the party's core conservative base with his proabortion. dedicated funding for open space. "That helps a lot in close races. pro-immigration and pro-environment stances. But these positions are popular with Hispanics." Tittel said global warming is the Sierra Club's top priority and environmentalists want to know the candidates' positions on a series of bills that work together to address the issue." Tittel said. such as the Highlands Act. but the work of the Legislature as well. including liberal Republicans and women. 3/2/07 "The importance of the endorsement is that people who care most about the environment tend to be swing voters. energy efficiency and conservation.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP. clean diesel legislation. independents and women .

McCain then appears on screen behind a microphone above a superimposed newspaper headline: But the ad aired a day after McCain's announcement Monday that. Theodore Roosevelt." Democrats have been trying to portray the Republican presidential candidate as an extension of President Bush. Obama has yet to begin broadcasting his general election themes.This is the second ad in McCain's expanded general election media campaign. “McCain ad puts distance with Bush on environment”. John McCain. The Democratic National Committee criticized McCain's environmental record. that focuses on key battleground states. he has a realistic plan that will curb greenhouse gas emissions. A plan that will help grow our economy and protect our environment. McCain has favored a plan that would see greenhouse gas emissions cut by 60 percent by 2050 and supports more nuclear power. June 17. McCain is spending at least $2 million a week on the ads. Prosperity. five years ago. pines and mountains behind him as a breeze ruffles his untucked shirt. global warming also stands as an important issue with the evangelical and Christian conservative voters McCain is trying to court.google. Today. stood up to the president. capped by a color clip "McCain climate views clash with GOP.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-CHRISTIAN RIGHT Plan restores the GOP’s credibility over energy policy. The Associated Press." KEY IMAGES: Jarring music and a quick black and white succession of video images — heavy traffic. The announcement. when he said he favored the ban.." The music softens amid images of windmills. http://ap. If there is a narrative in the ads it is to establish his biography as a war hero and independent politician. smokestacks belching smoke. McCain also had indicated he was open to a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. Reform. like Bush. of the sun setting. Peace. a modest expenditure McCain often has said he aspires to be as great a conservationist as his role model and fellow Republican. but on Tuesday criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for demanding the same thing. 97 . McCain and the Bush administration have clashed over how to control greenhouse emissions. And with McCain embracing Bush's current policies on the Iraq war and tax cuts." McCain: "I'm John McCain and I approve this message. water turbines and solar panels. The ad concludes with McCain outdoors. 2008 (Jim. glaciers collapsing into the ocean. McCain currently has the airwaves to himself.boosts Christian right turn out Kuhnhenn. The first described his family's tradition of military service and his more than five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. noting his policy changes and some votes against tax credits for alternate energy sources. ANALYSIS: The ad is built on a foundation of five central words: " .com/article/ALeqM5gYpS6G-fl1uyS2zifc0FsveuPGwD91C36MG0) SCRIPT: Announcer: "John McCain stood up to the president and sounded the alarm on global warming. upset environmental groups. he favors lifting the federal moratorium on offshore drilling.. While the ad sought to assure independent and environmentally conscious voters. the issue of climate change gives him a chance to distance himself from the unpopular president. a reversal from his position in his first presidential campaign in 2000.

html It's a Good thing that Youtube and Google convey ample information on Senator McCain's views about energy and the environment. and alternative energy. given the intensity of his views on energy independence--which seem to include an unrealistic expectation of how soon it could be achieved--he would leave offshore drilling to the discretion of the nearest affected states. alliance management. at both the corporate center and with business units involved in global oil refining & marketing. His industry experience includes leadership roles at Texaco Inc. and he places energy squarely within this context. Surprisingly. He also strongly supports nuclear power. From his comments in various speeches. and together with Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) he sponsored a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade bill that was the precursor of the Warner-Lieberman bill currently under consideration in the Senate. Climate change is a major element of that theme. Friday. higher fuel economy standards. but it's consistent with the theme of environmental stewardship that runs through the whole McCain campaign. The measures he proposes for improving energy security cover the same themes as many other candidates.blogspot. and biofuels. frequently citing Nigeria. particularly compared to the level of detail provided by Senator Obama. He has an MBA and a BS in Chemical Engineering.") 98 . because his campaign website is a bit sparse on both topics. and small events. LLC. National security is Senator McCain's strong suit. transportation. I wasn't surprised to see him make the "funding both sides of the War on Terror" argument in the principal energy policy document on his website. an energy and environmental strategy consulting firm.com/2008/01/candidates-energy-mccain.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-MCCAIN [ ] McCain supports alternative energy. he’d vote for the plan Styles 08 Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group. town halls. Venezuela and Russia as examples. It's not hard to find video clips of the Senator talking about climate change and the inter-generational responsibility he feels in this regard. there. He has criticized the Bush administration's approach to global warming. 2008 http://energyoutlook. helping organizations and executives address systems-level policy. and he opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. it's clear that he is very concerned about our dependence on foreign oil. and of the Senator's legislative agenda. electrification of transportation via plug-in hybrids and batteries. on both economic and national security grounds. in strategy development and scenario planning. Since 2002 he has served as a consultant. since the Romney campaign has labeled Senator McCain's approach to climate change as "radical" and "wrong-headed. (I look forward to reviewing Governor Romney's position on this issue. advisor and communicator. I think he is missing a bet. based on its low greenhouse gas emissions. He emphasizes the instability or governmental hostility of many of the countries from which our imports flow. and energy trading. January 18. including wind and solar power.

” . “Greening the Capitol”. and that is crazy. (Mick Gregory. We are re-lighting the Capitol dome with energy efficient lighting. particularly our children. using natural gas at the Capitol Power Plant. Oil conservation on top of Nancy Pelosi’s agenda . America must provide strong leadership to reduce emissions that are responsible for global warming. We are also encouraging green transportation with a bike sharing program and a car sharing program for House employees. we hope to send a message to the world and to the country. We are purchasing wind power.Speaker Pelosi. 03-01-07. Republican representing The Woodlands.http://sadbastards. including biofuels.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-PELOSI Pelosi supports increasing renewable use and efficiency Pelosi 7. The House now sells only 100 percent post-consumer recycled paper.gov/issues?id=0023) “Today we say that the Capitol will be not just a shining symbol of our democracy. and has installed compact flourescent lights. the Venezuelan owned oil company. Texas.”. 2007Addressing global warming and protecting the environment are vital to protecting the health of all Americans. A new food pulper reduces the weight of cafeteria waste by as much as 70 percent by extracting water from it. The U.she wants a shift to renewables Gregory 7. Increasing use of renewable energy sources. Green the Capitol efforts have made significant progress. http://speaker. The bill passed by the new Democrat majority. Economists said the tax scheme would reduce domestic oil production and increase reliance on imports such as Citgo. but a symbol of our commitment to the future. 0118-07. “This bill says foreign oil and foreign jobs are good. “Nancy Pelosi Punishes U. 99 . and energy efficiency will help reduce emissions. protecting future generations from this global threat. Kevin Brady. June 21.S. American oil and American jobs are bad.” said Rep. purchasing carbon offsets. from San Francisco had pledged to push through during the first 100 hours of Democratic control.S. and our cafeterias have taken steps to green their processes and equipment.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/nancy-pelosi-punishes-us-oil-companies-and-rewards-hugo-chavezs-citgo-oil) The Democrat-controlled House surged ahead without debate to roll back U. Not only by the power of our ideas on energy independence. The energy legislation was the last of six “high-priority” issues that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. but by the power of our example. including composting all food waste. oil industry research incentives last Thursday in what left-wing supporters hailed as a new direction in energy policy toward more renewable fuels. and as we phase in more carbon efficiencies. (Speaker Nancy Pelosi.S. House of Representatives will be one of the world's first "carbon neutral" legislative bodies. For the sake of our future generations. Oil Companies and Rewards OPEC — Including (Chavez) Citgo Oil. In less than a year.

html) [MB] “Every day that goes by.php “Instead of offering more help to ExxonMobil. The basis for our criticism of Senator McCain is when he said “I would be more than happy to examine it again. See: http://marcambinder. Senator McCain and President Bush should be getting serious about energy efficiency and renewable energy sources that will actually reduce our need for oil. LCV 6/19/08 (League of Conservation Voters. the top issues he names when he cites his difference from George Bush.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/mccain_hinting_at_anwr_reversa. “LCV Responds to McCain’s Flip-flop on Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge”.lcv. create jobs. John McCain looks more like George Bush on global warming and America’s energy future. “And every day.” in response to a question about drilling in the Arctic Refuge. and save families money at the pump.” LCV President Gene Karpinski said. Senator McCain abandons another principle in order to score political points and help his friends in the oil industry.” 100 . June 19 2008.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-LGV Alt energy is popular with League of Conservation Voters.org/newsroom/press-releases/lcvrespondsto-mccain-s-flip-flop-on-drilling-in-the-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge. http://www.

which will allow us to become better stewards of the environment. Office of the Press Secretary) In the long run. We've raised fuel efficiency standards to ambitious new levels. 101 . With all these steps. We've mandated a large expansion in the use of alternative fuels.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-BUSH BUSH SUPPORTS ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVES Bush. 2008 (President Bush. we are bringing America closer to the day when we can end our addiction to oil. My administration has worked with Congress to invest in gas-saving technologies like advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. Speech on June 18. the solution is to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies.

Among residents in the 18-29 age group.001 adults with Christopher Borick. Rabe co-authored the survey of 1. nearly half of Michigan residents surveyed said they would be willing to pay more than $50 annually in order to produce more renewable energy. which makes these latest findings surprising. considering Michigan is home of the U. Michigan. Michiganians say increasing global temperatures constitutes a serious problem. which mirrors the nation's perception. professor of political science at Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania." Rabe said.S.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP– MICHIGAN Michigan voters overwhelmingly support alternate energy incentives – even if it increases energy costs States News Service. 102 . has been among the least active states.'' In fact. 2/14/08 (released by University Michigan. Most Michigan residents support state requirements to increase the level of renewable energy in the state's electricity supply. These issues have moved rapidly from the back-burner toward the front of the American public policy agenda. however. Many states have enacted policies that mandate increased use of renewable energy as well as other policies that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Eight out of 10 respondents indicated the Earth's climate has become warmer over the past four decades. said Barry Rabe. 63 percent the highest percentage among three age segments considered global warming a very serious mater. "The strong support for better vehicle fuel-efficiency standards and a willingness to pay for expanded renewable energy production are surprising. "Despite all that.Ann Arbor: Three out of four residents in the auto industry-dominated state of Michigan would be willing to pay for ways to increase the role of renewable energy sources. It is the first known survey of its kind to ask Michigan residents about global warming issues and climate policy options. while the costs estimated to reduce global warming vary. the residents support these changes and say they're willing to help pay for them. automotive industry and the nation's highest unemployment rate. a new University of Michigan survey says. a professor in the Gerald R. Lexis) MICHIGANIANS WILLING TO PAY EXTRA FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION The following information was released by the University of Michigan . Ford School of Public Policy and School of Natural Resources and Environment.

he will garner enough support to win the state. integrity and a sense of the future. are swayed less by policies than whether they think the country is on the right or wrong track. have significant political influence and excel at voter mobilization. Nevada and New Mexico had cast their electoral votes for John F.for the political conversion. Some areas. Armstrong also said that as long as McCain hammers home a message of fiscal discipline and is a "straight shooter" on energy policy. his campaign announced Friday." said Bill Armstrong. Colorado Colorado has gone through profound political changes since Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry lost here four years ago. but it's not insurmountable. of course." Even though McCain has a proven track record of making decisions independent of his party. then took over the governor's mansion and picked up a seat in Congress. self-reliant. McCain also has obstacles in shoring up the GOP base. Voters here in recent elections have backed individual candidates regardless of political affiliation and have responded to messages emphasizing economic populism. and Nevada and Montana can be found here. perhaps most notably in evangelical communities. Kerry in 2004. 103 . however. they often engage in retrospective voting. Colorado and New Mexico are below. While voters have elected Democrats for state and federal offices in these states. founder of Focus on the Family. the war in Iraq and other issues. those candidates have been moderates or conservatives. In New Mexico. he'd be president now. Already.or blamed. unaffiliateds are expected to be the political kingmakers in November. someone who won't engage in Washington-style politics and is committed to taking the country in a better direction.190 voters (and ahead of Democrats by 112. Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly 200. "It's a problem. that could politically damage McCain. Cronin said. a political science professor at Colorado College who has studied the Interior West's voting behavior for the past 40 years. Obama is portraying himself as a reformer." Obama has scheduled an invitation-only event for Wednesday in Colorado Springs." said Dan Kemmis. many of them more comfortable in cowboy boots and a bolo tie than a Washington. a former Colorado Republican senator who is now head of Colorado Christian University. But since they don't have much evidence of what [the candidates] will do. "The question is whether the national Democrats are finally in a position to appeal to Western voters. based in Colorado Springs. the Rocky Mountain West will play a pivotal role in a year when independent voters are expected to make or break John McCain's and Barack Obama's presidential bids. if unaffiliated voters aren't happy with the economy. Senate seat and a majority in the statehouse in that election. authenticity.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP– COLORADO Alt energy popular in Colorado Denver Post. 6/30/08 One-third of Colorado registered voters are not affiliated with a political party. Here's the second half of an in-depth look at four states that could prove pivotal in determining our next president." This has continued the dialogue about whether McCain is "conservative enough" for some Republicans and led to concerns that a chunk of GOP voters might sit this election out. Democrats won a U. But James Dobson. Trailing registered Republicans by only 4. And then. has yet to back off from his position that he would not vote for McCain "under any circumstances.000. and touting his record of standing up to both political parties. fiscal discipline and the balance between individual rights and governmental protections. McCain is emphasizing his 22 years as a Western senator sensitive to the region's issues and personality. who is associated with the party in power and has been in Congress for 22 years.C.-style suit. High turnout in this dependably Republican county is critical for McCain to combat big Democratic numbers in the Denver area. depending on whom you ask . former speaker and minority leader of the Montana House of Representatives and director of the O'Connor Center for the Rocky Mountain West. "McCain isn't going to have a problem solidifying his base in the long run because Barack Obama is doing it for him. "Unaffiliated voters look at what direction the country is going in. If just Colorado. The state's pragmatic and progressive unaffiliated voters are largely credited . a Democratic candidate has won only one state in the eight-state region since Lyndon Johnson nearly swept it in 1964. These middle-of-the-road voters. "It's less about a specific issue than style. Montana voters don't even register with a party. With the exception of former President Bill Clinton's election in 1992 (largely due to the impact of third-party candidate Ross Perot) and reelection four years later. libertarian-leaning voters. He's too radical.725 voters). such as Colorado Springs in El Paso County. "Can they address and be sensitive to Western issues?" The stakes couldn't be higher. there's the personality test. Brimming with individualistic.S. D." said Tom Cronin. yet the state routinely votes for the GOP presidential candidate.

AIDS prevention. that his organization has advocated for human rights in Darfur. the fear of being identified with liberals and Democrats. Reno Gazette Journal. Moreover. some have a dualistic perception of spirit and matter &mdash. Nevertheless. Tibetan Buddhists rights and care for the environment. Rich Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals stresses. conservatives such as James Dobson from Focus on the Family. Interestingly. "Creation Care" promotes caring for both humanity and nature. In response. the Rev. Both the local and the global are interrelated. ’07 (Noel. they argue that these measures save money. many are convinced that Christ is coming back any moment. Those who oppose the former's position cite Genesis 1:28 where creation is to be dominated. and others contend that environmentalism leads to worshipping the creature instead of the creator. 104 . a group of conservative Christians published "The Evangelical Climate Initiative. reduce global warming and pollution. there is the political issue &mdash. Obviously. however. use of renewable energy and the purchase of hybrid vehicles. In fact. he adds that global warming is real. Charles Colson of Prison Fellowship and Franklin Graham have not embraced this initiative and dispute causes and solutions to global warming. Furthermore." which advocates for national legislation requiring sufficient reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. "What Would Jesus Drive?" or WWJDrive? is a discussion initiated by the Evangelical Environmental Network.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP– EVANGELICALS Studies prove evangelicals love alternate energy and emission cuts Tiano. Center for ethics @ University Nevada. and eventually can pay for themselves. Proponents address the social justice issue because our poorest global neighbors will be hit the hardest. And "Regeneration Project" is an interfaith campaign that has spread to 20 states. one good and the other evil. prison rights. last year. which harm human health. 3/10/07) A study conducted by Ellison Research in February 2006 shows that as many as three out of four born-again or evangelical Christians tend to support environmental issues such as reducing global warming. many churches have formed grass-roots coalitions.

big business. Citing both the social justice implications of global warming on the world's poor and mankind's God-given responsibility to exercise "proper" stewardship over the Earth. “Bush has to tackle global warming. Opinion. Constituencies that are important to him are demanding tougher action. now” NEWS. Leaders representing an unusual coalition of interests . according to the National Election Pool exit poll.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP– EVANGELICALS Evangelicals want alternate energy incentives Frydenberg 7 (Joshua.the evangelical movement. the national security establishment and environmental groups . Bush has been left with little room for political manoeuvre. 85 evangelical leaders co-signed a statement that called for greater use of renewable energy and more stringent legislation to curb carbon dioxide emissions. including a market-based cap and trade program that the President is yet to support. However. Pg. last year.78 per cent voted for him. lexis) But he is falling short. Bush's victory in 2004 depended heavily on winning their votes . former senior adviser to John Howard and a director of a leading international investment bank. Unless he makes further substantial adjustments to policy. He recently participated in the Australia-America Leadership Dialogue in California. Perhaps most interesting of all has been the environmental advocacy of the religious groups. 15.have united in their call for the President to outline a more aggressive response to global warming. With white evangelicals making up nearly a quarter of the American electorate. the Christian leaders are running radio and television campaigns in states with influential legislators. 105 . February 2. support for the Administration on this important issue is likely to fall. With leading Republicans such as Californian Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and presidential aspirant Senator John McCain also publicly promoting their green credentials at every opportunity.

We work closely with the evangelical community on these issues because they believe. to the United Steelworkers and the National Farmers Union. how beautiful and choice. Evangelicals love the plan Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim. 2/27/08 (Nancy. Environmentalists. and landfill gas." a group of Roman Catholic religious women in North America. extends the solar and fuel cell investment tax credit. environmental. green collar jobs that will be right here in America.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP. and Rep. Some of the recommendations already are in the works -. 106 . A group of Christian leaders in the Evangelical Climate Initiative is focusing on climate change as a moral issue that will adversely and disproportionately affect the poor around the world..term plans to build viable and sustaining markets for these technologies. 2/20/08 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. who describe the story of the universe in both sacred and scientific terms. They are editors of the Harvard book series on World Religions and Ecology. Capitol hill press release) "This legislation: strengthens and extends the production tax credit. "Energy independence is an economic issue . and it is a moral issue to care for ourplanet.." Reid spokesman Jon Summers said that the environmental message is catching as more politically active evangelicals start to support environmentally friendly measures. God Loves Alternate Energy Las Vegas Review Journal. andoffers tax incentives for residential solar.the adoption of California's stricter tailpipe emission standards for cars and light trucks. which will spur the deployment of wind. expands the tax credit for gas stations that install alternative fuel pumps. it is an urgent national security issue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Tuesday continued his push to promote the development of renewable energy resources. teach religion and ecology at Yale University.biomass. and creating newgreen jobs. Jackie Dingfelder. "It will spur the production of clean renewable energy sources and provide business with the certainty necessary to make long." Sen. "Be careful not to ruin and destroy my world. for if you do . founders of the Forum on Religion and Ecology.in terms of budgets for America's families. to the Sierra Club. science. D-Portland. "It will ensure we keep the jobs that were created with renewable tax credits. focused on water issues.the next generation of good-paying. and create hundreds of thousands more . ’07 (4/17. creates a new production tax credit for cellulosic ethanol and extends the biodiesel production tax credit. The legislation stems from recommendations of the governor's task force on global warming. the greening of churches and synagogues leads religious communities to search out sustainable building materials and renewable energy sources through InterFaith Power and Light. the Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has led several international symposia on religion. it is supported by a broad coalition from business. and labor communities from corporations such as Home Depot and Dow ChemicalCompany. lexis) Public hearings about legislation to deal with global warming and greenhouse gas emissions start this week with committee members in both the House and Senate. Evangelical voters love Alternate Energy Incentives – view it as a religious imperative Pelosi. In Canada the Indigenous Environmental Network is speaking out about the negative effects of resource extraction and military-related pollution on First Nations Reserves. D-Portland. who has been campaigning to stop the development of new coal-fired energy plants in favor of more environmentally sound renewable energy sources. and geothermal technologies. During a speech to about 500 renewable energy professionals attending the Renewable Energy World Conference and Expo North America at the Rio. that this planet is God's creation and we have a moral responsibility to preserve it. "See my handiwork." God tells Adam.. Chronicles of Higher Education. which met for almost two years to find ways to cut the state's carbon emissions. geothermal. pointing to trees in the Garden of Eden. This is all about answers in themarketplace. a nonprofit organization that works with religious organizations on environmental issues. "We are wanting to see our government take action. "There is a groundswell of support in the evangelical community. house speaker. Internationally. such as E85 pumps. faith leaders and renewable-energy advocates urged legislators to take a role in the global debate -. "Because this legislation is vital for a greener and more prosperous future. and the environment. sponsors a variety of environmental programs drawing on the ecological vision of Thomas Berry and Brian Swimme.EVANGELICALS Evangelicals love emission cuts and renewables Statesman Journal. "Green Yoga" is exploring ways in which yoga practitioners can bring their meditative focus to greater awareness of environmental concern. are pushing the global-warming discussions." said Jenny Holmes of the Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon. hydropower. D-Nev. suggesting that God was the first environmentalist. The "Green Nuns. as do I. tidal. 2/9 ’07 In the United States. recounted an ancient rabbinical story about God talking to Adam. Brad Avakian. and creates a new category of tax credit bonds tofund local initiatives to promote the deployment of green technologies. it is an environmental and health issue to reduce global warming and protect the health of our children. for example.no matter how insignificant Oregon's emissions are compared to global levels. there is no one to repair it after you. wind. includes tax incentives to promote greater efficiency for homes and businesses and creates a new tax credit for plug-in hybrid vehicles. Reid.

Pastor Ken Wilson is co-founder of a project that brings evangelical pastors together for a day with environmental scientists to discover common ground. In 2004 the board of directors of the National Association of Evangelicals adopted an “Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility” affirming that “because clean air. we may be in for a period in which campaigns for green reform programs dominate American politics. “New Age of Reason”. Salem News. “Why Evangelicals will become the new environmentalists”. says plainly that he wants to be “a good steward of the earth”—and. the rapid loss of land that can grow crops. there will be "aha" moments spreading like wildfire among us. http://www. 107 . the voice for over 6. and over a billion people without clean drinking water.What began as a trickle and has swelled into a steady stream is bound to become a flood as evangelicals in America become the new environmentalists.com/articles/july092008/jesus_green_7-908.EVANGELICALS Evangelicals view environmentalism as important voting issue – support emission limits Bailey. and Bill Hybels.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP. We will bring new energy to address the growing global environmental crisis of a warming climate. Rick Warren. senior correspondent. Good stewardship of God's green earth is a hallmark of faithfulness to the earth's creator. Evangelicals who have been known to affix the adjective "whacko" to the term "environmentalist" are starting to go green. favors an economy-wide “cap-and-trade” system to control greenhouse gases. and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order. to that end. the evangelical candidate..html) It is possible that environmental revivalism may supplant the fundamentalist aspect of the Fourth Great Awakening. April 2008. April 08 (Ronald. Reason Magazine. And it’s worth noting that some evangelical churches recently have embraced environmental issues.salem-news. an alarming extinction rate. The heirs of the Social Gospel have also enthusiastically embraced and promoted modern campaigns for clean living.Why am I so sure? Because evangelicals love to rediscover biblical truths that have been long neglected in the church and dive into these truths with passion.com/news/show/124939.000 churches in his Willow Creek Association. http://www.reason. Calls to return to the biblical heritage of environmental stewardship are pouring from leaders like Richard Cizik. but many evangelicals have been blind to it for cultural reasons. Evangelicals are the New Environmentalists Wilson 7/9 (Kevin Wilson.php) You've probably noticed a shift in the American religious landscape. The Bible is shot through with this emphasis. government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation. the Vice President for Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals. Once we start seeing it again. If so. pure water.” Huckabee. the author of The Purpose Driven Life.

John Dingell said in an interview with The Associated Press. 108 . The alarm sounded by hunting and fishing organizations is significant." said Rep.. D-Mich.HUNTERS Hunters and Anglers love emission reductions Grand Rapids Press. Groups representing nine major hunting and fishing organizations planned to meet with the House committee chairman who hopes to write legislation to curtail greenhouse gases linked to global warming. 6/6/08 A new assessment of the threat to fish and wildlife habitat has hunters and anglers calling for action. said the groups' concerns are very important in helping with a measure to address the problem. "These are the branches of the conservation movement from which I come. Dingell.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP.

More dues must be paid. Look Beyond the End of Your Gun Barrel”. With the 60 votes needed to advance the bill anything but certain. Hunters and Fishers love the plan – swing western states In These Times. "We've taken a look at some of the other key programs. along with farmers. Hunters HATE Bush b/c of environmental policy.also sent a letter supporting the bill. Instead." they wrote. The last eight years. staff writer. In recent weeks. which we have a much better chance of doing under President Obama. Meanwhile. gave Obama an unimpressive 67 percent rating. but since locking up his party’s nomination. should be applauded for their work to find common ground on this critical issue. June. McCain is seen as viable but GOP’s record makes them suspicious Schneider 7-09-08 (Bill. Bush) and his apprentice Darth Vader (aka Richard B. "We see this as perhaps the most important conservation bill we have ever worked on. “Hunters. Lieberman. which is what we now have. and human well-being. wildlife advocates and hunting and fishing groups have begun to turn up the heat on their campaigns to advance the bill -. and others who have worked to advance and improve this legislation. as well as protections for natural resources threatened by inevitable global warming. I suspect. http://www.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP. so we could be looking at four more years defending our environmental laws and policies that have kept our hunting tradition alive. of course.newwest. the Izaak Walton League of American and Ducks Unlimited -. labor unions. 109 . John McCain has a moderate flair about him and definitely won’t be an arch-enemy of environmental laws. Along the way the numbers of hunters have continued to decline. we should be moving forward." Hunters and fishers love climate legislation Environment and Energy Daily. and Warner put forth thoughtful legislation that reflects the complexity of this crisis. zero. passing stronger conservation laws and regulations." said John Kostyack of the National Wildlife Federation. under the leadership of the Emperor (aka George W. 6/4/08 The National Wildlife Federation also circulated a new report to senators yesterday highlighting the "urgent need for climate change legislation. Businesses. he has changed several positions to be in line with those dictated under the regime of the Emperor and Darth Vader. reports and a flurry of letters to senators to press for their support. ’08 Hunters and fishermen across the nation have expressed concern about the changing climate and. McCain received a perfect score. many groups expect they will continue the fight in future years. 6/4/08 The climate legislation has emerged as the major focus for environmental groups this year. Cheney).HUNTERS Climate legislation is top priority for hunters and fishers Environment and Energy Daily. faith-based organizations. Last month more than two dozen hunting and fishing groups -. have been key to recent Democratic victories in many Western states. as has the amount of huntable land." And grassroots activists from across the country have come to town to press their lawmakers for their support. like the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. conservation groups.launching advertising campaigns. hunters. and our top priority programs can only operate successfully if we grapple with climate change science. "The future of hunting and fishing in America depends on the ability of conservation agencies to assist fish and wildlife to adapt to a changing climate. not exactly a hunting group but still the nation’s best ranking of environmental voting records. Hunters and Anglers want the plan Targeted News Service.net/topic/article/hunters_look_beyond_the_end_of_your_gun_barrel/C37/L37/) The League of Conservation Voters. They. such as now supporting offshore drilling and flip flopping on gun show sales to cozy up to the NRA. both because of the emissions reductions. and recognizes the important links between climate action. small-town mayors and big-state governors have all embraced the call to action represented by this bill. New West. 6/6/08 Senators Boxer. Environmentalists say they see this as a long-term campaign. anglers. conservation.including Pheasants Forever. have been an all-time low for conservationists trying to protect wild land and wildlife habitat.

110 . Each may represent only a small sliver of the electorate — but in an election this close. “Is the Hunter Vote Still Competitive”. he says. The Carpetbagger Report. Though the administration has stopped work on that plan.thecarpetbaggerreport.html) Larry Dwyer.” says 52-year-old Karl Rappold. a spectacular meeting of mountain and prairie where the administration has pushed for drilling. They agree with many of the president’s policies. “What’s turned me off on Bush is that he is trying to force his way into wild places that should never be industrialized. http://www. they say. Dwyer recently as he and his companions rode on horseback through a valley in the Carson National Forest in New Mexico. The three represent a small group of hunters. a rancher on Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front. the New Mexico Wildlife Federation asked 600 sportsmen about their election choice in 2000 and their plans for November. Nearly half said they wouldn’t vote for Mr. At the Outdoor Adventures Hunting and Fishing Show in Albuquerque last February. “It happens to be my biggest issue.” said the 48-year-old Mr.com/archives/2837. fishermen and other outdoorsmen who are considering leaving their Republican roots this year. political consultant and writer. Oscar Simpson and Alan Lackey are lifelong Republicans who voted for President Bush in 2000. they are part of a larger wave of one-issue voters who intend to cross party lines for their cause.HUNTERS 2004 proves. They argue that the administration has bad conservation and wildlife policies that threaten what is dearest to them: public hunting grounds. But they won’t be voting for Mr. even though most said they had done so in 2000. but the anecdotal evidence looks relatively encouraging.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP. their five grown children and at least two other relatives. All three are elk hunters who spend much of the year anticipating outdoors vacations in New Mexico and Colorado. along with Democrats who support the president’s aggressive stance on terrorism and economic libertarians who dislike his conservative stand on social issues. October 22. Bush in 2000. Rappold says he will vote against the president — as will his wife. In this closely fought election. Republican hunters will cross lines b/c of Bush’s environmental policy Benen 04 (Steve. such slivers could turn out to matter. 2004. Bush in 2004. He says they all voted for Mr. There isn’t a lot of cold data. 1. Elk season here started Oct. Bush this year. Mr.

6/3/08 (Alex. but a very good way to frame it. 111 . Environment and Energy Daily Reporter. the campaign could find success if it can simply eliminate from the voters' minds that he is an "Big Oil" candidate." Ciruli said.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP – COLORADO Plan swings Colorado – steals the most important democrat issue Kaplun. you've got to have an economic policy and something about Iraq. "As a candidate. the candidates' ability to win the energy debate could prove to be particularly critical this time around. "I think he's going to try to make the case. "It's become a very popular sort of framework for discussing everything else." Experts say that while swing voters will likely never view the former Republican congressman as being particularly strong on the environment. he has been able to blunt attacks in past campaigns by highlighting his push for the creation of Great Sand Dunes National Park and a few other environmental initiatives." Ciruli pointed out that while Allard is not typically viewed as a strong environmentalist. is through energy policy and in particular a renewable energy policy. whether you're talking about foreign and domestic issues. they need to have some environmental credentials. Pundits say that with voters worried about high gas prices in general and the economy as a whole. as voters view the development of renewable energy as a potentially major economic engine for Colorado and as voters in some corners of the state have expressed concern about the impact of drilling on the environment." said Republican Colorado pollster Floyd Ciruli. but I really don't know if he's going to be able to make it successfully. "The general rule for Republicans is while they don't need to be known as environmentalists. Lexis) The back-and-forth on energy policy has become a staple of recent statewide political campaigns. But officials from environmental groups say that one of their goals in the contest is to ensure that Republicans are not able to eliminate what they describe as the stark differences between the candidates on energy policy.

Environment and Energy Daily Reporter. But the race has started to heat up over the last few weeks as the candidates formally seized their party's nomination and both camps quickly moved to establish the high ground -. And while it figures to be in play once again this time around. 112 . The two parties have for months eyed the contest between Rep. Recent polls show Udall in the lead. Democrats and their allies in particular see an opening to score major electoral points by highlighting what they describe as the Republican candidate's oil-friendly record in an era when such an image can prove to be highly damaging to a campaign.has been a major campaign topic in Colorado for several campaign cycles.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-COLORADO Supporting alternate energy massively popular in Colorado – its the key issue Kaplun. 6/3/08 (Alex.and in particular the development of renewable energy -. Udall and Schaffer are expected to mount a highly competative battle for the seat being vacated by GOP Sen. Mark Udall (D) and former Rep. Wayne Allard. Bob Schaffer (R) as one of the pivotal Senate contests of the 2008 cycle.in the debate over addressing the country's energy needs. both candidates and their supporters are moving quickly to stake out a positive image on renewable energy development -. who is stepping down after two terms.or at least not fall too far behind -. Lexis) With the Colorado Senate race heating up. though the margin varies from a virtual dead heat to the Democrat leading by high single digits.an issue that is poised to play a central role in the November election. Energy policy -.

about six in 10 voters favor the building of the deepwater Liquefied Natural Gas port. "The reality of higher fuel and energy costs are hitting home for Florida residents.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP.72 percent . 113 . 47 percent of residents strongly favor the building of the Calypso Deepwater Port.of voters support moving forward on projects that would provide Florida with more energy at less cost. The poll shows that an overwhelming majority . Four of every five persons (81%) polled wanted to see a proposed deep water natural gas port slated for 8 to 10 miles off the coast of Fort Lauderdale completed. support increased to a full 81 percent. with 52 percent expressing "strong support." said Gene Ulm. Floridians strongly welcome any solution to short energy supplies and high costs.FLORIDA Energy key issue in florida – alternate energy massively popular Business Wire. 46 percent chose as their top answer either "cutting the cost of oil and energy" or "improving the job and economic situation" 64 percent of voters strongly support expanding Florida's use of natural gas for electricity generation and other forms of environmentally clean energy that are less expensive than oil When initially asked about the project. the closest county to the proposed off-shore site. "Climbing fuel costs combined with worries about the economy have converged to reshape priorities for Floridians. After learning some basic facts about the project." In Broward County." Key findings of the survey include: When asked which issues should be the top priorities for Florida's elected officials. professional pollster and primary researcher on the project. 6/12/08 A recent nonpartisan opinion poll crystallizes Floridians' concerns about the economy with energy and oil prices as top concerns. In these times.

Wisconsin. said Bryan Wilson. but rising fuel costs and new tax credits have many in the area looking to the alternative energy resource with increased interest. California Gov. an installer for the company. Ohio. according to polls. and Minnesota.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP-FLORIDA Warming is a key issue in florida National Journal. and they tend to have a pro-environment stances. renewed interest in alternative energy sources has been on the rise. Speaking at the state Republican convention earlylast month. ’04 (10/8) While the top four issues to voters. Florida. Oregon. said Mark Baldassare. "Many are swing voters in the key battleground states. 114 ." he said. are the economy. where Republican governors are aggressively backing action to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. Arnold Schwarzenegger urged th eparty faithful to embrace more-moderate policies on climate change and other domestic issues. Cont… With oil still hovering near $60 per barrel. Wilson recently traipsed across the roof of a Julington Creek Plantation home to attach solar panels and cut pipes while installing a pool heating system. New Mexico and Pennsylvania." Alternate Energy popular in florida Florida times union. 10/6/07 Global warming could also have a high profile in California. Pro Environmental Policies Swing Important votes in florida Grand Rapids Press. 12/30/05 Harnessing the power of the sun has long been popular in Florida. "Moderate and independent voters are looking for candidates whose views reflect their own on a variety of issues. research director at the institute. the environment may be an important factor among swing voters in Florida. terrorism and security. American Solar Energy has been busy trying to meet new customer demands. the war in Iraq and health care.

org/polls.ARIZONA Alternative energy popular in Arizona VSI no date http://www. compiles poll results from other sources) Arizona--87% of the voters think the state should choose renewable energy sources like solar and wind over more coal. Behavior Reseach Center says environment near top of issues worrying Arizonans (pdf).html (vote solar initiative.votesolar. and 78% would pay at least $5 a month to make that happen.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP. Details here (pdf). 115 .

That’s the first time that many high-profile international business leaders have called for concrete action on climate change.BUSINESSES Big businesses advocate alt energy policies: it allows them to capitalize on a new industry. http://blogs. and partly to juice their own businesses. > 116 . In the U. like clean-technology.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP.com/environmentalcapital/2008/06/20/payme-ceos-tell-g-8-diplomats-to-get-green-subsidies-flowing) // THK <If politicians can’t come up with a global climate-change strategy.” 6-20-2008. CEOs from 99 of the world’s biggest companies—representing about 10% of global market capitalization—urged G-8 countries to take ambitious action to fight climate change. including curbing global greenhouse-gas emissions by 50% mid 2050. Climate Action Partnership have been clamoring for the government to fight global warming. 08 (Keith Johnson.S. That’s partly so they’ll have a hand in designing regulations many already see as inevitable. WSJ.wsj. “Pay Me: CEOs Tell G-8 Diplomats to Get Green Subsidies Flowing. about 30 big corporations in the U.S. world business leaders are ready to goose them into action— because they stand to gain from it..

The ads then end with the slogan. I believe that IF the GOP can coordinate a plan and strategy such as this. Ladies and gentlemen. Drill Now. it ends with "DRILL HERE. Pay Less. VOTE REPUBLICAN". and terrorists for our energy.. much like they did in the 1992 elections with Newt's "Contract With America" plan. McCain and Newt need to have an "emergency energy conference" with GOP members of Congress and those GOP challengers running for office. I give you. They come up with a singular energy plan. Newt is not the perfect conservative.Newt Gingrich. Energy independence means HUGE JOB GROWTH in a slumping economy. that they can ride a tsunami into office. He has some baggage.". Then. Here's how I think they get there and how they can "drop the bomb" on the democrats. coal fields. The issue is there for the GOP to take advantage of as they by far have been much more on the right side of the issue. http://www. Then. but in this day and age. Slam Dunk. Newt is a strong conservative on most other issues as well..freerepublic. These ads will highlight how the democrats have blocked our energy independence. They can use Newt's "Drill Here. Again.". that could be the tip of the iceberg. Americans have had it with high energy prices because they know that rising food prices and rising prices of just about everything else is related to the higher energy costs." campaign. Second. basically calling for the opening up of onshore and offshore oil fields. albeit very similar solutions. these candidates sign a pledge to back these measures in office. There is simply NO down side to this. and it means NO MORE RELIANCE on foreign thugs. He knows the energy issue insideand-out and can bring instant authority and credibility to the ticket on this issue. coordinated ad campaign follows. how it would lead to energy independence. It appears that he is getting the message about the energy crisis in the country. [Ian Miller]) The energy problem in the US is lightning in a bottle for the candidate and/or party that can unleash it. DRILL NOW. You think Newt could work with Congressional GOP members? Obviously. 117 . nuclear energy. and all the benefits that would result." at the end. AND "fasttracking" these through Congress. or whoever the candidate is. 6-19-08. McCain make ENERGY INDEPENDENCE along with national security the #1 campaign issue. If it's a national GOP ad. DRILL NOW. Drill Now" slogan. They are also learning that we have more oil available under our ground and shores than the entire Middle East. who doesn't? I think he IS the perfect VP candidate under these conditions. Newt Gingrich has some ideas and has perhaps been in front on this issue with his "Drill Here. Really. Similar to the "Contract with America". or 3rd choice but it's who we have. I'm no big fan of McCain..com/focus/f-news/2033687/posts. 2nd. the way McCain brings this front and center is to pick a VP candidate to be his point man on this. DRILL NOW. etc. These are the points that need to be stressed. VOTE MCCAIN/GINGRICH. and add "VOTE . If it's a Presidential ad. unlike Obama who keeps mouthing the same empty liberal rhetoric. BIG DROP in energy prices. food prices. a massive. “How McCain and the GOP Can Ride An Energy Wave To Victory”. He wasn't my 1st. what the GOP plan is. dictators. which all adds up to a roaring economy. It it's an ad for a Congressional candidate it can end with "DRILL HERE. First. Even democrats with half a brain left are saying "it's time to drill!" Different republicans are offering different. Of course. and all related industries. McCain has some ideas. it ends with "DRILL HERE.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY = MCCAIN WIN New energy policy before the election enables the GOP to ride a tsunami into office (Free Republic. What the GOP needs to do is rally around a singular plan. Current members of Congress have some ideas. VOTE THOMPSON.

public opinion has outpaced political rhetoric. professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. With energy prices at extremely high levels. June 24.com/view/energy-talk) But there is evidence that we are in a moment of change. former Vice President Al Gore has helped to popularize the issue of global warming through his Oscar-winning film and advocacy. In certain respects.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY = MCCAIN WIN VOTERS SHIFTING TOWARDS ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDLY POLICY. The Washington Independent” http://www. More Republican politicians have started to question the Bush approach to the energy crisis. Meg Jacobs. Even though Carter's speech was a flop. Building on the work of the environmental movement. polls suggest that the public is more willing than ever to deal with environmental challenges. National-security concerns have also broadened electoral interest in reducing energy dependence on the Middle East.PLAN SCORES VOTES FOR MCCAIN Zelizer. the high cost of fuel is persuading a large number of Americans to switch from Humvees and SUVs to smaller cars and even bicycles for daily commute. “Democrats need to learn to sell their Priorities”. Mass transportation is experiencing stunning rider increases. associate professor of history at MIT. 118 . Shifts in consumer attitudes and consumption have also helped citizens see practical steps toward reducing oil use. Even when the Republicans controlled Congress. the Bush team has not been able to get through a measure to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve to drilling. 2008 (Julian. According to several recent reports. the environmental movement gradually influenced the way the public thought about issues like conservation of energy.washingtonindependent.

they could snatch victory from defeat.lexisnexis. and we know that energy prices have gotten out of hand. more efficient automotive systems that have been successful in other parts of the world. oil-producing countries in the Middle East and South America. we will eliminate barriers to the import of cheaper. sensible voice on this issue. to move us away from an oil-based economy. The National Post. If every Republican running for office.do? docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4093840883&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=26&resultsUrlKey=29_T4093840886&ci sb=22_T4093840885&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=10882&docNo=26) In 2008. spoke with a single. We want to reduce fuel costs for all of us. We will also promote alternative energy sources. combining foreign and domestic policy concerns into a monstrous hybrid of a problem. A first draft might read: "We are Americans too. Finally. 2008 could be their year after all. June 18.THE FORT PLTX A GOP FOCUS ON ENERGY POLICY WILL GRANT MCCAIN THE PRESIDENCY Caldwell. 119 . we will do the following three things: We will begin to tap America's vast oil reserves. using technological drilling advances that protect the environment. such as nuclear power. Senator John McCain." If the Republicans agree on such a platform. with energy prices fixing to become the top election issue. “How McCain can grease the wheels of victory”. If you elect us. and cut the number of dollars we send to hostile. 2008 (Theo. from freshman House candidates to their presidential nominee. an understandable and workable proposal could help the GOP again. https://www.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.

" said Gagin.only 10 percent of (Ohio's) vote but it can move back and forth. Obama has a track record of supporting coal."Polls show Obama with a small lead over McCain in Ohio.Chris Gagin knows the district can swing politically."The whole Muslim issue. The district director for Democratic Rep. Charlie Wilson.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN2143903020080722? pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0 More importantly. but the state is considered too close to call."It's an important area -." 120 . will be hardpressed to win over the region's working class voters. campaign” http://uk. But whether that will be enough to win over voters concerned about his race or reputation as a liberal elite is not clear. an economically depressed but culturally conservative region that supported rival Hillary Clinton in the Democratic nominating process.A KEY SWING STATE IN THE ELECTION Thomson Reuters UK.but also elected Bush in 2000 and 2004. analysts believe embracing coal-to-liquid technologies and others like it may offer Obama a way to win over white working class voters in the area. Obama. but the economy is in lousy shape so Democrats should be able to connect. is something nobody talks about. Illinois. and race issue. but it's there.reuters. 7-22-08 “Alternative energy a popular stop in U. since coal mining is also a staple of his home state." said Herb Asher. a professor of political science at Ohio State University.even if he loses. Gagin sees people every day who voted strongly for his own Democratic boss and the state's Democratic governor -. he admitted. I think at this stage it's a challenge for Obama but he doesn't have to carry it -.S. the votes he gets could make the difference.THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY= OBAMA WIN ENERGY POLICIES GIVE OBAMA OHIO."Right now Obama has the more difficult challenge in this region than McCain. who supports the Baard plant. "Clean coal is a way for Obama to introduce himself to these folks (to show what) they have in common. but it won't be the determining factor for most of them.

THE FORT PLTX ****************BIOFUELS*************** 121 .

Domestic production of these renewable fuels is not only good for the environment. and biomass fuels. These include raising RFS standards significantly. but also promotes rural economic development and may lessen the international trade gap. leading to an ethanol glut. can always count on bipartisan support. 2006 (Christine Todd. representatives of both parties have shown support for increased production of renewable fuels such as ethanol. “Open Dialogue on Environment Key to Improving Faith in Government”. biodiesel. President of the Whitman Strategy Group. in this case to improve the environment and stimulate economic growth. 2007 (“Rapidly Growing Investment in Biofuels Catches Markets Off-Guard”. June 27) Similarly. BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR BIOFULES IN CONGRESS The Hill. former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. or improving infrastructure for ethanol use.THE FORT PLTX BIOFUELS BIPART BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN CONGRESS FROM BIOFUELS Whitman. The focus on distribution infrastructure reflects a fear that production capacity will grow while demand is stunted by a lack of access. March 6) Biofuels find significant bipartisan support in the United States and a number of supportive policy ideas are being floated in and around Congress. 122 . American innovation. implementing loan guarantees or tax breaks. Senators have proposed mandates in these areas rather than softer supports.

Jim Greenwood. adults say they are likely -. Released today by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO).S. said. And they are ready to support political candidates who favor such incentives." said Brent Erickson. 2008 (“Public Sends Mixed Signals on Energy Policy”. 2006 (Biotechnology Industry Organization. president and CEO of BIO. 82% of adults say national and state governments should provide financial incentives to biofuels producers to encourage the production and availability of biofuels.to support federal and state political candidates who favor providing incentives to promote increased national production and availability of biofuels." OVERWHELMING PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR BIOFUELS BIO. which are made from agricultural crops or plant matter. October 18) Four in five U. March 6) Comparable majorities of Republicans. Reducing dependence on oil and lessening environmental impacts are important to our nation's future economic growth and competitiveness. October 25) Four of every five U. a new survey shows. "Developing domestic biofuels and ending our over-reliance on foreign oil appear to be top concerns among Americans in this election year.THE FORT PLTX BIOFUELS POP.fuels made from agricultural crops or plant matter -.S. 123 . Democrats and independents also favor more funding for ethanol research. 2006 (“Majority of US Adults Would Give Thumb’s Up to Candidates Who Support Biofuel Development”. adults strongly agree that national and state governments are not doing enough to promote production of biofuels. the survey conducted by Harris Interactive also finds that 50% of U. "A strong majority of Americans clearly support federal and state financial incentives to promote greater development of biofuels such as ethanol that can help end our addiction to oil. A strong majority of Americans clearly support federal and state financial incentives to promote development of biofuels such as ethanol that can help end our addiction to oil. adults (80%) strongly or somewhat agree that national and state governments are not doing enough to promote production of biofuels -.and four out of every 10 say they are very likely -. "And they seem ready to support political candidates who support biofuels and favor such incentives. Adults Support Government Incentives for Biofuels”." PUBLIC SUPPORTS BIOFUELS – SPECIFICALLY ETHANOL Pew Research Center for People and the Press.S. executive vice president of BIO's Industrial & Environmental Section. “Survey Shows U. our survey finds.according to a new survey released by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). Additionally.PUBLIC MAJORITY OF PUBLIC WANTS THE GOVERNMENT TO DO MORE TO PROMOTE BIOFUELS Energy Resource. but support for this policy has slipped among all three groups since February 2006.S.

we have Woody Harrelson.are businesses. or regulation in the form of a biofuels production tax incentive (U. they are also highly political in nature. but for perhaps different reasons.S. biofuels will win. This is roughly the same amount the U. 124 . a Christian coalition for environmental protection. and being franchised. put on our war paint. Hillary or Barak probably won't have much luck with Chavez either. In the U. when the game is on. distribute to customers. t-shirts and jeans than suits. economic and environmental security and clean air. Both parties will support it. ethanol and biodiesel. Everyone wins. as well as ethanol events. Dubya (a. So leading up to the 2008 U. and cite other. The business side of biofuels is straight-forward and easy to understand. On the right. presidential elections. That is a 1000% increase from 2004 to 2006. and Europe. his brother Jeb (a founder of the Inter-Americas Ethanol Commission).S. target.S. Petroleum Tax Biofuels production tax incentives by the U.com/rea/news/recolumnists/story? id=49424) The biofuels industry in the U.). Enter Mr. Let's not let our emotions get the best of us when it comes to the contributions biofuels and renewable energy will make to national.k. Celebrities like Larry Hagman (JR from Dallas). When the pre-election cycle starts gaining steam. the consumer. In the U. At the biofuels conferences in 2005. Shell and British Petroleum all participating and actively promoting the biofuels sector for various business and regulatory reasons. These villains apparently sent us to war in Iraq. as well as environmental concerns. we will hear about some "villains" concerning our energy policies. Al Gore keeps his Oscar.S. friendly. most of us are rational. Hillary Clinton has a plan to penalize these "villains" with a petroleum tax.S. blood-thirsty beasts. Europe and Asia. repeat. Emerging Markets Online. This is the most ambitious plan in the world for biofuels. I have witnessed something strange happening as the years go by. the former CIA director James Woolsey. And it's not likely Bush and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez will kiss and make up any time soon. loving type of people. environmental reasons. this economic support generally comes from some form of political initiative. or a retail biofuels tax break (Germany). Dubya has revised our government's biofuels transportation initiative (the RFS).S. Energy is such an emotional and political hot potato in the U. and Tom Daschle. and meet Dubya's (and Daschle's) ambitious plan to replace 20% of our petrol fuels with biofuels. Even bigger than Brazil and Europe. President George W. This has occurred mostly due to government mandates and tax incentives. caring. let's remember that renewable energy is an "everybody" issue. Under the U. Either way.THE FORT PLTX BIOFUELS POP. and yes . and ethanol can be produced at up to $0.S. The two primary components of biofuels -. The corporatization of biofuels is helping to drive biofuels to the pump. My company. On Saturday or Sunday. Welcome to the "new normal.S. and worldwide is experiencing internet-era. Marathon. One party will cry foul about war for oil in Iraq. and now 2007. these tax incentives have contributed to 150%+ growth in the biodiesel market from 25 millions produced in 2004 to 75 million in 2005 to over 250 million gallons in 2006. and almost the same amount we import from Venezuela. there were more overalls. Much bigger. There is a new corporate mantra in the industry. Each of these countries have the potential to disrupt the U. Since biodiesel and ethanol are more expensive to produce than gasoline and diesel.believe it or not . 7/25/07 (http://www. mandate. we have Dubya. General Electric is citing their new motto "Green is Green"-the idea is catchy and growing almost as fast as the biofuels market. military and economy as we know it. political support is often needed." Dubya is now the champion of biofuels. Celebrity status in biofuels is also a big deal. The other party will emphasize national security and economic security concerns. and go fight for our team.S. Willie Nelson's farm-friendly "BioWillie" biodiesel is going corporate. imports from Saudi Arabia. gold-rush euphoria. Hated by liberals. gain market share. An unholy alliance of characters is merging to promote biofuels. Or will it? Production Tax Incentives vs. Bush).a. we turn into rabid. mandate. This happened primarily because of national security (military) and economic security concerns. make unconscionable petrol profits. Cont….S. And it is about to get bigger. Produce biofuels at a competitive price." Dubya? Did he say that? Yes he did.renewableenergyworld. and other countries have created an internet-like investment frenzy. He has confessed "the United States is addicted to oil. or to replace 20% of our transportation fuels in the next 10 years with ethanol and biodiesel..ethanol and biodiesel -. Politics makes strange bed fellows. Barack Obama. biodiesel can be produced at up to $0. Literally. energy independence will be a vital issue in the debates. and the rhetoric heats up. the Europeans produce and consume more than 80% of all of the biodiesel in the world.Chevron. On the left. However. loved by energy companies. In the next 16 months leading up to the elections. Daryll Hannah and former Dallas Cowboys coach Barry Switzer are now being hired by biodiesel and ethanol companies to promote the brands. In late 2006. has sponsored three Biodiesel Investor Conferences. This is especially true for biofuels. to stimulate growth in the ethanol and biodiesel markets by upping the ante and creating a "20 by 10" plan. In fact.PUBLIC Biofuels overwhelmingly popular Emerging Markets Online.99 per gallon tax credit. Voting for your team D or R is analogous to soccer-hooliganism or fighting for your favorite football team. I've been seeing more suits and polo-logos than t-shirts and overalls. and are contributing to expensive prices at the pump to the demise of soccer moms and middle Americans everywhere. and promote biofuels trade with Brazil. carnivorous.51 per gallon tax credit. Six days out of the week. that the discussion can be distorted beyond any form of cognitive reality-and send us into the stratosphere of ideological derision. Next year.

82% of adults say national and state governments should provide financial incentives to biofuels producers to encourage the production and availability of biofuels. president and CEO of BIO. the survey conducted by Harris Interactive also finds that 50% of U. Reducing dependence on oil and lessening environmental impacts are important to our nation's future economic growth and competitiveness. October 25) Four of every five U.fuels made from agricultural crops or plant matter -.and four out of every 10 say they are very likely -. “Survey Shows U. "And they seem ready to support political candidates who support biofuels and favor such incentives. A strong majority of Americans clearly support federal and state financial incentives to promote development of biofuels such as ethanol that can help end our addiction to oil. Adults Support Government Incentives for Biofuels”. Jim Greenwood. a new survey shows. Additionally. 2006 (“Majority of US Adults Would Give Thumb’s Up to Candidates Who Support Biofuel Development”.S. executive vice president of BIO's Industrial & Environmental Section." overwhelming public support for government incentives for biofuels BIO.S.THE FORT PLTX BIOFUELS POP. October 18) Four in five U. adults say they are likely -. adults strongly agree that national and state governments are not doing enough to promote production of biofuels.to support federal and state political candidates who favor providing incentives to promote increased national production and availability of biofuels.S. said. "A strong majority of Americans clearly support federal and state financial incentives to promote greater development of biofuels such as ethanol that can help end our addiction to oil. "Developing domestic biofuels and ending our over-reliance on foreign oil appear to be top concerns among Americans in this election year.according to a new survey released by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). And they are ready to support political candidates who favor such incentives. 2006 (Biotechnology Industry Organization.S. which are made from agricultural crops or plant matter. our survey finds.PUBLIC Massive Public support for biofuel incentives Energy Resource." 125 . Released today by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)." said Brent Erickson. adults (80%) strongly or somewhat agree that national and state governments are not doing enough to promote production of biofuels -.

“Biomass Movement”. Meanwhile. Unfortunately. This is popular with the public and also enjoys significant support in Congress.com/article/SB114722621580248526.wsj. congressional subsidies for biomass are driven by farm-state politics rather than by a technology-development effort that might offer a practical liquid fuel alternative to oil.S. But how much of this is practicable? 126 . 06 (John Deutch.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries) President Bush has made the welcome point that the U.THE FORT PLTX BIOMASS POP.PUBLIC Biomass is popular Wall Street Journal. needs "to move beyond a petroleum-based economy. 5/10/06. major oil and chemical companies are evaluating biomass and investors are chasing biomass investment opportunities. which refers to all bulk plant material." and has lent his support to the need to develop energy from biomass. http://online.

” said David Morris.html? pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em&en=6d8750fcd5a5af75&ex=1217044800 [adit] The government is pushing to get the industry off the ground.THE FORT PLTX BIOFUELS POP.nytimes. though the requirement could be waived if the industry faltered. “One has to say upfront that what Congress has done is remarkable in its Institute for Local Self Reliance. Wald. bravery.CONGRESS Biofuels are popular New York Times. Almost all the rest is supposed to come from nonfood sources. Legislation passed last year mandates the use of 36 billion gallons of biofuels a year by 2022. 7/24/08. Gassing Up With Garbage. http://www.com/2008/07/24/business/24fuel. a group in Minneapolis that advocates biofuels. Matthew L. vice president of the 127 . less than half of it from corn ethanol.

His home state of Illinois trails only Iowa in corn production. (Of course he does.crosscut.com/politicsgovernment/15855/Gauging+the+biofuels+backlash/ [adit] Of course. Nobody wants to be President Jimmy Carter. Virtually no one talks seriously about conservation. Obama backs ethanol subsidies.THE FORT PLTX BIOFUELS POP. virtuously putting on a cardigan sweater rather than turning up the White House thermostat.OBAMA Obama will push Biofuels Crosscut. most politicians like magic bullets. Without curbing future demand. Gauging the Biofuels backlash. future production — even if it's based on switchgrass or wood waste rather than offshore oil — won't get us where we need to go. (Of course he does. 128 .) Congress has showered ethanol subsidies on farm states since 1978. But someone has to do it. http://www. They don't grow a whole lot of corn in Arizona. 7/24/08.) McCain opposes them.

129 . April 10) In his State of the Union address in January. Bush backed financing for ''cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol. forest residues. Specifically. and other products. Funding for these projects is an integral part of the President’s Biofuels Initiative that will lead to the wide-scale use of non-food based biomass. New York Times. electricity. announced a year ago. these projects directly support the goals of President Bush’s Twenty in Ten Initiative. Brazil is Satisfying it’s Fuel Needs”. which aims to increase the use of renewable and alternative fuels in the transportation sector to the equivalent of 35 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2017. 2007 (U. Secretary Bodman raised the funding ceiling. 2006 (Larry. February 28) Today’s announcement is one part of the Bush Administration’s comprehensive plan to support commercialization of scientific breakthroughs on biofuels. trees. within authority of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005). not just from corn but wood chips and stalks or switch grass'' with the goal of making ethanol competitive in six years. Mr.THE FORT PLTX BIOFUELS POP. INCENTIVES FOR BIOFULES HAVE THE SUPPORT OF BUSH DOE. However. “With Big Boost From Sugar Cane.S. was initially for three biorefineries and $160 million. Department of Energy. “DOE Selects Six Cellulosic Ethanol Plants for Up to $385 Million in Federal Funding”. in an effort to expedite the goals of President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative and help achieve the goals of his Twenty in Ten Initiative. such as agricultural waste. The solicitation. and perennial grasses in the production of transportation fuels.BUSH BUSH SUPPORTS THE USE OF BIOFULES Rohter. Section 932.

‘Flex Fuel’ Vehicles”. "We can grow new energy here at home from American farms to American families. 130 . “Democrats Push Ethanol Growth. Bills Promote Alternative Energy.DEMS DEMOCRATS SUPPORT THE EXPANSION OF BIOFUELS Bellatoni. and they introduced bills to expand production of ethanol." said Rep. South Dakota Democrat. May 12) House Democrats said yesterday that the answer to the fuel crisis is growing in the fields of rural America. 2006 (Christina. Stephanie Herseth.THE FORT PLTX BIOFUELS POP. Washington Times.

50th governor of the State of New Jersey. the biodiesel tax credit was included in the energy bill. American innovation. can always count on bipartisan support. and biomass fuels. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and others.soygrowers. 6-27-06. but also promotes rural economic development and may lessen the international trade gap.S. "Senate passage of this bill is an encouraging step toward enactment of key biodiesel tax incentive provisions. former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. as well as the transportation bill that the Senate approved in February. Domestic production of these renewable fuels is not only good for the environment. and the savings will be passed on to consumers in both taxable and tax exempt markets. chairman of the National Biodiesel Board and ASA Executive Committee member from South Dakota.jsp?dId=1000156) Similarly." said Bob Metz.tax credit proves American Soybean Association 04 (Jenna Higgins. 5-12-04. American Soybean Association. in this case to improve the environment and stimulate economic growth. The tax credit amounts to one penny per percentage point of biodiesel blended with petroleum diesel. http://www. biodiesel. House of Representatives approved last fall.> <Biodiesel is bipartisan. representatives of both parties have shown support for increased production of renewable fuels such as ethanol. and we urge our leaders in Congress to act on this important measure.com/newsroom/releases/2004%20releases/r051204."> 131 . Hall Institute of Public Policy.htm) Biodiesel has strong bi-partisan support in Congress. which the full U. “Senate Passes Jobs Bill Including Biodiesel Tax Provisions”.environment and the economy Whitman 06 (Christine Todd Whitman.THE FORT PLTX BIODIESEL BIPART <Biodiesel is bipartisan. The incentive will be available to diesel excise taxpayers and other fuel distributors who purchase biodiesel and blend it into diesel fuel.org/cm/document_handler. President of the Whitman Strategy Group. Thanks to the leadership of Senators Grassley. http://www. "Greater biodiesel use will benefit all Americans.hallnj.

2006.” 132 . Southwest Farm Press.” said Agriculture Committee Ranking Democrat Collin C.” “This plan is home-grown and American owned. It provides a stark contrast to the Republican plan that I call the methadone treatment for oil dependency-replace the addiction to foreign oil with an addiction to foreign ethanol.” said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. Clyburn.THE FORT PLTX BIODIESEL. May 17. and it is good for our farmers. “The Rural Working Group’s proposal includes practical solutions that will expand ethanol and biodiesel production and will make sure that Americans can find flex-fuel vehicles at auto dealerships and biofuels at local gas stations.CON TO DEMS Biofuels are a concession to key Democrats. http://southwestfarmpress. but Americans are ready to meet the challenge. “The answer is right here at home. we grow the crops that can be converted into the biofuels that power our cars. Peterson (D-MN). “It severs the ties to foreign imports and puts American production and growth first. It is good for the environment.” “This legislation sets a path to energy independence for the United States that is fueled by our nation’s rural communities.” said House Democratic Caucus Chairman James E. From corn in the Midwest to soybeans in North Carolina. good for our economy.com/news/05-17-06-democrats-biodisel-package/) “The energy challenges facing our nation are real.energy bill proves Southwest Farm Press ‘6 (“Democrats unveil comprehensive Biodiesel energy package”.

even if people say they like it. Right now. 133 .pittsburghlive. “Renewable energy unpopular at farm show”." Antle said.html) Penn State University researchers Mark Antle and Joe Perez said cost.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_546710. "I think people say they want cleaner-burning fuels and they want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. http://www. but then they hear the cost and that's the end of it. more than anything.PUBLIC Biodiesel is massively unpopular. ethanol blends and biodiesel fuels are priced about the same as regular fuels. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 1-10-08. appears to make people less willing to embrace alternative fuels. they’re not willing to pay for it Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ‘8 (Robin Acton. a crop and soil researcher in the university's science department. said Antle.THE FORT PLTX BIODIESEL UNPOP.

THE FORT PLTX ************BROWNFIELDS********* 134 .

The change that's taking place today is as great as any we've seen in more than a century. Broward Politics. But the truth is.OBAMA OBAMA SUPPORTS REDEVELOPING BROWNFIELDS WITH FEDERAL HELP Obama. That's just more of the same in Washington. You know what happens when Washington listens to big oil and gas companies and blocks real energy reform "" because it's your budgets that are being pinched by high energy costs. who's fighting to turn around the nation's largest school system. BYLINE: Anthony Man) That's why you need a partner in the White House. Mayor Rybak. who's done an extraordinary job helping the Twin Cities recover from the bridge collapse last year. and your schools that are cutting back on textbooks to keep their buses running. I'm thinking of Mayor Cownie. What you need is a partner who knows that the old ways of looking at our cities just won't do. who knows that our nation and our cities are undergoing a historic transformation. But you shouldn't be succeeding despite Washington "" you should be succeeding with a hand from Washington. it's the lots in your towns and cities that are brownfields. and misery abroad. who's working to make his city green. And few know better than you why Washington needs to change.THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS POP. who are finding new ways to lift up their communities. What Obama said today in Miami. what our cities need isn't just a partner. His priorities are very different from yours and mine. since the time when cities grew upward and outward with immigrants escaping poverty. he isn't proposing a strategy for America's cities. and tyranny. Instead. 135 . That's why you need a partner in the White House. and so many other mayors across this country. Now. 6-21-8 (Barack. At a time when you're facing budget deficits and looking to Washington for the support you need. That's what this election is all about "" because while Senator McCain is a true patriot. we're actually seeing a rebirth in many places. It's time City Hall had someone in the White House you could count on the way so many Americans count on you. despite the absence of leadership in Washington. Mayor Bloomberg. I'm thinking of my friend Rich Daley. he won't be that partner. he's calling for nearly $2 trillion in tax breaks for big corporations and the wealthiest Americans "" and yet he's actually opposed more funding for the COPS program and the Community Development Block Grant program. who's made a deep and lasting difference in the quality of life for millions of Chicagoans. Neglect is not a policy for America's metropolitan areas.

p. The board was slow to grasp the housing collapse and the clamor for tax cuts. ln) Hillsborough County commissioners can look back on the past year with little sense of accomplishment. local governance. Growth from the last housing boom has made congestion worse. The recent fights over wetlands and the sports park resonated not only because the plans were so bad for taxpayers and the environment. It’s Time to Give Up.THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS INCREASES POL CAP THE PLAN INCREASES POLITICAL CAPITAL. The public wants to see better priorities and a maturing in the commission's thinking. from commuter rail and jobs to growth. The tax-cutting environment is reducing the revenue stream for roads. social services and other public needs. urban redevelopment and environmental protection. Commissioners' machinations behind the scenes also raised suspicions about this board's competence and ethics. 136 . Petersburg Times 7 (FL newspaper. The board's major achievement was backing away from two mistakes that sparked public uproars: a plan to open wetlands to developers and another to build a $40-million amateur sports park. 10/29. It did little to boost the economy and avoided tackling big issues. 12A. The public also was floored that commissioners would spend so much time and political capital on pet projects as a slowing economy was forcing people and governments throughout the state to make tough decisions. NATIONAL. St. Somebody needs to grip the reins. focus the board on issues that matter and restore public confidence in county government. “Hillsborough Board.

woodlots. http://www. In still another study. In fact. states have been developing their own initiatives. Smart Growth America CEO. Nov.THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS POP. Additionally. So why hasn't a brownfields bill been passed yet? In part. Donald DT. brownfields legislation has simply been too low a congressional priority. while they gave the highest rating to natural areas.agiweb. Congress has had to deal with environmental concerns that are hesitant about weakening the EPA's strict environmental policies regarding potentially responsible parties. Raimi. Eisinger 1 (Chris. National Resoursce Defense Council. long and sweeping vistas.org/gap/legis107/tpg_ce. A New Jersey survey reported that 78 percent of respondents supported changes in development patterns in order to preserve farmland.html) Brownfields are not a new topic for Congress. the political momentum behind new legislation in this congressional session is very strong.org/cities/smartGrowth/rpave. winding paths. parks and streams.. the leadership has relied on the fact that CERCLA does address brownfield remediation to some degree. and environmental groups. and Chen 99 (F Kaid. highway strip development. citizens shown slide images gave the lowest approval rating to images of "cookie cutter" subdivisions and complexes. 137 . land use planning firm principal. this is the fourth session to have addressed them.asp) For example. which need federal funding and support to be successful. But. Also. PUBLIC HATES SPRAWL – THEY’LL SUPPORT A PLAN TO STOP IT.PUBLIC REDEVELOPING BROWNFIELDS HAS POLITICAL MOMENTUM. in a recent public opinion poll. farmland. albeit in a cumbersome. and pressure by states to give them more leverage in developing their brownfield sites. Brownfield programs are currently popular among constituents.nrdc. Faced with more immediate problems. 63 percent of respondents cited "the beauty of nature" as a reason for wanting to protect the environment. and hidden natural places. inefficient manner. businesses. GAP intern. there is plenty of evidence that we place a high value on exactly those benefits that we are losing. and during the 106th Congress almost 30 bills were introduced involving contaminated sites. Matthew D. Benfield. http://www. Writer Tony Hiss describes research documenting strong human preferences for green landscapes with water. and shopping plazas with large front parking lots. Similarly.

11/23. and Industry Division. arguing that reimbursement of PRPs would contradict the “polluter pays principle” and leave less money to address pending site cleanups. and California's green spaces continue to be developed. Environmental groups have opposed liability cut-off dates. particularly for small businesses. http://www. and that together. Science. http://www.000 from the industry and nearly 69 times more from environmental policy groups than Inhofe.pbs.5 billion for ongoing work. James Inhofe.4 billion for past work. were used. a Republican who has received $572. Center for Responsive Politics 7 (nonpartisan organization researching money in politics. The shift in cleanup costs to the federal government would come to $1. ENVIRONMENTALISTS OPPOSE BROWNFIELD LEGISLATION – THEY VIEW IT AS TOO FLEXIBLE AND LENIENT.html) Environmentalists. Barbara Boxer.org/bitstream/handle/10207/766/IB10078_20020321. economic development and affordable housing in the inner city hasn't occurred. San Francisco Chronicle 5 (“Why I am not an environmentalist”.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics. who had very little influence in Congress when Republicans were in control.income and mostly communities of color desperately need. CRS Resources. Big Influence”. And yet the Sierra Club opposed the bill. 1980. 3/21. claiming that the legislation's flexibility could be abused by unscrupulous developers. economic development advocates and environmentalists today find themselves divided by technical policy when we should be united by a common vision. civil-rights and environmental groups would be able to protect inner-city residents from new risks while accelerating economic development. Boxer replaced Oklahoma Sen. https://www.policyarchive.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/19/EDG24CR5DT1.DTL) Our legislation should have been an important priority for environmentalists because developing brownfields would take pressure off expanding construction to California's rapidly dwindling green spaces. Contaminated urban sites remain contaminated.ENVIRO ENVIRONMENTALIST OPPOSE REMOVING LIABILITY IN BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT Reisch 2 (Mark. farmlands and wilderness.3 billion per year. we haven't seen the kind of economic redevelopment of urban brownfields that low. Civil. These high cost estimates prompted the committees to look for ways other thanfullrepealofretroactiveliability to reduce the liability burden. compared with 90% under the 1987 cutoff. We felt there were adequate safeguards. lenders. This includes environmentalists' support of fuel efficiency standards. California Sen. We eventually compromised on a watered-down version of the bill that was signed into law. 5/19. and municipalities. which is heavily involved in energy legislation.sfgate. “Big Oil. considered one of the environment's biggest champions.THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS POP. a mandate for electric utility companies to produce 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources and their opposition to coal-to-liquid fuel development.pdf?sequence=1) If a cutoff date of December 31. The brownfields bill failed because we have failed to construct a vision for community and economic development that speaks to our shared aspirations -. are now seeing the lawmakers seriously consider their positions. Nowhere is this change in tides more evident than in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.000 from the oil and gas industry since President Bush took office—more than all but three other members of Congress. and reimbursing PRPs would total about $5. and $4. But because the new standards remained so inflexible.com/cgibin/article. has chaired the committee since her party assumed control of the Senate in the 2006 election. Since 2001. CBO said.from having more urban parks for kids to play in to having jobs that pay a livable wage to protecting California's natural beauty. Boxer has received less than $13. 138 . private and federal transaction costs would fallabout 50% and 30% respectively. “CRS Issue Brief for Congress”.rights groups. ENVIRONMENTALISTS HAVE INCREASING POLITICAL POWER.

" said Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Robert Smith (R-N.agiweb. create jobs. PEW Center on the States 1 (3/19. Jeff Sessions. As defined by the EPA.gov/ceq/cleanlands. The President worked with Congress to enact historic.html] Through public-private partnerships. Because of the relationship between brownfields and the Superfund program.stateline. BROWNFIELD POLICY AND REFORM IS BI-PARTISAN. With good policy. "The support for this bill covers the political spectrum from Rick Santorum. the "Brownfield Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2000.and private-sectors to boost cleanup and redevelopment efforts. a rare bipartisan issue. creating jobs and billions of dollars in economic revitalization in urban areas.” online: http://www. former factories. Sam Brownback and Jesse Helms to Ted Kennedy." The total number of U. the Bush Administration has made much progress in cleaning and restoring polluted lands. Federal brownfields legislative proposals. October 2001. “Brownfields Legislation: Making the Grass Greener on the Other Side. “Federal Legislative Proposals for Industrial Site Cleanup and Redevelopment.org/gap/legis107/tpg_ce. the 107th Congress has eagerly addressed the topic of brownfields reform. BROWNFIELD REVITALIZATION IS EMPIRICALLY BIPARTISAN. brownfields remediation can make the grass greener for both the environment and the economy. and the key issue of liability in particular.htm) Congressional efforts to reauthorize and reform the federal Superfund program have provided the context for ongoing discussion of brownfield cleanup and redevelopment.nemw. online: http://www. and commercial operations that used hazardous materials. increase tax revenues. Federal grants and incentives. Lincoln Chafee's S.whitehouse. Toward that end. Chuck Schumer and Chris Dodd and everywhere in between.000.350.org/live/ViewPage. with the majority located in urban areas.html." which now has 55 co-sponsors. proscribing limits to lender liability. and offering additional financial assistance tools available to the public. bipartisan brownfields reform legislation that provides State and local governments greater abilities and resources to turn environmental eyesores into productive community assets. 21 of whom are Chafee's fellow Republicans. PLAN IS BIPART . it is likely that brownfields legislation will face fewer obstacles as part of a successful congressional effort in moving and passing a Superfund bill than if free-standing brownfields legislation is pursued independent of Superfund. November 2001.S.THE COMBINATION OF ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS MAKE CLEANUP EFFORTS APPEALING TO BOTH PARTIES NEMW 1 (Northeast-Midwest Institute. perhaps because it represents to many a viable marriage of efforts to promote both environmental protection and economic development. Arizona State University. providing funding in the form of grants or loans to facilitate assessment or cleanup of brownfields. Council on Environmental Quality 5+ [most recent reference.THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS BIPART ( ) BROWNFIELDS POLICIES CREATE BIPARTISANSHIP EVEN IN TENSE CONGRESSIONAL ENVIRONMENTS Chris Eisinger. http://www. And they have voiced strong support for Rhode Island Sen.000 and 500.). http://www. 2008 In its first few months. Typical sites include abandoned gas stations. accessed July 10. School of Earth and Space Exploration.H. for the most part. the brownfields issue enjoys bipartisan support in Congress.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=14298) State and local leaders are calling attention to their ongoing cleanup efforts and urging the expansion of EPA partnerships in a series of hearings this month on Capitol Hill. brownfields are commercial properties where "expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. have focused on setting standards for state brownfields programs. Redevelopment of these sites can improve a local environment. and promote economic growth and environmental health in communities.org/cmcleanb.” The Professional Geologist. brownfield sites is thought to be between 450. 139 .

25 billion over the next five years to help state and local governments clean up and redevelop more than 450.newsbatch. 140 . NewsBatch 8 (news encyclopedia project. The measure would also encourage the redevelopment of brownfields by granting a liability exemption to prospective purchasers who do not cause or worsen the contamination at a site. April. the Senate unanimously approved a bill which would authorize $1. They also tend to object to stringent liability requirements on businesses and landowners for the cost of clean-up.000 brownfields throughout the country.com/environment. or (3) there is an "imminent and substantial endangerment" to public health or the environment and additional work needs to be done. The legislation precludes the EPA from interfering in the state cleanups unless (1) a state requests assistance. http://www. Where do Democrats and Republicans stand on waste issues? Both parties support efforts to proper manage and clean-up wastes.THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS BIPART SUPPORT TO ENCOURAGE BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT BY REMOVING LIABILITY IS BIPARTISAN. Republicans tend to support measures to transfer responsibility for these processes from the EPA to state and local governments. (2) the contamination migrates across state lines or onto federal property.htm) On April 21 2001.

"But as a Republican President. "The president doesn't understand that a good. it is clear the president has chosen to spend money elsewhere. T. Congress has never allocated as much as the $ 210 million requested -. and chairman of Pennsylvania Environmental Leaders for Kerry." In each of the past two years. They really don't know what they are talking about." said Driscoll. who is seeking re-election.J. Clinton annually urged a Republican-controlled Congress to reinstate the tax." Dent said the claims lack any ring of truth." Rooney.. if Bush asked to renew the tax. Bush requested a $ 40 million reduction from the $ 250 million a year authorized by brownfields legislation initiated by President Clinton in 1998. That amount was more than the $ 150 million a year spent through 2001 when the brownfields program was still a demonstration project. Charlie Dent. and stop Bush and Cheney policies that have undermined our cities. chemical and petroleum manufacturers paid a Superfund tax that went into a multibillion-dollar fund used to clean contaminated industrial sites. healthy environment are not mutually exclusive. with the Bethlehem Steel blast furnaces behind him. The tax expired in 1995. strong economy and a good. The issue is similarly mixed for Bush's role in Superfund legislation. said that putting aside the debate over whether Bush has anything to do with ending the Superfund tax or gutting brownfields legislation. the Republican Congress would approve it. for the 15th Congressional District seat held by outgoing Republican Pat Toomey. attack Bush's record on brownfields Democrats stumping in south Bethlehem for John Kerry contended that water and air will be a little clearer and dormant industrial sites like the former Bethlehem Steel plant will be redeveloped a little more quickly if Kerry is elected president. or how Democrats could blame him for gutting brownfields funding that has not decreased since he took office. who is running against state Sen." said Andrew McElwaine. So. rusted blast furnaces that went cold in 1995. 141 . he gives chemical polluters tax breaks and leaves taxpayers to pay for the cleanup." Dent said. and still have money to develop projects like this one. it was increased under President Bush. Rooney and congressional candidate Joe Driscoll on Wednesday led a parade of Democrats bashing President Bush for reducing federal spending on brownfields cleanup and ending the Superfund tax on chemical companies. Pa. The Morning Call. "Instead. Republicans questioned how anyone could blame Bush for the end of a Superfund tax that expired nine years ago. "With John Kerry and John Edwards. In fact. "It's an absurd argument. state Rep. he played no role in ending it. we can focus our efforts on redeveloping sites like this one. "We've got an endless resource of brownfields waiting to be developed. Bush has not continued Clinton's annual request to Congress.THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS POP. but every year he was denied. However.approving budgets with roughly $ 190 million in each of the past two years. Democrats in Bethlehem." Rooney said. while Bush has not sought to renew the Superfund tax. For 16 years. Standing in front of the hulking. 9-30-04.DEMS Democrats support brownfield reform Matt Assad. "You cannot spend $ 200 billion on the war in Iraq with no plan to win. R-Lehigh. president of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council. "No brownfields funding was cut.

especially if ancillary revenue such as sales tax and income tax are included. and the tax credits proposed in this bill will be an invaluable tool in our arsenal to encourage private sector investment for underdeveloped and abandoned properties. MAYORS' GET-TOGETHER ULTIMATELY BENEFITS EVERYONE In the last decade. Mike Wiehe. as we were one of the few organizations that tried to put the brakes on the ratification of NAFTA. The potentially responsible parties that pay no less than 25% of the cleanup cost would be released from liability. but have not endorsed or opposed it. Rep." he says. The idea already has the U." says Hempsted. Conference of Mayors Rick Markley. "They find the idea interesting and they are receptive to it. The U. when mayors began to recognize the flight of capital to the South and the suburbs with cheap land and no unions. Mayor James Garner. Wiehe acknowledges that the national deficit may make a tax-cutting program a tough sell. there are as many as 1 million brownfields that cover about 400. 6-13-02. the Conference of Mayors has been at the forefront in working for corporate reinvestment in America's cities. However. The plan is popular with the U. a Turner staffer. Capital Times.. the U." Wiehe says environmental groups are interested in the bill. there will be a lot more brownfield redevelopment in the coming years.S. Also in the 1990s.Y. "Mayors have been looking for tools to encourage brownfield redevelopment. he says. "They didn't shoot it down. No organization of its kind has fought with as much conviction and dedication as the Conference of Mayors when it comes to economic and social justice -particularly racial justice 142 . Rock Products.000 acres and can be found in each Congressional district. According to Turner's office. There are several Democrats with good ideas regarding brownfields. Conference of Mayors' endorsement. As the chair of the Urban Economic Policy Committee. A redeveloped brownfield could generate more tax revenue than was spent on the cleanup.S. Conference of Mayors is empirically a powerful congressional lobby Paul Soglin. Bill Proposes Brownfield Tax Break If an Ohio Congressman gets his way. says the Congressman is seeking bipartisan co-sponsors for the legislation. The remaining 50% of the cleanup costs would be evenly split between the original polluter and the current property owner or a local governing body.USCM A.our nation's latest commitment to public transit and alternatives to petroleum engines and the road builders.THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS POP. I met continually with labor leaders and other mayors. 4-1-04. The bill calls for allocating the $1 billion in tax credits among the states based on population. N. * Throughout its long history.S. Conference of Mayors forged an alliance with environmentalists such as the Sierra Club and pro-transit organizations to lobby Congress successfully for ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) -. Bicycles. Michael Turner ROhio is planning to introduce a bill this spring that would provide $1 billion in federal tax credits for companies that revitalize brownfield sites. Garner also is president of the Conference. The tax credits would be used for as much as 50% of the demolition and remediation costs of an approved remediation plan. he says it could be a no-cost proposition because it puts properties back on the tax rolls. it was the Conference of Mayors that joined with organized labor to insist that there be minimum environmental and employment standards before entering into any treaty. B. after Bill Clinton was first elected president and began pushing NAFTA. It was the mayors who pushed for civil rights legislation and housing policies that recognized the needs of homeless people. particularly after World War II. Wiehe says they talked to the Bush administration's economic team.S. transit riders and pedestrians all benefit from this legislation.

3-1-04. Apartment communities are an attractive form of higher density housing.THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS POP. market driven and performance based partnership between the public and private sectors. a voluntary.S. As concerns rise over the negative environmental impact associated with urban sprawl. adaptive reuse of urban land and preservation of resources and open spaces. tax credits and incentives to encourage the use of energy efficient building technologies. such as removing barriers to allow innovative land-use planning techniques to be used in building higher density and mixed-use developments. have continually urged Congress to implement federal policies that encourage property' owners to incorporate energy efficient building technologies. and advocating for transportation initiatives that encourage density. renewable energy sources and conservation measures by multifamily property owners. Department of Energy under the Energy Star Building Label Program. Environmental. apartment communities are increasingly seen as a way to provide livable communities while making wise use of natural resources. To that end. In light of recent world events and energy concerns. In the past. NAA Capital Conference NAA/NMHC Position NAA/NMHC strongly support incentives to facilitate smart growth including the expansion of tax credits for brown fields redevelopment. The realty lobby and the National Apartment Association will lobby for the plan National Apartment Association Units. to encourage the incorporation of new. and have partnered with EPA and the U. now n]ore than ever. efficiently use municipal infrastructure and can provide an effective solution to regional transportation problems. NAA/NMHC have maintained that federal tax incentives can be a cost effective means of spurring the construction and remodeling of energy efficient buildings nationwide.. Background Smart growth will be addressed in a variety of legislative contexts in the 108th Congress. renewable energy sources and conservation measures into use on their property. energy efficient products and designs in residential buildings. among other provisions. Action Requested NAA/NMHC urge Congress to support policies that encourage smart growth and density. energy efficient building technology incentives are critical to the multifamily housing industry.LOBBY A. NAA/NMHC have advocated for energy efficient tax incentives. Background NAA/NMHC. 143 . conserve open spaces. Energy and Energy Efficient Credits NAA/NMHC Position NAA/NMHC support the passage of a comprehensive Energy Policy Act containing. promote efficient land use. along with other real estate groups.

Poe and Cronk Real Estate Group.S. Bush will have to live without an endorsement from the association.250 to Republican PACs. Doors open for Cronk because he's president of the National Association of Realtors." Cronk said. while their spouses sit with first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.000 apiece to U." Cronk said. we can make a case it doesn't just help us. 8-15-00.600 to Democratic PACs and just $ 23. The group was able to reach all its goals for the GOP platform for the first time in history. R-Roanoke. ROANOKER GETS TERRITORY AT CONVENTION. Although portions of the event honoring Clinton are open to all Democratic delegates. He introduced Bush.000 to Robb. But presidential candidates Al Gore and George W. That helps to balance out the congressional spending patterns. DENNIS CRONK IS PRESIDENT OF POWERFUL LOBBYING GROUP Even if Clinton doesn't sit still. at a May gathering of Realtors in Washington. $ 4.-China Residential Building Council.S. Celebrities like Goldberg and singer Sting were to be scattered around the two tables. Its large membership includes real estate professionals in virtually every congressional district in the country. D. the most recent data available. D-Abingdon. D-Va. The Realtors association was ranked by Fortune magazine last year as the 15th most powerful lobbying group in Washington. which by its own account is the largest trade group in the United States.S.THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS POP. And then there's the money. but it also reflects the NAR's strategy to contribute to Democratic members of Congress who would become committee chairmen if their party recaptures control of the House of Representatives. Congress will pander to the realtor lobby to gain campaign money and political clout – they will support the plan Christina Nuckols. "He's been a very aggressive president. It helps all homeowners.. Nor did he get the chance to rub shoulders with members of Congress at the Republican convention because he's a Republican. "We sponsored the event and only got 15 tickets. Virgin Islands was on the committee that drafted this year's platform. but most incumbents get something. D. the NAR gave $ 5.8 million to congressional races for the 1999-2000 election cycle." he said. 144 . state and national levels throughout his 26 years as a Realtor. and Rick Boucher. Cronk doesn't get that kind of access at this week's Democratic National Convention because he's a Democrat. it is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country. but he isn't bothered by charges of influence peddling. The Roanoke Times.S. In Virginia. said Lee Verstandig. The real estate industry has given $ 2. But all of that is small time compared to the $ 6 million it spent in 1998 on lobbying. and $ 3. "We need to have access no matter who the majority is. The Realtors group endorses candidates in congressional races. Sen. or to his Republican challenger. he said. His efforts paid off when he was named president.000 to Virgil Goode.C. and the NAR's share of that amount is $ 1. "Every issue that we deal with. It didn't hurt that a Realtor from the U. They have given $ 151. giving him the opportunity to travel the globe and hobnob with top U. a senior vice president of the Realtors group.S. The plan as of Monday afternoon was for Clinton to sit with the eight presidents from the sponsoring organizations. Democrats have come out ahead in attracting soft money contributions to their political action committees from the Realtors. The association has given 59 percent of that amount to Republicans. Charles Robb. "We don't support one candidate over the other. "We work both sides. leaders. for example. according to the Center for Responsive Government." said Alan Yassky of New York. the dinner is an exclusive gala at Paramount Studios.. Cronk agrees that national political conventions have turned into giant fund-raising events.C. a native Roanoker. treasurer of the NAR. George Allen. is a broker / owner of Waldvogel.LOBBY B. By all accounts. Clinton appointed Cronk to the U. former Gov. Bob Goodlatte. I-Rocky Mount.6 million. He has been active at the local. and plans to give its support next month to either U. funded by eight groups interested in housing issues that also happen to be among the Democratic Party's top donors. Reps." Cronk. up two notches from 1998. this year's Republican presidential nominee." he said. those two seconds are golden.

which will likely remain bogged down in committee for the remainder of this Congress. a member of the Superfund Subcommittee. But the differences are likely to be resolved and the bill is expected to be introduced next week.THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS BIPART The plan builds bipartisanship – brownfield reform is the only environmental legislation that can bring democrats.I." Chafee said. Lincoln Chafee (R-R. Mike Crapo (R. "In the last Congress I agreed with a lot of people that I would hold it up then. no. and only. Last year. according to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Bob Smith (R-N. noting that the bill could pass out of committee within 30 days. He knows he has my commitment to work on (that. good for so many regions.H. Bush's endorsement on the campaign trail.).could be the first. Crapo. and move your legislation as well." Smith said. 2-7-01. are still working out differences on minor details of the brownfields bill. according to Chafee.) had signed a secret pact promising the Idaho Republican he would not call the brownfields legislation to the floor as a stand-alone bill in return for Crapo's support for a federal project in Mississippi.Idaho) said he has lifted his hold on legislation in the 107th Congress that would clean up brownfields. " Committee members and others have said." With five fewer GOP colleagues in a now evenly split Senate . that was not the best way to go. republicans and environmental lobbies together Allison Stevens. With the support of 67 senators and a solid majority in the House. area where environmentalists and the Republican-controlled legislative and executive branches find common ground 145 ." Crapo told The Hill. Crapo's hold was the bill's only significant roadblock last year. "The concerns that Crapo has on natural resources damages is something we're working on. Crapo had hoped to wrap the popular brownfields issue into a larger. Smith said in an interview. Sen.Crapo has come under mounting pressure to allow the bill to pass this year. " This issue is whether we slow down this good bill that is good for the country. The Idaho Republican's reversal sends a strong signal that the bill will pass early this year. Crapo relents on brownfields bill After single-handedly blocking popular bipartisan legislation that would clean up abandoned parcels of contaminated land.)" Crapo came under fire last year after it was reported that Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss. 'Let's move brownfields separately. The Hill. "But I don't feel I have to force the issue this year in that way. "I feel I can trust those members. as well as President George W.moderately polluted plots of land in urban and suburban areas that do not qualify for federal funds under the Superfund law ." Cleaning up brownfields .not to mention a Republican president who has placed brownfields cleanup at the top of a relatively short environmental agenda ." Crapo and the bill's chief sponsor. "And (Crapo) decided. But citing an altered political landscape in a new Congress. "The prospects are outstanding and excellent.). said he would relent and allow brownfields legislation to come to the floor freed from the fetters of the complex and controversial Superfund reform legislation. more contentious bill to overhaul the Superfund law and provide relief to Idaho mining companies burdened with the high cost of cleaning mine wastes.'" Crapo explained. Pressured. Sen.

" says Roger Platt. signed into law by President Bush earlier this month. Schneider. to clean up such sites as abandoned gas stations and refineries. The liability relief thus will provide an incentive for people to lend private capital to rebuild blighted downtown areas and close-in suburbs. "It's harder than ever. [developers] are going to stay away [from brownfields]. "In a market like there is now. A family issue. authorizes millions for U. but they won't have the same protection against EPA intervention as they would on rehabilitating other sites. waste and wildlife for the National Association of Home Builders. he says. It also offers new owners of former industrial sites some protection from Superfund liability and says that property cleaned up through a state brownfields program is exempt from Superfund enforcement in almost all cases. 5-4-03." explains Michael Mittelholzer. via state and local brownfields programs.S. the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. That's because petroleum waste is covered by an entirely different law. 1-23-02. Hillary Rodham Clinton stood up last week at Broome Community College during a conference on brownfields and how they can be made viable for development and echoed that sentiment: "Brownfields are not Republican or Democratic or independent or anything else. 2869). or is leaving Greater Binghamton to find a better opportunity. the EPA is likely to get at least that much 146 . Sen.R. even. That's particularly unwelcome news for residential developers. So when will the projected boom in brownfields redevelopment start? Not for at least another year. While the EPA rarely ever intervened in such cases in the past. "There are gas stations all over the place. But liability relief by itself won't overcome the reluctance of developers to take on new projects particularly on contaminated land while the real estate market remains weak. for purely economic reasons. Bush will ask Congress to put $200 million a year into the EPA's brownfields cleanup program." she said." And the law does leave one notable exception. the possibility that it might do so was often enough to scare off potential investors with the threat of undefined future cleanup costs. Given the strong support in Congress for brownfields redevelopment. because the oil-contaminated sites are generally the ones in the mostdesirable locations for new housing. but they won't rush to redevelop abandoned industrial sites just yet. ANALYSIS . senior vice president and counsel of the Real Estate Roundtable. Kiplinger Business Forecasts. from acetone to zinc. The bill (H. lingering liability concerns and a lag in getting new federal funds to the local level. "These sites tend to be in great commercial centers. including the sluggish economy and soft real estate market. A variety of factors.There's a reason they're called politicians. While it provides liability relief for all manner of Superfund-covered contaminants. more than double the current yearly funding. director of air. sites contaminated by Superfund-covered wastes tend to be in heavy industrial areas. it's a personal issue. "We have to approach them in a totally nonpartisan way. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grants to assess and clean up brownfields. 'Nonpartisan' sounds nice but rings hollow To anybody who's been laid off. Developers still will be able to get federal funds. to do projects that are not mainstream." By contrast. where residential development might not work. or knows someone who's been laid off.THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS BIPART Brownfield development is bipartisan Todd McAdam. where people are highly risk adverse." Congress supports brownfield redevelopment Andrew C. the law does not cover oil contamination. such as derelict factories and dry cleaners. economic development isn't a political issue. Building Boom For Brownfields Still a Ways Off Property owners and real estate developers welcomed the recent enactment of a brownfields revitalization bill. will hold back redevelopment for a couple more years. Press & Sun-Bulletin.

especially on the environmental front. Bush expects a payoff of his own: that the changes will work. BUSH IS PLACING A BIG BET ON MANUFACturers. it's understandable that at the first sight of relief they'll grab for all they can get. The Honor System PRESIDENT GEORGE W. after all. Of course to some. First. Fresh from an historic mid-term election -. though. he's is expecting that companies won't overreach. Trouble is. more importantly for you.LOBBY The plan is popular with the manufacturing lobby because it makes environmental regulations work for businesses – building political capital Industry Week. that industry will help make sure they work. and I hope we don't disappoint him. January 2003. and he has some expectations of what manufacturers will do once unburdened. Whichever way you look at it.THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS POP. he's looking for ways to help manufacturers (and businesses in general). Manufacturers have borne the brunt of environmental regulations and an unfavorable tax structure for so long.the first since 1934 in which the President's party did not lose seats in the House -. Bush risks overplaying his hand. They fear that by delivering on this cornucopia of proposals. Though he's not explicitly saying so. 147 . even those who believe the reforms are needed are getting a little nervous. This is politics. So what should manufacturers do to help him avoid a backlash? Now there's a touchy question. manufacturers are lobbying hard. and tax reform.he's spending some of his vast political capital to push through several manufacturing friendly policies. But the changes Bush has been and will continue to push for aren't free gifts. that they'll be happy with a few key changes and not demand so many that it looks as if he's bought and paid for by special interests. and. The mere suggestion that manufacturers might hold back their efforts to win relief immediately or tread carefully in areas where regulations have been lifted might seem a bit much. he's returning dividends to his big campaign donors. and Bush seems ready to fight for long lists of potential changes that will help manufacturers compete more effectively. More advantageous changes will certainly come later if the first round works. Let's look at just two items at the top of Bush's economic agenda: deregulation. Within these public policy arenas.

Times-Picayune (New Orleans). To keep production constant. existing refineries have been expanding. which he said is far more powerful and has successfully shut down any oil company efforts to construct new refineries. Gillespie highlighted the clash between the oil lobby and the environmental lobby. 7-17-04. Mohammed. 148 . Decline comes after record summer highs In nearly 30 years. Instead. no new oil refinery has been constructed in the United States.ENVIRO LOBBY The environmental lobby is more powerful than the fossil fuel lobby Michael A.THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS POP. or upgrading their technology. A BREAK ON GAS PRICES. about half the country’s refineries have closed.

on behalf of special interest polluters.CONGRESS The plan is unpopular – pro-pollution lobbies oppose the plan and they are more powerful than brownfield lobbies U. but it turns out that the partisan leadership of this Congress has a different agenda. pollution has some pretty powerful allies. "There has been broad bipartisan support for the brownfields initiative -. Al Gore today challenged the Republican-led "do-nothing-for-people" Congress to pass legislation that would help cities like Baltimore revitalize former industrial sites that are contaminated by toxic waste.in Congress and all across the country.THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS UNPOP. Important bipartisan legislation to clean up brownfield sites is being held hostage by Trent Lott. Bush to call Lott and encourage him to stop his blockade. Senate Republican Leader. Gore also challenged George W. There is legislation before the Congress right now that would help communities create even more success stories.S. "Unfortunately." said Gore. Newswire. 7-12-00. Gore 2000: Al Gore Challenges "Do-Nothing-For-People" Congress to Pass Brownfields Legislation After touring a local brownfield site." 149 .

CRS Resources. https://www.org/bitstream/handle/10207/766/IB10078_20020321. limiting the liability of recyclers.pdf?sequence=1) The Superfund reauthorization bills that were reported in the 105th and106th Congresses were not brought to the floor because of opposition by key members. the Republican leadership wanted to keep the popular brownfields program within a Superfund reauthorization bill to help build support for a comprehensive CERCLA rewrite. and providing a tax incentive to encourage the cleanup of brownfields. and Industry Division. While some suggested that a stand-alone brownfields bill might have had a better chance. 3/21. “CRS Issue Brief for Congress”. easing the transfer of military bases to local entities (related to the Base Realignment and Closure laws). The efforts of the last four Congresses demonstrate the need for consensus to achieve significant changes in the law. Now.policyarchive. Reisch 2 (Mark. 150 . The successful amendments to CERCLA during that time period have had general agreement and targeted a fairly narrow area: limiting the liability of financial institutions that had made loans to PRPs. Science. however.THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS COST POL CAP THE PLAN COSTS POLITICAL CAPITAL – KEY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CAN DERAIL REFORM.

called brownfields. ''Applying drinking water standards at sites where it is not used for drinking water is not a good use of resources and it will slow down the cleanup of those sites. it is just not as good as it could have been.'' she said. an association of chemical manufacturers. director of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club.'' Ms. an attorney with the Rutgers Law Clinic. ''Groundwater protections should be very strong in areas where we are trying to protect the waterways. Debra Hammond. Ms. is coordinating the response to the state's proposal for several environmental groups. Yet most other environmental groups are not as concerned as the Sierra Club.'' Somewhat surprisingly. Still smarting from legislation that severely restricted new building in the Highlands region -. Tittel said it did not reflect tougher standards in such states as California and New York. said that such a move would drastically increase the cost of cleaning up former industrial sites in areas far from water supplies. In general. ln) State regulators are trying to answer Mayor McDonough's concerns. will adjust limits for hundreds of chemicals.'' Standards Last Revised in 1993 New Jersey last revised groundwater standards in 1993. Last October. The new state guidelines would set contamination levels as 70 parts per billion. the changes did not make things worse -. ''Other states have set the level at 25. 'One Size Does Not Fit All' ''One size does not fit all. Some. Planning groups like NJ Future.'' he said. ''This is on a chemical that is becoming a serious problem in New Jersey. ''We are using current science and some levels are going to be less stringent and some are going to be more stringent. Moreover. Hammond said she could not estimate when the state would move forward with the more substantial aspects of the regulations.'' said Jeff Tittel. some environmental groups say the groundwater rules do not go far enough. Hammond said standards on some chemicals were relaxed because current research indicates they are not as harmful as once thought ''If we make a decision that it is not as hazardous to your health it is appropriate to have a new standard.'' she said. ''That is a safe level for a one in a million cancer risk. Kraham said. like the Sierra Club. Bozarth said.and they are full of holes. Ms. the administration kicked the can down the road. big topics.they just did not make them any better.'' But Ms. the state has tried to bring the permitted levels of chemical contamination in line with current scientific research. ''The greatest threat to our water these days is development in the wrong places. Business groups are concerned that the state is considering the expansion of environmental rules by saying that all state groundwater must meet standards set for drinking water supplies. column 1.'' he said.like whether to forbid any pollution that would result in decreased quality of an aquifer. ''That is a health-based standard. said that many areas of the water rules were so important that the state set them aside for further consideration. say the new rules will weaken protections on more than 40 chemicals and will relax standards that may lead to increased development in sensitive areas. ''It is not a bad thing. McGreevey took office in 2002. New York Times 5 (“Setting Standards for Water”. ''The question of whether you modify those standards in places where you want development to occur is more complicated. 1. chief executive of the New Jersey Builders Association.'' said David Pringle. Tittel of the Sierra Club. state officials generally agree. which are still being studied.THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS UNPOP CHANGING BROWNFIELDS LIABILITY POLICY IS UNIVERSALLY UNPOPULAR.'' For now. Debate Centers on Brownfields Much of the groundwater debate concerns cleanup and redevelopment of old industrial sites. since the state is trying to determine a realistic detection level and is working with commercial lab directors to establish the standards. and whether regulators should expand preservation areas in which no additional pollution is allowed. like whether developers should be allowed to increase the general level of groundwater pollution with new projects -. regulators have simply not addressed most of the major problems facing the water supply -. and when former Gov. and the groundwater standards are one of the building blocks of protection -. ''The one thing no one wants to talk about: Where are people going to live?'' On the other hand. James E. ''Rather than close them. adding that standards for ''43 chemicals are weakened and a couple of hundred others that should be strengthened are not getting strengthened. ''The state has 150 different regulatory programs. Other areas set aside for further consideration include whether the state should directly link groundwater and surface water regulations. storm water. The new regulation gives cleanup exemptions for developers who can prove that certain pollutants will naturally disperse over 30 years. Ms. the executive director of NJ Future.'' The state's builders say they are being hemmed in with a series of new environmental regulations that affect runoff from new building in relation to surface water. Proponents argue that it is an environmentally sound policy and also necessary to attract developers to old industrial areas. and now groundwater.'' said Patrick J. from ammonia to chromium. he promised to update the rules as part of broad plan to strengthen environmental regulation. O'Keefe. p. like ammonia and nitrates. which are scheduled to take effect this spring. 1/23. ''These are big issues. The reaction to the new rules has been nearly unanimous: almost everyone is unhappy. which scientist have linked to increased risk of cancer. She said the state needed more time to finish revisions on big topics. From their perspective. campaign director of the New Jersey Environmental Federation.which covers about 16 percent of the state -the builders say they are being boxed out of many parts of New Jersey. Hal Bozarth. ''This is an excuse to weaken things or not strengthen things which should be strengthened. 151 .like the anti-degradation policy.'' One example is the gasoline additive MTBE. say the trick is to maintain protection of the water supply without ratcheting the restrictions so high that development is choked off. The regulations. They are either unable or unwilling to expend the political capital necessary to advance environmental protection. chief of water quality assessment for the state Department of Environmental Protection.'' But Mr.'' Mr. 14NJ. That has raised concerns among many environmentalists because it has led the state to increase the allowable concentrations of more than 40 chemicals. that require a lot of thought to revise. ''We acknowledged there were significant policy issues that we felt we were not in a position to recommend changes -. Hammond said the revision proposed this year was limited to several narrow aspects of the rules -.called anti-degradation rules.'' Susan Kraham.'' said George Hawkins. To Mr. executive director of the New Jersey Chemistry Council. ''They have done the bare minimum and punted on the really important issues rather than confront them head on. Hammond said the criticism was unjustified.'' Environmentalists also criticized the rules for setting limits on certain chemicals based on what most laboratories can detect rather than health limits. they released the first revision to rules governing groundwater pollution in more than a decade. and will establish new rules for developers planning to restore polluted areas. Hammond said. In the new revision. known as brownfield developments.'' she said. however. The core of the regulation is a list of hundreds of chemicals along with the maximum concentration at which they can be discharged into the water table.primarily involving the maximum permitted concentration of pollutants in the groundwater. a nonprofit statewide planning organization. the move was short-sighted and resulted in ''a major weakening'' of protection for the state's drinking water. Ms. For her. ''It is a major weakening.

instead. or to revitalize other brownfield sites in the city. B-9. was given zoning approval by the Ontario Municipal Board last year on condition the builder and residents could agree on a site plan. p. Niagara Mohawk recently sold it to Iskalo Development for $2. Reon's president. Giambra said approving the package would "open the door" to other building owners looking for help to upgrade their own properties. The board also approved. The incentives include combined sales and property tax savings worth more than $1. 20. County Executive Joel Giambra voted against the package. According to Reon's Web site (www. received a "Brownie Award" from the Urban Institute and Southam Environment Group for its redevelopment of a former industrial site. 1/10. Home.8 million. by a 10-3 vote. The money would be used for future phases of the business park. The package is tied to Iskalo's acquisition and planned conversion of the building into Class A office space. and The Queensway. The company was able to come up with a plan that merged its objectives with the requirements of the community. the company expects to complete environmental remediation of that portion of the site by May.reon. Michael Peterson. Business. took one of six awards for its outreach program and consultation with the community. NO2. the remaining two on the west side. with construction to start toward the end of the year. BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT IS UNPOPULAR. Rejected by the local committee of adjustment because it called for higher density than it was zoned for. Giambra said he wasn't opposed to efforts to revitalize the building. would go into the fund. which is designed by Peter Clewes. p. a 50-unit luxury condo to be built on the edge of High Park by Context Development. which will build housing on the former Stelco Swansea Works plant at Windermere Ave. ln) The redevelopment fund could help pay the tab. an inducement package worth nearly $13 million related to the Electric Tower. along with James Doherty and Fred Saia. a portion of the funds paid by a company in Buffalo Lakeside Commerce Park under a payment in lieu of taxes agreement. The project.ca). 152 . Some of the project's amenities. ln) Last month Reon Development Corp. Demolition of existing buildings has started on the eastern portion of the site. News Business Reporter 4 (“Ecida Backs Plan for Brownfield Redevelopment Fund”. One tower will sit on the east side of Windermere. said the firm hopes to open the sales office in the spring. For instance.35 million. also got some high praise from the OMB panel for its design. of Architects Alliance. such as green spaces and day-care centre will be available for use by area residents. Design award for High Park project A west-end condo project that generated fierce local opposition when first proposed has received an award of Excellence from Canadian Architects magazine. and the price tag of the incentive package. Toronto Star 2 (“‘Brownie Award’ recognizes brownfield redevelopmet”. The residential development will feature 130 townhouses and three slender towers. Reon.THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS UNPOP THE PLAN WOULD BE UNPOPULAR – PEOPLE HATE HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING. The ECIDA and Development Downtown would jointly administer the fund. 23 and 26 storeys. said David Stebbins of the ECIDA. he cited the "dangerous precedent" he believed the board was establishing. 7/15. or PILOT.

THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS UNPOP. 3/21. “CRS Issue Brief for Congress”. the oil and chemical industries in particular objected to the use of Superfund money that they say should be dedicated to cleaning up NPL sites. and Industry Division. not redeveloping brownfields. Reisch 2 (Mark. https://www. While there was little opposition to the program.pdf?sequence=1) In the last Congress 28 bills with brownfields provisions were introduced. The focus of most of them generally was to codify inlaw the program EPA created. Science.policyarchive. and to specify uses of the funds. they said. CRS Resources. Using money for this purpose depletes the fund and increases the need for additional taxes. 153 .OIL THE OIL AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES OPPOSE BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT.org/bitstream/handle/10207/766/IB10078_20020321.

THE FORT PLTX **************CAFÉ*********** 154 .

preserve consumer choice in auto vehicles. The Hill. members of the Congressional Black Caucus.R. increasing fuel economy standards must be done right or it will have disastrous impacts for our economy.THE FORT PLTX CAFE BIPART There is strong bipartisan and lobby support for CAFE Terry. The Hill-Terry proposal will protect good-paying American manufacturing jobs. CAFE increases could result in the closing of light-truck manufacturing facilities and the loss of jobs dependent on the auto sector. and set achievable timetables for compliance. Alternative CAFE legislation largely calls for all automobiles to be grouped into one category. It has been endorsed by the House Democrat Blue Dog Coalition. However. H. which includes sport utility vehicles. http://thehill. 2927 keeps in place the current separation of standards for regular cars and light trucks.> 155 . 7 – Republican Representative from Nebraska (Lee. Additionally.html) // DCM The Hill-Terry CAFE bill requires the secretary of transportation to mandate separate CAFE standards for model year 2022 such that car standards and pickup trucks standards will be no less than a combined 32 miles per gallon and no more than 35 mpg. “Senate CAFÉ Plan Goes Too Far” 10-26-07. Done incorrectly. and groups ranging from the American Farm Bureau Federation to the National Conference of Black Mayors and the Traditional Values Coalition. our bill possesses the widest possible bipartisan support in the House with 172 cosponsors from every ideological stripe in Congress. by imposing unrealistic timetables and CAFE standards such as those in the Senate’s energy bill.com/op-eds/senate-cafeplan-goes-too-far-2007-10-26. the United Autoworkers and the Alliance of Automobile manufacturers.

The Big Three have strenuously opposed a proposed increase in CAFE standards. Earlier this week. carrying the same message. about 100 auto dealers visited legislators in Washington. the Detroit News reported today.THE FORT PLTX CAFE UNPOP.AUTO LOBBIES Increased CAFE Standards is unpopular with the auto industry lobby – High costs would threaten profits Line. already approved by the Senate. GM hopes the Volt will help convince lawmakers that electric and alternative-fuel vehicles are the route to energy independence. to be held at the National Press Club. and he's bringing along the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid prototype. the Volt will also be present at an Electric Power Research Institute meeting on plug-in hybrids. saying the cost of meeting higher mpg averages would take away resources that could be put toward development of alternative-energy vehicles. 7 (“Chevrolet Volt Goes to Washington To Underline GM's Anti-CAFE-Increase Argument” 7-19-07 http://www. would mean cars and light trucks would have to attain an average 35 mpg by 2020. While in Washington.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=121774) // DCM Edmuds Inside General Motors' North American operations chief. GM has said it would have to spend more than $40 billion to meet that standard. is meeting with legislators on Capitol Hill today. Troy Clarke. 156 . The proposed increase.edmunds.

THE FORT PLTX ***************CAP & TRADE*************** 157 .

also gave a 19% net positive for candidates that support such legislation. 85% of Democrats. though minor. 63% of Republicans. Director.pdf) On the McCain-Lieberman legislation. Democrats give strong support to environmental candidates with a 54% net positive.167.PUBLIC Studies prove support for emission cap causes net gain in voters in every political party Kull. as do independents with a 45% net positive. though the effect is mildest among Republicans.109. Candidates who support such legislation benefit from a net positive effect on people’s vote. Seventy-seven percent of Republicans. ’04 (Stephen. Republicans. though. regardless of political preference.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt. and 79% of independents favored the legislation— differences that are statistically significant.THE FORT PLTX CAP POP. strong majorities supported the legislation regardless of party preference. PIPA. 158 . When people were told the bill may raise costs by $15 per month. http://65. 72% of Democrats and 64% of independents still supported the legislation.

Strong majorities across the political spectrum support the McCain-Lieberman legislation to require reduced emissions 159 .167.REPS Strong Majority of GOP Voters support emissions cap Kull.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt. PIPA.109. http://65. Director.pdf) Republicans. ’04 (Stephen. by majorities. Democrats and independents all favor. the taking of steps to deal with climate change—even though majorities of Republicans and independents believe that the scientific community is divided on global warming.THE FORT PLTX CAP POP.

THE FORT PLTX CAP POP. PIPA. ’04 (Stephen. http://65.167. this will increase the likelihood they will vote for that candidate.PUBLIC Emission cap massively popular – supporters more likely to swing votes than opponents Kull. only a very small minority says that it would decrease the likelihood. A modest majority says that if a candidate favors legislation requiring reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.109.pdf) A very large majority of Americans (8 in 10) say that they support the targets of the McCain-Lieberman legislation (Climate Stewardship Act) that call for large companies to reduce their emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and to 1990 levels by 2020. Those in favor of taking steps are more likely to have their vote influenced by a candidate’s position than those opposed 160 .118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt. Director. Two-thirds say they favor the legislation even if it costs $15 a month for an average household.

Respondents were introduced to the legislation and told about the targets for greenhouse gas emissions called for in one of the key drafts. An overwhelming 81% said they favored the legislation. Seventy-seven percent of Republicans.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt. with just 16% opposed. ’04 (Stephen.pdf) A very large majority of Americans say that they support the targets of the McCain-Lieberman legislation (Climate Stewardship Act).CONGRESS Its popular across the political spectrum Kull. 85% of Democrats.THE FORT PLTX CAP POP. http://65.167. for large companies to reduce their emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and to 1990 levels by 2020.109. PIPA. Director. 161 . and 79% of independents favored the legislation.

http://65. PIPA. Respondents were asked how it would affect their likelihood to vote for a candidate for political office if he or she “were to favor a law requiring large companies to gradually reduce their greenhouse gas emissions” and asked to answer “on a scale of +5 to -5.167. and 0 meaning that it will have no effect either way.pdf) Apparently it would be advantageous for a political candidate to show support for such legislation.12.109. Director. 162 . much more than the 12% which gave a score below zero. -5 meaning that it will greatly decrease the likelihood you will vote for the candidate. ’04 (Stephen.THE FORT PLTX CAP POP.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.” A modest majority of 52% gave a score above zero. with +5 meaning that it will greatly increase the likelihood you will vote for the candidate.PUBLIC Its politically beneficial in an election Kull. while 33% gave a score of zero. Overall the mean score was 1.

When respondents were simply asked in April 2005. This was up from CCFR’s 2002 poll when 64% favored it and 21% were opposed. This was up a bit from September 2004. [24] In a June 2004 PIPA poll. and a plurality leaned toward deeper cuts. [23] Gallup has found 75% favoring “imposing mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases. do you think the U. should or should not participate in the Kyoto agreement to reduce global warming. A strong majority opposes his decision to not pursue reductions of carbon dioxide emissions and thinks he should propose develop some plan for reducing emissions.cfm A variety of poll questions finds strong majority support for taking action to address global warming. Ipsos-Reid whether “our government needs to do something about global warming right now” a strong majority of 70% agreed (very much 42%). PIPA simply asked “based on what you know. Widespread majority favors mandatory emission controls Global Public Opinion.” A strong majority of 73% favored participation. When the Kyoto Treaty was being negotiated in 1998 a strong majority supported the level of emissions cuts proposed. A strong majority of Americans have indicated their support for the Kyoto Treaty.” Only 22% were opposed.S. cap and trade and Lieberman legislation Global Public Opinion. Only 26% said they disagreed (very much 13%).org ‘07 (http://americansworld. when only 65% favored it." Only 19% said the President should not develop a plan. This was up significantly from a March 2001 Time/CNN poll in which 67% agreed and a slightly higher 26% disagreed. In July 2004 the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations asked the same question in the context of a battery and found 71% in favor and 19% opposed. even when informed that the US had originally sought less-deep cuts.THE FORT PLTX CAP POP. When respondents are told that that President Bush has decided to not abide by the Treaty approximately half oppose the decision while a fairly small minority supports it.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw1.org ‘07 (http://americansworld. In June 2005.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2.cfm A strong majority of Americans favors the US abiding by and ratifying the Kyoto Treaty even when presented with the key arguments for and against the treaty. a strong 79% of all respondents said that the President should "develop a plan to reduce the emission of gases that may contribute to global warming. Only 16% in June 2005 and September 2004 opposed participation.[25].PUBLIC Massive public support for emission cuts – including mandatory controls. Only a minority is aware that President Bush opposes participation in the Kyoto Treaty. 163 . As will be discussed below large majorities favor US participation in the Kyoto Treaty and support the McCain Lieberman legislation.

it appears that even among those who are sympathetic to Bush's opposition to the Kyoto Treaty. [13] 164 . a strong 79% of all respondents said that the President should "develop a plan to reduce the emission of gases that may contribute to global warming.org ‘07 (http://americansworld. the energy industry. [9] An April 2001 Los Angeles Times poll elaborated on Bush's reasons--adding." [11] A Newsweek poll taken the same month found 53% saying that it was because of "special interest pressures from coal producers and others in the energy industry." [12] Finally. many feel that he should come up with some plan for addressing global warming." while just 29% said it was because of "doubts about whether there is enough hard scientific evidence for such regulation and concerns about its effect on consumer energy prices. In a June 2004 PIPA poll.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2. The April 2001 Los Angeles Times poll found 45% saying that it was because "Bush and some of his key advisors are closely allied with the energy industry.THE FORT PLTX CAP POP Emission requirements are widely popular Global Public Opinion. In an April 2001 Pew poll 67% disapproved. This decision was opposed by a strong majority." while 36% said it was because "Bush now believes that there is not enough proof that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming to justify the costs.cfm Related to President Bush's decision to not support the Kyoto Treaty was his decision to not require reductions of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants." Only 19% said the President should not develop a plan. or his connections to.[10] Asked why Bush made this decision on carbon dioxide emissions. while 34% supported Bush's decision. despite his campaign promise to do so. This was up significantly from a March 2001 Time/CNN poll in which 67% agreed and a slightly higher 26% disagreed. a plurality to a majority attributed it to pressure from. "He said that requiring carbon dioxide controls at this time would add too much to the cost of power production and that the nation instead needs an overall national energy strategy"—and found a more modest majority of 54% opposed.

with a plurality of 38% assuming that it is "approximately correct" and nearly as many saying that it seems on the high side (28%) as saying it seems on the low side (27%). which requires large companies to reduce their emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and to 1990 levels by 2020.PUBLIC Massive public support for mandatory emission reductions Global Public Opinion. A very large majority of Americans say that they support US legislation that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [1] Americans also appear to be ready to accept significant costs in support of the legislation. PIPA asked "based on what you know. do you favor or oppose having such limits on how much greenhouse gases large companies can emit" An overwhelming majority of 83% favored it with just 13% opposed. [3] 165 . Only 28% said they would oppose it. respondents were told that "According to an estimate done by MIT. The most prominent legislation requiring such reductions of the Climate Stewardship Act. First. The response was neutral overall. In June 2005. when 67% said they would accept costs of $15 a month. PIPA introduced respondents to the Climate Stewardship Act." Two out of three (68%) said they would.cfm A key controversy is over whether the US should rely on voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or if the US should legislate requirements for reductions.THE FORT PLTX CAP POP. while 28% said they would not. This support was virtually unchanged from June 2004. Democrats were just slightly more willing to accept the $15 cost (72%) than Republicans (67%). [2] They were then asked if they would favor the bill "If in fact it appears that it would likely cost $15 a month for an average household. and told them about the targets for greenhouse gas emissions called for in one of the key drafts. In June 2004 81% said they favored such limits with 16% opposed. also known as the McCain-Lieberman bill named after the Senators that have sponsored it.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2." (See Appendix A) They were then asked how they felt about this estimate. cutting greenhouse gas emissions as much as this draft of the new bill would require will increase various costs to the average American household by about $15 a month.org ‘07 (http://americansworld.

-5 meaning that it will greatly decrease the likelihood you will vote for the candidate." A modest majority of 52% gave a score above zero." a plurality of 41% said they would still be likely to vote for that candidate. the more likely it is to affect their vote. 58% said they would view "a candidate for political office" who "spoke out in support of reducing the threat of global warming" as "forward-looking and speaking to a real problem. that candidate voted against efforts to reduce the threat of global warming. Nonetheless.cfm A modest majority says that if a candidate favors legislation requiring reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Among those who think global warming does not require taking steps right now. Among those who think that gradual steps are required. Among those who say that the problem requires serious action. [5] It is worth noting that Americans were more willing to support a candidate that favors the Climate Stewardship Act regardless of party affiliation.12. it does not appear that most voters regard this issue as decisive. When asked about hypothetical candidates Americans also show support for those who express concern and seek action on global warming. this will increase the likelihood they will vote for that candidate.PUBLIC Emission cap boosts electoral chances Global Public Opinion. with support for such legislation producing a net effect of plus 67%. though as one might expect. much more than the 12% which gave a score below zero. and 0 meaning that it will have no effect either way. [7 166 . while 38% said they would not. the more a person believes that the problem is real and pressing. the fact that 38% said they would change their vote over this issue is still quite high. PIPA also asked how it would affect the likelihood that they would vote for a candidate for political office if he or she "were to favor a law requiring large companies to gradually reduce their greenhouse gas emissions" and asked to answer "on a scale of +5 to -5." [6] However. Perhaps more significant. In the Mellman Group's September 1998 poll. with 31% saying that if a candidate favors emission-reducing legislation this will decrease the likelihood they will vote for the candidate and 17% saying that it will increase the likelihood-a net effect of minus 14%. When asked to assume that "you agreed with a particular candidate on most issues and were of the same political party." while only 23% said they would view such a candidate as "too interested in environmental issues and ignoring bigger problems.org ‘07 (http://americansworld.THE FORT PLTX CAP POP. while only a very small minority says that it would decrease the likelihood.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2. Republicans were less likely to support such a candidate than Democrats and Independents. however. while 33% gave a score of zero. Overall the mean score was 1. In June 2004. with +5 meaning that it will greatly increase the likelihood you will vote for the candidate. a remarkable 85% say that it will affect their vote. with 53% saying that favoring such legislation will make them more likely to vote for the candidate and just 7% saying it will make them less likely-a net effect of plus 46%. 60% percent say that it will affect their vote. 48% say that a candidate's position on climate change will affect their position.

" said David Parker. Parker and many others expect that in the US national elections this November. There is a growing sense of panic. Connecticut) and Senator John Warner (Republican. the bill would then mandate a schedule of reductions to cut overall US emissions by 63% come 2050. Illinois. Although Democrats control both the US House of Representatives and the Senate. retain or expand their majority margin in the House and perhaps win the White House as well. Similar legislation is being contemplated in at least seven US states. including Maryland. Wisconsin. 3/3/08 Also known as the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill. Michigan and Kansas. "Many of us expect that there will be more Democrats in the US Senate next year than there are now. president of the American Gas Association (AGA). In part. Even so. named after its sponsors. and auction allowance permits to individual companies. Virginia) .the measure would cap emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other GHGs. their majority margin in the Senate is only one vote. Senator Joseph Lieberman (Independent. the legislative momentum for climate change mandates continues to build.has even convinced some industry leaders to argue in favor of immediate passage of a federal program. Democrats will perhaps win several more seats in the Senate. so it might be better for us to work with this Congress this year in the hope of getting a climate control bill we can live with.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE (LIEBERMAN WARNER BILL) POP. As is so often the case in matters political.including some scientists who previously supported human causation. Minnesota.PUBLIC Plan is overwhelmingly popular Chemical Business. The apparent inevitability of climate change legislation . After first capping the amount of GHGs allowed to industry. Iowa. Those companies with plants that emit less GHGs than their purchased permits allow could trade their excess emission credits to firms with facilities that exceed allotted maximums. The stampede to climate control legislation is happening despite growing skepticism among an increasing number of scientists about the human role in global warming . climate change legislation has appeal to federal legislators and is popular among states because such mandatory cap-and-trade systems would add billions of dollars to government treasuries through emission permit auctions. 167 .and the prospect of having multiple state-level emissions mandates in addition to a federal plan . what matters is perception and popularity rather than fact and reality.

‘08 Comprehensive GHG regulation likely will emerge before 2010 because of growing public support for emissions reductions and probable Democratic and independent gains in the U.S. However. Senate (see Table 1).S. M. Stewart is an economist and associate at The Cadmus Group. n6 Nevertheless. the costs to carbon producers probably will be modest initially because compromise legislation will result in small and partially-binding targeted emissions reductions and the grandfathering of permits. Senate in 2008. Cont…. Congress--and not the executive branch--and almost surely will take the form of a cap-and-trade system. Many businesses now see profit opportunities in controlling GHGs. the Lieberman-Warner bill would allow firms to increase their emissions in the short run by borrowing against future allocations of permits. The remaining permits would be allocated between states and sectors of the economy according to a formula in the bill. Utilities Fortnightly. Permits sold at auction would rise gradually from 26 percent in 2012 to 70 percent after 2030. According to a recent Economist/YouGov poll. whereas before they saw only burdensome regulation. an environmental and energy consulting firm based in Portland. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev. If GHG regulation occurs.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE POP. all of which have limits on GHG emissions. are lobbying the United States to bring its emissions under control as well. n7 Also. both parties' presumptive nominees for president support a cap-and-trade system. Finally.PUBLIC Tradable Permits have growing public support JAMES I. Any federal legislation regulating GHG emissions likely will resemble the 2007 version of Lieberman-Warner or one of the close variants under consideration in the U. initiatives by the states to limit GHG emissions and recent federal court rulings that GHG emissions from automobiles can be regulated under the Clean Air Act have increased regulatory uncertainty. The cap would decline over time and require emissions to be four percent below their 2005 levels in 2012. James I. 168 .S. The other major industrialized nations of the world. To avoid price uncertainty and variability.) recently promised the bill would be considered in the full Senate this summer. transportation. SAMI KHAWAJA. Many more Democrats are willing to impose taxes to curb GHG emissions as well. The bill also would allow firms to purchase a limited number of carbon offsets in lieu of purchasing permits or reducing their emissions.S. the American Climate Security Act (S 2191)--generally known as Lieberman-Warner--which would limit GHG emissions through a cap-and-trade system. Ore. putting pressure on the federal government to harmonize state and federal policies. recently passed the U. and 71 percent below 2005 levels in 2050. it likely will originate in the U. Global warming and its economic and environmental costs are becoming increasingly self-evident. Concern is much greater among Democratic than Republican voters. whereas just eight percent of Republicans do the same. Sami Khawaja is an economist and president of The Cadmus Group. June. 53 percent of Democrats cite global warming as the greatest environmental problem. STEWART AND M. and manufacturing carbon sources. which account for about 75 percent of GHG emissions in the United States. the bill would cover electric power. 20 percent below 2005 levels in 2020. There is growing public awareness of global warming and rising concern about its effects on the environment and the economy. Sponsored by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (RVA). Growing Pressure Recent developments favor the passage of federal legislation regulating GHG emissions soon.

The simple answer is that the debate is no longer one-sided. McCain said. 6/12/08 Four and a half years ago. It can and should be challenged with facts about the economy and the immense pain Americans would feel if such a bill were enacted. Senate rejected a global-warming bill sponsored by Sens.) and James Webb (DVa. Of those 54 senators who Lieberman cited. A close examination of post-debate statements reveals that support for the cap-and-tax bill was the virtually unchanged from 2003. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark. but we'll win over time because climate change is real.) sent a letter to the Democrat leadership saying they could not "support final passage" of the bill "in its current form. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.PUBLIC Public Opposes Cap and trade – recent vote proves times have changed Human Events Online. Lieberman claimed 54 senators had supported the bill (although only 48 bothered to actually vote to move the bill forward). the U. "It is clear by the result that serious modifications to this bill are necessary for it to clear the legislative hurdles before it. rising prices and falling incomes are not something Congress should be mandating. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.).THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE UNPOP. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.S.).) is fond of saying. proponents predict success in 2009. Fortunately the American people are becoming aware that job losses. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) by a decisive 43-55 vote. The soaring rhetoric of radical environmentalists. Harry Reid (DNev. Despite the resounding defeat. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn. who has promised to implement an economically devastating cap-and-tax regime as president.). After the vote.)." as Sen." Even McCain.V. issued a statement clarifying that he "could not support the legislation's final passage.) released a statement saying." Sen. liberals and some moderates is no longer gospel. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich. 11 released statements indicating that they could not vote for the bill on final passage. 169 .). And we will overcome the influence of the special interests over time.). After the vote last week. Carl Levin (D-Mich." With no measurable progress on the "most important issues we face in the world today. You can only win by marshaling public opinion. "We've lost a battle today." But if the recent Senate vote on the Lieberman-Warner global-warming bill is any indication. John Rockefeller (D-W. public opinion is moving away from McCain's 2003 effort and Al Gore's current cadre of climate-change alarmists. one is left wondering what happened.).

THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE-BIPART Cap and Trade is gaining bipartisan support in congress McCarthy. Lexis-Nexis Academic) Momentum is building in the United States for adoption of a national cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 2008. Environmental Leader. Leading Democrats in Congress .S. Obama favor a cap and trade system.” http://www. McCain and Sen. A unified cap and trade system is supported across party lines Dave Douglas. 7-27-08.com/2008/07/27/data-centers-and-carbon-pricing/ Here in the U.environmentalleader.are expected to move quickly after the November election to pass climate change legislation that would impose strict caps on carbon dioxide emissions and establish rules for a national trading system for carbon credits.S. The Globe and Mail. Republicans vow to battle democrats on legislation. 8 (Shawn. higher oil sands costs loom” April 9.with the support of some moderate Republicans .. “Cap-and-Trade push grows in U. Both Sen. but it won't come without a titanic fight. Chief Sustainability Officer for Sun Microsystems. the likelihood of an official “price of carbon” continues to grow. “Data Centers and Carbon Pricing. which would put a hard cap on annual emissions and use a trading system to distribute rights to emit greenhouse gasses 170 .

Ed Markey (D-Mass. and we will continue to move forward as quickly as possible." Barton said in an April interview. But they said they have gained little ground." Markey spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder said. I believe there is no clearer distinction between the two parties in Congress than on this issue. issue is seen as key issue of disagreement between Republicans and Democrats Samuelsohn 6/5/08 (Darren. "Before the discussion starts. "That's candidly what we need if we're going to act this year."I think what Dingell and Boucher both are looking at is the economy and how shaky things are and high energy prices. But the energy bill that President Bush signed into law last December did not include it. In recent weeks." Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill did not respond directly to the Republican leader's call for a summertime climate debate." Barton has countered that he is in the minority and has no control over the agenda. I welcome the debate." 171 . The legislation is likely to fall from the chamber's floor agenda by next week. SPOTLIGHT Vol. House GOP spoiling for a cap-and-trade floor fight. I don't think they believe in political suicide.). hopefully the Republicans will read iCAP so they can discover that 80 percent of all American households are protected against rate hikes by the energy industry and that free market principles are used to reduce emissions.) urging her to move before the Fourth of July recess to consider a major global warming bill introduced by Rep. L/N House Minority Leader John Boehner dared Democrats yesterday to begin a global warming floor debate to help spotlight differences between the parties headed into Election Day." Boehner wrote. the committee's ranking member and a longtime skeptic about science linking humans to global warming."While I disagree fervently with the logic of raising energy costs while consumers already face astronomical prices for gasoline. "At a time when families are reconsidering their summer travel plans because of the recordhigh gas prices. the Ohio Republican wrote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif." "America has been waiting for years for the Republicans to finally come to the table and discuss global warming. would you put a cap-andtrade bill together right now? I mean.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE PART Markey legislation (iCAP) has led for call to bring issue to table. instead focusing on the first increase in decades to the nation's automobile fuel efficiency standards. they could. Cap-and-trade plan eludes Pelosi Pelosi came to power in January 2007 with a cap-and-trade plan on top of her agenda. citing Pelosi's 2007 pledge to consider cap-and-trade legislation in the 110th Congress. 10 No.) have tried to engage GOP panel members on cap-and-trade legislation." Boucher said in an April interview. 9. I think the steam has gone out of this issue for this Congress. Greenwire senior reporter. I'm working to try to achieve it." Boehner added." Hammill said. "If you were them. "And frankly. Capitalizing on a chaotic week in the Senate on the same issue. "This is an extremely complicated issue. Instead. Joe Barton (R-Texas). regardless of the outcome of the current Senate debate." Coincidentally. he said. We don't have that. Markey introduced his bill yesterday calling for an 80 percent cut in heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions. The committee is "taking the lead in developing climate change legislation in the House. he cited the ongoing legislative process led by House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich. I respect your prerogative as Speaker to follow through on your promise and schedule a vote on the bill." Senate action on a climate bill disintegrated this week after Republicans placed procedural hurdles in front of Democrats. pinning the blame on Rep. Dingell and House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher (D-Va. "There still is not a full commitment to write the cap-and-trade bill on the Republican side.) that has so far amounted to a series of hearings and white papers over the last 17 months on the obstacles behind crafting a cap-and-trade plan. If Dingell and Boucher wanted to move a bill. a measure he has dubbed "iCAP.

to ensure that major developing nations. R&D. nuclear. abundant. This sector is in a deep and ongoing crisis.” That report was also driven by our belief that a strong and diverse manufacturing base is in the national interest. It should have timetables and standards that allow for the development and deployment of new technology and should help finance the new technologies that can provide clean energy at prices close to conventional sources. 6) There must be adequate resources to both address the transition needs of workers and communities adversely affected by legislation.house.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE POP. A set of environmental economic development principles has helped guide the Federation’s efforts: 1) Our Nation should embrace a balanced approach that ensures diverse. These must be supported by effective trade policies. just as we have in every discussion held with staff and members of Congress.000 manufacturing facilities closed while the nation amassed trillion of dollars in trade deficits.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg. which places manufacturing and trade at the center of a green economy program. has helped evolve and sharpen the thinking of the AFL-CIO Energy Task Force. 5) The international component of any climate change cap-and-trade program must provide both incentives and a border mechanism enforced through a trade regime. some 3. hydro and renewables. is the lifeblood of the manufacturing. as well as. Since 1998. industry. creates good jobs for America’s workers and improves the environment. develop and capture cutting-edge technologies and to manufacture and build these technologies here for domestic use and export. environmental and international labor organizations. The AFL-CIO is here today to reinforce these principles with the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee. participate. by retaining all current generating options. Without these key elements. New investment in a sustainable energy infrastructure must be structured to create good jobs and ensure stable energy prices. 172 . 4) Investments must be used to identify. affordable energy supplies. The offshoring of skilled work. Legislative Proposals to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An Overview. including fossil fuels. construction and service industries. to ensure a stable.” …and that we must “maintain diversity in the electric utility industry. there is a serious risk of driving good jobs offshore into nations without emission regimes and far less carbon efficient production.Baughtestimony. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the House Energy and Commerce Committee June 19. and an environmental economic development policy. 3) Energy incentives and investments by the Federal Government must be based on a set of economic development principles that clean the environment and create jobs but will not encourage offshoring of manufacturing jobs. Solving the climate change crisis is an opportunity to address the manufacturing crisis The AFL-CIO supports a new industrial policy. 2008 http://energycommerce.061908.9 million manufacturing jobs were lost and 35. design. engineering and more continues to erode our innovative and technical capacities. 2) Our Nation should adopt an economy-wide cap-and-trade program that is transparent and requires all sectors to come to the table to reduce their carbon emissions. Executive Director AFL-CIO Industrial Union Council and Co-chair AFL-CIO Energy Task Force. reliable and low-cost supply of electricity for the United States. transportation. The February 2007 report by the AFLCIO Energy Task Force recognized that “reliable and affordable electrical energy. such as China and India.pdf) Over the past 18 months.UNIONS Union task force identifies and supports cap and trade Baugh 08 (Robert C. financial assistance to assist low and moderate income families. our interaction with Congress and many other businesses.

noting that Senator [4]Sherrod Brown (Democrat-Ohio). The bill would provide for the auction of emissions permits that companies would purchase to cover their release of greenhouse gases in excess of cap amounts.but when they learn the costs. told a press conference that "we're beginning to see temporizing in Congress on the cap-and-trade legislation because more and more people are beginning to see the economic impact that the bill would have". if passed. Gerard said. support for the proposed bill in the US Senate is slipping. a top chemical industry official said on Thursday." Gerard said.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE UNPOP.550bn) in federal taxes. but now it looks like they have only 50 votes or less. It is estimated that. they say `but don't raise our energy costs or taxes'.CONGRESS Times Have Changed – Permits Unpopular – Energy Costs Chemical News. the bill would raise some $7. Jack Gerard. "When they're asked if they think emissions controls are important. "The public are starting to wake up to the fact that this climate bill will have energy and job costs. president of the [1]American Chemistry Council (ACC). [2]S-3036. Gerard said that as the economic impact of a cap-and-trade bill becomes more apparent to voters. 173 . Most [3]chemical producers and a wide spectrum of other US manufacturers oppose the bill because of the tax burden and because the measure would put further demand and price pressure on natural gas as a cleaner burning utility fuel.000bn (€4. the America's Climate Security Act. "Just six months ago it seemed that proponents of the climate bill were within just one or two votes of the 60 votes needed to ensure its passage in the Senate. refiners and natural gas producers. the transportation sector. and passage of a draconian cap-and-trade emissions limits bill is less likely. Gerard said the council has been working at state level to help educate voters and their representatives about the economic costs of the climate bill. The US Senate is this week considering a massive climate control bill. 6/6/08 US popular support for climate control legislation pending in Congress has begun to wane. once a solid supporter of cap-and-trade "is now not convinced that this is the way the nation should go" to deal with emissions. The emissions caps would be lowered annually until the US reach a level 75% below its 2005 emission by 2050. that would put an immediate cap or limit on the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases by US manufacturers. they say yes . Those concerns are being conveyed to members of Congress and have resulted in diminishing support for the climate bill." he said." Gerard said. electric utilities.

CONGRESS Political pressures make cap and trade unpopular – energy costs Oil Daily. but he notes that McCain has not voiced support for any of the specific cap-and-trade bills offered up in Congress. and that political pressure to lower energy costs is mounting in Congress." Kreutzer said. "The strongest feedback I'm getting from the Hill is that we need to find a solution to $4 gasoline. 6/23/08 Kreutzer says it will be hard for McCain to back away from any of his positions at this point.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE UNPOP. 174 .

Cost concerns are not new in pointing out the shortcomings of a carbon mitigation plan put forth by Sens. Industry sources suggest that political pressure may be increasing as the lines between energy and climate legislation begin to blur because of high fuel prices. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA).THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE UNPOP (ENERGY COSTS) Opponents spin cap and trade as massive hike in energy costs Washington Week. 5/21/08 Gasoline-Price Concerns May Undermine Lieberman-Warner Debate Some Republican lawmakers and industry segments are maneuvering to use high gasoline and diesel prices as a foil to undercut CO2 cap-and-trade legislation that they say would drive up the cost of transportation fuels. But new energy legislation principally focused on lowering energy costs provides opponents of major climate change measures an opportunity to position climate change legislation as a detriment to efforts to lower energy prices. 175 .

“Requiring all companies to lower their emission levels the same amount will force them to adopt new technologies that may be expensive in the short run but will be economically beneficial in the long run. 53% found convincing (11% very) the argument that “If we do not let companies buy and sell emission allowances. each large company would be allowed to emit a limited amount of greenhouse gasses. The idea is that it will cost some companies much more than other companies to change business practices to lower their emissions. First they were introduced to the subject with the following statement: If this bill (McCain-Lieberman legislation) were to pass. A controversial aspect of the bill is that it allows companies to buy and sell their allowances to each other. ’04 (Stephen.PUBLIC Even if emission cuts have support . Seventyseven percent found convincing (45% very convincing) the argument that “It is just not right for companies to buy the right to emit greenhouse gases. respondents were taken through a series of questions.” This is consistent with the popular view (discussed above) that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will ultimately benefit the economy. 176 . majorities--albeit much more modest ones--found the pro arguments convincing.pdf) Because this subject is somewhat complex.” Seventy-seven percent also found convincing (22% very) the argument. the costs of lowering emissions will be substantially higher than presently estimated for the average American household. At the same time though. http://65. All companies should have to reduce their emissions. having considered these arguments. The con arguments were found convincing by large majorities. do you favor or oppose permitting companies to buy and sell their allowances to emit greenhouse gases?” 62% said they opposed the idea while 34% said they favored it. Here are some arguments on these issues. asked.109. “Now.” Finally.” Similarly. Director.167. this would be unfair to companies for whom it is more expensive to lower their emissions.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.Cap and trade unpopular Kull. If companies with low costs could reduce their emissions further. PIPA. they could sell their emission allowances to other companies who would save money by buying those allowances.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE UNPOP. Please select whether you find them convincing or not. Fifty-five percent found convincing (14% very) that “If companies are not allowed to buy and sell their emission allowances. and overall would make it more costly to reduce emissions. They were then presented a series of pro and con arguments.

though arguments that it would reduce costs are convincing to a modest majority 177 .118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt. The strategy for reducing emissions through a system in which companies trade emissions allowances is not popular with the public. PIPA. Strategies for Reducing Emissions Very large majorities support strategies that provide tax incentives to utility companies that sell environmentally clean energy and to individuals who purchase energy-efficient appliances. Very large majorities support major efforts to reduce automobile emissions by requiring higher fuel efficiency standards in automobiles (even if this means higher costs). http://65.PUBLIC Permit scheme unpopular with public – support alternative strategies instead Kull.109. requiring half of all new automobiles to be hybrid-electric or similarly high-mileage by 2010.pdf) 3. renewing the tax incentives for hybrids.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE UNPOP. Director. ’04 (Stephen.167. and eliminating the tax incentives for large SUVs and Hummers.

Only 48 senators voted to allow the bill to proceed. is the exact opposite of cap-and-trade: drill-and-burn. this will raise the price of gasoline"? Why does this argument work? Invoking high gasoline prices works. Even that number is deceptively high.com/articles/2008/06/how_to_kill_capandtrade. including McCain. I have argued that the passage of some kind of "cap-and-trade" energy rationing scheme is inevitable. editor of TIA Daily. because ten of the 48 votes were cast by Democrats who oppose cap-and-trade. MCCAIN HAS DISTANCED HIMSELF FROM IT. far short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. The legislation was not expected to overcome a presidential veto." momentum is growing to lift restrictions on offshore oil drilling and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 5/28/2008. They flipped their votes only after they knew the legislation would not go forward. the Senate refused to allow a version of cap-and-trade to come to a vote. but the vote was supposed to serve as a show of strength by cap-and-trade advocates. not just because of the immediate pain it inflicts on politicians' constituents.PUBLIC CAP-AND-TRADE IS UNPOPULAR WITH THE PUBLIC. we know that when Congress convenes next year. might not be inevitable after all. The policy now being advocated by many politicians. Can it really be that easy to defeat cap-and-trade-just to point out. The show of strength wasn't very strong. in order to save the Democratic leadership from the embarrassment of having the bill fail by a 46-38 vote against it. It seems that the first time Americans begin to experience anything like the economic consequences of global warming regulations -. the new president will ask it to pass the legislation. A few weeks ago.they begin to have second thoughts about whether they really want to reduce their carbon footprints.html Since the Florida primary.realclearpolitics. but because it exploits a fundamental contradiction at the foundation of the current "green" fad 178 .THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE UNPOP. "Hey. Since then. Since both McCain and Obama are firm supporters of cap-and-trade. http://www. while legislative momentum has stalled on passing "cap-and-trade. Robert Tracinski. like Hillary Clinton. when John McCain decisively pulled ahead and became the presumptive Republican nominee. But it turns out that cap-and-trade.$4-per-gallon gasoline is just a down payment on the green agenda -.

com/polls/view/americans_support_cap_and_trade_scheme/ Accessed June 28. “Americans Support Cap-and-Trade Scheme” June 14.angusreid.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE POP. 2008-JD) Americans Support Cap-and-Trade Scheme (June 14.PUBLIC Cap-and-Trade Popular with American voters. with companies being allowed to buy credits from those who pollute less. 2008 http://www. according to a poll by Opinion Research Corporation released by CNN. 179 . 2008) Many adults in the United States would welcome a cap-andtrade scheme to reduce global warming.polls prove Angus Reid Global Monitor (The definitive online source for examining worldwide public opinion and democratic processes. 52 per cent of respondents support a proposal to have the government set a limit on the amount of emissions that a company could produce each year.

6/1/08 “Carbon’s Power Brokers” lexis A carbon tax would be too clear and candid for political comfort.3 million lost jobs in 2029 as a result of government-imposed changes to the economy.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE POP. 5/19/08 “McCain’s Global Warming Plan Threatens Economy” http://www. Will.heritage. taxpayers would demand a commensurate reduction of other taxes. 11/12/07 “MIT Study: Public Distrustful of System Taxing Carbon Emissions” lexis His view was endorsed by Ernest Moniz. according to the Heritage analysis. Therefore. Director of the Center for Media & Public Policy @ The Heritage Foundation. a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and former undersecretary of Energy in the Clinton administration. New Hampshire. but one with a known cost.PUBLIC Cap-and-trade is unpopular Margaret Ryan. CAP AND TRADE IS UNPOPULAR IN MANUFACTURING STATES Robert B.cfm Manufacturing would be among the hardest hit with 2.org/Press/Commentary/ed051908a. Bluey. CARBON TAX IS UNPOPULAR George F. Cap-and-trade -government auctioning permits for businesses to continue to do business -.is a huge tax hidden in a bureaucratic labyrinth of opaque permit transactions. who said MIT studies have shown many US voters are suspicious about who would benefit from increased energy costs that would result from a cap-and-trade system. Wisconsin. Writer for the Washington Post. It would clearly be what cap-and-trade deviously is. a tax. 180 . Illinois and Maryland are forecast for the biggest losses in the short term. Writer for Platts Coal Outlook.

com/polls/view/americans_support_cap_and_trade_scheme/) Many adults in the United States would welcome a cap-and-trade scheme to reduce global warming. 181 . according to a poll by Opinion Research Corporation released by CNN. 8 (Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research “Americans Support Cap-and-Trade Scheme” June 14. with companies being allowed to buy credits from those who pollute less. http://www.angusreid. 2008.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE POP-PUBLIC The public supports Cap and Trade Opinion Research Corporation . 52 per cent of respondents support a proposal to have the government set a limit on the amount of emissions that a company could produce each year.

is reportedly considering the costs and benefits of various cap and trade proposals after years of opposition. Powerful corporate leaders are right behind them. Contributing Editor to City Journal. 8/23/07 “A Carbon Tax Would Be Cleaner” http://online.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE BIPART CAP AND TRADE IS BIPARTISAN Nicole Gelinas.com/article/SB118783207292706124. and even the Bush administration.html The political answer to all this anxiety has arrived.wsj. 182 .are embracing a national "cap and trade" program to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. Prominent politicians -.including first-tier Democratic and Republican candidates -. led by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

1812836. 6/9/08 “WHY THE CLIMATE BILL FAILED” HTTP://WWW.TIME.8599. it would drive up gasoline prices and coal-powered electricity rates in the short term (though by smaller amounts than the doomsayers were claiming last week) while delivering far greater energy savings over the long term — by unleashing a clean energy economy that creates jobs and helps free the U. the Republican leadership spent last week trying to create not just a new litmus test for climate action but a new third rail for American politics: It wants any climate bill that causes the slightest increase in energy prices to be seen as a non-starter.00.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE UNPOP.COM/TIME/NATION/ARTICLE/0.S from dependence on foreign oil. That's an impossible standard to meet.REPS GOP OPPOSES ANY CAP-AND-TRADE BILL ERIC POOLEY." said Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe. would increase the cost of energy derived from fossil fuels while giving clean. and if the Republicans succeed in establishing it. WRITER FOR TIME MAGAZINE. Congress may never get this done. 183 . "Any action should not raise the cost of gasoline or energy to American families. alternative energies an enormous boost. like any cap-and-trade bill. and his words were echoed by many others. Lieberman-Warner.HTML In fact. the longtime leader of the denial-and-delay crowd. In other words.

e. 184 . 6/16/08 Most economists agree that a carbon tax is the most effective and efficient policy to reduce GHG emissions. Two characteristics of a cap-and-trade system give it an advantage over a tax in national politics. an environmental and energy consulting firm based in Portland. Stewart is an economist and associate at The Cadmus Group. a cap-and-trade system avoids direct taxation while still relying on market principles.CONGRESS (A2: FIGHTS) Cap and trade means increased energy costs won’t be perceived Carbon Control News. grandfathering--at least on a temporary basis.. it is not considered as politically popular as a cap-and-trade program because the costs imposed on carbon-intensive energy sources are directly applied. Utilities Fortnightly. James I. Sami Khawaja is an economist and president of The Cadmus Group. ‘08 Although a carbon tax has many economic virtues. This will shift more of the burden of the costs of reducing GHGs to consumers (as the government will lose tax revenues from the sale of permits that could be used to offset the higher costs of carbon-intensive goods or reduce other taxes) but it will not undermine the integrity of the caps or the price of carbon. however. June. SAMI KHAWAJA. First. Cap and trade avoids political backlash JAMES I. through the use of allowance auctioning and trading. STEWART AND M. and thus are more transparent and visible to consumers. the capand-trade system gives supporters of GHG legislation a valuable bargaining chip during legislative negotiations with powerful special interest groups opposed to limits on emissions. M. Second. a cap-and-trade program imposes costs on carbon-intensive energy in a less direct manner. This makes it attractive to politicians wanting to avoid the stigma of raising taxes. The support of these interests and that of reluctant lawmakers may be won with agreements to distribute permits to certain industries for free on the basis of past production--i. a tax-based system of controlling GHG emissions is unlikely to be instituted in the United States. meaning the ultimate cost to consumers is less readily apparent.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE POP. In contrast. Ore.

You’ll see us talking more about climate change.).html) John McCain’s tempestuous relationship with his own party will be on full display when the Senate dives into a major global warming debate next week. McCain’s office is engaged in an intensive behind-the-scenes message coordination effort with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.McCain proves Kady. Lieberman (I-Conn. whose press office holds daily phone calls to map out the message of the day. we are trying to coordinate and do some of the Greek chorus stuff with him. Joseph I. “I don’t know if we can ever sing off the same sheet of music. “But that’s the one issue where the majority of the conference may go the other way. “We’re starting to see a coming together on energy. and a key procedural vote has already been scheduled for June 2. 2008 (Martin. John Cornyn (R-Texas). “You’re not going to see tax breaks for oil companies. there have been other areas where McCain’s campaign has clearly been able to influence Senate Republican actions.) offers McCain a chance to stake out a position different from the president’s and see if his party will follow. “Hopefully.” Graham said. Democrats don’t seem eager to offer a smooth path toward any bipartisan compromise that would give McCain political cover on the issue. May 27. or will they stick to the conservative.On global warming and other issues. http://www. but in terms of subject matter. hands-off approach to global warming backed by President Bush?It’s a debate that may very well divide Senate Republicans and show voters yet another fissure in an already beleaguered party. it’s McCain v. the debate on a bipartisan climate change bill sponsored by Sens.).THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE POP.REPS Cap and trade policies strengthen GOP. one can already see a distinct change in the Republican outlook — conservatives are trying to figure out legislative options on global warming rather than simply playing defense and mocking environmentalists on the topic. McCain himself chats with McConnell. The catch is that many Republicans are uncomfortable with McCain’s talk of a cap-and-trade program for reducing carbon emissions. “John McCain was into climate change before it was cool.).C. 185 . Jim DeMint (R-S. Jim Webb (D-Va.”Last week. GOP”.” said Sen.) and John Warner (R-Va. By contrast.” said one GOP Senate aide. “Have you noticed it’s hard to coordinate anything with Sen.” Conservatives hope that McCain will back a more market-based approach rather than the government mandates on carbon emissions that are part of the central Senate proposal. he can help us find a position between Warner-Lieberman and where we are as conservatives. McCain’s campaign coordinated a Republican Senate assault on Barack Obama’s proposal to raise capital gains taxes. a significant number of Senate Republicans bucked Bush by voting both to override his veto of the Farm Bill and to support a GI Bill introduced by Sen.The question facing Senate Republicans: Are they ready to embrace their presidential nominee’s more liberal ideas for climate change ideas like a cap-and-trade system.politico. Every Tuesday. McCain didn’t vote. Republicans say the task of unifying GOP senators with McCain is akin to herding cats — and it points to the party’s larger national problem with presenting a unified message.com/news/stories/0508/10637. McCain?” asked Sen. but he made it clear that he agreed with Bush’s positions on both measures. “On global warming. where we didn’t before.” But in this internal debate. In a separately choreographed effort. McCain’s senior advisers meet with GOP senators at the National Republican Senatorial Committee to chart their agenda. “You’ve already seen the shift on energy and climate change.” If the votes on the GI Bill and the Farm Bill were setbacks for both McCain and Bush. And about once a week. The global warming deniers have taken a back seat.

186 . emissions cap if Congress approves an international climate agreement that obligates other nations to do their part to address the climate challenge.117 Each will have voted for similar legislation in the past. It should stipulate that future climate agreements will be handled by the United States as congressional–executive agreements and create mechanisms for strengthening coordination between Congress and the President on international negotiations.html Both McCain and Obama support cap-and-trade programs . a senior State Department official responsible for environmental diplomacy.S.118 Recently.BOTH CANIDATES Both Obama and McCain support cap-and-trade Ryan Randazzo. (An illustration of what the President might say on this topic shortly after the inaugural address is provided in Box 3. 4/2008. Obama wants to auction off all the permits to emit greenhouse gases and use some of the money to fund alternative energy and help low-income families pay for weatherizing their homes or paying their energy bills. forcing companies to cut back emissions or buy "offsets. Energy issues likely to be on voters’ minds. and most climate policy experts predict that the United States will enact a cap-and-trade bill in the next few years.S.azcentral. Climate Leadership The President and Congress now have before them an important opportunity to pass legislation that creates Climate Protection Authority.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/07/21/20080721elex-energy0721. each candidate supports cap-and-trade legislation and has declared it a top-tier priority. Arizona Republic. http://www.). climate change foreign policy. senior Republican Party strategists have suggested that President Bush would sign a cap-and-trade bill if it reached his desk before he leaves office. the statutes should create streamlined TPA-style procedures to allow Congress to tighten the U. In the upcoming presidential election in November.119 Any cap-andtrade bill approved by Congress should serve as the framework statute for U.where a limit is set on emissions and businesses can trade permits that allow them to release those emissions .along the lines of the Lieberman-Warner bill. The next president will cap-and-trade Nigel Purvis. In addition. and gradually reducing those allowances. A half dozen serious cap-and-trade bills are pending before Congress." Offsets mean paying for others to cut their emissions when you can't cut your own. although that is not official policy. Paving the Way for U. McCain supports giving out permits to release greenhouse gases that equal the current production from power plants and transportation fuels.S. 7/21/2008. The next President should call on Congress to enact Climate Protection Authority shortly after taking office.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE POP. staff writer.

Republicans in Congress have a decent point when they say the last thing consumers need right now is even higher prices due to federal legislation (though higher prices in the short and mid-term would likely lead to longer-term cost savings for consumers as alternatives came online in a big way).com/rea/news/recolumnists/story?id=52717) This brings us back to cap and trade. http://www.REPS REPUBLICANS OPPOSE CAP AND TRADE REGULATION Hunt. Community Environmental Council.com.renewableenergyworld. 2008 (Tam. Any legislation that could be passed by this Congress this year and not vetoed by President Bush will have far less impact on consumer behavior than market forces are already achieving.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE UNPOP. 187 . Renewable energy World.

188 . http://matthewyglesias. that bill.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE UNPOP. though.MCCAIN ( ) MCCAIN WON’T SUPPORT CAP AND TRADE – WON’T TAKE CREDIT Matthew Yglesias. that McCain is better than your average Republican on this issue. 7-12-2008. but if Barack Obama claimed to be "for" something.php I have to agree that it's incredibly unhelpful to have Bill Clinton and Al Gore praising John McCain on climate change.theatlantic. inadequate as it is. exactly? It's hard to construct an appropriate analogy here. But that was much more true a couple of years ago when he was cosponsoring the McCain-Lieberman climate change half-measures bill. in a sense. has become the Lieberman-Warner bill because McCain dropped his support for it. If McCain's not even going to support the most conservative cap-and-trade bill in the mix.com/archives/2008/07/mccain_and_climate. It's true. then what is his nominal support for cap-and-trade worth.” Matthew Yglesias Blog. “McCain and Climate. Political Blogger for the Atlantic Monthly. and yet opposed every concrete effort to make it happen. These days. I doubt GOP eminences grises would be leaping forward to praise him.

Juliet Eilperin. McCain is not endorsing the Warner-Lieberman bill "because it doesn't include the nuclear issue by name.) didn't sign up as a co-sponsor for the new bipartisan global warming bill that his colleagues John Warner (R-Va. McCain is no longer the only GOP presidential candidate who now endorses a mandatory cap on emissions linked to global warming." Huckabee said.) and Joseph I.com/thetrail/2007/10/18/mccain_and_warming. John McCain (R-Ariz. Lieberman (I-Conn. to find alternative forms of energy that are renewable and sustainable and environmentally friendly.) introduced todayThursday. "We have a responsibility to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Elizabeth Dole (R-N. N. included up to $600 million in federal funding to build as many as three power plants.). Warner and Lieberman did win over Sen.MCCAIN MCCAIN SUPPORTS CAP AND TRADE. Even more interesting. who has voted against a carbon cap in the past but signed on as a co-sponsor of America's Climate Security Act.H. to conserve energy. "We can't effectively reduce our emissions without including nuclear energy. McCain's bill from last year. which is more efficient than the technologies in the bill. which he authored with Lieberman." according to his spokeswoman Melissa Shuffield." 189 .washingtonpost. http://blog. Former Arkansas Gov. but his aides said that doesn't mean he's shying away from the issue. "It goes to the moral issue. Mike Huckabee announced Saturday in a Manchester.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE POP. 10/18/2008." aims to reduce the nation's greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050 compared to current levels.C. press conference that he now supports a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases.html Sen. Environmental reporter for the Washington Post. dubbed "America's Climate Security Act." The new legislation.

rather than just thinking about it. to appreciate the importance of climate change as an issue. hopefully not emitting all. he has. in 2001 I believe. sustained economic growth. stuck to his position and worked hard on it. Washington Oil & Gas Journal. and his willingness to take on large corporate and other interests in the public interest. But. "Teddy Roosevelt. his founding of the national park system. but a mandatory version is essential to creating. of renewables and others. through discussions with the public really more than anything else. the first mandatory carbon cap-and-trade proposal in the Congress.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE POP. “Campaign Aides: Motor fuel transition may be starting” pg lexis //EM McCain proposes returning US carbon emissions to 2005 levels by 2012 and to 1990 levels by 2020. I think that it's important to realize that during the 2000 campaign he came." Tallent said. He was not happily received within a number of board rooms as a result of that and among some from his own party. This probably will be a key issue in the upcoming debates. worked with his friend Joe Lieberman and they introduced. as is his style. a general and economically sound pressure to move away from carbon emitting sources for energy and toward far less carbon emitting sources.MCCAIN MCCAIN SUPPORTS A CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM Nick Show. she continued. in the form. He believes that carbon cap and trade. editor. 190 . but very much on his history of his friendship with John Muir. say. MCCAIN WILL PASS A MANDATORY CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM I think it's important to realize that when you ask John McCain who his chief political hero is he always says the same person. not a voluntary one. He says." And he focuses not only on T. 6/2/08. And. as a Rough Rider and as a Nobel Peace Prize winner and as sending the Great White Fleet around the world. "He believes that a cap-and-trade system must harness human ingenuity in pursuit of market-based alternatives to carbon-based fuels. McCain-Lieberman. He also believes that an effective climate policy must support rapid. at a national and international level. as this administration has supported. in a mandatory version.R. he went back.

net. using a mandatory cap and trade system. and new mass transit. increasing fuel economy standards.net/article/articleview/7181/ Obama.politicalaffairs.OBAMA Obama wants a mandatory cap and trade system across the US Joel Wendland. PoliticalAffairs. proposes reducing greenhouse gas emission that cause global warming by 80 percent over the next four decades.” http://www. “Obama – The Greener Candidate.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE POP. He has also proposed sizeable investments in alternative energy research and development. according to the E article. 191 . 7-27-08.

introduced October 18 with nine cosponsors from both sides of the aisle.” [Quoted from Congressional Record. The 214-page bill.S. CLIMATE SCIENCE WATCH 11/2/2007.S. the legislative proposal gives primary authority and responsibility for carrying out the greenhouse gas emissions reduction program to the U. John Barrasso (R). “America’s Climate Security Act” (S. the bill “contains a robust set of measures to sustain U.PHP/CSW/DETAILS/CAP_AND_TRADE_BILL_ASSESSMENT_AD APTATION/ On November 1 the U. HTTP://WWW. 192 . S. October 18. Lieberman expressed the sense of urgency that seems to have caught on in Congress like the California wildfires of last month: “I have said before. 2191). The challenge would be that we get to the political tipping point where we could come together and do something about global warming before we reach the environmental tipping point. 2007 Page S 13081] Reflecting the jurisdiction of the Committee. many in the environmental community.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE UNPOP. Sen. protect American jobs.” Additionally. and some progressive Presidential candidates and activists who are calling it a corporate giveaway. according to Sen. Lieberman’s press release following Subcommittee passage. 2191 is a bipartisan bill. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection (we know that’s a mouthful).S. and I will say it again. “is projected to reduce total U. according to Lieberman. It is largely viewed as being “centrist” and has already disappointed people on both sides of the global warming battle: denialists such as Sen. has nine titles and. after which it would be harder to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. marked up and reported out the first major “cap-and-trade” bill to be considered formally in the 110th Congress. greenhouse-gas emissions by as much as 19% below the 2005 level (4% below the 1990 level) in 2020 and by as much as 63% below the 2005 level in 2050. but assigns roles to other agencies and departments as well.” When introducing the bill on the Senate floor. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). James Inhofe (the Ranking Republican on the Senate Environment Committee). elected officials from coal states such as Wyoming Sen.CONGRESS CAP AND TRADE UNPOPULAR ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. chaired by Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT).S. I feel as if we had been in a race between tipping points. at this moment. and ensure international participation in emissions reductions. economic growth.ORG/INDEX.CLIMATESCIENCEWATCH.

He also believes that an effective climate policy must support rapid. 6-2-8 (Nick.”ン said John McCain. such as a tax credit or major investment from the government. [Note – Tallent = Rebecca Jensen Tallent. “McCain and Obama's Plans to Combat Climate Change”.enn. Large subsidies exist for all sources of energy. a McCain energy advisor McCain gets credit for cap and trade Environmental News.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE POP. p.”ン McCain is calling for a 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. USING A CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM Snow. Many of the hidden costs of pollution are not accounted for. she continued. One challenge with this plan is that we don’t operate in a truly free market. For example. He believes the market will correct itself with the use of cleaner technologies without the need for intervention. who is paying for the hospital visits when a child has an asthma attack from air pollution? 193 . although renewable energy has had less consistent ones. which is needed for the market to correct the problem. sustained economic growth. 28) McCain proposes returning US carbon emissions to 2005 levels by 2012 and to 1990 levels by 2020. even under a cap and trade system. This probably will be a key issue in the upcoming debates. One of the reasons McCain supports this approach is because it encourages the market to respond with the lowest cost approach.com/energy/article/37541) “Cap and trade is being implemented in Europe and they have stumbled and they’ve had problems but it is still the right thing to do. “It is what we did in relation to acid rain. http://www." Tallent said. Oil & Gas Journal. 08 (7/2/08. "He believes that a cap-and-trade system must harness human ingenuity in pursuit of market-based alternatives to carbon-based fuels. Oil & Gas journal. Washington Editor. “Campaign aides: Motor fuel transition may be starting”.MCCAIN MCCAIN PUSHING 1990 LEVELS BY 2020.

col1 While voluntary programs.MCCAIN McCain sponsored Cap-and-Trade bill.com/p/articles/mi_qa3816/is_200501/ai_n13633946/pg_1?tag=artBody. and co-chair of the American Bar Association's Committee on Climate Change and Sustainable Development. GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PROGRAM.81 For example. teaches energy law at George Washington University Law School. Robert R.80 Substantial attention has been given to formulating and evaluating a range of alternative mechanisms for controlling U.83 In March 2004. and product efficiency standards have contributed to reductions in GHGs that would not otherwise have occurred. a companion version of the McCain-Lieberman bill was introduced. they neither individually nor collectively are likely to achieve significant economy-wide reductions in GHG emissions from current levels. 194 . he gets credit for policy Nordhaus. Kyle W. tax incentives. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) introduced legislation that would establish an economy-wide GHG cap-and-trade program. and Danish. several bills have been introduced that would establish a CO2 cap-and-trade program for electric utilities. ASSESSING THE OPTIONS FOR DESIGNING A MANDATORY U.82 In January 2003. modeled on the SO^sub 2^ program under Title IV of the CAA. findarticles. the CAFE program.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE POP.S. 2005 Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review.S. GHG emissions.

. http://www.html) This month. “Conservatives Flip-Flopped on Cap and Trade” June 28. The hue and cry against the bill from industry and its conservative allies in Congress was deafening.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE UNPOP-REPS Republicans oppose cap and trade Glicksman. They are more concerned with protecting what they regard as the property "right" of polluters to make a profit by fouling our air. Joe Lieberman.." tax-and-spend liberalism.kansas. 195 . Notably. 2008. "big government. The Wichita Eagle. The plain truth is that these critics will find something to attack no matter what form environmental protection legislation takes. with bipartisan sponsorship by Sens. John Warner. the market-based approach they'd championed in the past was a manifestation of economy-wrecking. and Barbara Boxer.com/205/story/447780. I-Conn. 8 – Professor of law at University of Kansas (Robert. D-Calif. their arguments against cap-and-trade echoed the ones they made about "command-and-control" approaches. R-Va.. land and water than they are with controlling polluting activities that threaten our health and destroy the environment. the Senate debated such a bill. Suddenly.

that the administration has no plans to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions linked to global warming. Democrats and moderate Republicans have pushed to include carbon dioxide in any new emissions-trading program. and sulfur dioxide. Now GOP leaders concede that they don't have the votes to get Bush's original package through the Republican-controlled Senate. Cap and trade popular with democrats and moderate republicans National Journal 2/14/04 l/n This administration's effort to rewrite the landmark act hasn't gotten far.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE POP-DEMS Democrats want a cap and trade policy National Journal 11/13/04 l/n The White House is pushing Congress to rewrite the Clean Air Act by adopting President Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative." His plan would create an emissions-trading program to reduce power-plant emissions of mercury. which is widely linked to global warming. when the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved a version more palatable to environmentalists. During past debates. Congressional Democrats and GOP moderates want the emissions-trading plan to include carbon dioxide. Republicans killed that measure on the Senate floor. The only progress made on the bill so far came in June 2002. nitrogen oxides. But Bush has steadfastly refused to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. 196 . White House aides say. however.

(2) it stimulates innovation and competition in methods of emissions reduction.the steadfast commitment of a Republican president.” Tulane Environmental Law Journal. These two policy instruments need each other. LN] Can we finally reverse course and reduce emissions from the electricity generation industry? Even the incomplete lessons of the SO<2> cap-andtrade program suggest that engaging certain members of the regulated industries can yield surprising successes.J. which provided for SO<2> emissions trading under the Acid Rain Program was difficult and required a unique set of circumstances . A subsidy program thus plays the perfect complementary role: it can be used to overcome [*457]opposition from electricity generation firms that have resisted cap-andtrade programs because they feared that their stock of coal-fired power plants were a losing hand in a cap-and-trade program. 197 . L. 427. a cap-andtrade program offers at least four distinct advantages: (1) it produces a market incentive to reduce emissions. From a societal viewpoint. and (4) it provides a mechanism for offsetting the competitive advantage to high-emitting firms that take advantage of the subsidy by also creating a valuable asset in the hands of low-emitting firms. 14 Tul. “Reducing Emissions from the Electricity Generation Industry. Envtl. the bipartisan support of key lawmakers and extensive horse-trading. Associate Professor of Law at George Washington University School of Law [Shi-Ling.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE PART Passage of emissions trading schemes requires political horsetrading Hsu 01. n138 Prospects for the kind of bipartisanship necessary for a comprehensive pollution control program appear quite slim in this divided Congress. (3) it allows emissions reductions to occur in the most cost-effective way. Summer. passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Even though economists have been touting these benefits for decades.

Many analysts are predicting US $150-200 oil within two years. Pg. topping US $5/gallon. Until recently. Natural gas prices have surged to records not seen since Hurricane Katrina and Rita locked in significant Gulf of Mexico production. Energy Program Director of the Environmental Council. U.70/gallon at some stations in my hometown of Santa Barbara). 2) Neither candidate's plan would pass Congress without a fight. "In the Democratic primaries. 145 No. Utility bills will soon follow as utility companies are forced to pay far higher prices and pass those prices along to ratepayers. “Protecting Mother Nature”. 198 . The Warner-Lieberman bill went down in flames." Heritage Foundation senior policy analyst David Kreutzer says of the candidates' proposals. Oil reached US $135 a barrel in late May and has stayed above US $120 since then. "They're both too much. and leaders in the Republican Party continue to warn that stringent emissions caps could drain the economy of trillions of dollars. 6/25/2008 Congress got hot under the collar in early June as it debated national climate change legislation. it seems like there was a game of who can trump the other person.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE COST POL CAP CAP AND TRADE WON’T PASS CONGRESS WITHOUT A FIGHT Garber. because Democrats couldn't muster the 60 votes needed to break a Senate filibuster. considering the new economic reality surrounding energy. it's. 'Who is going to propose the greatest cut?'" CAP AND TRADE IS CONTROVERSIAL.50/gallon in places like California (and over US $4. however. 7-21-8 (Kent. Gasoline keeps rising and has breached US $4/gallon nationally and is over US $4. US News & World Report. Diesel prices are even higher. Tam Hunt. News & World Report. When you get to the environment. Coal prices are at records and have doubled over the last year. But this isn't really bad news because the whole idea of a national cap and trade isn't very good to begin with.S. 29 Vol. the Bush administration vigorously opposed even the idea of government-mandated emissions reductions.

The first effort to pass a mandatory greenhouse gas reduction program failed in 2003 on a 43-55 vote in the Senate. Congressional Research Service. A similar effort was defeated in 2005 during the debate on the Energy Policy Act of 2005 on a 38-60 vote. and Industry Division. CRS Report for Congress.S. The cap would have been implemented through a tradeable permit program to encourage efficient reductions.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33442. None of these proposal have passed either house of Congress. 7.fas. “Resources.S.pdf accessed 7-8-08) Despite strong Bush Administration opposition to mandatory greenhouse gas reduction programs. a number of congressional proposals to advance programs designed to reduce greenhouse gases were introduced in the 109th Congress. Science. The proposals would have placed a cap on U.CONGRESS CAP AND TRADE PROGRAMS ARE UNPOPULAR IN CONGRESS AND HAVE BEEN DEFEATED. greenhouse gas emissions based on a 2001 baseline. 199 . Congressional Brief Energy Researchers.THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE UNPOP. March 9. This second. Nuclear Power: Outlook for New U. Reactors”. 2007. Parker and Holt. and similar efforts have continued in the 110th Congress. (Larry and Mark. www. less favorable vote reflects the changed votes of four Senators who reportedly objected to the addition of nuclear power incentives to the 2005 version of the proposed legislation.

and advocates of the safety valve proposed starting its implementation with ‘‘looser goals than are required by the Protocol’’. Analyses carried out in the late 1990s estimated that the carbon price required to achieve the Kyoto targets would be in the range of $50 to over $200 per ton C. A. Although the safety valve proposal did not draw explicitly on the latter studies. executive director of MIT's Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. Barnes. $25 per ton C (Kopp et al. 1999. the Kyoto target was widely viewed as overly stringent. in the range of $5 to $14 per ton C. 2000) or cost effective approaches to atmospheric stabilization (e. and with the suggestion that this loosening could be achieved through the manipulation of a safety valve price (e.THE FORT PLTX SAFETY VALVE POP. the proposed safety level. with a focus on benefitcost considerations (e.g. Energy Policy 32 (2004) 481–491 Proposals for a safety valve in the context of the Kyoto commitments appear to have been aimed at these two targets: both avoiding excessive cost by relaxing the emissions target and moving from quantity target to a price penalty. 1999).. 1998). other studies taking a longer-term perspective. Denny Ellerman... In the US at least. Jacoby. 2001).. Meanwhile. 1999. Manne and Richels..g. 200 . Nordhaus and Boyer. would have kept marginal costs close to the range they indicated as appropriate in the early years of greenhouse gas control. Pizer.g. depending on the assumption about Annex I trading (Weyant and Hill. Kopp et al. Harvard Environmental Systems Program. The safety valve and climate policy. 1999) indicated that an appropriate nearfuture period price was much lower.CONGRESS Safety Valve perception is more positive Henry D.

210 However.col1 Some commentators argue that a safety valve mechanism inevitably would be an "easy out. 201 . a higher trigger price could allay those fears while still providing insurance against high costs. teaches energy law at George Washington University Law School. because they would have assurances that their costs would not exceed the safety valve level Progressive Safety Valve gets political support from business and environmental groups William Pizer. and co-chair of the American Bar Association's Committee on Climate Change and Sustainable Development.S. both of which are key factors in driving down the long-term costs of reducing emissions. environmental groups will be wary of giving up the commitment to a fixed emission target.LOBBIES AND ENVIRO Safety valve increases Household confidence Nordhaus. Kyle W. ASSESSING THE OPTIONS FOR DESIGNING A MANDATORY U. July 1999 CHOOSING PRICE OR QUANTITY CONTROLS FOR GREENHOUSE GASES Climate Issues Brief No.com/p/articles/mi_qa3816/is_200501/ai_n13633946/pg_1?tag=artBody. a strict target policy may lack political credibility and viability. Robert R. 17 Resources for the Future While the safety valve approach is potentially appealing to businesses concerned about the uncertainty surrounding future permit prices. Such a commitment is already an integral part of the Kyoto Protocol. Although a low trigger price would clearly rankle environmentalists as an undesirable loosening of the commitment to reduce emissions. findarticles. however. other commentators have argued that a safety valve option could make risk-averse households and firms willing to accept a more aggressive emissions cap-and therefore higher emissions price-than otherwise would be the case. and Danish. 2005Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review.THE FORT PLTX SAFETY VALVE POP." diminishing incentives for firms to innovate or to build a bank of early reductions. Ultimately. GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PROGRAM.

The level of initial effort could be comparatively modest. which could be ratcheted up later if necessary. but a sound architecture that achieves significant buy-in from both industry and environmentalists and hence would not be subject to the vagaries of election cycles or media fads. combined with a safety valve to limit the potential costs of compliance. even at a high dollar level.THE FORT PLTX SAFETY VALVE MEANS NO EFFECT Addition of Safety Valve decreases the political capital of Cap-and-Trade Sen.org/policy_ center/analyses/sec/cost_containment.pewclimate. Jeff Bingaman. Although economists tell us that a revenue-neutral carbon tax would probably be the most efficient policy instrument. What is crucial is not so much the precise level of effort. could undercut assertions that GHG regulation will bring about the “end of the economy. 202 . Safety Valve decreases an emission trading system affect an the election Daniel Bodansky. financial structuring for large new oil and gas production projects may not be possible without a price cap. Domenici and Sen. is more viable politically. Another company notes that. A system of mandatory domestic targets and emissions trading (usually referred to as “cap and trade”). February 2006 Pew Center on Global Climate Change Response to: "Design Elements of a Mandatory Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Regulatory System” www. The presence of a safety valve. Bonn Voyage Kyoto’s Uncertain Revival Fall 2001 A domestic climate policy could take several forms. professor of law at the University of Washington. since otherwise these projects would involve a large unknown liability that constrains equity value and cash flows. Pete V. it would violate the political orthodoxy of “no new taxes” and hence is probably a non-starter.” since it would remove from consideration the modeling results that posit extreme cases of unlimited cost.cfm One company notes that mere inclusion of some reasonable cost limit may be more important for getting legislation enacted than the limit’s specific level. when GHG regulation is viewed as inevitable and may affect upstream energy producers.

findarticles. twenty-five years of environmental and energy policy experience suggests that it is difficult to gain public support for a program that relies principally on direct increases in the price of energy-either through taxes or regulatory measureseven where such a program arguably is more cost-effective or will result in a more equitable distribution of regulatory burdens than other approaches.com/p/articles/mi_qa3816/is_200501/ai_n13633946/pg_1?tag=artBody.S. Kyle W. 2005Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review. 203 . Even in times of most compelling national circumstances. Congress was unwilling to vise energy price increases to rein in consumer demand.col1 For example. Robert R. GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PROGRAM. and Danish. such as the 1973 Arab oil embargo.117 On the other hand. teaches energy law at George Washington University Law School. ASSESSING THE OPTIONS FOR DESIGNING A MANDATORY U.THE FORT PLTX SAFETY VALVE UNPOP-CONGRESS Emission Trading System more attractive to Public than any Price Mechanism Nordhaus. and co-chair of the American Bar Association's Committee on Climate Change and Sustainable Development. program designs involving emissions trading or emission charges offer the opportunity to develop what may be a politically attractive policy package-using the revenue raised from regulation of GHG emissions as a basis for reducing taxes on income.

however. "this alternative may be the best one if it can be in place. One option would address virtually all sources of U. Fuel suppliers would have to buy the allowances from the government though an auction system. such as the 1973 Arab oil embargo. because it would drive up energy prices for consumers.S. Robert Nordhaus and Kyle Danish." the report said. researchers said. The upstream cap and trade system would likely face tough political opposition. Because of its relative low cost and potential environmental benefits. fuel suppliers would be required to hold emissions allowances equal to the amount of carbon in the fossil fuels they supply." wrote the report's authors. and companies could buy and sell allowances to meet their emissions targets. 204 . carbon dioxide emissions through an "upstream" cap-and-trade system. "Even in times of most compelling national circumstances. Under such a program.THE FORT PLTX UPSTREAM CAP & TRADE UNPOP Upstream Cap and trade scheme will face mass political opposition-our evidence is specific Greenwire 5 / 16 / 03 Pew researchers considered several options for a domestic GHG reduction program. Congress was unwilling to use energy price increases to rein in consumer demand.

could attain costeffective compliance if it incorporates flexibility measures. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. and according to some economists. it is likely to present a political challenge. and Kyle W. because an economy-wide upstream cap-and-trade program would rive up the cost of gasoline and home heating fuels. iv. how the auction revenues were recycled back into the economy.org/docUploads/AspenProceedings_PolicyFramework.THE FORT PLTX UPSTREAM CAP & TRADE UNPOP. if auctioned. These allocation and recycling decisions can also affect overall compliance costs.pewclimate. Finally. using auction revenues to reduce “distortionary” taxes on capital or labor can reduce the net costs of the program. 205 . and would be administratively feasible. Its distributional consequences would depend on how allowances were allocated and.CONGRESS UPSTREAM CAP-AND-TRADE PROGRAM POLITICALLY UNPOPULAR BECAUSE IT WILL INCREASE GASOLINE PRICES Nordhaus and Danish.. An economy-wide upstream cap-and-trade program would be environmentally effective. because some methods of allocating allowances may be less economically efficient than an auction.pdf#page=19 p. http://ww. “Designing a Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program for the US”. accessed July 08) Upstream cap-and-trade. 2003 (Robert R.

org/docUploads/AspenProceedings_PolicyFramework. and Kyle W.pdf#page=19 p.) 206 . A large-source downstream program might be more acceptable politically than an upstream economy-wide program because it would not result in price increases for gasoline and home heating fuels (though it still would result in price increases for electricity.. however.pewclimate..THE FORT PLTX UPSTREAM CAP & TRADE UNPOP/DWNSTRM POP . such an approach would have to be coupled with a program to cover other sectors. Pew Center on Global Climate Change.e. accessed July 08) Large-source downstream cap-and-trade. http://ww. A large-source downstream program (i. iv. 2003 (Robert R. “Designing a Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program for the US”.CONGRESS LARGE-SOURCE DOWNSTREAM CAP-AND-TRADE MORE POLITICALLY ACCEPTABLE THAN UPSTREAM CAPAND-TRADE Nordhaus and Danish. one applicable only to electricity generators and large industrial sources of greenhouse gases) is administratively feasible and could be environmentally effective with respect to the sectors it covered. To be fully effective.

THE FORT PLTX *********CARBON CAPTURE & STORAGE********** 207 .

accessed 6-29-8) McCain said he would put $2 billion/year toward developing carbon capture and storage on a commercial scale.platts.xml.MCCAIN McCain supports carbon capture and storage Platts." 208 . which he argued would also help developing countries such as China and India to tap their coal reserves while polluting less.com/Electric%20Power/Resources/News %20Features/uselection08/3. 6-18-8 (McCain campaigns on energy plan.THE FORT PLTX CARBON CAPTURE & STORAGE POP. saying that he would "set this nation on a course to building 45 new reactors by the year 2030. He also laid out his goal to boost nuclear power. http://www.com.

THE FORT PLTX *************CLEAN COAL********* 209 .

He now is showing increasing support for opening up offshore areas to drilling.com/energy/article/37541) McCain has expressed support for “clean”ン coal and concern about the construction of additional conventional coal powered plants. "I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use. “McCain and Obama's Plans to Combat Climate Change”. http://www." McCain said in June. "As a matter of fairness to the American people and a matter of duty for our government. McCain had supported a moratorium on offshore oil drilling until recently.THE FORT PLTX CLEAN COAL POP." 210 . and assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production. we must deal with the here and now. 08 (7/2/08. He recently told a Missouri State University audience that he will pledge $2 billion to make “clean”ン coal a reality.enn.MCCAIN McCain supports clean coal Environmental News.

THE FORT PLTX *************EPA*************** 211 .

Republican Sen.planetarkorg/dailynewsstory. 2008 Environment Correspondent.htm] The Bush administration has opposed economy-wide steps to curb greenhouse as emissions. carbon dioxide. http://www. John McCain and Democratic Sen. 212 . Reuters report. Members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce called on the EPA to offer a full accounting of actions taken to ensure the Defense Department cleans up Fort Meade in Maryland. The EPA is also in a long running tussle with the Defense Department over cleaning up toxic pollution at three military bases. notably. members of Congress questioned why the Pentagon is defying orders from the environment agency.WHITE HOUSE Presidential hopefuls are all pro-environment anJ EPA Deborah Zabarenko. Barrack Obama. have vowed to tackle the problem if elected. McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey and Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. July 2. and on Monday.cfmlnewsid/49 1 1 3/story. Both major presidential candidates. which is emitted by fossil-fueled vehicles and coal-tired power plains among other sources.THE FORT PLTX EPA POP.

but it is clear the enemy of progress is in the white house said Rep.htm WASHINGTON . http://www. that climate change is a threat to public welfare and second. the agency’s chief. policymakers must find that a substance poses this kind of threat to be designated as a pollutant. 2008 [Environment Correspondent. The Bush administration has opposed economy-wide steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions. 213 . BUSH AND THE EPA DO NOT MIX Deborah Zabarenko. which is emitted by fossil-fueled vehicles and coal-fired power plants among other sources. An administration official said EPA cannot conclude that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled without giving public notice and seeking public comment. congressional staff said MondayThe e-mailed documents were sent to the White I-louse Office of Management and Budget in December. Three months after the EPA’s e-mailed documents were rebuffed by the White House. offered an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the subject of greenhouse pollution. EPA’s “informal e-mail” did not follow long-standing procedures for submitting regulations. Ed Markey. notably carbon dioxide. “Their decision to ignore and redirect the EPA ensures the Bush administration will achieve a perfect record on global warming: a zero. This was part of the environment agency’s response to a landmark 2007 Supreme Court ruling that for the first time found that greenhouse gases can be regulated as a pollutant under the US Clean Air Act.orgdftynewsstorycfrn/newsidJ49l 1 3/story.cfmlnewsid/49 I I 3/story.” Markey said in a statement. July 2.WHITE HOUSE WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS IGNORE THE EPA Deborah Zabarenko. This is an early and tentative step in the policy process that will Likely push any action into the next US presidential administration.planetark. http. Beyond that.htrn “The EPA’s conclusion and analysis in December would have received a passing grade falling in line with both the environmental science and the law. reuters report. ] July 2. staff on the House Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming said. a Massachusetts Democrat who heads the committee. the congressional staff said. The documents include two key findings. 2008 [Environment Correspondent. speaking on condition of anonymity: First. But Bush administration officials at the Office of Management and Budget said they would not accept the e-mailed documents. The idea that climate-warming greenhouse emissions threaten public welfare or public health is an essential part of the Clean Air Act. the staff members said in a telephone interview.planctark. that boosting fuel-efficiency in motor vehicles would help address the problem.org! dailynewsstory.THE FORT PLTX EPA UNPOP.White House officials refused to on e-mail from the Environmental Protection Agency that said global warming threatens public welfare and urged more fuel-efficient cars.//www. Stephen Johnson. the official said. and EPA said in its documents that greenhouse gases do this. reuters report.

THE FORT PLTX ***************ETHANOL************** 214 .

Director. the current food crisis will not be solved by incremental change alone. Allard and Collins for taking another step in the right direction by proposing the reconsideration of the tariff on imported ethanol. Gregg says the legislation would allow US refiners to buy cheaper and more climate-friendly ethanol from foreign sources.wcax. US Federal News Service 6-5-08 (“Grocery Manufacturers Association Statement Regarding Feinstein Bill To Lower Ethanol Tariff”. Co-sponsored by Senators Judd Gregg (R-NH).THE FORT PLTX BRAZILIAN TARIFF. urgent Congressional action is needed to examine the full economic and environmental impacts of these food-to-fuel taxes and subsidies immediately. 202/295-3957. there was broad agreement that U. Cantwell."Contact: Scott Openshaw. If it passes. http://www. "This week in Rome. 6-5-08.umi. legislation intended to reduce the tariff on imported ethanol.S. Associated Press. Communications. We applaud Senators Feinstein. and Susan Collins (R-ME) the bill would reduce the 54-cent ethanol tariff to 45 cents. which could then help lower gas prices. Wayne Allard (R-CO). food-to-fuel mandates and subsidies have greatly contributed to distortions in the world grain market and have led to skyrocketing food prices here and around the globe.new bill proves Wcax-TV ‘8 (“Gregg introduces bipartisan bill to reduce tariff on imported ethanol”. However.com/pqdweb?did=1494990211&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=1566&RQT=309&VName=PQD) The Grocery Manufacturers Association today issued the following statement by Vice President for Federal Affairs Scott Faber in regard to Senator Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) introduction of the Imported Ethanol Parity Act. REDUCING THE ETHANOL TARIFF HAS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN CONGRESS. matching the 45-cent tax credit to blenders as mandated by the new Farm Bill. http://proquest. Maria Cantwell (D-WA). Wcax-TV. Gregg says imported ethanol is especially important for coastal states since almost all domestic ethanol is produced in the Midwest and is costly to transport because it can't be moved through a pipeline.Republican New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg has introduced a bipartisan measure with Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California to reduce the tariff on imported ethanol.asp? S=8434638) WASHINGTON (AP) .BIPART Removing the Brazilian tariff on ethanol is bipartisan. He says ethanol from Brazil and other friendly nations can be provided to coastal states more easily and at a lower cost.com/Global/story. 215 . Gregg.

It is now in conference with the House.D.. D-N. R-S. http://www. A spokesman for Thune said the senator also strongly supports the retention of the ethanol tariff in order to provide continued assistance to farmers in the United States. Early today. "It’s likely Congress will reinstate the tariff if it’s not included in the budget and defeat any effort to repeal it. the idea of eliminating the tariff is at best unpopular. Senators on both sides of the aisle have strong opinions on the ethanol tariff and have been vocal on this issue.” Nelson serves on the Senate Agriculture Committee and is a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.jsp?article_id=3670) The Bush administration will send its proposed 2009 U. Chuck Grassley.” said Sen. Ethanol Producer Magazine. budget to Congress next week. John Thune. 1-31-08. A tariff extension was included and passed as part of the Senate Farm Bill.E. I’m not interested in trading our dependence on foreign oil fields for a dependence on South American sugarcane fields. Last year.THE FORT PLTX BRAZILIAN TARIFF PART Repealing the tariff on Brazilian ethanol is partisan.ethanolproducer." he said. R-Iowa. cosponsored a measure to extend the tariff until Jan.neither side agrees on it Ethanol Producer Magazine 1-31 (Kris Bevill. 2011. “By lifting the ethanol tariff.S.com/article-print. “Among farm state senators. “I can’t figure out why [Energy Secretary Samual] Bodman would want the United States to risk becoming dependent on Brazilian ethanol when we’re already dependent on Middle East oil. Congress taking this administration’s advice on agriculture issues would be like the New England Patriots adopting the Miami Dolphins’ playbook for the Super Bowl.” 216 . Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. Ben Nelson. 1. “Senators discuss ethanol tariff”.. I’ve proposed legislation that would direct the proceeds to a biofuels investment trust fund to spur research and development of biofuels in the United States. Nelson further commented on the possible repeal of the ethanol duty. Sen.” Bodman said the administration “will start to deal with that question” after the budget is sent to Congress. In fact. said at a breakfast meeting in Washington this week that the ethanol tariff would be repealed “over my dead body. he and Sen. we’d end up subsidizing Brazilian ethanol. and it may include changes to the current 54cent tariff on ethanol imports.

lexis Senior Brazilian government officials said the most important effect of a collaboration with the United States would be in promoting a broader international market for Brazilian ethanol technology. Brazil's own direct exports of ethanol reached a record last year. they said. and LARRY ROHTER is is an American journalist who was a South American bureau chief for the New York Times. with 100 countries producing energy instead of just 15 or 20.'' Antonio Simoes.S.'' American officials expressed a similar enthusiasm for making ethanol and ethanol-producing equipment on a huge scale. Shadegg introduced his bill at no small political risk. and in Asian nations like Thailand. Simoes said. But demand for the fuel is growing so rapidly within Brazil that the government's immediate priority is to satisfy its domestic market. the director of the energy division of the Foreign Ministry of Brazil. It's a win-win situation for everyone involved.'' Mr. . said in a telephone interview from New York. who said on CNBC that suspending the ethanol tariff "makes sense . ''We want ethanol to become a global commodity.'' Eventually. The biggest area of cooperation. Mindful of protests from domestic ethanol producers and from the powerful American farm lobby. and so will third countries. The agreement is aimed at encouraging other countries. will be in helping countries identify and remove obstacles to building their own ethanol production capacity. But Brazilian business groups see commercial opportunities in supplying advanced equipment to other countries setting up their own ethanol distilleries.THE FORT PLTX BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP. ''We've been growing and processing sugar for 500 years. since the powerful U. Brazil's leading manufacturer of equipment for sugar cane and ethanol mills. . ANDREWS is a reporter for the New York Times. But late last week he finally got some political cover from President Bush. Brazil and the United States account for a total of more than 70 percent of global ethanol production. vice president for operations at Dedini Industries. the two countries hope to use their accord to spur production of renewable fuels beyond the hemisphere. Brazil is interested in encouraging sugar-cane-based ethanol production in Africa. http://proquest. THE PLAN ILL CAUSE A POLITICAL BACKLASH FROM US ETHANOL LOBBIES. and the production of energy will be democratized in the world. and for that to happen. when there's a time of shortage of a product that's needed. ''This is more than a document. to become producers.'' said Jose Luiz Oliverio. ''Brazil will profit. Brazil can't be the only producer.S. the United States will profit. and Brazil Seek to Promote Ethanol in West” The New York Times. where it has extensive trade and cultural ties. it's a point of convergence in the relationship that is denser and more intense than anything we've seen in the last 20 or 30 years.'' ''The good thing is that a poor country can reduce what it pays for imported oil and earn money exporting this. ethanol lobby is already targeting any politician who dares to suggest that this heavily subsidized industry face greater foreign competition. especially small and poor sugar cane producing countries in the Caribbean and Central America. ''That way they will have more money to invest in social programs. administration officials are not expected to even hint at a reduction in American tariffs on foreign ethanol." 217 .LOBBIES REDUCTION OF TARIFFS ON FOREIGN ETHANOL PISSES OFF THE FARM LOBY EDMUND L. “U. Wall Street Journal 5-8-06 (“A Good Gas Idea”.com/pqdweb? did=1033361251&sid=6&Fmt=3&clientId=1566&RQT=309&VName=PQD) We'd note that Mr. and we are confident of our ability to maintain our leadership in this sector. March 3 2007.umi.

THE FORT PLTX 218 .

tariff on ethanol is removed or dips below 51 cents.pdf</span><span Renewable fuels are produced only in countries where programs have been created to assist in their production. if the U. if the ethanol tariff were reduced to ten cents a gallon. taxpayers would be paying an additional 41-cent incentive for every gallon of imported ethanol.THE FORT PLTX BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP. http://www.PUBLIC THE PLAN IS UNPOPULAR BECAUSE IT FORCES TAXES ON THE PUBLIC AND REDUCES DOMESTIC ETHANOL. Since imported ethanol receives the 51cent per gallon tax credit. 219 . Renewable Fuels Association. U. then U.S. taxpayers further subsidizing imported ethanol beyond the subsidies that are already be given in the country of production. secondary tariff on ethanol would result in U.S. 2005 (THE IMPORTANCE OF PRESERVING THE SECONDARY TARIFF ON ETHANOL. For example.org/objects/pdf/Ethanol_ Tariff_Position_Paper. taxpayers should not be required to subsidize imported ethanol because it is counter to the purpose and many benefits of the U. then U. any reduction in the U. Thus. The subsidy would be equal to the difference between the tax credit and the amount of any reduced tariff. taxpayers would be effectively subsidizing imported ethanol. ethanol program – to foster the domestic production of a renewable fuel.S.S.ethanolrfa.S.S.S.

nuclear power.S. as opposed to growing corn for food markets.” McCain was speaking at the Vestas Wind Technology plant in Portland. and a devastating food crisis throughout the world. While that still has the drawbacks of using up food supplies for transportation fuels.biofuelsdigest. Good stewardship. or restructure. especially in Washington. Obama keeps talking about innovation.” he said. 08 (“McCain supports ending of ethanol subsidies.com/blog2/2008/06/16/mccain-supports-ending-of-ethanolsubsidies-brazilian-ethanol-tariff/) U. the cheaper and more efficient version of ethanol looks like a much better solution — and the tariffs on it and subsidies for corn two large impediments to it. the Renewable Fuel Standard passed in December. McCain. http://www. prudence. more wind and solar. 220 . would back a repeal of the ethanol tariff.com/archives/2008/06/23/obamaopposes-lobbyists-that’s just-cornpone/ McCain wants to drop subsidies for corn ethanol and drop tariffs on cane-sugar ethanol. at the dining room table. John McCain said that he supports the ending of ethanol subsidies. but he supports blocking cane-sugar ethanol with tariffs and propping up corn ethanol with subsidies. Recently. Republican presidential candidate Sen. Sen. McCain was quoted in Estato de Sao Paulo saying that he favors the removal of Russia from the G8. said: “The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention. and simple common sense demand that we act to meet the challenge. Recently. cane-sugar ethanol has four times more energy efficiency than corn ethanol. Oregon. and would support the inclusion of Brazil and India into a larger G8 group.THE FORT PLTX BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP. and act quickly. MCCAIN SUPPORTS SUGAR ETHANOL AND DOESN’T LIKE CORN ETHANOL Ed Morrissey June 23. “I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. If alternate-fuels backers want to be taken seriously. biomass and bio-fuels will have their opportunity through a new market that rewards those and other innovations in clean energy. 6/16/08. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges. Those who want clean coal technology. 2008 “Obama opposes lobbyists? That’s just … cornpone!” http://hotair. John McCain said that “This subsidized (ethanol) program — paid for by taxpayer dollars — has contributed to pain at the cash register.” The Senators said that waiving the ethanol mandate would encourage farmers to grow other crops. In a statement. Sen. who introduced the first proposed cap-and-trade bill in the Senate in 2003.MCCAIN McCain gets cred on Brazilian Ethanol-prior support Biofuels Digest. McCain led a revolt of 24 Senate Republicans have asked the EPA to waive. Brazilian ethanol tariff”.

THE FORT PLTX 221 .

we have our memories. And it is less energy-efficient than the kind made with sugar cane. (Most of it comes from Brazil. his Democratic rival from Illinois. McCain 2008 is more progressive on taxes than Obama 2008. OBAMA IS AGAINST Cattle Network 7/15/2008. but Sen. doesn't. http://www. It plays a large role in rising food prices.com/html/opinion/2008073469_froma26. And again.html. McCain positions like this one — especially gutsy when advanced in corn-producing states — keep the spark going for moderates through the dark hours. and a cornucopia of other corporate subsidies for the domestic corn-based ethanol industry. Republican presidential frontrunner Sen. MCCAIN IS FOR THE PLAN.com/Content. BB Although the tariff's opponents are increasingly optimistic about their long-term chances.MCCAIN MCCAIN SUPPORTS REPEAL OF TARIFFS—PLAN ALLOWS HIM TO ACCESS THE MODERATES The Seattle Times.cattlenetwork. the outlook beyond November is unclear. 222 . BB Occasionally. http://seattletimes.nwsource. “Where's the other John McCain?”. Corn ethanol is a very mixed bag. McCain would repeal the 54-cent-a-gallon tax on imported sugar-based ethanol. which so generously fills his coffers.) Obama supports the tariff. 7/26/2008. Barack Obama. US Election Season Freezes Ethanol Tariff Talk. John McCain supports removing the tariff.THE FORT PLTX BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP.asp?ContentID=236873.

THE FORT PLTX 223 .

MCCAIN’S STANCE ON THE TARIFF WOULD BRING HIM BROAD PUBLIC SUPPORT – NOBODY LIKES THE TARIFF Biofuels Digest.com/blog2/2008/07/15/zero-us-public-support-for-eliminating-brazilian-ethanoltariff-fed-survey-finds/ According to a survey by The Regional Economist magazine (published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Republican presidential candidate Sen. cheaper ethanol that the United States could buy from Brazil instead. would back a repeal of the ethanol tariff. http://www.S. given the greener.THE FORT PLTX BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP. http://www.cfm?story_id=11632886 When John McCain laid out his plans for reducing America’s dependence on oil to an audience in California on June 23rd. green and not mean”. McCain was quoted in Estato de Sao Paulo saying that he favors the removal of Russia from the G8. That sent corn prices soaring and made subsidising corn to produce ethanol look like an even worse idea than it did before. Either way. Others in the Senate (though not Barack Obama) are pushing for it to be reduced. Mr McCain argued that the tariff on imported ethanol of 54 cents per gallon should be scrapped.000 miles away in São Paulo. 73% of survey respondents support the elimination of subsidies and tax breaks for oil and ethanol companies. Fed survey finds”. John McCain said that he supports the ending of ethanol subsidies.MCCAIN MCCAIN SUPPORTS REMOVAL OF THE ETHANOL TARIFF – HIGH OIL AND FOOD PRICES MEANS IT MAKES HIM POPULAR WITH THE ELECTORATE RIBEIRÃO PRETO.economist. 224 . the case against the tariff has been strengthened by high oil prices and by the June floods that damaged the mid-western corn (maize) crop. 7-15-08. Louis). “Lean. and would support the inclusion of Brazil and India into a larger G8 group.biofuelsdigest.com/world/americas/displaystory. 6-26-08. the candidate’s keenest listeners were 6. “Zero US public support for eliminating Brazilian ethanol tariff. and zero percent of respondents supported the elimination of the Brazilian ethanol tariff. Tariff background U.

buying votes with alternative fuel subsidies that benefit ethanol producers such as Archer Daniels Midland. http://www. It generates less than two units of energy for every unit of energy used to produce it. Last year. Neither candidate voted on the bill.5 billion this year. Ethanol made from sugar cane has an energy ratio of more than 8-to-1. This year. why does he oppose imported sugar-based ethanol from countries like Brazil? He supports not only the domestic subsidy.. “Obama's Corn Fake”. If Obama is sincere about alternative fuels.com/editorial/editorialcontent. Senate.S." 225 . He also criticizes John McCain for trying to drill our way to energy independence to add to the profits of Big Oil. but Obama said he supported it. not only raising the price of corn.S.investors. ’08. 34% of U. McCain said as president he would have vetoed it. eggs. Obama. Production costs and land prices are cheaper in the countries that produce it. But it's Obama who's playing politics by trying to plant our way to energy independence.65 billion bushels — will be used for fuel. Imagine if McCain flew on the corporate jets of Exxon Mobil.asp? secid=1501&status=article&id=299286762937609 Barack Obama says he represents change. Not long after arriving in the U. meat and even bread as wheat fields are converted to corn. but it has raised food prices. The tariff on imported ethanol was extended. was no profile in courage in Iowa. but more money was pushed toward other biofuels such as switch grass. the second-largest corn-producing state. according to John Lott Jr. Obama flew twice on corporate jets owned by the nation's largest ethanol producer. McCain opposes both. Obama said the move would hurt "our country's drive toward energy independence. That subsidy was cut to 45 cents a gallon in the new farm bill. touted by Caroline Kennedy as another JFK. The Democrats can't wait for offshore oil or ANWR. McCain opposed them even though Iowa is the first caucus state. Corn ethanol is less energy-efficient and costs more. McCain opposes ethanol subsidies while Obama supports them. senior research scientist at the University of Maryland. but they can wait for switch grass. corn — some 3. as President Bush was about to sign an energy cooperation agreement with Brazil. Corn-based ethanol gets a 51cents-a-gallon tax subsidy that will cost taxpayers $4. ADM is based in Illinois. Farmers in vote-rich farm states plant corn for fuel.THE FORT PLTX BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP. but also milk. but a 54-cents-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol.MCCAIN PLAN IS A WIN FOR MCCAIN – CO-OPTS OBAMA’S ANTI-SUGAR SWING STATE STRATEGY Investor’s Business Daily. Putting this much food into our gas tanks hasn't reduced gas prices.

When discussing the RFS portion of the EPAct. is specifically placed on being independent from Middle Eastern energy sources. J. President Bush emphasized how the Act is a step towards energy independence. however. upon signing the EPAct in 2005. n113 226 . ‘08 “DRIVING THE MARKET: THE EFFECTS ON THE UNITED STATES ETHANOL INDUSTRY IF THE FOREIGN ETHANOL TARIFF IS LIFTED”. l/n B." n111 In this speech. n112 The emphasis. In the 2006 State of the Union. President Bush announced a goal to make "ethanol practical and competitive within six years. including reducing dependency on foreign energy. Staff Writer for the Energy Law Journal at the Energy Bar Association. 693. n110 This may conflict with his goals to increase domestic ethanol production. President Bush touted it as accomplishing many things. 28 Energy L.THE FORT PLTX BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP. the President stressed the need for alternative fuel as a means of attaining energy independence. Similarly. The Tariff Opposition A major opponent of the tariff is the President of the United States.BUSH BUSH PUSHES THE PLAN Kaylan Lytle.

reduce pollution and reduce U. “Obama Skeptics Are Near. is a Bloomberg News columnist. even though U. dependency on oil imported from unstable nations.S.bloomberg. political economist and founding partner of Mosaico Economia Politica. Bloomberg 7/2/2008. levies on imported ethanol.THE FORT PLTX BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP.OBAMA OBAMA’S TARIFF POSITION ALLOWS THE GOP TO STEP IN Alexandre Marinis. consumers are paying more than $4 a gallon for gasoline. a $289 billion tribute to protectionism that maintained the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff the U.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_marinis&sid=a0K0kflNpmSM Obama voted in favor of the 2008 Farm Bill. http://www.S.S. 227 . Admirers Far Away: Alexandre Marinis”. Ethanol could help lower those costs. Obama rejects lowering this tariff.

nytimes. While both presidential candidates emphasize the need for the United States to achieve “energy security” while also slowing down the carbon emissions that are believed to contribute to global warming. in contrast. which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce.html.” Mr. one of which is the subsidies for corn ethanol. Mr. they offer sharply different visions of the role that ethanol. Obama strongly disagrees with his Republican opponent. “We made a series of mistakes by not adopting a sustainable energy policy. 228 . Senator John McCain of Arizona. http://www.OBAMA OBAMA’S QUESTIONABLE STANCE ON ETHANOL GIVES MCCAIN AN OPENING The New York Times 6/23/2008. some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax. to tax Brazilian-made sugar cane ethanol.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.” he added. McCain said this month in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper. BB Ethanol is one area in which Mr. Obama.” he also supports the tariff.THE FORT PLTX BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP-MCCAIN/UNPOP. it is wrong. “which is much more efficient than corn ethanol. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. favors the subsidies. In the name of helping the United States build “energy independence. should play in those efforts. which I warned in Iowa were going to destroy the market” and contribute to inflation. which can be made from a variety of organic materials. “Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol”. “Besides. O Estado de São Paulo. he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane. Mr. which some economists say may well be illegal under the World Trade Organization’s rules but which his advisers say is not. As a free trade advocate.

the United States should lift its tariff on Brazilian ethanol that now shelters the U. To demonstrate leadership. Lugar: “[I]ncreased political interference puts upward pressure on price and could eventually cause shortages in countries least able to cope. http://blogs.wsj. focusing on high prices for energy and food.THE FORT PLTX BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP-LUGAR LUGAR SUPPORTS THE PLAN Wall Street Journal 7/1/2008. Senator Richard Lugar.S.S. Lugar thinks Brazilian ethanol—made from sugarcane rather than corn—could help lower U. BB Biofuels have few friends lately. “Are We There Yet?”.com/environmentalcapital/2008/07/01/biofuels-battle-tear-down-the-brazilian-wall/. thinks the same. which have reached record levels.” 229 . (corn ethanol) industry.54 per gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol for American pain at the pump. Sen. Brazil’s ethanol lobby Unica is breaking out the fireworks for its Fourth of July pro-sugarcane ethanol campaign called. He’ll recommend to President Bush that G8 countries. with a nod to Papa Smurf. Unica. tear down those walls. Says Sen. not surprisingly. and blames Washington’s $0. gasoline prices. meeting in Japan next week. Lugar will keynote a conference at the conservative American Enterprise Institute Wednesday. But Brazil’s biofuel industry found a big one—U. “Biofuels Battle: Tear Down The Brazilian Wall”. Sen.S.

the conservative NCGA and the more progressive ACGA. industry. Both the NCGA and the ACGA said that not only would removing the tariff reduce corn prices and negatively impact a growing U. In this case. but it would also subsidize ethanol producers in countries like Brazil. along with Farm Bureau and the Renewable Fuels Association. you can bet that farmers may be getting gored by somebody.com/news/06-05-06-corn-unite-tariffs/< BB It’s not often that the National Corn Growers Association and the American Corn Growers Association come down on the same side of an issue. are opposing efforts by House leaders and the Bush administration to suspend import tariffs on ethanol to supposedly bring down prices of the alternative fuel.THE FORT PLTX BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP-FARMS STRONG FARM INDUSTRY OPPOSITION TO THE PLAN Southwest Farm Press 6/5/2006. When they do. “Corn growers unite to oppose lifting import tariff on ethanol”. 230 .S. http://southwestfarmpress.

com/articles/182august-2007/9960. http://www.THE FORT PLTX BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP. Politicians and American citizens alike seem content with the way things are.CONGRESS CONGRESS WON’T SUPPORT THE PLAN Anna Gangadharan and Albert Larcadas . 27/8/2007“US Lifting of Tariff on Brazil Ethanol Might Spell Trouble for Amazon and Sugarcane Cutters”." To date. there has been no realistic threat to the survival of the ethanol tariff in the House or the Senate.brazzil. COHA Research Associates. 231 . "I don't see the political landscape changing anytime in the foreseeable future. as rationalized by the recurring refusal to cancel the ethanol tariff.html. Most members of Congress believe that releasing the import tariff would be a disservice to American corn farmers more than it would abet the welfare of the American public. BB He explained.

“Dropping the duty on imports of the fuel additive is not the answer to high gasoline prices. As a result. there has been no realistic threat to the survival of the ethanol tariff in the House or the Senate. Sens.html However. but legislation that proposed canceling the tax found little support in Congress. including some of the most powerful leaders on Capitol Hill.html He explained. KEY CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS OPPOSE REMOVAL OF THE TARIFF Glenn Hess.com/articles/182-august-2007/9960. http://pubs. 8-27-07. as rationalized by the recurring refusal to cancel the ethanol tariff.THE FORT PLTX BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP. R-N. Politicians and American citizens alike seem content with the way things are. writers for Brazzil. "I don't see the political landscape changing anytime in the foreseeable future. http://www. Sociologist. D-Calif. Dianne Feinstein. Chemical & Engineering News. PLAN IS UNPOPULAR IN CONGRESS – EMPIRICALLY PROVEN Evan Stallcup. “US Lifting of Tariff on Brazil Ethanol Might Spell Trouble for Amazon and Sugarcane Cutters”. http://overpopulationthreat. industry insist”.com Energy industry experts say lifting the tariff entirely will likely lower gas prices by 10 cents a gallon.H.acs.brazzil.org/cen/news/84/i20/8420ethanol. 232 . and Judd Gregg. “Midwest floods may send gas up 15%”. any attempt to remove the tariff will face vigorous opposition from farm-state lawmakers.CONGRESS BIPART OPPOSITION TO LIFTING THE TARIFF – POLITICAL CLIMATE PROVES Anna Gangadharan and Albert Larcadas.. recently introduced a compromise bill to reduce the tariff to 45 cents.." To date.blogspot. Most members of Congress believe that releasing the import tariff would be a disservice to American corn farmers more than it would abet the welfare of the American public. 6-13-08. ’06.

biodiesel and other renewables. is preparing to finish an agreement with Brazil next week to promote the production and use of ethanol throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. Much of the ethanol produced there is made from sugar cane and is far cheaper to produce than the corn-based ethanol that has been nurtured by protective tariffs and government mandates in the United States.S.D. the use of such renewable energy sources helps meet multiple public policy objectives.umi. Wall Street Journal 5-5-06 (Laura Meckler. It is backed by many Midwestern lawmakers. Clearly. “Politics & Economics: Pressure to Lift Ethanol Tariff Rises in Congress”." 233 . New facilities continue to open to meet the rising demand. who want to protect the domestic ethanol industry. domestic producers have significantly increased production of ethanol and other renewables. FORTENBERRY OPPOSES ETHANOL TARIFF REDUCTION”. ANDREWS is a reporter for the New York Times. Mr. Congress sent a powerful message in support of domestically produced ethanol. THE PLAN IS MASSIVELY UNPOPULAR IN CONGRESS – THEY PREFER DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED ETHANOL. and LARRY ROHTER is is an American journalist who was a South American bureau chief for the New York Times. hoping to reduce demand for oil in the Western Hemisphere. Renewables reduce our dependence on foreign energy.) said lifting the tariff "would be counterproductive to the widely supported goal of promoting home-grown renewable sources of energy. even temporarily. John Thune (R. They fear that the plan would lead to an increase in imports of cheap foreign ethanol and undercut American producers. Grassley and Sen. THE PLAN WILL BE A POLITICAL BATTLE.com/pqdweb? did=1078767121&sid=6&Fmt=3&clientId=1566&RQT=309&VName=PQD) As a result of recent congressional action. We must maintain our support for domestic producers of ethanol and resist the calls for suspending the import tariff.THE FORT PLTX BRAZILIAN TARIFF COST POL CAP SUGAR ETHANOL KILL POLCAP (CONGRESS) EDMUND L.. “REP. http://proquest.umi. Senator – 5-19-06 (John. S. according to administration officials. In a statement. are environmentally sensitive. The agreement could lead to substantial growth in the ethanol industry in Brazil as technology and manufacturing equipment developed there is exported to other countries in the region. including House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley. and Brazil Seek to Promote Ethanol in West” The New York Times. Fortenberry – Nebraska Rep. would send a devastating signal and call into question congressional support of domestic production of renewable fuels. By including a Renewable Fuels Standard provision in last year's Energy Bill. and create economic opportunities for farmers and rural America. lexis President Bush.com/pqdweb? did=1032293151&sid=6&Fmt=3&clientId=1566&RQT=309&VName=PQD) But it won't be simple to eliminate the tariff. But the agreement has already begun to prompt complaints from politicians from corn-producing regions of the United States. http://proquest. Suspending the tariff on ethanol imports. “U. March 3 2007.

the ethanol subsidy and tariff have [4]strong support among both Democrat and Republican members of Congress from farm states. is not very optimistic that any transformation will be revealed in the short term. some critics have charged that federal subsidies for and tariffs to protect domestic ethanol production are a [3]luxury that an energy-starved US can ill afford to continue. "I don't see the political landscape changing anytime in the foreseeable future. Congress. http://www. and any effort to cut federal support for domestic ethanol in the midst of the US election year would be very controversial. 2008." was shot down in the Senate by a vote of 5636 in favor of continuing the tariff.com/articles/182-august-2007/9960. He explained. However. The plan would be a political battle – Congress is empirically opposed to changing the ethanol tariff. Republican Senator John Thune of South Dakota explained his nay vote: "Eliminating the ethanol tariff would send a mixed signal to producers.html) However. known on Capitol Hill as part of the "farm bill. corn. investors and farmers who sell their products to ethanol plants. Lewis Perelman. a think tank concerned with inter-American relations – 8-27-07 (Anna and Albert. Politicians and American citizens alike seem content with the way things are. the measure affecting ethanol. there has been no realistic threat to the survival of the ethanol tariff in the House or the Senate.S." To date. as rationalized by the recurring refusal to cancel the ethanol tariff. Lexis) With enactment of that massive new federal stimulus for biofuels production. Most members of Congress believe that releasing the import tariff would be a disservice to American corn farmers more than it would abet the welfare of the American public. 234 . Gangadharan and Larcada – COHA Research Associates.S.brazzil. thus protecting the price of U.THE FORT PLTX BRAZILIAN TARIFF COST POL CAP REMOVING TARIFF VERY CONTROVERSIAL IN ELECTIONS Chemical News & Intelligence. a senior fellow at the Homeland Security Policy Institute in Washington. “US Lifting of Tariff on Brazil Ethanol Might Spell Trouble for Amazon and Sugarcane Cutters”." Senator Thune's thoughts appear to be the prevailing sentiment within the U. January 29. 2008 (“US energy chief hints at ethanol subsidy cut” Chemical News & Intelligence.

or U. 6-15-07.C.THE FORT PLTX CELLULOSIC ETHANOL BIPART Cellulosic ethanol is bipartisan. a bipartisan group of Senators. Senate. 235 . Senate ‘7 (“Bipartisan Group of Senators Fights for Economic & Energy Security”. Larry Craig (R-ID) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) have introduced a bill to increase America’s production of biofuels derived from cellulosic biofuels. To help secure America’s energy future.htm) WASHINGTON. – America’s energy independence is a pressing issue of not only economic and environmental security.S. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR).new biofuels bill proves U.gov/news/releases/070615enrgjnt. Maria Cantwell (D-WA). Kent Conrad (D-ND). and by some accounts only nine percent of the world’s oil is in the hands of “free” countries. http://salazar. U. including Senators Ken Salazar (D-CO).S.S. D. Senators Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) are also co-sponsors. Wayne Allard (R-CO). but also national security: roughly 22 percent of the world’s oil is in the hands of countries under U.senate.N. sanctions.

By not establishing financial incentives.they want to mandate 250 million gallons by 2013 Renewable Energy World ‘6 (David Morris.CONGRESS Congress likes cellulosic ethanol.THE FORT PLTX CELLULOSIC ETHANOL POP. And the second wave of cellulosic ethanol plants should be cost competitive with grain ethanol. Congress guaranteed a significant market years in advance.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reinsider/story?id=46712) To overcome this barrier. “The Strange Legislative History of the Cellulosic Ethanol Mandate”. 236 . Renewable Energy World Online. Congress developed a simple strategy. 12-4-06. Mandate the production of 250 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2013. a level of production requiring six to ten plants. To attract investors. http://www. Congress expected competition to minimize any price premium.

THE FORT PLTX

CELLULOSIC ETHANOL POP-BUSH
Bush is already pushing for cellulosic ethanol Auto Observer 2-29 (Dale Buss, “Bush Comments Lend Another Boost to Cellulosic Ethanol”, Auto Observer, 2-29-08,
http://www.autoobserver.com/2008/02/bush-comments-lend-another-boost-to-cellulosic-ethanol.html)

Remaining presidential candidates have made a point of touting cellulosic ethanol — which can be made from a number of sources other than corn — as an important alternative fuel. On Thursday morning President Bush added to the chorus of support at his White House news conference. He emphasized cellulosic ethanol as a crucial part of the short-term answer to problems of fuel pricing and availability, as well as a longterm solution. Answering a reporter’s question about tax breaks for renewable forms of energy, Bush referred to the growing pressure under worldwide food prices that is being created by a rise in competing demand for U.S. corn stocks by ethanol producers. “If you look at what’s happened with corn out there, you’re beginning to see the food issue and the energy issue collide,” the president said. “And so, to me, the best dollar spent is to continue to deal with cellulosic ethanol in order to deal with this bottleneck right now.” He also said “the best way to deal with renewables is to focus on research and development that will enable us to use other raw material to produce ethanol.”

237

THE FORT PLTX

CELLULOSIC ETHANOL – LOBBIES SUPPORT
POWERFUL POLITICAL INTEREST GROUPS SUPPORT CELLULOSIC ETHANOL

Lashinsky and Schwartz, 2004 (Adam and Nelson D., “How to Beat the High Cost of Gasoline, Forever”, Fortune Magazine, January 26) What's more, powerful political lobbies in Washington that never used to concern themselves with botanical affairs are suddenly focusing on ethanol. "Energy dependence is America's economic, environmental, and security Achilles' heel," says Nathanael Greene of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a mainstream environmental group. National- security hawks agree. Says former CIA chief James Woolsey: "We've got a coalition of tree huggers, do-gooders, sodbusters, hawks, and evangelicals." (Yes, he did say "evangelicals"--some have found common ground with greens in the notion of environmental stewardship.)

238

THE FORT PLTX

CELLULOSIC ETHANOL – BUSH SUPPORTS
BUSH SUPPORTS THE TRANSITION TO CELLULOSIC ETHANOL

DOE, 2007 (U.S. Department of Energy, “DOE Selects Six Cellulosic Ethanol Plants for Up to $385 Million in Federal Funding”, February 28) U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today announced that DOE will invest up to $385 million for six biorefinery projects over the next four years. When fully operational, the biorefineries are expected to produce more than 130 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year. This production will help further President Bush’s goal of making cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive with gasoline by 2012 and, along with increased automobile fuel efficiency, reduce America’s gasoline consumption by 20 percent in ten years.

239

THE FORT PLTX

CELLULISTIC ETHANOL POP- PUBLIC
cellulistic ethanol popular – growing support Chemical news and intelligence, ’07 (1/24)
Ron Miller, chairman of the Renewable Fuels Association, said the technical breakthroughs needed to reach commercially viable cellulosic ethanol production "are exceedingly achievable with continued and consistent federal support". US ethanol is subsidised with various taxsupported funding programmes for corn production and for ethanol blending in gasoline by refiners. Miller said that the goal of 35bn gal/year of ethanol output can be reached, "but it will require an investment by Americans in all walksof life". That backing is seen, he added, "in the growing drumbeat of support from Congress, President Bush and the public."

Its super popular and high profile Connelly, ’06 (Tom, Chief science officer @ Dupont, Fair Disclosure, 4/10)
TOM CONNELLY, SVP, CHIEF SCIENCE & TECH. OFFICER, DUPONT: Yes, this is Tom Connelly to respond. We did enter into the integrated corn bio-refinery project with the DOE and other partners. We're in year three of a four-year program, that continues to go well and we're talking about, with the DOE and others, about what comes next. As you'll recall, the central thrust of the integrated corn bio-refinery is the idea of cellulosic carbon feedstocks going into fuel ethanol, a subject that since 2003 has become very, very popular and we read so much about it today -- much more than we did back then.

Cellulistic ethanol perceived as most environmentally friendly NY Sun, ’06 (2/2)
Mr. Woolsey praised the president's advocacy of "cellulosic ethanol," or ethanol derived from non-oil plant products, such as leaves and stalks. The fuel's popularity among environmentalists, observers said yesterday, was likely the reason for its inclusion in the State of the Union This included Mr. Bush's mention of "switch grass," a prairie grass that grows throughout much of America. Mr. Woolsey said that switch grass grows on about two-thirds of the 30 million acres of soil bank set aside in America to prevent dust-bowl conditions. It is preferred over corn as a source of ethanol, because corn must be cultivated using petroleum-driven machinery and using petroleum-derived fertilizer. Since switch grass grows naturally, "all you have to do is mow it," Mr. Woolsey said. Prairie grass and stalks are also preferred because their growth for energy has minimal impact on global carbon dioxide levels, also of concern to environmentalists.

240

THE FORT PLTX

CORN ETHANOL POP- PUBLIC
People overwhelmingly support corn ethanol Pollingreport .com May 2008 http://www.pollingreport.com/energy.htm
"Some people say that using ethanol, which is manufactured from corn, is a good idea because it is an American-made substitute for foreign oil that causes less air pollution. Other people say ethanol is a bad idea because it drives up food prices and has less energy. What do you think -- is using ethanol mostly a good idea or mostly a bad idea?"

Good
% 4/20-24/07

Bad %

Unsure % 23 7

70

241

THE FORT PLTX

CORN ETHANOL UNPOP-PUBLIC
PUBLIC OPPOSES THE MANDATE FOR CORN ETHANOL

National Center for Public Policy Research, 2008 (“Farm-Belt Voters Favor Eliminating or Reducing Corn Ethanol Mandate, Poll Finds”, June 10) Most Americans, including those living in the Farm Belt, want Congress to reduce or eliminate the corn ethanol mandate, according to a new poll released today by the National Center for Public Policy Research. The poll, published by the Public Opinion and Policy Center of the National Center for Public Policy Research, found that 41% of Americans want Congress to repeal the corn ethanol mandate entirely, while 35% want Congress to repeal the law it passed just last December, which will double it. Just 6% want the mandate to increase as planned while 5% want it to be even expanded further.

242

THE FORT PLTX

CORN ETHANOL – GOP OPPOSES
REPUBLICANS OPPOSED GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CORN ETHANOL

Associated Press, 2008 (June 30) The Environmental Protection Agency is being urged to reduce ethanol production this year. Almost 50 House Republicans say the energy law requiring production of 9 billion gallons of ethanol in 2008 has pushed up corn prices, hurting low-income people and livestock producers. The Agriculture Department says 30 to 35% of this year's corn crop is slated for ethanol. Corn prices are up more than 80% in the past year. This year's crop is being hurt by flooding in the Midwest and drought in the South. The Agriculture Department says farmers will harvest 9% fewer acres of corn this year. The House Republicans say the administration could immediately affect the supply of corn used for food and feed.

243

THE FORT PLTX

CORN ETHANOL UNPOP- CONGRESS
Opposition to corn ethanol is gaining in Congress. Hebert, 2008 (H. Josef, May 7, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, p D3, “Rising Food Costs Turn Tide Against Ethanol”) But now with skyrocketing food costs - even U.S. senators are complaining about seeing shocking prices at the supermarket - and hunger spreading across the globe, some lawmakers are wondering if they made a mistake. "Our enthusiasm for corn ethanol deserves a second look. That's all I'm saying, a second look," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., at a House hearing Tuesday where the impact of ethanol on soaring food costs was given a wide airing. The dramatic reversal has stunned ethanol producers and its supporters in Washington as they have seen their product shift from being an object of praise to one of derision. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, one of the Senate's two working farmers and a longtime ethanol booster, said he finds it hard to believe that ethanol could be "clobbered the way it's being clobbered right now" over the issue of food costs. What does the cost of corn have to do with the price of wheat or rice, he is telling people. The uproar over ethanol is clearly gaining momentum. Two governors - Texas and Connecticut - and 26 senators, including the GOP's presumptive presidential nominee John McCain, are asking the Environmental Protection Agency to cut this year's mandate for 9 billion gallons of corn ethanol in half to ease, they say, food costs. Robert Meyers, an EPA deputy assistant administrator, told a House hearing Tuesday the agency will respond to the request as quickly as possible, but doubts anything will be forthcoming for about three months. There's a regulatory process to follow, he said. But lawmakers, even those who enthusiastically supported the requirement for refiners to ramp up ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022 from about 7 billion gallons last year, have begun to have qualms.

244

THE FORT PLTX

CORN ETHANOL – DEMOCRATS ARE SPLIT
DEMOCRATS ARE SPLIT ON CORN ETHANOL

LA Times, 2007 (November 28) But a plan to dramatically increase ethanol production has become a major sticking point in congressional negotiations to complete work on the bill. And it has created a challenge for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose Democratic caucus has split over the issue. Pro-ethanol Democrats and farm groups want the bill to require a nearly fivefold increase by 2022 in the amount of home-grown alternative fuels that must be blended into gasoline. They say the mandate would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and help America’s farmers. Democrats on the other side, joined by environmental and foodindustry groups, think the mandate could raise the price of corn used for food; harm the environment by using more land to produce biofuels; and gouge taxpayers by expanding ethanol subsidie.

245

THE FORT PLTX

246

THE FORT PLTX

CORN ETHANOL UNPOP- MCCAIN
MCCAIN SUPPORTS ENERGY SECURITY BUT ALSO WANTS TO GET RID OF SUBSIDIES FOR CORN-BASED ETHANOL, IT’S THE KEY DIFFERENTIAL LARRY ROHTER, chief of the Rio de Janeiro bureau of The Times, 6/23/08, “Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol,” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html Ethanol is one area in which Mr. Obama strongly disagrees with his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona. While both presidential candidates emphasize the need for the United States to achieve “energy security” while also slowing down the carbon emissions that are believed to contribute to global warming, they offer sharply different visions of the role that ethanol, which can be made from a variety of organic materials, should play in those efforts. Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce. “We made a series of mistakes by not adopting a sustainable energy policy, one of which is the subsidies for corn ethanol, which I warned in Iowa were going to destroy the market” and contribute to inflation, Mr. McCain said this month in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper, O Estado de São Paulo. “Besides, it is wrong,” he added, to tax Brazilian-made sugar cane ethanol, “which is much more efficient than corn ethanol.” MCCAIN OPENLY OPPOSES CORN-BASED ETHANOL SUBSIDIES Associated Press, 6/15/08, “Report: McCain Calls for End to Corn Subsidies for Ethanol,” Fox News, http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/15/report-mccain-calls-for-end-to-corn-subsidies-for-ethanol/ U.S. presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain supports ending subsidies for U.S. ethanol production and would back Brazil’s inclusion on an expanded United Nations Security Council, a Brazilian newspaper reported Sunday. In comments published by the Estado de S. Paulo newspaper, McCain also said he would support Brazil’s addition to the Group of Eight industrialized nations and lauded the nation’s drive to find clean energy sources. The United States has “committed a series of errors in not adopting a sustainable energy policy,” McCain was quoted as saying. “One of those is the subsidies for ethanol from corn.” McCain blamed the price supports for “destroying the market” and “causing a serious problem with inflation.” The Republican also blasted U.S. tariffs on Brazilian ethanol imports, saying that the Brazilian product made from sugarcane “is much more efficient than ethanol from corn.” Critics of the U.S. subsidies say spurring the planting of corn for use in ethanol has added to a sharp spike in global food prices.

247

THE FORT PLTX

CORN ETHANOL POP- OBAMA
OBAMA SUPPORTS CORN-BASED ETHANOL – CONSTITUENTS IN CORN BELT LARRY ROHTER, chief of the Rio de Janeiro bureau of The Times, 6/23/08, “Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol,” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html When VeraSun Energy inaugurated a new ethanol processing plant last summer in Charles City, Iowa, some of that industry’s most prominent boosters showed up. Leaders of the National Corn Growers Association and the Renewable Fuels Association, for instance, came to help cut the ribbon — and so did Senator Barack Obama. Then running far behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in name recognition and in the polls, Mr. Obama was in the midst of a campaign swing through the state where he would eventually register his first caucus victory. And as befits a senator from Illinois, the country’s second largest corn-producing state, he delivered a ringing endorsement of ethanol as an alternative fuel. Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates. In the heart of the Corn Belt that August day, Mr. Obama argued that embracing ethanol “ultimately helps our national security, because right now we’re sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth.” America’s oil dependence, he added, “makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating security for the long term.”

248

THE FORT PLTX

ETHANOL POP- PUBLIC
ETHANOL GOES HAND IN HAND WITH WIND AND SOLAR AS RELIABLE FORMS OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Victor, Stanford Law School professor & Freeman Spogli Institute's Program on Energy & Sustainable Development director, 8

(David G., 3-3-8, “Why the United States is doomed to be an energy outlaw”, Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/id/118087/output/print, Accessed July 8-08)
The only policies that survive in this political vacuum are those that target narrower political interests with more staying power. Thus America has a highly credible policy to promote corn-based ethanol, because that policy really has nothing to do with energy; it is a chameleon that takes on whatever colors are needed to survive. It is a farm program that masquerades as energy policy; at times, it has been a farm program that masquerades as rural development. As an energy policy it is a very costly and ineffective way to cut dependence on oil. As a global warming policy it is even less cost effective, since large-scale ethanol doesn't help much in cutting CO2 and other warming gases. Similarly, the United States has a stiff subsidy for renewable electricitymainly wind and solar plants-because environmentalists are well organized in their support for it. The coal industry periodically gets money for its favored technologies, as in FutureGen, but even that powerful lobby has a hard time getting the government to stay the course. Europe is in danger of contracting the same affliction. To be sure, most European countries long ago started taxing energy as a convenient way to raise revenues, which fortuitously also makes energy more costly and creates a strong incentive for efficiency. That approach did not originate as an energy policy, but it has emerged as a keystone of Europe's more successful efforts to tame energy consumption. And Europe is in the midst of shifting policymaking from the individual countries to Brussels, which may create a more coherent approach. But despite these advantages, Europe is notable for its inability to be strategic. For example, Brussels is touting a new pipeline called Nabucco that would help Europe cut its dependence on Russia for its natural gas. So far, Brussels is good at talking about the Nabucco dream but can't agree on a route, financing, or even on where to get the gas that would replace Russia's.

ENVIRONMENTAL ADVANTAGES INCREASING POLITICAL SUPPORT FOR ETHANOL IN THE US

Pernick & Wilder, Clean Edge, Inc., (research & publishing firm) 2007 (Ron and Clint, The Clean Tech Revolution: the next big growth and investment opportunity, p. 92) Ethanol provides similar improvements. According to an Argonne National Laboratory study, ethanol blends of just 10% reduce global GHG emissions, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) by 12% to 19%, compared with conventional gasoline. The Renewable Fuels Association says that ethanol reduces tailpipe carbon monoxide emissions by as much as 30% and tailpipe fine particulate matter emissions by 50%. For the United States, a nation that uses a quarter of the world’s oil output but has only 3% of the world’s remaining petroleum reserves, biofuels are gaining political steam.

249

THE FORT PLTX

ETHANOL POP-PUBLIC
Public Support for Ethanol Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, 08
(Political Research Institution, “Public Support for Ethanol”, 7/10/08, http://www.greenbergresearch.com/articles/2216/4489_RFA%20%20_public%20survey %20analysis_%20m3%200610.pdf) The on-going campaign to force the nation to revisit and reduce its commitment to ethanol has failed to move most American voters. A recent bi-partisan survey of 1,200 registered voters shows that by a 2:1 margin, the

public supports increased use of ethanol in our nation’s fuel supply. This majority crosses party lines, capturing conservatives and environmentalists alike. Voters largely blame the rising cost of food on fuel prices; less than one in ten blame the expanded use of ethanol. Between June 23 and July 1, the
Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and the Republican polling firm Public Opinion Strategies conducted a survey of 1,200 registered voters, including oversamples of environmentalists and “opinion formers.”1 The overall margin of error for this survey is +/- 2.83. This survey was commissioned by the Renewable Fuels Association. The

pro-ethanol majority is big…and broad. Asked if they favor or oppose continuing to increase use of ethanol, an impressive 59 percent come out in favor, while just 30 percent oppose. Support is even higher (63 percent) among environmentalists. Men and women, older voters and younger voters, high school educated and college graduates, and voters from all
regions in the country support this alternative fuel. Most impressive, though, at a time when Democrats and Republicans cannot seem to agree on anything, they agree on the increased use of ethanol.

250

generally made from corn. July 25. 251 .THE FORT PLTX ETHANOL UNPOP. into gasoline. hurts the efficiency of their cars and chokes the engines of their boats and motorcycles.php?page=2 Along the highways of this city.Many consumers complain that ethanol.PUBLIC MASSIVE PUBLIC RESISTANCE to ethanol Kate Galbraith.iht. 2008 "Backlash brewing against ethanol in United States" http://www. staff writer of the International Herald Tribune. or ethanol. which constitutes as much as 10 percent of the fuel they buy in most states. and elsewhere in the United States. a mutiny is growing against energy policies that heavily support and subsidize the blending of ethyl alcohol.com/articles/2008/07/25/business/ethanol.

-based Archer Daniels Midland. Opponents say food prices are on the rise because too much corn is being used produce ethanol.com/2008/06/ethanol-popularity-running-on-empty.THE FORT PLTX ETHANOL UNPOP. according to the Associated Press. hotels-$5. The ethanol industry could be headed for hard times driven by soaring food prices and a worldwide food shortage. Congress is facing increasing pressure to roll back the federal requirement that increases the amount of ethanol and other biofuels blended with the nation's gasoline supply. of Friedman. – Economy lost more than $26 billion including $4. 252 ." said Rick Kment. who follows Decatur. when it should be feeding people and livestock. In the most recent quarter. The odds of Congress changing that mandate this year are slim because the 10 states -. particularly those that are smaller and privately held.9 billion gallons by the end of this year. "Consumers are starting to get restless and Washington is starting to listen. The ethanol market would be severely limited if Congress rolled back the federal mandate that calls for annual increases in the amount of biofuels added to the fuel supply -. frustrated air-travelers avoided up to 41-million trips. Investor disappointment also is weighing on ethanol-only companies." said Morningstar analyst Ann Gilpin.that produce more than 80 percent of all American ethanol have almost half of the 270 electoral votes needed to win a presidential election. "I think we're still a long ways from anything actually being done on it. Ill. though. an ethanol-industry analyst for agricultural data company DTN. but the division that includes the fuel additive operations accounted for about 20 percent of the company's earnings last year. – Industry losses: Airlines-$9.1 billion.PUBLIC PUBLIC HATRED TOWARDS ETHANOL StormWire http://stormwire.html Tuesday.2 billion in federal and state taxes. companywide profit increased 42 percent on the strength of ADM's other businesses.mostly in the Midwest -. Investors are also running out of patience because they aren't seeing the returns they had hoped for. On the other hand. Billings. said analyst Kevin Book. Ramsey & Co. 6/10/08 “Ethanol Popularity Running on Empty” BOTTOM LINE WEATHER POINTS – During the last 12 months. the country's second-largest ethanol producer. sentiment could change. analysts say ethanol producers like ADM that distill the fuel additive as just one of many businesses appear better prepared to weather whatever's coming their way. but at the same time there is a lot more serious support than there was at this time two or three years ago. increasing to 36 billion gallons by 2022.stormexchange.4 billion. ADM doesn't break out the profit it makes from ethanol. Kment said. when profit in that division fell by almost a third.6 billion and restaurants $3. After the election.

I tend to doubt this rationale even on political grounds. by crass politics.com/2008/01/candidates-energy-mccain. In any case. Vetoing the campaign finance bill would be throwing down the gauntlet to John McCain. advisor and communicator. Friday. even if less dramatic than renouncing a “read my lips” pledge. who might decide to play Ross Perot in the 2004 campaign. when confronted with the charge that he has "flip-flopped" on this issue--that he was entirely against ethanol previously but now only opposes subsidies for it--his response was somewhat less convincing than it might have been. his aversion to subsidies is apparently not confined to ethanol.THE FORT PLTX ETHANOL =MCCAIN FLIP FLOP The plan’s a flip flop for McCain Styles 08 Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group. January 18. 2008 http://energyoutlook. alliance management. You have to admire someone who campaigns seriously in Iowa on a platform of ending subsidies for corn ethanol.blogspot. The steel decision is aimed at a few congressional seats in Pennsylvania and West Virginia deemed crucial to continued Republican control of the House in this fall’s elections. transportation. extending beyond energy to agricultural commodities. His industry experience includes leadership roles at Texaco Inc. and energy trading. and alternative energy. 4-1-2002 These sellouts of principle can be excused. in strategy development and scenario planning. He expects alternative energy to advance on a "level playing field"--leveled further by monetizing the climate externality via market-based mechanisms. and in Michigan on higher fuel economy standards. He has an MBA and a BS in Chemical Engineering. an energy and environmental strategy consulting firm. Since 2002 he has served as a consultant. erode a president’s standing and credibility 253 .html Ethanol is one aspect of energy policy on which McCain differs with many of his rivals. Public reversals on principle. Kills his popularity Wall Street Journal. at both the corporate center and with business units involved in global oil refining & marketing. consistent with his overall emphasis on free markets and fiscal conservatism. Still. LLC. helping organizations and executives address systems-level policy. if you have the right tastes.

THE FORT PLTX ETHANOL POP. Stephanie Herseth.S. and they introduced bills to expand production of ethanol.com/news/2006/may/11/20060511-1125337723r/) House Democrats said yesterday that the answer to the fuel crisis is growing in the fields of rural America.DEMS Democrats empirically love ethanol Washington Times ‘6 (“Democrats push ethanol growth”. http://www. such as ethanol. "We can grow new energy here at home from American farms to American families. Democrats on the Rural Working Group introduced bills that call for doubling the percentage of renewable fuels. The bills also extend the tax credits for ethanol and biodiesel production through 2015 and increase tax benefits to small ethanol producers.S. cars be flex-fuel models by 2013. 254 .washingtontimes. Flex-fuel cars would cost the same as regular cars. by 2012 and increasing the percentage of so-called "flex-fuel" cars capable of running partly on ethanol. the Democrats said. South Dakota Democrat. 5-12-06. Washington Times. The legislation would require that 75 percent of all U. sold in the U. The legislation also boosts incentives for increasing the number of stations that pump ethanol and biodiesel and calls for greater investment in biofuel research." said Rep.

THE FORT PLTX ETHANOL UNPOP.com/2008/05/04/candidates-question-expansion-of-ethanol-development/ WASHINGTON — Democrat Barack Obama said Sunday the federal government might need to rethink its support for corn ethanol because of rising food prices. D-Ill.OBAMA OBAMA DISTANCING HIMSELF FROM ETHANOL http://www." said Obama.. we're seeing riots because of the lack of food supply." he said 255 . 3/4.foxnews. a stance similar to Republican John McCain's but at odds with farm states considered important to the November election. on NBC's "Meet the Press. If it turns out we need to make changes in our ethanol policy to help people get something to eat. 2008 Candidates Question Expansion of Ethanol Development http://elections. In other countries."What I've said is my top priority is making sure people are able to get enough to eat. so this is something we're going to have to deal with.com/id/118087 Obama hates ethanol Associated Press." "We have rising food prices around the United States.newsweek. that has got to be the step we take.

http://www. trade deficit. Macroeconomists look to ethanol to reduce the energy portion of the growing U.com/broadsupport. as well as recognized candidates for the 2008 Presidential Office. Rural farming communities support the increased opportunity to market feed and energy crops.THE FORT PLTX ETHANOL BIPART Ethanol is bipartisan. economists. Cilion: Fueling Change.html) The ethanol industry benefits from broad bi-partisan support in the United States. Republicans. 256 . and environmentalists all support it Cilion ‘8 (“Broad Support for Ethanol”. acknowledge that ethanol offers a rare win-win policy scenario. Environmentalists appreciate ethanol’s improvement of air quality and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. 4-6-08.S.cilion.Democrats. Political leaders.

com/? nid=116&pid=0&sid=1399271&page=2) WASHINGTON (AP) . senators are complaining about seeing shocking prices at the supermarket _ and hunger spreading across the globe." said Rep. bipartisan praise to one of derision. “With food costs rising. some lawmakers are wondering if they made a mistake. WTOP News.S. ethanol has shifted from being an object of widespread. ethanol benefits now questioned”. 257 . at a House hearing Tuesday where the impact of ethanol on soaring food costs was given a wide airing. That's all I'm saying.wtopnews. Josef Hebert. 5-6-08. But now with skyrocketing food costs _ even U.. D-Calif.subsumes their bipartisanship warrants WTOP News ‘8 (H. Associated Press. Jane Harman. even among some of its past supporters. http://www.Just months ago. In a dramatic reversal. President Bush called it key to his strategy to cut gasoline use by 20 percent by 2010.CONGRESS Congress hates ethanol.THE FORT PLTX ETHANOL UNPOP. Democrats and Republicans cheered its benefits as Congress directed a fivefold increase in ethanol use as a motor fuel. ethanol was the Holy Grail to energy independence and a "green fuel" that would help nudge the country away from climate-changing fossil energy. "Our enthusiasm for corn ethanol deserves a second look. a second look.

Josef Hebert. said Barton.com/?nid=116&pid=0&sid=1399271&page=2) Rep. the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Associated Press. said he will introduce a bill to abandon the ethanol requirement passed just before last Christmas and go back to the one Congress enacted in 2005 that would call for a more modest ethanol increase.GOP wants to reduce and Democrats won’t give up WTOP News 5-6 (H. 5-6-08.THE FORT PLTX ETHANOL PART Ethanol is partisan. http://www. "it's worth putting in. WTOP News." And congressional unease about the food-for-fuel debate is showing itself in a number of places.wtopnews. But Barton is not so naive to think his bill has a chance. 258 . House Democratic leaders have given no indication of retreating from the ethanol requirement. Still. Joe Barton of Texas. ethanol benefits now questioned”. “With food costs rising.

THE FORT PLTX **************FED BUILDINGS********** 259 .

. Pryor's bill requires federal agencies to implement energy.txt An Arkansas environmentalist said last week that he thinks so-called "green" legislation will catch on. Hooks said. legislation that provides tax incentives to owners of commercial buildings who replace outdated heating and air-conditioning units. a 40 percent jump from the current requirement. even in Arkansas.. because of growing public outcry over climate change. hydroelectric. "Without the biodiesel tax credit .the scorecards show that environmentalism knows no partisan boundaries. Sens. D-Prescott. "Federal buildings are a tremendous amount of square feet. Newer models of HVAC units are 70 percent more efficient than those made just a decade ago. Residents in the economically disadvantaged Delta can also cash in on the environmental movement through biofuels production." Hooks said. has introduced the Smart Buildings Act of 2007. from a 92 out of 100 for Rep.and water-saving measures that have verifiable cost savings once the audits are completed.which Ross disputes as one of dozens of meaningless reports from special-interest groups . Ross supports energy policy that relies on a variety of sources to fuel the United States. biofuels among them. Coal. The measure would also require energy producers to increase use of alternative fuels. Boozman also said he believes federal agencies can save taxpayer money by installing dimmer switches for lights or erecting solar panels to harness energy from the sun. John Boozman. too. They are defined as fuels derived from plant and wood wastes such as sawdust or from commercially grown switchgrass "We have real opportunities in the Delta by investing in cellulosic ethanol. The proposal was included as an amendment to the energy bill that was approved in the Senate.500 Fort Smith workers manufacture HVAC units. is also a Blue Dog.THE FORT PLTX FED BUILDINGS BIPART/POP-PUBLIC ALTERNATIVE ENERGY FOR FEDERAL BUILDINGS IS BIPART AND POPULAR WITH THE PUBLIC Aaron Sadler [staff writer. Arkansas Lawmakers Find It Easy Being Green. Lincoln supported the extension until at least 2010 a tax incentive that encouraged production and use of biodiesel. "It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and have a significant impact in mitigating climate change. signaling momentum in the green movement. "It's almost becoming a bad thing politically to be anti-environmentalist. "We can save a lot of money and not use nearly as much energy. Boozman said he wants the transportation panel to spearhead an initiative to make federal buildings more energy efficient. Glen Hooks of the state Sierra Club chapter said corporations like Wal-Mart have announced environmental initiatives. though Pryor supported a less stringent fuel efficiency measure backed by the automobile industry. But Boozman this year has endorsed "green" legislation from his position on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. he said. Ross secured in a House committee last month $5 million for the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff for the study of cellulosic biofuels.. Rep." Berry said. Pryor has proposed energy audits for all federal buildings. 260 .net/articles/2007/07/01/news/070107dcgreen. http://www. In addition." Lincoln said. Mike Ross. Ross is a co-chairman of the group of fiscally conservative Democrats. both D-Ark. voted for final passage of the bill. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor. to an 8 for Rep. but Lincoln said she would continue to look for ways to pass the provision during this Congress. Marion Berry. The current tax credit expires in 2008. energy policy. D-Gillett. R-Rogers. Pryor identified the legislation as boon to Fort Smith industry. when his environmental score was zero. according to the platform of the Blue Dog Coalition. 6/30/07. it will be difficult for this exciting industry to continue to grow. Hooks pointed to last year's environmental scorecard from the League of Conservation Voters as an indicator of how Arkansas lawmakers stand on environmental issues.nwaonline. Despite that record ." Boozman said. The committee has oversight of federal buildings. It was not included in the energy bill. Vic Snyder. And his record improved last year compared to 2005. The Morning News]. even among lawmakers with abysmal environmental voting records.S. lawmakers say." In similar fashion. "One of my biggest priorities is increasing the production of biofuels because I believe alternative energy is the bridge to a cleaner and better future." Both Ross and Berry scored 25 on last year's environmental report card from the League of Conservation Voters. Environmentalists applauded the Senate's June 21 passage of a bipartisan energy bill that would raise automobile fuel efficiency standards to an average 35 miles per gallon by 2020. 3. D-Little Rock. nuclear and geothermal energy should also be cultivated as part of the broad U." Ross said. Rep. Pryor. The scores ran the gamut. said his southern Arkansas district is particularly appropriate for biofuels research and development.

261 .PUBLIC Public loves the plan – polls prove RK STEWART. http://www. “ENERGY EFFICIENT FEDERAL BUILDINGS.aia. Reducing energy use in federal buildings would be a major step towards that goal.org/SiteObjects/files/RKStewart_WrittenTestimony_SenateEnergy. and believes that it is in the best interests of our nation and the world to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel produced energy and move towards a sustainable future.pdf Finally.” The American public supports conserving our precious resources. the American public believes the time is now to reduce energy usage and reduce the impacts of climate change. The Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners recently conducted a nationwide poll of voters and found that 74 percent of those polled agreed that “the government should take the lead in promoting real estate development that conserves our natural resources.THE FORT PLTX FED BUILDINGS POP. 71 percent of voters agreed that “the government should immediately put into effect new energy policies that drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” In addition. President of the American Institute of Architects. 2/12/07.” Testimony before the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy.

none of which McCain has promised to do. who first set his targets last October.THE FORT PLTX FED BUILDINGS POP. The other Democrats have called for reducing energy consumption by 10 percent to 20 percent by 2020. updating the national utility grid and phasing out traditional incandescent light bulbs by 2014. including corn ethanol and other advanced biofuels. 262 .OBAMA A major part of Obama’s environmental policy is carbon neutral federal buildings Concord Monitor.S. has promised that he would make all new federal buildings 40 percent more efficient than current ones within five years. 10/9/07. Obama said the increased investment will allow the U.cbsnews. but none has projected as aggressively as Obama. “Obama rolls out energy plan” http://www. making federal buildings carbon neutral. according to the League of Conservation Voters. He has also pledged to increase efficiency of existing federal buildings by 25 percent within five years and to ensure that the government derives 30 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2020 -. Washington post [Juliet Eilperin and Lyndsey Layton McCain Pledges Greener Government Washington Post: Republican Candidate Says Federal Government Would Buy Fuel-Efficient Vehicles. and carbon-neutral by 2025. That figure is lower than the standards set in Richardson's plan. A third major component of the plan would be trying to make the country 50 percent more energy efficient by 2030 by updating building codes for efficiency. He would invest $50 billion over five years in a new venture capital fund to bring clean energy technologies into the market through partnership between the public and private sectors. offering efficiency incentives.com/stories/2008/06/25/politics/washingtonpost/main4206931. 2008 Obama.concordmonitor. If Obama wins he’s promised to set standards on buildings.shtml?source=RSS&attr=_4206931] June 25. which can be made from wood chips. equal to those set by Edwards and higher than the other Democrats. to set standards requiring 25 percent of all the country's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2025.com/apps/pbcs. such as cellulosic ethanol.dll/article? AID=/20071009/NEWS01/710090373/1217/NEWS98 Obama also said he would invest $150 billion over 10 years to develop clean energy. Retrofit Office Space Comments 56 http://www.

THE FORT PLTX FED BUILDINGS POP. 2008 In a speech in Santa Barbara. McCain (R-Ariz.000 cars and other vehicles.S. the federal government buys upwards of 60. we're going to make those civilian vehicles flex-fuel capable.3 billion square feet of federal office space" worldwide.) vowed to "put the purchasing power of the United States government on the side of green technology" by buying fuel-efficient vehicles for its civilian fleet of cars and trucks and by retrofitting federal office space. Calif.MCCAIN McCain supports plan – vowed to decrease federal emissions Washington post [Juliet Eilperin and Lyndsey Layton McCain Pledges Greener Government Washington Post: Republican Candidate Says Federal Government Would Buy Fuel-Efficient Vehicles.) outlined a more detailed and ambitious proposal on the subject. Retrofit Office Space Comments 56] June 25. McCain said he plans to reduce the government's carbon footprint by updating its buildings and demanding better standards in new ones. not including military or law enforcement vehicles. or cars fueled by clean natural gas. government ranks as "the single largest consumer of electricity in the world" because it holds sway over "3.. a prominent GOP environmentalist. The pledge comes months after Obama (D-Ill." McCain said as he campaigned with California Gov. Cleaner vehicles would also reduce harmful auto emissions. A greening of the government would probably have a major impact on the Washington region." Saying that the U. as the modernizing of buildings would spark a mini-construction boom and ease energy demands. environmentalists say. virtually ensuring that the next administration will take significant steps to lower the government's output of energy and pollution. plug-in hybrid. 263 . Arnold Schwarzenegger. "Every year. "From now on.

org/2008/07/07/mccain-on-energy-efficiency-he-is-cheneys-third-term/ Good luck. 264 . 7/7/08. Conservatives like McCain.THE FORT PLTX FEMP UNPOP. Note to McCain: the construction market has already swung heavily in the direction of green technology in the past decade — thanks mainly to the US Green Building Council. “McCain on energy efficiency: He is Cheney’s third term!” http://climateprogress.REPS Republicans hate FEMP ClimateProgress. including Newt Gingrich in the 1990s and President Bush this decade. have been blocking progressive efforts to significantly increase the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) budget for decades.

THE FORT PLTX **********GAS RATIONING*********** 265 .

austerity -. http://www. "This administration doesn't want to look like the Jimmy Carter administration -." says the House Democrats' energy plan. "Democrats do not advocate energy policies that will require rationing or reductions in our standard of living. Conservation. "Americans do not want sacrifice and deprivation.THE FORT PLTX GAS RATIONING UNPOP. Rozanne Weissman. "does not mean doing without. Like Bush.maybe turn down the air conditioning or even give up the sport utility vehicle -." she said.cjonline." Congressional Democrats have proposed a variety of steps to shelter Americans from sky-high costs. he called conservation "the result of millions of good choices made across our land on a daily basis. 266 . speaking for the Alliance to Save Energy." says Bush. too. rationing. In his speech introducing it." and asked for no hard choices in particular.DEMS Gas Rationing is unpopular with Democrats The Topeka Capital Journal Online – 5-20-2001 [Energy plans come without sacrifice. they don't question the idea that people can continue to have it all. They are missing in Democratic plans. wasn't surprised.com/stories/052101/new_energyplans." Bush's blueprint relies on more energy supplies and a basket of enticements for greater energy efficiency.are missing in President Bush's plan to deal with the crunch.telling people to turn their thermostats down and then not getting re-elected.shtml] Concepts like sacrifice.

THE FORT PLTX **************GEOTHERMAL************* 267 .

March 19.5 million in FY 2009. “Renewable Industry Association Asks Congress to Direct DOE to Follow New Law”.” according to GEA. as proposed in their FY 2007 and FY 2008 budgets.. the Department of Energy must now finally understand that its irrational hostility toward geothermal energy research and development has come to an end. In their statement today.R.. the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007.” The association proposed funding for the program should be $77. which contained the new research program for advanced geothermal technologies.THE FORT PLTX GEOTHERMAL BIPART Geothermal has strong bipartisan support GEA 08 (Geothermal Energy Association. according to GEA.with the Senate's passage of the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008 and H.. At the time. it would fund only work on enhanced geothermal systems and ignore many other opportunities to expand geothermal energy production.” Last month. H. are the provisions that authorize and direct the Department of Energy to undertake a broad. a bipartisan group of a dozen Senators led by Senators Wyden (D-OR) and Murkowski (R-AK) sent Secretary Bodman a letter urging DOE to move forward immediately with the new geothermal research law.” they added. A few days earlier Congress passed national energy legislation. The legislation “defines a bold new vision of public-private partnerships and federal research and information initiatives that could help bring substantial new geothermal energy sources online to meet national energy needs. Last December Congress approved $20 million for DOE’s geothermal research efforts in FY 2008 as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill. “These provisions were based upon legislation that had strong.. Congressional action on geothermal research was at least in part a response to efforts by the Administration to terminate all federal geothermal research. “An important part of the Energy Independence and Security Act. HR 6. But. GEA urged Congress to “direct the DOE to implement the new law and to provide adequate funding to achieve its goals. Congress rejected the Administration’s proposals to close the program. 6.com/rea/partner/story?id=51930) At issue is the Advanced Geothermal Energy Research and Development Act of 2007 passed as part of the 2007 energy bill.renewableenergyworld. http://www.6. 268 . new advanced geothermal energy research program. While DOE’s budget proposal for FY 2009 included funding for geothermal research. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told his colleagues “.” the Senators told Bodman. bi-partisan support in both the House and Senate.R.

html) Reid. "There's no difference from previous years.washingtonpost. 269 ." Another key Democratic reform requires House members seeking earmarks to certify that neither they nor their spouses have any financial interest in the project." said Energy Department spokeswoman Anne Womack Kolton. inundated the Energy Department with similar requests.THE FORT PLTX GEOTHERMAL POP-REID Reid supports geothermal energy – called for more funding Washington Post 07 (“In the Democratic Congress. "Certainly. Other lawmakers. as a senator from the electricity-needy West. Reid demanded that the administration fund the geothermal program at 2006 levels or higher. Pork Still Gets Served”. "Geothermal energy has the potential to cleanly and renewably satisfy the new electricity needs of the West. Democrats slammed such practices when Republicans ruled the House. noted that the legislation set aside $300 million in new money for research in energy efficiency and renewable energy and suggested that some money be used to reverse the administration's original plan to end its geothermal-energy research program." he wrote. but such calls and letters have not let up in the Democratic Congress. executive branch officials said. we have heard from various members of Congress this year to express their support for various projects and groups seeking funding from the department. http://www. from both parties. May 24. Reid also asked the administration to expand a federal loan program to include geothermal research projects.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301782_pf.

com/articles/2007/11/in_09_democrats_would_test_app. paid for by limiting the tax exemption on estates valued at more than $7 million.as opposed to coal and nuclear power. including CEO pay.half to be paid for by making the health system more efficient. to develop alternative clean-fuel technology. Democrats Would Test Appetite for Change”. November 27. On spending. wind. such as requirements that utilities generate at least 20 percent of electric power using renewable fuels by 2020. On the regulatory front. Clinton proposes to create a $50 billion strategic energy fund. She is proposing to double the budgets of the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation and to establish a government-matched 401(k) savings program for all citizens costing $25 billion per year. half by raising taxes on the wealthy. http://www.html) A second major priority will be control of global warming and development of alternative energy sources. They are likely to be more aggressive in enforcing occupational health and safety laws and oversight of corporate governance. Clinton calculates that her health insurance proposal will cost $110 billion a year . Democrats show a distinct partiality toward solar.and increased fuel economy standards for automobiles . paid for by ending oil and gas subsidies and taxing oil company profits. Clinton and other Democratic candidates all are promising stricter environmental controls.THE FORT PLTX GEOTHERMAL POP-DEMS Democrats are pushing geothermal Roll Call 07 (“In '09.realclearpolitics. 270 . geothermal and agricultural sources of energy .

experts are looking towards the technology as a way to provide clean electricity.000 voters also indicated that a majority of Americans believe they are seeing changes in their local weather caused by global warming.THE FORT PLTX GEOTHERMAL POP. according to the federal Department of Energy.experts suggest the Tehachapi region could generate enough wind power to light 3 million homes. demand jumped 13 percent from 2001 to 2005. Geothermal overwhelmingly popular San Fransisco Chronicle. Texas. Renewable energy is incredibly popular -. said at a press conference Wednesday. wind. And. In addition. In January. with three-quarters of them saying the changes are for the worse. geothermal. 271 . Although geothermal energy makes up just half of one percent of the total energy consumption in the United States. environmental. ’06 (9/24) Most involved in the energy industry believe a significant increase in wind. consumer and energy policy organizations. the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released the most extensive report on the geothermal power generation in thirty years. Bush has a geothermal system at his ranch in Crawford. which represents 35 business.PUBLIC Geothermal technology’s popularity has increased rapidly Driscoll. The poll of 1. Ninety-three percent support increasing the use of renewable energy.But not Oil. the Sustainable Energy Coalition released a survey of registered voters that showed 97% of the respondents believe the United States should increase its use of new energy technologies that improve fuel efficiency and conserve energy. solar and geothermal power is possible in California.org/2007/10/19/env-driscoll-geothermal) The popularity of geothermal heating and cooling has increased rapidly—even President George W. http://scienceline. such as solar. biomass and hydroelectric power. with the price of natural gas having tripled in the last few years.a Public Policy Institute of California poll earlier this year showed that 83 percent of adults interviewed supported more government spending to boost renewable energy. wind power is cheaper to produce than electricity supplied by a natural-gas-fueled power plant. Public loves geothermal Inside energy ’98 (11/2) Meanwhile. the coalition. 07 (Emily. 10/19/07. The state has plenty of sun and wind -. reporter for NYU science and environmental project. Drilling for Energy.

“US TO CUT FUNDS FOR TWO RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES”.csmonitor. September 15. http://www. "What we do well is research and funding of new.com/2006/0915/p02s01-uspo. a new turbine is being tested that generates more electricity. the Bush administration in its FY 2007 budget request eliminates hydropower and geothermal research. But renewable energy advocates may have to kiss goodbye those and other research projects. on the Sierra Nevada range. novel technologies. Declaring them "mature technologies" that need no further funding. The US Department of Energy (DOE) is quitting the hydropower and geothermal power research business . which uses the earth's natural heat to generate power. Down in California's Long Valley. Any savings from the cuts would be nil since all of the nearly $24 million ($1 million from hydropower and $23 million from geothermal) research funding would go to other programs such as biofuels.thanks to research dollars from Uncle Sam.THE FORT PLTX GEOTHERMAL UNPOP.CONGRESS Congress oppose funding geothermal programs – empirically proven CSM 06 (Christian Science Monitor.html) Out at the Wanapum Dam on the Columbia River. but won't kill so many fish . 272 . "zeroing out" such research could end up being a penny-wise. "From a policy perspective." says Craig Stevens." Still. chief spokesman for the DOE.if Congress will let it. geothermal and hydro are mature technologies. some energy advocates say. We believe the market can take the lead on this at this point. federal researchers are working to boost efficiency of geothermal energy. pound-foolish move. venerable programs with roots in the energy crises of the 1970s.

” said Solar Energy Industries Association President Rhone Resch following the vote. Green groups rushed to chastise GOP leaders for the obstruction. http://gristmill.org/story/2008/6/10/11530/1857) The second bill. the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. this minority is responsible for kicking the economy while it’s down. The bill also has incentives for the production of renewable fuels such as biodiesel and cellulosic biofuels. It includes a six-year extension of the investment tax credit for solar energy.grist. “More than ever. Republicans Smith. Congress needs to work out differences so we can stabilize energy costs for consumers and businesses.” 273 . geothermal.” said Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope in a written statement. a three-year extension of the production tax credit for biomass. The tax-break extensions have stalled in the Senate several times before. and grave concerns about global warming. Snowe. and Bob Corker (Tenn. greencollar jobs. and incentives to improve efficiency in commercial and residential buildings. incentives for companies that produce energyefficient products. was the Senate partner to the tax-extenders legislation that passed in the House last month.THE FORT PLTX GEOTHERMAL UNPOP. and a one-year extension of the production tax credit for wind energy.REPS Republicans are opposed to funding for geothermal Grist News 08 (“No renewal for renewables”. landfill gas. as did all of the Democrats present for the vote.) voted in favor of cloture on the bill. hydropower. “By once again blocking efforts to extend these crucial clean energy tax incentives that are in danger of expiring. with record energy prices. June 10. The $54 billion package would have extended tax breaks for renewable energy that are set to expire at the end of this year.000 more could disappear unless Congress acts to immediately renew these tax incentives. and solid waste. improve our nation’s energy security. “Jobs are already being lost in the renewable-energy industry and at least 100. and create tens of thousands of quality. and folks in the renewables industry are starting to get nervous as we near the expiration of those credits at the end of this year. Funding for the tax credits would come from closing loopholes for hedge-fund managers and multinational corporations. record unemployment.

“The question then became: How do we get the biggest bang for our buck?” said Kirstin Brost. a Washington coalition of business.000 for a fuel-cell project by Superprotonic. a senior appropriator who secured $500. about 52% more than the administration requested. Money has been set aside for scores of home-state research initiatives and construction projects. a Pasadena company started by Caltech scientists.THE FORT PLTX GEOTHERMAL UNPOP. has proposed doing away with spending on the geothermal energy program.” said Lowell Ungar. senior policy analyst at the Alliance to Save Energy. on the other hand.” Early this year. The House provided about $1. “America needs to wean itself off of foreign oil. The Senate has yet to complete its spending bills. a ninefold increase compared with current spending. research and development policy program director of the American Assn.” said Rep.). “I think members are going to be challenged in their district” about how they are responding to concerns about climate change and U. Kei Koizumi.7 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. “They are devoting real resources to trying to address the problem of climate change. which has criticized excessive spending in the overall appropriations bills. noted that the president’s proposed budget provides for a 3% increase in spending for climate-change activities. http://articles. for the Advancement of Science.com/2007/aug/21/nation/na-green21) While legislation to raise vehicle miles-per-gallon standards and cap emissions from power plants has been slower moving – because of resistance from some lawmakers – Democrats have turned to the budget to advance their environmental priorities by increasing spending on a variety of lower-profile programs.9 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. The White House budget office. the programs received about $1.S. who wants to spend less on climate-change initiatives. said money for addressing climate change had been added “even in areas where you might not expect to find it. dependence on foreign oil. say could lead to about $1 billion in additional green exports in 2008. Hobson (R-Ohio).” Schiff said in a statement.BUSH Bush oppose increase funding for geothermal LA Times 07 (“Priority changes on green policies”. 274 . but it is a step in the right direction. Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee asked scientists how government efforts could be cranked up to combat global warming and reduce oil use.S. And federal support for innovative new technologies is part of the answer. for example. “Green is becoming very fashionable. Schiff and Steve Israel (D-N. David L.Y. “Congress is putting its money where its mouth is.2 billion. Schiff (D-Burbank). The House energy appropriations bill also provides $44 million to promote geothermal energy. The bill funding the Department of Housing and Urban Development requires it to incorporate “robust green building” standards. 1. And the bill funding Congress provides $3. Adam B. Rep.” Environmental initiatives are scattered throughout the 12 House appropriations bills for the federal fiscal year that starts Oct. Obey (D-Wis.) “We’ve only accomplished a small first step.000 for a geothermal demonstration project. Export-Import Bank to increase investment in renewable energy projects – a provision that its sponsors. environmental and government leaders. including $1 million for a plug-in hybrid vehicle demonstration project at Southern California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District.9 million to the Green the Capitol initiative that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) is pushing to make the House carbon neutral by the end of next year.latimes. he said. spokeswoman for committee Chairman David R.” The bill funding foreign-aid programs calls on the U. contending that it is a mature industry. consumer. but its appropriations committee has recommended about $1. The Bush administration. Some of the largest increases are in the bill that funds the Department of Energy. got $500. August 21. That is likely to set up a showdown this fall between Congress and President Bush. Just two years ago under the Republican-controlled Congress.” Lawmakers from both parties also see the public’s heightened interest in climate change and energy security as an opportunity to steer federal money to their states through earmarks billed as environmentally friendly. “This is as much a national security imperative as it is an environmental one.

THE FORT PLTX

GEOTHERMAL UNPOP- BUSH
BUSH OPPOSES GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR GEOTHERMAL ENERGY

Butler, 2007 (Rhett A., “Bush Administration Cuts Funding for Geothermal Energy”, Mongabay.com an Environmental Science and Conservation News Site, March 13) The Bush Administration is seeking to eliminate federal funding for geothermal energy research according to a report from Reuters. Oddly, the move comes as the White House has made a push for renewable energy to reduce dependence on foreign oil imports. Apparently the administration appears to be focused on biofuels as liquid fuels and nuclear for electricity generation. "The Department of Energy has not requested funds for geothermal research in our fiscal-year 2008 budget," Reuters quoted Christina Kielich, a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy, as saying. "Geothermal is a mature technology. Our focus is on breakthrough energy research and development."

275

THE FORT PLTX

GEOTHERMAL POP- PUBLIC
Geothermal energy is popular with the public Driscoll 7 Driscoll, 2007, Emily V. “Geothermal wells increase in popularity as a fossil fuel alternative”October 19th, http://scienceline.org/2007/10/19/env-driscoll-geothermal/ The popularity of geothermal heating and cooling has increased rapidly—even President George W. Bush has a geothermal system at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. In addition, experts are looking towards the technology as a way to provide clean electricity. Although geothermal energy makes up just half of one percent of the total energy consumption in the United States, demand jumped 13 percent from 2001 to 2005, according to the federal Department of Energy. In January, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released the most extensive report on the geothermal power generation in thirty years. New York is no exception to the trend. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), which gives money and technical help to builders who use alternative energy sources, reports that 63 geothermal projects have been completed since its aid program began in 1999. Forty-six more projects are in the works. “The number of applications and installments continues to go up,” said Gregory Lampman, a project manager with the state authority

276

THE FORT PLTX

*************GLOBAL WARMING***********

277

THE FORT PLTX

GW POP- PUBLIC
AFTER WEATHER AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEMS, THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS WORRIED ABOUT THE CLIMATE. O'RIORDIN, EDITOR FOR ENVIRONMENT, 2007. (TIMOTHY, "GRASSROOTS ENERGY AND CARBON INITIATIVES", MARCH, 49.2) To the European mind, the U.S. approach to climate change is shaped by the oil, gas, and coal lobbies coupled to an intransigent yet paradoxically lobby-sensitive White House. In practice, Americans now worry about climate change, recognizing the emergence of new and unusual weather patterns with huge consequences for the local economy (unpredictable snowfalls, avalanches, floods, excessive summer heat, and storms and the costly infrastructure, roof, and other building damages that result). In addition, all manner of initiatives are emerging at regional, state, and municipal levels and in the day-to-day behavior of U.S. citizens.

Plan massively popular Kull, ’04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf)
Three in four Americans embrace the idea that global warming is a real problem that requires action. However, this majority divides on the question of whether the problem is pressing and should include steps with significant costs, or whether the problem can be dealt with more gradually through low- cost steps. A majority is optimistic that steps taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will actually benefit the US economy. The public is split on whether or not there is a consensus in the scientific community about the reality of global warming. Nonetheless, nearly eight in ten say that President Bush should develop a plan to reduce the emission of gases that may contribute to global warming

Action to prevent warming overwhelmingly popular Kull, ’04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf)
It is, of course, interesting that even though there is lack of clarity about the scientific consensus, almost eight in ten favor taking steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, 79% say that President Bush should “develop a plan to reduce the emission of gases that may contribute to global warming.” This is up a bit from March 2001, when CNN asked the same question and 67% said that he should.

278

THE FORT PLTX

GW POP- PUBLIC
Action on global warming popular VSI no date http://www.votesolar.org/polls.html (vote solar initiative, compiles poll results from other sources)
Global Warming--the Yale Center for Environmental Law an Policy did a survey (March 2007) on Americans' attitudes towards global warming. 83%

say it is a serious problem, up from 70% in 2004. Website with poll results here.

Massive Public Support for action to prevent warming Global Public Opinion.org ‘07 (http://americansworld.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw1.cfm
Virtually all polls taken have found a very strong majority believes that global warming is a real problem. Only a very small minority -- less than a quarter of the public -- doubts the reality and significance of global warming. However, since the beginning of the Bush administration, the percentage showing doubts may have increased. --In May 2005, 79% said global warming represented an “extremely important” (41%) or an “important” (38%) threat to the US in the next ten years. Only 18% said it was “not an important threat.” (German Marshall Fund) [1]
--In August 2004, Greenberg-Quinlin-Rosner found 68% saying global warming is “a very serious” (36%) or “important” (32%) problem, with another 18% saying that was a small problem. Only 10% said global warming was not a problem. These numbers are not significantly different from when the question was asked in April 2004. [2] --In July 2004, 84% said global warming represented a “critical threat” (37%) or an “important but not critical threat” (47%) to the US in the next ten years, while only 14% said it was “not an important threat at all.” This was up slightly from 79% in June 2002. Those saying global warming is a “critical threat” was down from 46% though this was counter-balanced by a sharp upward movement among those saying “important but not critical threat” (33%). Those saying it was “not an important threat at all” was down from 18%. (CCFR) [3]

when Princeton Survey Research asked how much of a priority global warming should be to the US long-range foreign policy goals, only 12% who thought global warming had “no priority,” while 82% said it had at least “some priority” (46%) or was a “top priority” (36%). [4]
--In July 2004, -- In September 2002, 74% said they "believe the theory that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked, lead to global warming and an increase in average temperatures"; 19% said they did not believe this (Harris Interactive). [5] --In March 2001, 64% said they "believe that emissions of gases like carbon dioxide are causing global temperature increases"; 23% did not (Time/CNN). In the same poll 75% thought global warming a very serious (43%) or fairly serious (32%) problem; 21% thought it a not very serious (14%) or not at all serious (7%) problem. [6] --In an August 2000 Harris poll, 72% said they "believe[d] the theory" of global warming, while 20% said they did not--up from December 1997 when in response to the same question 67% said they believed it and 21% said they did not. In the same poll 85% thought global warming was a "very serious" (46%) or "somewhat serious" (39%) threat; only 13% said it was "not serious at all." [7] --In a July 1999 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, only 11% took the position that "concern about global climate change is unwarranted." [8] --In a September 1998 Wirthlin poll, 74% embraced the belief that "global warming is real" even when the belief was defined in terms of global warming having "catastrophic consequences," while just 22% said they did not believe in it.[9] --An October 1997 Ohio State University survey asked about "the idea that the world's temperature may have been going up slowly over the last 100 years" and found that 77% thought "this has probably been happening," while 20% thought "it probably hasn't been happening." Likewise, 74% thought the world's average temperature would go up in the future, while 22% thought it would not. [10] When PIPA in 2004 and 2005 offered respondents three possible positions on global warming, with one of the options being that global warming is real but does not require high cost steps, more than three quarters chose an option that endorsed the reality of global warming (see below). This is down slightly from 1998 and 2000 when more than 80% made such assessments. The finding that most lends itself to a contrary interpretation is a September 2005 ABC/Washington Post poll that asked how convinced respondents were that global warming or the greenhouse effect is actually happening. A majority of 56% said they were either “completely convinced” (23%) or “mostly convinced” (33%). An additional 22% said they were “not so convinced” and 17% said they were not at all convinced that global warming or the greenhouse effect is actually happening. Similar results were obtained in June 2005. It is possible to combine the 22% saying “not so convinced” with the 17% saying “not at all convinced” to say that 39% are not convinced. However in light of the abundance of other evidence suggesting a much smaller number, it is more likely that those answering not so convinced were trying to characterize the level of their knowledge. Many respondents may indeed be quite uncertain about their knowledge. However, as we have seen above, and will

when asked on what basis they favor making policy, a large majority—much larger than 56%-advocate taking action on the basis that global warming is a problem that requires a significant response. [11]
see even more below,

279

THE FORT PLTX

GW POP- RELIGIOUS RIGHT
Religious right supports action to stop climate change Anthony Leiserowitz, Yale University, May 2008, Global Climate Change National Security Implications
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf

Within the religious right, a large number of evangelical leaders have recently broken with their peers to argue that global warming is indeed happening, that humans are at least partly responsible, and that this is a moral issue that Christians are called to confront. These leaders justify this new position by arguing that in the book of Genesis, God commanded human beings to till and tend his garden, and that the environment is part of our stewardship
responsibilities on the earth, to care for God’s creation. Thus global warming is a moral imperative. Secondly, many argue that action on global warming flows directly from their longstanding missions to help the poor and needy, such as famine and poverty relief around the world. To paraphrase, “How can Christians devoted to these acts of mercy in good conscience ignore a problem that is going to push millions of people into the same kind of circumstances that we are there to help them with?” Importantly, these are arguments that resonate within the religious right’s own strongly-held value system. Yet these specifically Christian arguments may not resonate with other audiences. There are, however, many roads to Damascus. Different people, starting from very different moral and ethical standpoints, can at times reach the same conclusions and work together in common action, albeit sometimes for different reasons.

280

THE FORT PLTX

GW UNPOP- OIL LOBBIES
Oil Lobbies dislike action to curb global warming
Brown 2
Anthony Browne, Times of London. August 16th, 2002http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=3531

Conservative lobbyists in the US funded by Esso have urged President Bush to derail the Earth summit in Johannesburg because it is antifreedom, anti-people, anti-globalization and anti-Western.

The lobbyists, funded by the oil company that was also a big donor to the Presidents election campaign, urged Mr Bush to make sure that global warming was kept off the agenda at the summit, which starts later this month. In a letter leaked to Friends of Earth in the US, the lobbyists tell Mr Bush: We applaud your decision not to attend in person . . . the summit will provide a global media stage for many of the most irresponsible and destructive elements in critical economic and environmental issues. Your presence would only help publicize various anti-freedom, anti-people, anti-globalization and anti-Western agendas, it said. Among others, the letter was signed by representatives of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, the American Enterprise Institute, and the National Center for Policy Analysis, all of which received funding from ExxonMobil, Essos parent company. The letter, dated August 2, adds: The least important global environmental issue is potential global warming and we hope that your negotiators can keep it off the table and out of the spotlight. The World Summit on Sustainable Development will be attended by 100 world leaders. However, the US Government has already made clear that it will not sign any internationally binding agreements.

281

THE FORT PLTX

************HEMP**********

282

THE FORT PLTX

HEMP POP- PUBLIC
Hemp Popular/Support Angelique van Engelen, @ Triple Pundit, 5/28/’8 [US Hemp Lobby Grows Stronger, Books Successes, http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/us-hemp-lobby-grows-stronger-b-003183.php]
The US food market alone annually imports over USD12 million worth of hemp based products and the lobby to get hemp legalized in the US is set to grow stronger in years to come because hemp is not only about the most nutricious plant around, it's also likely to gain attention due to the battle against greenhouse gas. Environmentalists also argue hemp can be used to combat deforestated areas and in the looming food crisis. Take in these facts; hemp scrubs the atmosphere of more carbon dioxide than any other plant because it has the highest known quantities of cellulose for annuals. Hemp has at least four times (some sources suggest 50-100x) the biomass potential of similar plants (cornstalks, sugarcane, kernaf and trees). It grows at a phenomenal speed, so is an excellent solution to the deforestated areas of the Amazon and Asia. The carbon dioxide that hemp absorbs is turned into incredibly rich wood and massively strong fibers. There's also attention for hemp from scientists worried about the looming food crisis. Only one acre of hemp creates 1,000 gallons of methanol, which is an astounding amount. Henry Ford ran the first car fuelled by hemp seed. Hemp is now known to be suitable for creating various substitutes for coal based products, acetone, ethyl, tar pitch and creosote. The US market for hemp based food and healthcare products is vibrant and it's mostly the Canadians and Europeans that are happy with this. Canada legalized the growth of hemp in 1998 and the owner of Ruth's Hemp Foods, Ruth Shamai, was an active part of the lobby there. Canadian production of hemp increased from 4,000 acres in 2002 to over 24,000 acres in 2005. Farmers have fun cultivating the crop because it has a high market value and the plant does not need herbicides or pesticides. According to a report in an Australian newspaper the US healthcare market was $30 million in 2004. In Europe demand from the housing sector is massive too and this set to grow in the US too. Hemp plants can be ground up and made into bricks. These have better insulating qualities than traditional bricks. The US lobby to get hemp legalized is particularly strong in North Dakota, Wisconsin, Oregon and Vermont. Some farms in North Dakota were issued individual licenses early last year to become the first US farms grow industrial hemp. And in Vermont, earlier this month a bill was passed 25 votes to one which legalizes hemp. Yet the farmers are still faced with massive risks because at federal level there's a long way to go before all is okay. The first step toward fully reinstating hemp as an industrial crop was taken last year when congress amended the controlled substances act. Now industrial hemp is no longer included in the definition of marijuana. The state of Oregon also has a powerful lobby in favor of hemp. Check out the Cannabis Tax Act, the Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp, and Vote Hemp to find out more information about the US lobby.

283

THE FORT PLTX

HEMP POP- PUBLIC
PLAN POPULAR WITH THE PUBLIC

Daniel Stanaway, Mississippi State University, 2003, http://www.carrs.msu.edu/greenpieces/2003/stanaway.pdf
Demand for hemp is rising again. In this time of high ambient pollution, declining forest, agricultural monopolism, and green house gases, alternatives to the way humans acquire goods is necessitated. People of the United States have three main reasons for the cultivation of the hemp plant; environmental concern, the impending need of alternative energy sources, and economic opportunities. Ecocentric people, acting as agents for the environment, seek the hemp plant because of the eco-friendly means for attainment of industrial goods. With the supply of fossil fuels and forest products both on the decline, another option must be recognized to meet the needs of this world. The conventional method of powering this planet does not come from a non-exhaustible source, and someday this will be depleted. Although that time is far from now, it is not too early to begin to find alternative ways to fuel life. Beyond environmental reasoning, farmers and entrepreneurs spurred by economic opportunity are interested in the hemp plant. Americans are hungry enough for hemp products to spur a 200 million dollar a year industry that must be supplied outside the borders of the United States (Armstrong, 2002). The present low farm value contrasted by this lucrative industry, make hemp production a desirable market for farmers. Americans have many reasons to want the prohibition of the hemp plant to end.

PLAN POPULAR IN MANY STATES

Robin Lash, Third-year student, University of Oklahoma College of Law, 2003, Lexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do? start=2&sort=RELEVANCE&format=GNBFI&risb=21_T4235158880
While Canada has broken step with the United States by legalizing hemp production, the United States adamantly refuses to lift its ban. Many Americans are very interested in pursuing legalization of industrial hemp. A recent study shows that nineteen states are currently taking action to bring back the commercial hemp industry. n95 States which have passed pro-hemp resolutions or have hemp legislation pending include Arizona, Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, and Virginia. n96

284

THE FORT PLTX

HEMP POP- PUBLIC
Hemp is a growing national interest—Vermont and North Dakota prove The Earth Times, 7-1-08, “Controversy Resolved by Opinion of Attorney General's Office,” http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/vermont-hemp-farming-bill-becomes-law,454181.shtml Vermont grows an average of 90,000 acres of corn per year, a small amount compared to Midwest states; however, the need for a good rotation crop exists nationwide. From candle makers to dairymen to retailers, Vermont voters strongly support hemp farming. Admittedly a niche market now, hemp is becoming more common in stores and products across the country every day. Over the past ten years, farmers in Canada have grown an average of 16,500 acres of hemp per year, primarily for use in food products. In Vermont, the interest in hemp includes for use in food products, as well as in quality and affordable animal bedding for the state's estimated 140,000 cows. "Vermont's federal delegation can now take this law to the U.S. Congress and call for a fix to this problem of farmers missing out on a very useful and profitable crop," comments Eric Steenstra, President of Vote Hemp. "North Dakota farmers who want to grow hemp per state law are currently appealing their lawsuit in the federal courts. The real question is whether these hemp-friendly state congressional delegations feel compelled to act," adds Steenstra. Rural Vermont's Shollenberger states that "the Vermont law is significant for two reasons. First, no other state until now has followed North Dakota's lead by creating real-world regulations for farmers to grow industrial hemp. Second, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont is Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, as well as a member of the Committee on Agriculture -- both relevant committees that could consider legislation. We also have a friend at the USDA in new Secretary Ed Schaffer who signed North Dakota's hemp bill as Governor. I plan to visit Washington, DC and try to figure out what Congress and the Administration intend to do."

Hemp’s popularity is growing—The Cannibis Tax Act proves Shikole Struber, OhMyGov, 7-11-08, “Marijuana may become legal in Oregon,” http://ohmygov.com/blogs/state_and_local/archive/2008/07/11/marijuana-may-become-legal-in-oregon.aspx The fight for medical marijuana has been long, arduous, and continues on despite the fact marijuana has been proven effective for battling the pain, nausea, vomiting and other symptoms caused by illnesses like multiple sclerosis, cancer and AIDS. But who needs medical marijuana when Oregon is going to have it available in liquor stores for anyone 21 and over? The Cannabis Tax Act would make cannabis (aka Mary Jane, marijuana, pot, grass) products legal and available in a retail environment in the state of Oregon for those old enough to purchase alcohol, which is also a drug for those unaware of it. Proponents of the Act claim that the state will have more control over the substance by taking it off the black market. It will, in theory, take it out of the hands of children. If you don't follow this rationale, go ask a few teenagers what is easier to buy, marijuana or alcohol. Advocates of the act - and presumably the product - also tout the potential tax revenue to be gleaned from sales of the green stuff, potentially stabilizing budget shortfalls from the rocky economy. And then there's the Oregon farmer, who will have another cash crop to grow as well - assuming they can part with it once grown.

285

THE FORT PLTX

HEMP POP- PUBLIC
Hemp products are growing in popularity—college campuses prove Newswise, 7-11-08, “Going 'Green' At College? St. Lawrence U Tells You How,” http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/542371/ But St. Lawrence University, in Canton, New York, offers an alternative – a green alternative. The University is a leader in the campus sustainability movement, and has developed a different kind of shopping list for new students, especially those interested in living an environmentally responsible lifestyle. The first thing suggested? Don't buy so much stuff. Students can start their eco-aware lives at college by sharing items with their roommates. Here’s more: The Green Shopping List • Only purchase ENERGY STAR logo TVs, DVD players, computers and microwaves because they use 10 to 50 percent less energy. • There are fewer options for compact refrigerators, so be sure you buy MicroFridge, Danby Millenium (DAR254, DAR482). • Of course, not having one of these products is even better -- most dorms have common area TVs and refrigerators • If you must buy one of these items, but don’t want to purchase an ENERGY STAR item, consider a used model. The production of new models adds to carbon emissions, too. • Mind the “phantom load” of computers, gaming systems, stereos, TVs, cell phones, cameras and iPod chargers that draw electricity even when turned off. Unplug them when not in use, or plug them all into a power strip and unplug the strip when not using them. • Flipping that switch off is probably the most important energy-saving measure you can take. • Buy only compact fluorescent light bulbs, which use 75 percent less energy and last 10 times longer than standard incandescent light bulbs. Make sure the desk lamp you bring with you uses the compact bulbs. • We love our cars, but a bike comes in handy around campus and for town use. St. Lawrence’s library loans out bikes, just like books. • Bring your own reusable mug/coffee cup. Some schools, like St. Lawrence, offer free refills on beverages, and help reduce disposable cup production. • Bring reusable bags to carry books, groceries and other items you buy. • Use organic fibers for your sheets, rugs and curtains produced without toxic chemicals. Hemp and bamboo fiber are becoming more popular. And many of the companies using organic fibers recycle and use fair labor practices. Washington D.C. recently obtained its first hemp store Annys Shin, WashingtonPost.com, 4-7-08, “D.C. Gets a (Perfectly Legal) Hemp Store,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR2008040601452.html Like most social change, the District's first all-hemp emporium arose from years of complaining. The chief complainer: Adam Eidinger, professional protester and erstwhile political candidate.His complaint: "We're the last major metropolitan area in the U.S. that doesn't have a hemp store." Determined to see Washington join places like New York, Boston and even Burlington, Vt., Eidinger decided to open his own store, Capitol Hemp.Until now, Eidinger has not been known as a businessman but as a spokesman for antiwar activists, stadium protesters, angry bicyclists and people who frequent natural-food stores. Capitol Hemp grew out of his work for Vote Hemp, a District-based group devoted to lifting restrictions on hemp farming. (Hemp is legal to import into the United States but cannot legally be grown here.) He found that a lot of people still confuse the industrial variety of cannabis with the recreational variety. By showcasing hemp clothing, shoes and food, Eidinger said he hopes to dispel misconceptions about hemp." Just because it's a maligned plant doesn't mean it's dangerous," he said.

286

THE FORT PLTX

HEMP POP- DEMS
MARIJUANA POPULAR WITH THE DEMS

The Boston Globe, 3-23-08, Lexis http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do? start=11&sort=RELEVANCE&format=GNBFI&risb=21_T4208125261
Representative Barney Frank News, Most Recent 60 Days said he plans to file a bill to legalize "small amounts" of marijuana. "I'm going to file a bill as soon as we go back to remove all federal penalties for the possession or use of small amounts of marijuana," Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said late Friday on the HBO show "Real Time," hosted by Bill Maher. Frank said he'd filed a similar bill in the Legislature in the 1970s, but hasn't tried since he was elected to Congress. "I finally got to the point where I think I can get away with it," he said. (AP)

287

THE FORT PLTX

HEMP POP- FARMERS
PLAN IS POPULAR – FARM LOBBY

Linda Clark, staff writer for the UKIAH DAILY. 16 Nov 1999 “THE HYPE OVER HEMP” http://www.lightparty.com/Economic/TimeToLegalizeHemp.html But all beauty aside, in the mid-western states, farmers are extremely interested in hemp. "Family farms are going bankrupt faster than ever before because agribusiness is taking over," said John Schaeffer, president of Real Goods Trading Corporation."Hemp gives them an alternative crop that saves them money because it doesn't need any chemicals to grow it." Schaeffer said in places like Germany and Canada, hemp is being used "more and more now" in the auto industry for interior parts. "Fiber glass, door panels, carpet and dashboards can all be replaced with hemp," he said. He noted that hemp is "cheaper, recyclable, weighs less, is non-toxic and is much more energy efficient." Schaeffer said they sell hemp products at Real Goods retail stores, including the one in Hopland, because they want to support the industry. "It's replacing hydrocarbons, which are polluting the atmosphere, with carbohydrates, which support family farming," he said. According to Roulac, "China was the first region in the world to cultivate and use hemp. The plant was used for making rope and fishnets as early as 4500 B.C." And today, he said, they are still "the world's largest consumer and exporter of hemp seed, paper, and textiles." As for the United States, there have been no permits given to grow hemp since the 1950s, Roulac said. But in time that will change, according to Schaeffer. "It's just a matter of a few years. I think it's insane that it's illegal," Schaeffer said. "And that America is the only country that's backward enough to equate hemp with marijuana." LEGALIZE IT

288

North Dakota love hemp David Goodner. energy revolution. including California.THE FORT PLTX HEMP POP. The North Dakota law requires a background check.dmregister. 289 . The approval of the Drug Enforcement Administration is also required. and a $200 fee to become a licensed grower. Montana. MONTANA AND ND California. North Dakota became the first state in the country to license industrial hemp farmers. Montana passed a similar law permitting industrial hemp farming dependent on federal approval. http://blogs.com/?p=3978] On January 1. In 2001. currently have hemp-related farming laws in effect. @Des Moines Register. Licensing farmers to grow hemp would be a boon to Iowa. ‘7 [January 14.CALI. At least 12 other states. according to the Missoula Independent. fingerprinting.

com/?p=3978] Many Iowans are now looking to Governor Culver and the Democratic majority in the state legislature for some bold new initiatives to light the way for the “21st Century Iowa Expedition”. Licensing farmers to grow hemp would be a boon to Iowa. @Des Moines Register. 290 . Licensing Iowa farmers to grow industrial hemp would be a real trailblazer. ‘7 [January 14. energy revolution. http://blogs.THE FORT PLTX HEMP= CULVER WIN Plan wins Culver David Goodner.dmregister.

newtimesslo.” http://www. “Why worry?. Although most prosecuted dispensary owners forgo jury trials and take pleas.com/cover/651/why-worry-/ Between 2005 and 2007. Gauardian. and the court time cost tax payers dearly. the media have deliberately and wildly exaggerated the dangers of "weed". the raids. 291 . Americans for Safe Access.uk. 7-20-08.drugsandalcohol Cannabis is a certainly a harmful drug that can cause dependency and exacerbates existing mental health problems. New Times. estimates that between 2005 and 2007 the DEA spent more than $10 million on dispensary raids in California alone. That doesn’t take into account the cost of investigations leading up to the busts.THE FORT PLTX HEMP UNPOP.co. a medical marijuana advocacy group. But since David Blunkett's pragmatic decision in 2004 to regularise drug laws with the existing police practice of issuing warnings. Both federal and local agencies are cracking down on marijuana use—California proves Kylie Mendoca. 7-25-08.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/20/drugspolicy.guardian. the investigations.” http://www. The figures used by the home secretary Jacqui Smith in May to justify "popular support" for a volte-face to class B concealed that 32% of the public support making it a class A drug alongside heroin and crack.PUBLIC The public is misinformed and afraid of hemp products—marijuana statistics prove Jeremy Bare. “This volte-face on cannabis is iniquitous and ignorant.co. The government has abandoned its reason and thrown its lot in with hysterical and largely ignorant commentators. there were about 60 DEA raids in California and about as many convictions in federal courts.

msu.S. make phone calls.S. but was finally allowed through. was shipping sterilized hemp seed across the Canadian-United States border. Newswire. http://www.S. The three member Arbitration committee will decide whether Kenex is entitled to 20 million dollars in compensation for the DEA’s attempt to ban hemp seed food (U. Information on these organizations can be found on the internet. Mississippi State University. Lobbying for this cause comes in the form of citizen involvement. is filing a North American Free Trade Agreement Notice of Arbitration with the U. 2002). Individuals have to attend legislative hearings. 292 . and be active in the pursuit of legalizing hemp. Costumes. write letters. State Department.pdf This political battle is fought in the legislative branch of both Federal and State government. Pressure for legalization is also coming from international sources. Grassroot organizations lead the battle for the pro-legalize advocates. These organizations are at a disadvantage because of lack of political power and lack of resources. The shipment was delayed for three days by U. Kenex Ltd. A Canadian company.THE FORT PLTX HEMP COST POL CAP PLAN DRAINS POLITICAL CAPITAL Daniel Stanaway. 2003.edu/greenpieces/2003/stanaway.. as this type of media is used very efficiently. Kenex Ltd.carrs.

“'Industrial' hemp support takes root”. USA Today. R-Texas. It says marijuana growers would be able to camouflage their crop with similarlooking hemp plants. ’05. 293 . and that DEA agents would have difficulty quickly telling the difference. U. Kentucky. but it hasn't advanced in the face of opposition by the Drug Enforcement Administration and the White House's anti-drug office. The DEA says allowing farmers to grow hemp in the USA would undermine the war on drugs. Ron Paul.S.THE FORT PLTX HEMP COST POL CAP Plan is extremely divisive – perceived as undermining the war on drugs Donna Leinwand. Montana and West Virginia also have passed hemp-farming bills. Maine. introduced such a bill in Congress in June. l/n Hawaii. Rep.

AGENCY Strong opposition from the Drug Enforcement Agency T. and the DEA remains adamantly opposed to cultivation of industrial hemp for the following reasons (Vantreese.? A Survey of the Literature” University of Wisconsin-Madison – Agricultural and Applied Economies – Staff Paper No.THE FORT PLTX HEMP UNPOP.edu/pubs/sps/pdf/stpap443. 294 . 7/01 (“Is Industrial Hemp Worth Further Study in the U.S. which has low THC content. 443 < http://www. It has been suggested that industrial hemp advocates have a hidden agenda of supporting the legalization of marijuana.wisc. 1998): It is very difficult to distinguish between industrial hemp. and marijuana. Industrial hemp remains classified as a Schedule I Controlled Substance under the Controlled Substances Act in the US.aae.pdf>) In addition to estimates of industrial hemp’s market potential and profitability. Randall Fortenbery and Michael Bennett. the Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) strong opposition to industrial hemp cultivation in the US is an important consideration regarding its commercial viability. Professors of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

The solicitation. When fully operational.S. success in producing inexpensive cellulosic ethanol could be a key to eliminating our nation’s addiction to oil. and perennial grasses in the production of transportation fuels. reduce America’s gasoline consumption by 20 percent in ten years. forest residues. and teaching us how we can produce it in a more cost effective manner. and other products.” Today’s announcement is one part of the Bush Administration’s comprehensive plan to support commercialization of scientific breakthroughs on biofuels. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. By relying on American ingenuity and on American farmers for fuel. such as agricultural waste. announced a year ago.htm>) U. which aims to increase the use of renewable and alternative fuels in the transportation sector to the equivalent of 35 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2017. was initially for three biorefineries and $160 million. trees. Section 932. “These biorefineries will play a critical role in helping to bring cellulosic ethanol to market.doe. in an effort to expedite the goals of President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative and help achieve the goals of his Twenty in Ten Initiative. the biorefineries are expected to produce more than 130 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year. “Ultimately. Funding for these projects is an integral part of the President’s Biofuels Initiative that will lead to the wide-scale use of non-food based biomass. within authority of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005).gov/news/4827. these projects directly support the goals of President Bush’s Twenty in Ten Initiative.BUSH Bush pushes and gets credit for the plan DOE 2/28/07 (“DOE Selects Six Cellulosic Ethanol Plants for Up to $385 Million in Federal Funding” Department of Energy < http://www. 295 . However. This production will help further President Bush’s goal of making cellulosic ethanol costcompetitive with gasoline by 2012 and.THE FORT PLTX HEMP POP. Secretary Bodman raised the funding ceiling.” Secretary Bodman said. Bodman today announced that DOE will invest up to $385 million for six biorefinery projects over the next four years. electricity. we will enhance our nation’s energy and economic security. along with increased automobile fuel efficiency. Specifically.

According to DuPont's own corporate records and historians. national director and founder of H.* these processes accounted for over 80 percent of all the company's railroad carloadings over the next 60 years into the 1990s. oil man and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon (37).THE FORT PLTX HEMP UNPOP. Hemp would destroy the synthetic market.Nov 2002. and in this country. Agriculture. former presidential candidate and internationally recognized Emperor of hemp. With increasing environmental concern. Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh. In order to ensure that the conventional pathway is complied with. along with the booming oil and timber businesses. big timber and big oil industries at the expense of the hemp plant. “The Political Hemp” The second influence in the prohibition of industrial hemp is Corporate America. February 1992 "The Emperor Wears No Clothes: Hemp and the Marijuana Conspiracy" In the mid-1930s. in 1937. Just a few years before the Marijuana Tax Act was passed.and virtually all other timber. and a variety of chemicals. DUPONT’S TERRIFIED OF THE HEMP THREAT—INITIAL CRIMINALIZATION PROVES Jack Herer. In an open marketplace. when the new mechanical hemp fiber stripping machines and machines to conserve hemp's high-cellulose pulp finally became state-of-the-art. Major supporters of the MTA included players that had influential roles in the government. Allowing the hemp industry to commence would be economically disastrous for many influential figures in Big Business. despite the Great Depression of the 1930s. plastics. These include rayon. as well as a new sulfate/sulfite process for making paper from wood pulp. 296 . graduate student in the Department of Community. But competing against environmentally-sane hemp paper and natural plastic technology would have jeopardized the lucrative financial schemes of Hearst. creating a niche for hemp once again. Regis .BUSINESS CORPORATIONS FEAR HEMP WHILE CONTROLLING CONGRESS Daniel Stanaway. hemp would have saved the majority of America's vital family farms and would probably have boosted their numbers. these special interest groups are continually under fire. Recreation and Resource Studies at Michigan State University.E. Corporate America gets what Corporate America wants. Corporate America.stood to lose billions of dollars and perhaps go bankrupt. has great influence in the policies of this country. Imagine the multi-billion dollar industry that has been created through big plastic.P.M.. 80 percent of DuPont's business would never have materialized and the great majority of the pollution which has poisoned our Northwestern and Southeastern rivers would not have occurred. petrochemical compounds that could substitute nature’s remedies. Coincidentally. Kimberly Clark (USA). so intricately tied to the United States government. Du Pont had created synthetic. DuPont had just patented processes for making plastics from oil and coal. the enormous timber acreage and businesses of the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division. available and affordable. It is in Big Business’ best interest for hemp to remain illegal. St. As Conrad (1994) states The promise that hemp held for the rest of the world was quickly perceived as a threat by a small core of powerful people in the elite special-interest oligarchy dominated by the Du Pont petrochemical company and its major financial backer and key political ally. Big Business “sponsors” political allies who in turn create a sort of a monopolistic market for products that are capable of being produced in more than one way. paper and large newspaper holding companies . nylon. If hemp had not been made illegal. That was sixty five years ago. DuPont and DuPont's chief financial backer.

THE FORT PLTX *************HYBRID CARS********* 297 .

htm.esmarts. * More women are attracted to the styling of an SUV. no date (“Spotlight: SUVs” http://www. * A full-size SUV can tow trailers. and sports gear. 298 .THE FORT PLTX SUVS POP. which looks “cooler” than a mini-van while still allowing them to transport a lot of kids.com. groceries. and boats. * The external size of an SUV makes driver feel safer on the road than in a small sedan or other type of passenger car.PUBLIC SUVS ARE WIDELY POPULAR Esmarts.com/cars/suv/suv. RVs. accessed 7-18-8) Why are SUVs so Popular? An SUV is popular for many reasons: * Large cabins and higher ride height create additional comfort and safety.

org/cm/document_handler. there are a couple of bills that place a windfall profits tax on oil companies.000 vehicle cap on the tax credit.000 for purchasing a vehicle that gets over 30 miles per gallon. Jack Kingston (R-GA). Shays’s bill (H. Majorities of voters in both parties would like to see auto manufacturers create cars that use less fuel and produce less pollution.hallnj.THE FORT PLTX HYBRID CARS BIPART Lobbying and public support has fueled bipartisan support in Congress for hybrid cars Whitman. or provide an incentive to manufacturers to retool existing plants to produce efficient vehicles that use new technologies. including hybrids.R. Hall Institue of Public Policy. recently signed into law by President Bush. Other bills include Representative Jim Gerlach’s (R-PA) oil savings bill that would provide incentives to manufacturers to produce efficient vehicles. and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to moderate to liberal members such as Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Elliot Engel (D-NY). there are several other bills that would either remove the unproductive 60. as these bills have drawn together a diverse collection of supporters. http://www. received strong bipartisan support in the Congress. 4409) and the Senate version (S. 4384) also provides incentives to businesses and consumers to use natural gas and electricity more efficiently. The policy was so forwardlooking and logical that it even received the enthusiastic support of the environmental lobby and the auto industry. Representative Chris Shays (R-CT) introduced a comprehensive bill that would provide incentives to manufacturers to produce advanced technology vehicles. and use that revenue to either encourage manufacturers or consumers to produce more efficient automobiles. and let you know if any of these look likely to move. “Hybrids on the Hill – 2006 Legislative Look” 1-192006. from conservatives like Sam Brownback (R-KS). As such. Finally. They’re popular. Rep. With all of these bills it’s important to focus on the details to make sure that any federal dollars spent will actually encourage advanced technology AND decrease overall oil usage.jsp?dId=1000156) // DCM With gasoline prices at record highs. Both the House bill (H. while Representative Pallone’s (D-NJ) bill would provide a tax credit to consumers of $1. at least in concept. but there is still no guarantee that the entire oil savings goals would actually be met. which is not an easy thing to accomplish. but it’s still too early to tell if any of these bills will become law in the near future. Senator Richard Durbin’s (D-IL) bill would focus on automobile manufacturers and suppliers. and remove the cap on the hybrid tax credits.2045 and H.html) // DCM <So I thought I’d give you a bit of an inside look at what’s happening on Capitol Hill. In addition to Congressman Rahm Emanuel’s (D-IL) domestic hybrid tax credit expansion bill Scott mentioned earlier. a management consulting/strategic planning partnership servicing both government and business clients. 4370. including hybrids. Senator Barak Obama (D-IL) and Congressman Jay Inslee (DWA) also introduced bills (S. “Open Dialogue on Environment Key to Improving Faith in Government” 6-27-06 http://www. 6 – President of the Whitman Strategy Group.R.> 299 .org/best-of-the-blog/best-blog-consumer-2006-legislative-look. There is increased bipartisan interest in Congress to encourage hybrid technology Hopson. Americans have a renewed interest in the development of more fuel-efficient cars. We’ll keep delving into the minutiae.R. Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for President Bush. This newly formed collaboration on both sides of the aisle is a sign of increasing support for reducing our use of petroleum and increasing advanced technology vehicle availability through a variety of policy approaches.hybridcenter. there’s a lot of interest in Congress in trying to address oil usage and encourage hybrid technology (if you want to look at the specific text of any/all of these bills you can head to the Thomas website). 50th Governor of the State of New Jersey (Christine. 6 – Washington Representative for Union of Concerned Scientists’ Clean Vehicles Program (Eli. 2025) include several provisions that would help reduce oil usage for certain vehicles. So as you can see. Two of these are comprehensive oil savings bills that set oil savings targets for federal agencies to meet. and require that the improvements to the overall vehicle fleet are over and above existing fuel economy requirements. and to increase there use of renewables. respectively) that would assist manufacturers with increasingly burdensome health care costs in exchange for the manufacturers’ agreement to produce advanced vehicles. the tax credits for hybrid cars.

http://www.ENVIRO & AUTO LOBBIES Automakers and environmental groups back tax incentives for fuel-efficient vehicles San Francisco Chronicle 01 [“Automakers. the environmental community and alternative fuel groups support the [CLEAR Act] proposed legislation.ngvc.org/ngv/ngvc. Toyota Motor Corp.nsf/bytitle/clearact2003summary.html] bg A broad and diverse group that includes representatives from automobile manufacturers. 300 . and Honda Motor Co. along with the Union of Concerned Scientists. Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups.com/cgi-bin/article.THE FORT PLTX HYBRID CARS POP.” http://www.” Apr 24. Auto and environmental lobbies back the CLEAR Act Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition 03 [“The CLEAR ACT: Clean Efficient Automobiles Resulting from Advanced Car Technologies..sfgate.DTL] bg Several major automakers and environmental groups have joined forces for the first time to support tax credits to promote cleaner vehicles and reduce fuel consumption.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/04/24/national1643EDT0692. announced support Tuesday for legislation offering credits to people who buy cleaner motor vehicles. environmentalists agree on clean vehicle tax credits.. Ford Motor Co.

says he will "dramatically increase the fuel efficiency of new vehicles. Democrat Barack Obama proposed increasing the average to 40.Com. Fuel efficient standards are emerging as a major political topic. The Democrats big win was a major bolster to green cars and alternative fuels. who defeated Pombo in California.6 mpg for the light-truck category. according to a new study by the Consumer Federation of America.5 mpg for passenger vehicles and 32. Jerry McNerney.THE FORT PLTX HYBRID CARS POP.DEMS Democratic support for green cars and alternative fuels Fezziwig.com/node/23006) // DCM <Americans demonstrated their dissapointment over middle eastern energy dependence on fossil fuels and rising gas prices with a resounding defeat of Bush’s energy policies. Democrat Edward Markey has proposed raising combined light truck-car standards to an average of 33 miles per gallon by 2016 models. Fuel-efficiency has declined during the past decade for nine of the 13 major manufacturers selling vehicles in the United States. These concerns are inextricably linked to hybrid cars and cleaner alternative fuels. 6 – Administrator for GreenCarsNow. a website promoting fuel efficient cars and cleaner alternative energy (“Democrats Good for Hybrid Cars” 1119-06 http://www.hybridcars. by 2020."> 301 . which includes SUVs.

THE FORT PLTX ***************HYDROPOWER************* 302 .

As the nation’s largest renewable energy. 303 .” The hydropower vote came during debate of H. “Congress overwhelmingly supports hydropower as renewable. In his speech on the floor.CONGRESS Congress loves hydropower: 402-9 House vote proves NHA. the House sent a clear message of support for the nation's hydropower resources when it voted to reaffirm its recognition of hydropower as a renewable energy resource.renewableenergyworld. Hydroelectric energy. National Security. 7 – (National Hydropower Association. today. NHA’s Executive Director. http://www. Sali reminded colleagues that hydropower is a clean.” said Linda Church Ciocci. Sali reminded colleagues that hydropower is a clean.and small-scale conventional hydropower technologies. is a vital component of the nation’s energy portfolio.R 3321. hydropower is one of the key tools in combating climate change. along with the many benefits it provides. the New Direction for Energy Independence. renewable.THE FORT PLTX HYDROPOWER POP. today. domestic source of energy—one that provides the largest amount of renewable energy generation in the U. “This recognition is well-deserved.S. renewable.com/rea/partner/story?id=49602) // THK In a stunning 402-9 vote. “NHA is extremely pleased with the House vote. and NHA is gratified by the tremendous show of support.S.” 8-8-2007. on an amendment offered by Representative William Sali (R-ID) seeking support for both large. domestic source of energy—one that provides the largest amount of renewable energy generation in the U. and Consumer Protection Act. In his speech on the floor.

can be done without damage to the environment." Boehner said.to the current $4.” 6-9-2008) // THK <"House Republicans have put forth a comprehensive plan to help lower gas prices by harnessing new technologies and unlocking America's natural energy resources in an environmentally responsible way. on her official Web site.00 a gallon.com Senior Editor – 8 (Susan. Republicans also are promoting "advanced" nuclear power and next-generation coal as well as renewable energy from wind and hydroelectric power. She should not wait another day to do so.33 a gallon on January 4.REPS Republicans want to lower gas prices and relieve foreign oil dependence by investing in hydropower. notes that gasoline prices have "more than doubled since President Bush took office. (But Pelosi. Jones – CNSNews. 2007 -the first day of the Democratic Majority -.> 304 .S.") Republicans say they are committed to boosting supplies of all forms of energy "right here at home" to reduce America's dependence on foreign sources of oil." Republicans are reminding the American people average gas prices under the Democrat-controlled Congress have risen from $2. “Rupublicans Blame Democrats for ‘A Nation of $$ Gasoline’.THE FORT PLTX HYDROPOWER POP. They insist oil drilling in the U. "Every American has a right to ask: What will it take for the Democrat-controlled Congress to finally take action and help ease the pain of the Pelosi Premium on behalf of struggling families and small businesses? Speaker Pelosi has the power to schedule a vote on our plan to begin breaking America's costly dependence on foreign sources of energy.

Americans avoided around 160 million tons of carbon emissions by using hydropower. Freshman Idaho Congressman's Proposal Approved Overwhelmingly by House of Representatives. 7 ( Wayne Hoffman. 8-4-2007. "Hydropower for America means no greenhouse gas emissions. pollution free large and small scale hydropower. Sali's amendment to a House Democrat energy bill calls for the development of clean. More than 60 percent of power in the Pacific Northwest comes from hydropower. The House voted 402-9 in favor of Sali's proposal.THE FORT PLTX HYDROPOWER BIPART Hydropower has bipartisan support: House vote proves Hoffman."If we are going to discuss renewable energy. it does nothing to encourage development of new energy sources. Without Sali's amendment.shtml? DocumentID=70957” // THK Congressman Bill Sali won overwhelming bipartisan approval in U.gov/News/DocumentSingledf36. the legislation made no reference to hydropower. House of Representatives for a proposal in support of hydropower as America looks for new sources of energy. then we need to include hydropower. The vote took came in a rare Saturday session as the House finished business ahead of the August recess." It is estimated that last year. although Sali voted against the total bill because." Sali told the Congress.” http://sali. Hydropower offsets more carbon emissions than all other renewable energy resources combined. consistent.house.S. Sali's amendment is now part of the energy bill that cleared the House. “Sali Gets Congress to Support Hydropower. 305 . apart from his amendment.

until Congress signs a bill with final budget numbers. and decimates building code efficiency programs -. one would think members of Congress would be pressing hard to expand these programs. What Congress will do when it reconvenes November 14th is anyone's guess. One of these ten bills.State Energy Program (30% decrease) -. "Because Congress increased funding for defense. some programs will be forced to operate as if their budgets have been terminated or reduced until Congress can finish its business." said Ken Bossong. When Congress adjourned." If Congress doesn't pass all the remaining appropriations bills before adjourning for the holidays." she said. as the case may be -. -. this time it may be extended for six months or more.> leadership is in total gridlock -.bills that approve funding for federal agencies -." said Senator Kent 306 . it's hard to imagine how lawmakers will complete the many unfinished appropriations bills before the end of the year. the current CR budget numbers are being used to plan for 2007 and 2008. 2006. and the need for more renewable energy. depleting oil reserves. As Congress Daily reported. According to insiders at DOE.Federal Energy Management (12% decrease) -. Senate Democrats blasted the Republican leadership for failing to adopt a fiscal 2007 budget resolution or complete 10 out of 12 appropriations bills. if either House has cut a program.Electricity R&D (22% decrease) Inaction Spells Continuing Confusion for Renewable Energy Without federal investment in research and demonstration projects. That CR would likely extend through January or February. 10-23-2006. "This Republican Conrad (D-ND). the geothermal industry believes DOE research support is critical to achieving future potential. It looked like a Conference agreement could maintain or expand many renewable and efficiency programs. Then the House and Senate each review the recommendations and vote on funding proposals for the agency programs. geothermal receives only $5 million in 2007." Lewis and Cochran wrote in a letter Monday to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN). if not impossible.S. "We are tapping only one or two percent of the U. Even if Congress can sort through the bills. Therefore. after the elections. Similarly. A CR allows federal agencies and programs to operate.Vehicle Technologies (5% decrease) -.Geothermal (78% decrease) -. Yet for the past several months it looked like the tides were turning. the House recommended restoring $5 million. so that leaves four days in which ten bills must be passed. new technologies will not reach their full potential. Executive Director of the National Hydropower Association. A number of worthwhile programs are being terminated or reduced under the CR. That is highly unlikely. however. “Congressional Inaction Causes Renewable Energy Programs to Suffer.were not completed before Congress adjourned. Executive Director of the Geothermal Energy Association. Instead. numerous renewable energy and energy efficiency programs have had their budgets cut. some are skeptical about how the '07 appropriations numbers will finally turn out. Under the CR. Coordinator of the Sustainable Energy Coalition and Director of the Sun Day Campaign. "We've heard a lot about carbon taxes and auto fuel efficiency legislation -. it left without finishing the business of funding national energy programs. "It is our belief that omnibus legislation that bypasses the regular order is not in the best interests of the Congress. Building Technology and Biomass programs have both received more funding. but that now face cuts compared with FY '06 levels under the terms of the CR. and Administration recommendations. or ultimately the taxpayer. a national network of grassroots organizations promoting renewable energy technologies and improved energy efficiency.renewableenergyworld. Take the Geothermal DOE Program. They work out their differences by producing a Conference Report that takes into consideration the House.two directives that could make a real difference -. said Linda Church Ciocci. As Congress adjourned. But these programs have only short-term budgets. This Conference Report sets final funding amounts that. If Congress cannot complete action on the appropriations bills in the twelve months of this year. House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) and Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran (R-MS) sent a written appeal to GOP leaders to avoid bundling together unfinished FY 2007 spending bills into a collective package after the elections.or inaction. Programs that have had funding partially or fully restored by the House or Senate. program cuts that will have a devastating impact on federal renewable energy efforts. good through November 17. bills that have not passed must start at the beginning of the legislative process. the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. Many factors make the passage of an appropriations bill uncertain. some say that another CR might be passed. the Appropriations Committee leadership took a strong stand against pulling together the unfinished bills into one "omnibus" measure.but we've seen no Congressional action. usually in January.Alyssa Kagel With Congress planning to return for only a few days in November. Kagel . Congress won't return until November 14. it is reduced to the lowest funding level -. are sent to the President to become law. which leaves hydropower research at zero.CONGRESS Congress hates funding hydropower: they slashed 100% of funding when they passed the Continuing Resolution. The CR could wipe out any gains made.Clean Cities (19% decrease) -. it put in place a stop-gap bill called a Continuing Resolution (CR). Significant Cuts in the Continuing Resolution (CR) The appropriations process starts when the administration releases its budget recommendations. allows federal agencies and programs to operate at the lower of the two funding levels set by the House and Senate. While the President's budget proposed some renewable program increases. non-polluting technologies to the market at a time when our nation needs greater diversity and more home grown energy. a great deal of money could be taken out of important domestic spending programs." Bossong said.Industries of the Future (30% decrease) -.This has been on the minds of many agency officials.nor has a Conference Report been produced for the nine other bills whose programs remain suspended in uncertainty under the Continuing Resolution (CR). When Congress adjourns. slashes geothermal research 80%. and the Senate recommended nearly full restoration. Director of Policy at the Alliance to Save Energy.com/rea/news/story?id=46308) // THK <When Congress left town to stand for re-election. That could cause chaos in the next Congress.the one that includes the Department of Energy's (DOE) programs -." said Karl Gawell. The Solar. So. Congress hasn't even begun to produce a Conference Report for the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill -. When ten of twelve annually required appropriations bills -. it also included some serious renewable and efficiency program cuts. This year's CR." said Kara Rinaldi. "We're worried our programs will get hit hard in conference. While the CR is usually a short-term stopgap measure. Some received temporary increases.which could be zero. "Cutting hydropower funding within the DOE is extremely short-sighted when there is so much to be gained in bringing these clean. Considering the growing public awareness about climate change. In the meantime. particularly the geothermal and hydropower research programs. But Congress never finished most of the regular appropriations bills.Weatherization Assistance Program (16% decrease) -.to name just a few of the federal energy programs left by the wayside.refusing to act. refusing to compromise. But not this year's CR. "Not so. Senate. the CR was passed to cover the gap. and now the CR is changing that forward momentum. contains funding for all renewable energy and energy efficiency programs at DOE. The House and Senate each restored some of the programmatic budget cuts proposed by the Administration. include: Renewable Energy Programs: -. 2006. geothermal resource base.will decide the fate of many critical energy programs.” http://www. once approved by the House and Senate. reduces Electricity R&D funding by nearly a quarter. Not all programs were cut. usually based upon historic funding levels.THE FORT PLTX HYDROPOWER UNPOP. for example: funded at $ 24 million last year. as planning for the FY 2008 budget is already well underway and funding decisions for FY 2007 still have not been made. and refusing to govern.works for the Geothermal Energy Association – 6 (Alyssa. Congressional action -. the Administration recommended terminating the program. But this year. it is unlikely that new leadership will be able to pass them in a matter of weeks. making long-term program planning nearly impossible.Hydropower (100% decrease) Efficiency Programs: -.Industrial Technologies (16% decrease) -.

THE FORT PLTX ************HYDROGEN*********** 307 .

“Congress Considers Hydrogen Prize House OKs program to reward researchers who find ways to end fossil-fuel dependence” 05-11-2006. Prizes of $1 million or $4 million would be awarded every two years for lesser technical advances or prototypes of vehicles. Some of Inglis' fellow GOP conservatives questioned why Congress should offer multimillion-dollar prizes at all. the money for the prizes will have to be appropriated separately later in Congress. when the stock market and the economy took off. "because I believe the reinvention of the car can do the same thing as the tech boom'' of the late 1990s.house. R-N.pdf”) // DCM A group of congressmen think they know the right recipe for getting America started down the hydrogen highway to a new energy epoch -take a helping of good-old American know-how and throw in the lure of millions of dollars. and do it again within two weeks.THE FORT PLTX HYDROGEN BIPART There is bipartisan support for incentives in hydrogen innovation – House vote proves Epstein. The grand prize. "Prizes make sense. The congressional sponsors also hope to hook up the grand prize winners with private financiers armed with millions of dollars to commercially exploit the winning idea. He said a prize competition inspires people.. The bill directs the energy secretary to contract with a private foundation to create criteria for the prizes and administer the contest. to be awarded within the next 10 years. Charles Lindbergh flew nonstop from New York to Paris in 1927 to win the $25. "This is an exciting opportunity to do for hydrogen what the X Prize did for spaceflight. Inglis initially wanted a much more generous prize of $100 million. the Science Committee's chairman. The rail companies got a subsidy for every mile of rail they laid. the bill's main sponsor.'' said Rep. Dan Lipinski. SFC. They incentivize people. "Perhaps one day we'll look back on this day as the day that led to a cleaner. Besides.. public and private. have helped develop other technologies.'' said Eggert. 6 – Chronicle Washington Bureau (Edward. Previous prizes.000 Orteig Prize. Congress and President Abraham Lincoln made railroad companies an audacious offer to create a transcontinental railroad. "We can do it now..'' Inglis said.. with one member voting present. which President Bush has made a centerpiece of long-range energy research. And it is also separate from Gov. Bob Inglis. but negotiations in the House Science Committee whittled away the amount. . the government won't spend the money. would go for creating a "transformational technology'' that brings hydrogen fuel or hydrogen vehicles or the infrastructure to distribute hydrogen fuel closer to reality. one of the prize competition's creators. The proposed prize money is separate from government-awarded research funds for creating hydrogen vehicles. "This is actually fiscally conservative.'' said Rep. which was won in October 2004 by a group that managed to privately build and fly a space vehicle that could carry three people to an altitude of about 66 miles. On Wednesday. return to Earth. always a tricky process.C. along with land grants along the right of way. including non-Americans. provided their work for the contest is done separately from their federally funded work. more secure America. Researchers who receive federal grants are eligible. a $50 million program of awards for researchers who come up with breakthrough technologies that will free America from the polluting fossil fuels used in motor vehicles. "People develop a passion to achieve the goal of winning a competition. The result is the H-Prize. if nobody is awarded the prizes. D-Ill. the House voted 416-6. "because we did it before.. http://inglis. Even if the legislation becomes law. Inglis was referring to the $10 million Ansari X Prize. 308 . Sherwood Boehlert. The Senate version of the legislation is due to be introduced today. By 1869. who so far have produced prototype hydrogen vehicles that cost almost $2 million. But Inglis said he pointed out that the money will be awarded only if researchers reach the goals set by the judges. You get much greater leverage than from just funding research. Inglis also said the prize program is designed to get people involved who have never received government research grants and to encourage teams of researchers across disciplines to work together on problems that have defied solution by hydrogen researchers. even though any dividends from hydrogen breakthroughs would be years away. R-S.'' House Republican leaders cited the legislation as proof they are serious about addressing high gasoline prices. and for the money. to create the program. flooding the federal government's coffers with tax receipts. Inglis said. Team members give more when the opportunity for recognition is greater. "Each team believes it can win.'' he said. they had finished the monumental task.'' The competition is open to anyone. Arnold Schwarzenegger's efforts to develop 200 hydrogen fueling stations for what he hopes will be mass-produced hydrogen vehicles. which features a $10 million grand prize. And in the 1860s. One hydrogen researcher who agrees is Anthony Eggert of UC Davis' Hydrogen Pathways Program.gov/sections/news/pdf_news_coverage/SFC_05_11_06.Y.'' said Rep. which had been offered since 1919 for the first pilot to pull off the feat. providing their research for the competition is done in this country.

Bush wants to double federal research money to develop hydrogen.com/article-print-6134. Bush said Thursday he considered his $1. in his State of the Union address.html) // DCM <After drawing attention to the potentials of hydrogen. at White House request. proposed some initiatives. And we can say we did our duty (and) .theblackvault.BUSH Bush already extremely supportive of hydrogen initiatives – budget proposal proves CNN.THE FORT PLTX HYDROGEN POP. but our grandkids will. "I don't know if you or I are going to be driving one of these cars." the president told hydrogen and auto industry leaders who had come to Washington.. 2003 http://www.5 billion hydrogen development plan a legacy for future generations and key to the nation's energy security. which can power everything from cars to cell phones. map out a fuel distribution system and help auto companies overcome some of the remaining barriers to making affordable cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells.. > 309 . 3 (“Bush Hydrogen Initative Fuels Debate” February 9. to show off their latest technology.

In February 2003. More than three years after he announced the Initiative.19525. Capitol Hill Hearing Testimony” Lexis. 310 . allowing for commercialization by 2020.filter. 7/16/06 “Implementation of the Energy Policy Act. with international and private-sector partners.org/publications/pubID.7 billion over the next 5 years to develop hydrogen-powered fuel cells. Tomorrow. CQ Congressional Testimony. Associate at the American Enterprise Institute. we are holding a ministerial meeting of the International Partnership for a Hydrogen Economy here in Washingon that will include thirteen other nations and the European Commission. a $1 billion.aei.asp The President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and the FreedomCAR Partnership launched last year will provide $1. Paula Dobriansky. President Bush announced that the United States would sponsor. zero-emissions electricity and hydrogen power plant called FutureGen. and advanced automobile technologies. 11/26/03 http://www. BUSH TRIPLED GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON HYDROGEN. a hydrogen infrastructure. and it directly supports the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative goal to help break our Nation’s dependence on foreign energy sources and our addiction to oil. the President’s commitment to hydrogen continues to be strong: the $289 million request before Congress reflects a tripling of the budget compared to pre-Initative levels. This project is designed to reduce dramatically air pollution and capture and store greenhouse gas emissions.BUSH BUSH SUPPORTS HYDROGEN – PAST INITIATIVES PROVE.THE FORT PLTX HYDROGEN POP. 10-year demonstration project to create the world’s first coal-based.economic/pub_detail.

the New Direction for Energy Independence. The House has voted to cut oil firms’ tax breaks and invest proceeds in renewable fuels. As set forth in H. These funding levels were previously approved in legislation passed by the House Committee on Science and Technology. Lipinski Calls for Continued Federal Support for Alternative Energy” Lexis. Bush proposal: Spending would remain steady at $23 billion. 2007. CONGRESS SUPPORTS BUSH’S HYDROGEN INITIATIVES USA Today. ethanol. Ed Markey. 8/6/07.3 billion towards research and development of hydrogen. National Security and Consumer Protection Act.R. 2/6/07. The budget aims for breakthroughs in clean technology such as biomass. solar.CONGRESS THERE IS OVERWHELMING CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT FOR HYDROGEN FUNDING US Fed News. geothermal. 632. and was included in the comprehensive energy bill passed by the House this past weekend. Specifically. Earlier this year Rep. bioenergy. federal funding levels for alternative energy programs will dramatically increase starting in Fiscal Year 2008. 3221. “Rep.R. “Requests may get mixed reception” Lexis. 3221. The major focus is on reducing dependence on foreign oil Bush seeks to reduce US consumption of gasoline by 20% in 10 years.R. This bill passed the House of Representative by a vote of 408-8 on June 6. Outlook in Congress: Congress shares the goals. The Senate is likely to follow. and their only emission is water vapor. especially for hydrogen. the H-Prize Act of 2007 which establishes $50 million in cash prizes for advances in hydrogen energy technology. Lipinski introduced H. Hydrogen vehicles have the same capabilities as fossil fuel-powered vehicles. but Rep. D-Mass. and hydro energy. Vice Chairman Lipinski has been a leader in Congress in promoting alternative energy research. 311 . H. hydrogen and solar energy.THE FORT PLTX HYDROGEN POP. and other Democrats say Bush doesn’t invest enough in alternative fuels. this legislation includes $2.

Barack Obama. 312 .com/blog2/index. he reverted to his antiethanol position.5 million vehicles annually by 2020. OnTheIssues.000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. he described ethanol as a "vital alternative energy source.org.ontheissues. Hydro Kevin. this vote would pass an amendment that would call for the Department of Energy to set targets and timelines to maintain the production of 100. Part of S 14 Energy Omnibus bill.php/political-issues/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-and-john-mccain-onhydrogen/ [Mills] In December 2007. outside of California. 865. The bill would require the Energy secretary to submit a yearly progress report to Congress. To require that the hydrogen commercialization plan of the Department of Energy include a description of activities to support certain hydrogen technology deployment goals. and 2. Like Hillary.000 HYDROGEN VEHICLES BY 2010. not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse reduction effects. McCain said that ethanol "does nothing to reduce fuel consumption.hydrogencarsnow. nothing to increase our energy independence. Dorgan Amdt." Yesterday. John McCain also voted yes on 100. South Carolina right now is a hotbed of hydrogen research and development.THE FORT PLTX HYDROGEN POP.org/2008/John_McCain_Energy_+_Oil.000 hydrogen cars by 2010. MCCAIN VOTED TO PRODUCE 100. list of stance on various issues for each political leader.000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. in Massachusetts. 3/31/08 “John McCain on Energy & Oil” http://www.MCCAIN MCCAIN SUPPORTS HYDROGEN – VOTING RECORD. and John McCain on Hydrogen” http://www. technical writer and publisher of Hydrogen Cars Now. It also would call for the department to set targets for the sale of hydrogen at fueling stations. Voted YES on targeting 100. nothing to improve air quality. No." Campaigning in Iowa in August 2006. As I’ve stated before. John McCain took a trip to South Carolina and proposed hydrogen and nuclear power as alternatives going forward. 3/14/08 “Hillary Clinton.htm [Mills] In 2003.

hydro.com/blog2/index. geothermal. Obama said hydrogen research would be included in the $150 billion he proposed for research and development.fuelcellsworks. hydrogen…all of them have great potential.THE FORT PLTX HYDROGEN POP. and John McCain on Hydrogen” http://www. technical writer and publisher of Hydrogen Cars Now. Barack Obama mentioned that hydrogen R&D would be part of a broader $150 billion research and development package he was proposing about alternative energy. Barack Obama. “So far we don’t have a magic bullet when it comes to energy – solar.hydrogencarsnow. Obama announced a plan that includes implementing a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gases: investing $150 billion over the next decade to develop new energy sources and create new jobs.html [Mills] Though he failed to mention it during a major energy policy speech Monday. Giving an address in Portsmouth. improving energy efficiency by 2030. 10/11/07 “Obama: ‘Hydrogen Holds Promise” as Energy Source” republished by Fuel Cell Works” http://www. On the official Barack Obama Senate site. N. OBAMA BELIEVES HYDROGEN HOLDS PROMISE AND WANTS TO EXPAND INVESTMENT. it mentions that the Illinois Senator along with Congressman Rahm Emanuel helped establish the first ethanol-to-hydrogen fueling station in the Chicago area.. presidential hopeful Barack Obama said “hydrogen holds promise” in the future of alternative fuels. Hydro Kevin.H. 3/14/08 “Hillary Clinton. but there have been various technological limits. and hydrogen certainly would be included in that mix.” 313 . staff reporter for the Herald Journal. “That’s part of the reason we want to make sure we’re spurring the kind of investment and innovation and experimentation throughout the economy on all fronts.” Obama said.EMPIRICALLY PROVEN. Jason Spencer.com/Supppage7954.php/political-issues/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-and-john-mccain-onhydrogen/ [Mills] In October 2007. In a conference call afterward with reporters from early voting states. and reducing the United States’ dependence on foreign oil 35 percent by 2030. wind.OBAMA OBAMA SUPPORTS HYDROGEN.

People want a way out of oil dependency—they want hydrogen cars The Gazette.com/opinion/oil_38253___article. Department of Energy's hydrogen program.html/drilling_prices. smell or price volatility of gasoline. 7-15-08. Associated Press. even though it has helped the United States thrive for the past century. 2008 (Daisy.html Maybe some politicians and extreme environmental activists don't want abundant oil.” http://www. "It was only a few years ago that this was just a concept. a developing network of fueling stations to promote commercialization of hydrogen-powered cars. “WE CAN DRILL OUR WAY OUT.THE FORT PLTX HYDROGEN CARS POP. “Hydrogen Fuel Station Opens in LA”. and something not linked to productivity and transportation powered by crude. supporters hope the station will show the public that hydrogen can become a mainstream. now you can see it. said at the opening ceremony. Perhaps a few citizens view American abundance as an entitlement. Nobody much cares for the sight. 314 . or a car that runs on hydrogen or the sun." Fred Joseck. California officials see it as part of the Hydrogen Highway. July 3) Although there are few hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicles on the road. eco-friendly alternative to petroleum. But it's likely we'll remain dependent on oil for decades to come. Most Americans long for the day they can drive an electric car that really works. Maybe they're so convinced of a need to protect the environment that no cost to the United States could be too high. touch it and feel it.PUBLIC AMERICAN PUBLIC INCREASINGLY SUPPORTS HYDROGEN POWERED VEHICLES Nguyen.gazette. technology analyst of the U.S.

and earlier this year President Bush boosted hydrogen's public profile when he lent the cause his bully pulpit and promised federal budgetary support to these "pollution free" cars. technocratic cure for the country's overdependence on foreign oil and environmental problems. 315 . A USA Today /Gallup poll. while just 48 percent supported increased use of nuclear power and 38 percent supported drilling in the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We still want to believe that we can tap solar panels.PUBLIC Hydrogen is high profile and overwhelmingly popular Salon.THE FORT PLTX HYDROGEN CARS POP. Cars that run on electricity generated from hydrogen fuel are a dream that easily draws bipartisan support: a futuristic.com. windmills and fuel cells for our ever-growing energy appetite. for instance. found 91 percent support for increased investment in these alternative energy sources. 90% of public supports fuel cell incentives But as the pollsters discovered. Americans aren't quite ready to embrace Cheney's no-nonsense prescription. ’03 (2/23) Hydrogen fuel-cell cars have long been popular with environmentalists eager to escape fossil fuel nastiness.

THE FORT PLTX **************LCFS************* 316 .

Obama also called on U. Obama said. "And we know there are fuels available that emit less carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere. "We know that transportation fuels account for a third of America's global warming pollution.Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed a federal low-carbon fuel standard patterned on California's ambitious goals. June 12. Obama's low-carbon fuel standard would rely on "the market" to decide which fuels would be used by distributors and blenders.reuters. Arnold Schwarzenegger who earlier this year proposed cutting carbon emissions in auto and truck fuels by 5 percent by 2015 and 10 percent by 2020. fuels like biodiesel and ethanol. Such a standard would spur business to develop more flexible-fuel vehicles that can run on ethanol and gasoline as well as help foster growth of plug-in hybrid vehicles. Republican presidential . Reuters 07 ("Barack Obama endorses low carbon fuel standard" Reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1229186820070613) LOS ANGELES (Reuters) .THE FORT PLTX LCFS BIPART/BOTH CANIDATES Obama and McCain both support LCFS. to say they wanted to expand the California proposals nationwide. http://www. automakers to double gas mileage of cars and trucks over the next two decades. John McCain and Schwarzenegger appeared together in Long Beach. In February." the Illinois Senator said at a press event at a Brentwood gasoline station in Los Angeles.S. candidate Arizona Sen 317 . 2007. Obama assumed the stance of California Gov. California." Schwarzenegger signed a groundbreaking executive order in January mandating the carbon dioxide cuts in fuels.

and provide a sustainable means to combat global warming.renewableenergyworld. revitalize our agricultural sector.com/rea/news/story?id=48427. May 9 ) "Expanding the renewable fuels market in the United States will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Renewable Energy Access. The National Low Carbon Fuel Standard Act of 2007 introduced by Obama and Harkin on Monday is just one in a growing list of similar bipartisan legislation. A homegrown solution to the international climate crisis lies in America's fields and farms. 318 . 2007 (“Obama introduces national low-carbon fuel standard” http://www.THE FORT PLTX LCFS BIPART LCFS has bipartisan support." said Senator Obama.

However. June 06. said Matt Price. Although he stressed that his group is nonpartisan and makes no endorsement of candidates. presidential election in November.BOTH CANIDATES No matter who wins the presidential election – a LCFS will be adopted.com/news/canada/story. "Regardless of whoever wins in November. there will be a major shift in the status quo. 319 .nationalpost..S. Price noted that Republican contender John McCain has also expressed concerns over global warming and America's dependence on fossil fuels. no question. "No matter who wins the U. the energy is back on the political radar in a way that it hasn't been in a long time. there's a stronger chance the American government will adopt a "low-carbon fuel standard" that could penalize Canadian oilsands exports to the U. the Alberta-British Columbia project manager for Environmental Defence Canada. The National Post.S. "You could see this come to pass no matter who wins the White House.THE FORT PLTX LCFS POP. "He's introduced into the Senate basically what Arnold (Schwarzenegger) has proposed in California. “Canadian oil sure to be American election issue” http://www. The debate is going to be very real and Canada is going to be a part of it. 2008 (Shaun Polczer." he said.html?id=569322) "With high oil prices." he said. Price admitted that environmental groups feel a particular affinity for Obama to champion environmental causes.

Representative Dennis Hastert. 320 . encourage biofuels development and correct problems in the Energy Department's loan guarantee program (IE. which will include a target for alternative fuels to be reached by 2017 and possibly revisions to automobile fuel economy standards. Those sections would improve energy efficiency. But several Democrats. "Those sections may be controversial. The transportation sections. including Allen and Representatives Jay Inslee of Washington and Edward Markey of Massachusetts all said that CAFE upgrades are needed. Energy Information Literacy Magazine produced by McGraw Hill. upgrade the electricity transmission grid. Dingell has aggressively opposed new Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards." the subcommittee's ranking Republican.4. Boucher told reporters. 3). 21 May. which he unveiled earlier this month. p. Boucher said he would add to the eventual "energy independence" bill that House leaders foresee in July a lowcarbon fuel standard and provisions encouraging flexible fuel vehicles and E-85 infrastructure.THE FORT PLTX LCFS PART LCFS will incite partisanship. said of Boucher's latest fuels and infrastructure ideas. saying it was time for a different type of debate on fuel economy. “House talks on bill expose divisions in Democrats’ views on energy security”) Earlier in the week. 2007 (Daniel. are still under development. a view that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic House leaders share. Platts Inside Energy. The transportation measures would be added to four sections of the planned Boucher bill. Whitten.

" 321 . Obama also called on U." the Illinois Senator said at a press event at a Brentwood gasoline station in Los Angeles. http://www. Obama assumed the stance of California Gov. Barack Obama endorses low carbon fuel standard. Reuters 2007 (June 12. "We know that transportation fuels account for a third of America's global warming pollution.OBAMA Obama supports LCFS. "And we know there are fuels available that emit less carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1229186820070613) Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed a federal low-carbon fuel standard patterned on California's ambitious goals. fuels like biodiesel and ethanol.reuters. Arnold Schwarzenegger who earlier this year proposed cutting carbon emissions in auto and truck fuels by 5 percent by 2015 and 10 percent by 2020.THE FORT PLTX LCFS POP.S. automakers to double gas mileage of cars and trucks over the next two decades.

S.renewableenergyworld. Renewable Energy Access.THE FORT PLTX LCFS POP. renewable fuels market. A homegrown solution to the international climate crisis lies in America's fields and farms. and provide a sustainable means to combat global warming. cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel as key components in the fight against global warming. presidential-hopeful Senator Barack Obama. by 5 percent in 2015 and 10 percent in 2020. 322 ." The proposed National Low Carbon Fuel Standard Act of 2007 would require fuel refiners to reduce the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of the transportation fuels sold in the U. "Expanding the renewable fuels market in the United States will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. along with Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. The bill recognizes the steady growth of the U. including corn-based ethanol.OBAMA Obama will create a national LCFS. introduced legislation this week calling for a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (NLCFS).S. May 9 ) U.com/rea/news/story?id=48427. revitalize our agricultural sector. 2007 (“Obama introduces national low-carbon fuel standard” http://www.S.

THE FORT PLTX LCFS POP.DEMS Democrats support LCFS. Platts is a energy information agency owned by McGraw Hill. Platts Inside Energy. “House Dems Talk Up Low Fuels. Schmidt. 323 . indicate flex-fuel mandate coming”) The top Democrats on the House's energy committee last week spoke in favor of turning the widely popular renewable fuels standard into a low-carbon standard and establishing a single biodiesel specification to encourage clean diesel vehicles. 2007 (Michael.

McCain has made his support for environmental issues a major part of his presidential campaign." 324 . and uses it as a key issue where he breaks with many other Republicans. Canada joined in to this agreement self-imposing emissions standards on the extracting of their oil resources. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Ultimately. The Washington Times 2008 (Stephen Dinan. McCain. embraced a national fuel standard plan last year at a press conference with California Gov.THE FORT PLTX LCFS POP. Canadian sources ‘dirty’. McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers responded with the following statement late last night: "The concept behind California's Low-Carbon Fuel Standard is to use less oil in our transportation sector.. who just this week praised Canada as a secure source of oil. U.MCCAIN McCain supports the LCFS. “McCain oil plan fosters reliance on Middle East.S. June 20. Lexis) Mr. but in the short term we should look for a cleaner and more efficient way to extra to oil resources from the tar sands. Mr. an international cap and trade system will allow us to regularize the system by which countries offset and reduce their emissions.

which measures the amount of greenhouse gases needed to produce fuel and punishes use of "dirty" heavy crude oil in favor of conventional light crude or alternative fuels.MCCAIN McCain is pushing for LCFS.THE FORT PLTX LCFS POP.S. June 20. John McCain caps his weeklong push for U. energy independence with a trip Friday to Canada. The presumed Republican presidential nominee called last year to expand California's low carbon fuel standard. 2008 (Stephen Dinan “McCain oil plan relies on the Middle East” http://www.com/news/2008/jun/20/mccain-oil-plan-fosters-reliance-on-middle-east/) Sen. 325 .washingtontimes. but his own environmental plan discourages use of Canadian oil and drastically increases American reliance on oil from the Middle East and other potentially unfriendly places. The Washington Times.

to raise fuel efficiency requirements or set up a low-carbon fuel standard.redorbit. which would drive up the price of gasoline and diesel fuels. says carbon emitters should have to pay for their emissions. they argue. say these customers should not have to bear the brunt of a climate policy. But not everyone wants to see allowances doled out for free." Oil companies are also unhappy with the Senate plan. "People are going to fight like dogs and cats over it.S. Better.S. 6-2 (“Climate Change Clash in U. oil companies and refiners would be granted just 4 percent of total allowances. especially among power producers that are less dependent on coal than Duke. and executives. While the transportation sector represents around 35 percent of U. power generation. International Herald Tribune.S. like Rogers of Duke. carbon emissions. At a time of sharply rising prices. That would force them to make up the difference by buying carbon credits." Hays said.com/news/general/1411785/climate_change_clash_in_us_a_battle_over_the_economics/) Companies that rely on coal to generate power say that allowances should be given out for free so that customers in the regions where coal is mostly used are not penalized. a Florida power company. oil executives say this is not the best way to reduce carbon emissions.BUSINESS Businesses like the plan – they see it as an alternative to more stringent climate policy. "There is just going to be a giant fight over the free allowances. 'A Battle Over the Economics'” http://www. 326 .THE FORT PLTX LCFS POP. chairman of FPL Group. Coal still accounts for half of U. Lew Hays.

Administrative costs. Opposition may come from producers and marketers of petroleum-derived transportation fuels.BUSINESS LCFS legislation will catalyze opposition from industry.wi. The lack of certainty regarding low-carbon fuels costs may result in confusion over what variables and cost estimators should be used. 2008 (“Low Carbon Fuel Standard Policy Option” http://dnr. uncertainty regarding the future price and availability of credits. Wisconsin Global Warming Task Force.pdf. 327 . and/or production of products meeting the standard are potential barriers.gov/environmentprotect/gtfgw/templates/TRAN_low_carbon_fuel_standard_rev1. 3-5) Barriers to Implementation: Legislation will be required to enact a standard.THE FORT PLTX LCFS UNPOP.

THE FORT PLTX **********MASS TRANSIT********** 328 .

California would receive about $266 million. long the poor relation of American travel.7 billion to help transit agencies pay higher fuel costs.a $1-billion increase -. A bipartisan measure also has been introduced to expand tax credits to encourage more workers to ride public transit. In an effort to make riding bus and rail lines even more appealing.” 6/27/08 WASHINGTON -. Los Angeles Times. a number of representatives are worried about facing voters without a better record on energy.).a congressional committee recently recommended for expanding transit nationwide in the next year. “House approves more funds for thriving public transit. Peter A." said Rep.As commuters increasingly turn to bus and rail lines because of soaring gasoline prices. But as they head home for the July 4 recess. 329 . Although the transit measure passed overwhelmingly.and money. DeFazio (DOre. public transit. That's on top of a record $10 billion -.THE FORT PLTX MASS TRANSIT BIPART Plan has bipartisan support – the House just overwhelmingly passed a bill to expand mass transit. "Americans are flocking onto mass transit at rates not seen in half a century in the United States. is finally getting respect -. the House on Thursday moved to provide $1. some Republican lawmakers ridiculed it as a poor substitute for expanded domestic oil drilling. on a 322-98 vote. limit fare hikes and expand service. The new appreciation for the services comes as politically anxious lawmakers have scrambled for ways to respond to high gas prices.

The House approved financial help Thursday for mass transit systems facing a surge in riders because of high gas prices. marks the first time federal money would be used to support local mass transit operating costs. which must be considered by the Senate. Associated Press. The transit measure.com/2008/US/06/26/congress. But Republicans blocked Democrats from requiring oil and gas companies to drill on the millions of acres of government land and water on which they already own federal leases.7 billion over the next two years to lower fares and expand operations as more riders flock to public transit. 330 .cnn. 6/26/08. “House OKs Funding for Mass Transit Systems” http://www.THE FORT PLTX MASS TRANSIT BIPART Dems and Republicans would support the plan – Congress loves giving money for mass transit expansion.ap/ WASHINGTON (AP) -. The House voted 322-98 to authorize $1.energy.

CONGRESS Plan is popular. Congressman Fred Upton (R-St. To address the strain caused by rising fuel costs on public transit. Upton also strongly supported legislation that passed the House in mid-June to fund Amtrak through 2013 and also establish a grant program to encourage the deployment of high-speed rail. House approved legislation on June 26th by a vote of 322 to 98 that will provide a financial boost to public transit systems.S. Standing before a Kalamazoo Metro Transit bus. 331 . States News Service. ensuring that they will continue to provide reliable and affordable transportation for working Americans. PUBLIC TRANSIT CRITICAL FOR WORKING AMERICANS IN WAKE OF RECORD GAS PRICES. July 8. 2008. Joseph) joined Kalamazoo Transportation Director Bill Schomisch today to underscore the importance of public transit in the wake of record fuel prices. the U.THE FORT PLTX MASS TRANSIT POP. Upton is hopeful that the Senate will consider the measure to help working families in the next few weeks. house passed by wide margin.

Before any more propaganda is put forth by libertarians on the issue of support for public transit. 332 . The Democratic counties in the transit district voted no.renewamerica. Who has voted for transit? And who is riding it once it is built? When those facts are evaluated the libertarian arguments go up in smoke. promising 118 miles of new rail lines.REPS Republicans support transit programs. folks ought to look at the facts. 11/14/06 http://www.” RenewAmerica. Paul Weyrich. too.us/columns/weyrich/061115 The voter approval of bond issues and of increased taxes demonstrates that conservatives. support rail transit. In 2004 the huge transit program in Denver. passed with support from Republican counties. Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation.THE FORT PLTX MASS TRANSIT POP. “Conservatives and many voters support mass transit.

Chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. Further action by Congress on the bill is not certain. House of Representatives passed the "Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008" (H. but the amendment was not allowed under the rule. House and Senate Appropriations Committees would need to provide general funds in a future appropriations measure. 7/3/08. Chairman DeFazio had drafted an amendment that would have made funding immediately available by drawing down balances from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund.com/government_affairs/washrep/2008july03. with the federal tax benefit for parking. As a result. First.THE FORT PLTX MASS TRANSIT UNPOP. Mica (R-FL).R. and the Bush Administration has stated opposition to the bill based on the use of federal funds for the operating purposes outlined in the bill.If enacted.cfm On June 26.S.apta. DeFazio (D-OR). 333 . Ranking Member of the Committee. and Peter M. the legislation would not make funds immediately available. two amendments supported by APTA were added to the bill. Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The Senate is not expected to consider a similar measure. if the bill is enacted. John L. public transit advocacy and information group. Oberstar (D-MN). The legislation authorizes $850 million for both Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 and 2009 to help transit systems cope with rising fuel costs and to promote public transportation ridership as a means to reduce domestic fuel consumption. $750 million would be distributed through the urbanized area formula program and $100 million would be added to the rural transit formula program each year. offered by Representatives James McGovern (D-MA) and Tom Davis (R-VA). Of the amounts authorized in the bill. the U. to avoid fare increases or service cuts that would otherwise result from increased costs for fuel.BUSH Plan unpopular with Bush American Public Transport Association. Representatives James L. which provides federal tax incentives for transit riders and employers that subsidize employee transit trips. an amendment offered by Chairman Oberstar expanded the eligible use of the funds to help transit agencies defray the high cost fuel without having to raise fares or reduce service. The funds can be used by transit agencies for operating or capital costs to expand service or reduce fares. During debate on the House floor. 6052) by a vote of 322-98. http://www. are the bill's original co-sponsors. equalizes the transit tax benefit. or to meet additional transportation-related equipment or facility maintenance expenses caused by increased ridership. The second amendment.

Published 2004 Highway Robbery: Transportation Racism & New Routs to Equity. 179) 334 .THE FORT PLTX MASS TRANSIT UNPOP.CONGRESS NO ONE NEAR CONGRESS LIKES MASS TRANSIT Robert Bullard. Glen Johnson. and Angel O. Terres. (pg.

2002 (New Departures: Rethinking Rail Passenger Policy in the twenty-first century.THE FORT PLTX MASS TRANSIT UNPOP. pg. 10) 335 .REPS RAIL POLICY ANGERS FISCAL CONSERATIVES AND THE PROFESSIONAL LEVEL Anthony Perl.

This has led to polarizing -. excessive reliance on cars. urban planners. which would starve transportation funding. vice president of the Progressive Policy Institute and director of its Technology & New Economy Project Blueprint Magazine | September 10. 2001 ( Blueprint Magazine. many Republicans would cut the gas tax. transport policies for engendering sprawl. Atkinson. and academics blamed U. In their zeal for tax cuts.S.and paralyzing -battles over policy. This coalition has achieved considerable success in shifting the focus of transportation policy from expanding supply to restraining demand. The loss of that mobility is directly related to the rise of differing coalitions opposing transportation policy. and the rapid disappearance of green spaces. ebsco) The key to solving America's growing mobility crisis is political: We must rebuild a public consensus for policies that will restore to Americans the mobility they've lost in recent years. And on the left a new alliance of environmentalists. Their idea is that growing congestion can be solved by getting people out of cars and planes and into buses and trains. A new breed of conservatives emerged that saw in public transport policies the wasteful and market-distorting hand of big government. The lack of consensus on transportation is reflected in how the political parties approach the issue. 336 .THE FORT PLTX MASS TRANSIT UNPOP.REPS MASS TRANSIT ANGERS CONSERVATIVES Robert D.

THE FORT PLTX **************MILITARY********* 337 .

chairman of the Sierra Club group in the Coachella Valley. "It seems kind of silly to have a solar project in Blythe (in eastern Riverside County) and send it along transmission lines. live on the land where companies want to build." he said in a statement. It's best and most efficient when it's used where it is generated. where she studied natural resources law. Press Enterprise. In California's desert. the agency has 66 applications for solar projects on more than 518.pe. near Palm Springs.ENVIROS Renewable energy projects at military bases will anger environmentalists who believe that resources will be wasted Bowles.3cc481c. "There's almost a Gold Rush type of thing happening in the Inland Empire and up in the desert to capture what we have here.S. Apple Valley leaders passed a resolution in April opposing plans to erect wind turbines along the ridgeline of the Granite Mountain range east of town. And a San Bernardino County supervisor has strongly urged Los Angeles to abandon plans to string new transmission lines to carry renewable energy through the Morongo Basin east of Joshua Tree National Park. policy and science (Jennifer." said Jeff Morgan. Edison and other utilities must meet a legislative mandate to have 20 percent of their energy production from renewable sources by 2010." It's not just environmentalists who are objecting. Boulder.THE FORT PLTX MILITARY UNPOP. sunny Inland region has stirred up some unlikely foes: environmentalists. BLM spokeswoman Jan Bedrosian said. said the state's utility companies may not have much choice about building new transmission lines. an Apple Valley town councilman. A Riverside County supervisor said he opposes plans to erect 400-foot-tall wind turbines for the first time on the 4. they benefit much of Southern California by feeding into the electricity grid." Marelli said. "there has to a significant investment in transmission.573 acres. "They're great resources. set-asides for (endangered species) habitat and wilderness. "At a time when the desert has become smaller because of urban growth. "but we need to make sure we're approaching it the right way and know the impacts on the communities. Mike Marelli. Bedrosian said.000-foot elevation of Mount San Jacinto. and expansion of military bases.html) // DCM <A rush to build environmentally friendly renewable energy in the windy. The agency will host hearings this month to gather public input on what environmental and socioeconomic issues should be considered." said Scott Nassif. attended a year-long fellowship at the University of Colorado. including the desert tortoise. "For renewable energy to really move forward. "They should put them on the roofs of Los Angeles. a number of threatened and endangered species. power contract manager for Southern California Edison." The U." Nassif said of the wind and sun. San Bernardino County Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt said the review will help decide where such projects are appropriate and where they should be restricted. Besides the potential for the renewable-energy projects to change the landscape. “Renewable Energy Projects Meet Opposition from Environmentalists” http://www. Bureau of Land Management has received so many applications for solar energy projects that the agency last week put new applications on hold and launched an environmental review for such projects on public land in six Western states. we cannot surrender huge areas of public land without a serious discussion about which resources we can sacrifice and which need to be protected. They say the projects mean new transmission lines and towers across some of the very mountains and desert vistas people have fought to protect.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_renewable03. 338 . which includes eastern Riverside County and much of San Bernardino County." He noted that while the projects might be located in the Inland region. 8 – Writer about environmental issues for the Press-Enterprise since 1999.

6 (“DOD Emerging as Key Proving Ground for New Energy Alternatives” 01-11-2006. chairman of the House energy committee. For example. Joe Barton (R-TX). some DOD efforts face criticisms. and Democrats Energy Washington Week.THE FORT PLTX MILITARY UNPOP. Similar plans by Rep.aspx) // DCM While the efforts to cut energy consumption and greenhouse gases generally win praise from environmentalists and energy efficiency advocates.communityfuels. Congressional efforts to use DOD resources to increase energy supply have also drawn criticism. Volume 3 Number 2 http://members. and Senate environment committee chief James Inhofe (R-OK) to encourage construction of new refineries on closed bases has drawn significant opposition from community groups and Democratic lawmakers. community groups and lobbies.DOD/LOBBIES/DEMS The use of alternative energy in the military and Air Force faces opposition from environmentalists. 339 . in some cases from DOD.com/InTheMedia/tabid/53/EntryID/55/Default. the DOD. environmentalists are challenging claims by DOD and some states that a controversial technology for producing diesel fuel from coal does not provide the kinds of environmental benefits that proponents claim.

THE FORT PLTX MILITARY POP. businesses. The U. Boeing and European Aeronautic Defense & Space all would get a lift. Core military spending would rise to a record $481 billion. In addition. the parent of Airbus.BUSH Bush already supports alternative energy policies for the military – budget plan proves Bloomberg News.S. Bush said the military sector was his top priority. said on C-Span's "Newsmaker" program broadcast Sunday. loans. Connecticut. would be almost fully financed under the budget. But some health care companies and drug makers may be pinched by plans for Medicare and Medicaid benefit programs for elderly and lowincome Americans. programs or changes in the law worth tens of billions of dollars to U." Darda said. chief economist at MKM Partners in Greenwich.> 340 .9 trillion. or 132. 7 (“Military and Alternative Energy Sectors Win in the Proposed U.6 billion to buy 20 Lockheed F-22A Raptor fighters. Lockheed Martin. industries.iht. Maryland and the world's top military contractor. Air Force will also formally open an aerial refueling competition that is likely to pit Boeing against a team of Northrop and EADS." Bush said Monday following a meeting with his cabinet. Bush is submitting his budget to a Congress controlled by Democrats. its largest weapons program and $4. Textron. Bush's spending plan of $2.section of basic U.5 billion liters.S.S. The largest programs of Lockheed Martin.S. Budget” http://www.php) // DCM <Military contractors like Boeing and companies developing alternative fuels like VeraSun Energy stand to gain from President George W. contains money for grants. its given us a bit more flexibility in terms of our ability keep our expenditure levels consistent with funding the global war on terror and still have the deficit coming down. economic growth and cutting spending on government programs outside the military. an increase of 11. and the Pentagon budget reflects that. the president sought an extra $100 billion this year and $145 billion next year for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the broader war against terrorism. For the first time in his presidency. Bush said the spending plan would lead to a balanced budget in five years through continued U.S. of renewable fuels annually in the next decade and to lower emissions." Edward Lazear. "We've been able to manage our budget after five years of war behind us and we will manage our budget in the out-years. That includes $6. high profits and a war on terror in which there's no end in sight. based in Bethesda. The U. because of a strong economy. Bush's 2008 budget plan. The budget includes $314. including $9 billion in loan guarantees to support a mandate for the country to use 35 billion gallons. "The winners are still going to be the industrials.3 percent. Northrop Grumman.com/articles/2007/02/05/business/spend.5 million for research and development. chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.S. which he sent to the Congress on Monday. The budget will benefit a cross. economy has "been so strong. said Michael Darda.1 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter. Another area where Bush plans to spend more money is alternative energy.

341 .THE FORT PLTX MILITARY POP. best-equipped military in the world in order to defeat and deter conventional threats.pdf Cite Accessed 7-25-08) We must maintain the strongest.net/6a8c7431eb3adfa18b_of2bmv4dv. This is why our country’s greatest military asset is the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States.3cdn. the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face.OBAMA Obama Supports Military Technology Barack Obama No Date Given (http://obama. But while sustaining our technological edge will always be central to our national security.

342 .com 08 (http://www. McCain has been a long time advocate of military tech JohnMcCain. and ready to meet the nation's obligations both at home and abroad.MCCAIN McCain loves Military Technology JohnMcCain. best-trained and best-led military force in the world.com/Informing/Issues/054184f4-6b51-40dd-896454fcf66a1e68. agile military force able to meet the diverse security challenges of the 21st century. He has fought to modernize our forces. and ensure that America has a modern. to ensure that America maintains and expands its technological edge against any potential adversary.htm Cite Accessed 7-25-08) In a dangerous world.htm Cite Accessed 7-25-08) John McCain has been a tireless advocate of our military and ensuring that our forces are properly postured. protecting America's national security requires a strong military.com/Informing/Issues/054184f4-6b51-40dd-896454fcf66a1e68. Today. But much needs to be done to maintain our military leadership. and to see that our forces are capable and ready to undertake the variety of missions necessary to meet national security objectives.THE FORT PLTX MILITARY POP. retain our technological advantage.com 08 (http://www. funded.johnmccain. America has the most capable.johnmccain.

In addition it provides $8. Let's hope they have the sense to push it through.com/blog/2008/05/washington-fuelsalternative-energy. 6049 (pdf file).8 billion over 10 years to renew the research and development tax credit and creates a new category of tax credit bonds to finance state and local government initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. coupled with 'bipartisan' support from Congress. and is providing $8. by a 263-160 vote. 5/22/08.S. House of Representatives passed H. because it contains measures to increase tax revenue meant to balance the Democrats' pay-go system. is enough to make independence from fossil fuels a credible reality in the next few years. "Washington Fuels Alternative Energy Drive. the U.html And. the very fact that Congress is concerned enough about the oil situation that it has started looking seriously at alternative energy.THE FORT PLTX MILITARY BIPART THE PLAN IS BIPART – ENERGY AND TAX EXTENDERS ACT OF 2008 PROVES Money Rx." http://www. the Energy and Tax Extenders Act of 2008. and the Bush Administration has already indicated that it plans to veto the bill.8 billion to promote research and green initiatives at the state and local level.S. plug-in cars and technology for green buildings. Inspite of all these partisan hurdles. Military's embrace and funding of green products and solutions. carbon capture and sequestration projects.R. 343 . the U. is good news for the alternative energy sector. now that everybody and his uncle wants an instant solution to the oil crisis. The $54 billion tax package is a wide-ranging bill that includes $17 billion in tax incentives for renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.money-rx. It's on its way to the Senate. Put together. where Senate Republicans indicate they might filibuster the bill.

It's a message that resonates with Americans who would sooner log a tree than hug it." 344 .com/time/specials/2007/environment/article/0. a rightleaning Democrat who was director of the Central Intelligence Agency between 1993 and 1995. but it wasn't melting icebergs or endangered polar bears that made Warner change his mind. "But when I mention the connection to security. unchecked global warming could create a world that is inherently more dangerous for the U. "I see the problem of global climate change fitting squarely within that focus.html Climate change is usually characterized as an environmental threat.S.1730759_1731383_1731632. "Does Global Warming Compromise National Security?. and raises the possibility that conservatives and liberals might find common ground on climate change. 4/16/08. "I have focused above all on issues of national security. "I find [conservatives] skeptical on this issue." Warner said after the bill passed committee.28804. Time Magazine]." says James Woolsey.00. under former President Bill Clinton." http://www." For Warner. suddenly things like solar power start looking a lot better.THE FORT PLTX MILITARY BIPART PLAN IS BIPART – GOP AND DEMS CAN BOND OVER THE SECURITY THREAT CLIMATE CHANGE POSES Bryan Walsh [staff writer.time. Acting to mitigate climate change was another way of keeping America safe.

He commended members of Congress "for continuing to provide the resources necessary to support the critical mission .which includes the $25 billion the administration sought for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -.ensures that U. on any related military operations that may occur in and around those two countries.com/2002203__bush_praises_bipartisan_support_military_spending [Sharma] Congress sends $416 billion defense bill to president's desk23 July 2004 [W] acknowledged congressional passage of a $416.. in Afghanistan and Iraq. “Bush Praises Bipartisan Support for Military Spending” http://www." The legislation stipulates that the president must report to Congress on the estimated costs of operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom for future fiscal years 2006 through 2011. July 26. With the United States still at war. 2004.. 345 . 2005.S. service personnel will remain well equipped. President Bush said the legislation -.2 billion defense bill July 22 by expressing his pleasure that "a bipartisan majority in the Congress" stood with him in support of the military. trained and paid. security and economic costs in support of those two missions. The report is due on January 1. unless President Bush asks to be exempted from the reporting requirement for national security reasons.THE FORT PLTX MILITARY BIPART BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS—EMPIRICALLY PROVEN ALL AMERICAN PATRIOTS. and on estimated reconstruction.allamericanpatriots.

it will have replaced nearly a third of the cars and trucks currently used on bases to transport airmen and supplies." A measure offered by Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.THE FORT PLTX DOD BIPART THE AFF IS BIPARTISAN Boston Globe."Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management" and "Greening the Government Through Federal Fleet and Transportation Efficiency. It says DOD must seek to buy or produce electricity from renewables when it is "life-cycle cost effective to do so. Unanimous support for the aff Geman. They can't fly. The goals of the amendment. are to enhance platform performance." The amendment says the study must address ethanol.Y. the Air Force promises.and moving away from oil -. and reduce the financial impact of volatile oil prices. June 26. to the extent possible." Sens.) that says DOD shall seek to buy or produce no less than 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025 and thereafter. the text states. It calls for use of products that meet or exceed specifications of the federal Energy Star program or products listed on the Energy Department's "Federal Energy Management Program Product Energy Efficiency Recommendations" product list. Amendments to S. 2766 accepted before final passage include: Language by Bingaman and Sen. and other bio-based fuels. and even those that use traditional gasoline boast fuel economies between 40 and 50 miles per gallon. encompassing the everyday and the exotic: from energy efficient windows and light bulbs and geothermal plants to research into jet fuel that can be made from weeds.) offered a successful amendment that says DOD must seek to improve the fuel efficiency of weapons platforms." The goal. 9. 2007 Over the next three years. the military sees energy efficiency -. some of the candidates are electric-powered. “Senate-passed defense bill nudges DOD on renewables. They have no weaponry. including "any measures that can be taken to increase the use of such fuels by the Department of Defense and the Defense agencies. portable generators that run on plastic waste. A Bingaman amendment that requires DOD to consider use of fuel cells as replacements for current backup power systems in operations such as "telecommunications networks. to use energy efficient products when constructing military installations. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Jim Talent (R-Mo. is to increase the longevity of backup and standby power systems. Although the Air Force hasn't decided exactly which models to buy. cut the size of fuel logistics systems. 346 . But as a loose collection of initiatives. These "low-speed vehicles" are just one part of a broad effort by the American military to drastically reduce its use of traditional fossil fuels at a time when global oil markets are unstable. “Environmental Defense. By 2010.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/05/27/environmental_defense/) Increasingly.M. perimeter security and remote facilities. cut costs. and climate change is increasingly a matter of bipartisan political concern. lexis] Expanded use of power derived from renewable sources of energy and alternative transportation fuels received a good deal of attention in a fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill approved unanimously last week in the Senate. the US Air Force plans to add an important new class of vehicles to its fleet.). and none of them can break 25 miles per hour. according to the amendment. E&E Daily senior reporter. cellulosic ethanol. and even a fleet of satellites to harvest solar power from space. it is impressive in its breadth. 10 No.) requiring a new Defense Department study on military use of alternative fuels. A measure offered by Sens. What they can do is save fuel. Vol. 1992 energy policy legislation and two Clinton-era executive orders -. Does that mean the Pentagon is turning green? By Drake Bennett | May 27.as part of its national security mission. Robert Menendez (D-N. In scale and coordination the effort is not the Manhattan Project some critics say is needed.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N. The report is to include updates on provisions addressing the issue in last year's broad energy bill. reduce the burdens high fuel consumption places on agility.boston. gas prices are approaching historic highs. biodiesel. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga. others run on ethanol.) requiring the Defense Department. 2006 [Ben. They look like golf carts.” 5-27-2007 (http://www. Bingaman and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N. Bingaman and Menendez also offered a successful amendment that requires a new DOD report on actions to cut use of oil-based fuels by DOD.” Environment and Energy Daily.J.

Congress. think tanks.” March 17 http://www.. Unless something is done to counter this trend it will probably mean that the country. Swedish journalist and writer formerly the editor of Världen i Fokus. which sponsor terrorism against us? We are fighting a war against terror. it was the Iraq war – which many believe was a US attempt to secure its access to oil – which made the Pentagon realize the advantages alternative energy would offer. which in turn is now increasingly run on green energy instead of diesel. • Woolsey is one of the Green Hawks in the Pentagon – a new movement of tree-huggers. inventors.THE FORT PLTX MILITARY POP. which already imports around 60% of its oil.html] ”The United States’ dependence on oil makes us very vulnerable from a security and environmental perspective. also reporter for Reuters.” says Woolsey who has been engaged in this question since the oil crises in the 1970s. embassies. environmental organizations. Navy. which is easily spotted with infrared detection. which have already acquired legendary status. the State Department. who oversees energy projects for the US Army's Rapid Equipping Force. Photograph courtesy of Warner Independent Pictures. will become even more dependent on the oil-rich Middle East. Hundreds. army people and neoconservative hawks – who are leading the way toward alternative energy and energy conservation in America. will continue to increase its oil consumption. all seeking to make new connections and exchange information. it is the problem.” As a consequence the Army now tries to generate what is needed on site. the Green Hawks hold open meetings in the Pentagon. the Army. Their motivation is the security of the nation.GREEN HAWKS Green Hawks strongly support the aff and have significant clout in Congress Sohlman. The New York Times and The Washington Post “Green Hawks in the Pentagon: the American Army Is on a Green Mission. Dan Nolan. • Green Hawk Jim Woolsey. it uses fuel cells which produce water as a byproduct. researchers. security firms and the weapons industry. Air Force. How smart is that?” asks the sprightly 66-year-old Woolsey. The diesel generators emit heat. Why buy oil from Islamic theocracies. but to get there we have to shift to green energy. since they see terrorism and climate change as the greatest threats against the US as a superpower. These meetings.” Ironically. More oil is not the solution. But according to estimates. Department for Homeland Security. 2008 [Eva. activists. “The goal is to become energy independent. of American soldiers have been killed in attacks during transports of fuel and water. The Economist. attract people from the Pentagon.net/contributors/2008/03/green_hawks_in_the_pentagon_th. knowledge and experiences. 347 .thewip. “Our transports have never been as vulnerable and exposed as they are in Iraq. Very dynamic. A senior European security analyst who attended one of these meetings described it as “bustling with people from all kinds of groups and interests. In order to stop this scenario and find new solutions. the US. explains it was not until the cost of fuel was measured in blood (American blood) that the commanders started to understand. the world’s biggest consumer of oil. but are paying for both sides. if not thousands. It uses tents that need 40 percent less air-conditioning.

said Democrats are prone to look at how gas prices have climbed during the presidency of George W.25 a gallon throughout much of the country. The Defense Department’s energy costs.” June 26. Randy Forbes. kept up the pressure for drilling on Wednesday. Washington Correspondent for the Virginian-Pilot. 348 . Gov. Peterson and a group of House Republicans. including Rep. Thelma Drake of Norfolk. if you don't do alternative energy.THE FORT PLTX DOD PART The aff is partisan -. Congress and a series of presidents have imposed a moratorium on most offshore drilling along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts since the 1980s. Drake said. we won't succeed." she said. at least in the western Gulf of Mexico. including Rep. a New York Democrat who heads Congress' Joint Economic Committee. have more than doubled since 2003. Charles Schumer. said he's for more drilling. John Peterson. a particular concern in her military-heavy district. a few members acknowledged. His fellow Republicans prefer to focus on dramatic increases since the Democrats took control of Congress in early 2007 and place blame there. Prodded by environmentalists. Neither side has it exactly right. a Pennsylvania Republican who is Congress' most vocal advocate of more aggressive exploitation of U. The Defense Department's energy costs.evokes a political fight Eisman. But Democrats warned that offshore drilling wouldn't produce oil for a decade or more and argued that profiteering oil companies and speculation on petroleum futures markets are the immediate culprits as gas prices rise. "Our national security is endangered. a Chesapeake Republican. 6/26/08 [Dale. Virginia officials signaled last year that they're willing to support exploration to determine the extent of reserves more than 50 miles off the state's shores. Sen." said Rep. No decision about actual production should be made before exploration. or using less. according to one estimate. above. and you don't tell the big oil companies they can no longer run energy policy in America. "There's been bipartisan neglect on energy." he said. even as military consumption of fuel has declined. even as military consumption of fuel has declined. “Congress approaches holiday with no gas plan. energy resources.com/2008/06/congress-approaches-holiday-no-gas-plan] A group of House Republicans. is the key to controlling costs. Bush and blame him. on Wednesday kept up the pressure for drilling. In hastily convened hearings and a string of news conferences on Capitol Hill. Thelma Drake of Norfolk. Rep. "If you don't do conservation. Drake noted. including offshore drilling along the Eastern Seaboard. "You still can't drill your way out of the problem. Kaine argues.S." Peterson insisted that some offshore oil could be available in as little as five years once Congress and the White House let energy companies go after it. have more than doubled since 2003. a particular concern in her military-heavy district. he said. http://hamptonroads. the two parties traded barbs over what or who is responsible for energy price spikes and whether finding more oil. an uneasy Congress prepared for a summer holiday on Wednesday with no sign that Democrats and Republicans are anywhere near a consensus on what they can do about the problem. too. The proceeds from leases for offshore oil fields could pump up to $200 million annually into Virginia's treasury. With gasoline prices pushing toward $4. plain and simple. Timothy M.

far too late. “Environmental Defense. The Economist. retired Army people and professors – have to invest our own money to get the projects going.. But that is far too little. “Unfortunately there is a strong resistance against new technology from the multi-billion industry for established green energy.could actually be more environmentally damaging than the status quo. and that can only be done with cutting-edge technology. focusing on new environmentally friendly technology. that some of the ideas -. also reporter for Reuters.net/contributors/2008/03/green_hawks_in_the_pentagon_th. whose front boasts a vast field of solar cells. The effort has its skeptics. And environmentalists are dubious of an institution that has more often been an adversary. in certain sectors.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/05/27/environmental_defense/) "In terms of alternative energy.boston.” March 17 http://www. an energy specialist at LMI who was once the Pentagon official responsible for fuel operations. biomass and wind energy. scientists. They point out. “We can’t afford to not fix this now. We – inventors.LOBBIES ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY IS SKEPTICAL OF THE MILITARY -. a major in the Army who is writing his PhD thesis on nuclear science. THE AFF SPLITS THE ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY -. as these are the kind of technologies that will make this planet survive.” 5-27-2007 (http://www.thewip. for example. the Department of Defense is big enough. so by 2025 the Army will have to take a quarter of its energy from renewable sources. wave. 2008 [Eva.” 349 . A new law demanding better energy efficiency has been passed. to be the tipping point.THE PLAN DOES NOT ELICIT A WAVE OF SUPPORT FROM THEM Boston Globe.THE FORT PLTX DOD UNPOP.html] The Department of Defense is therefore investing an estimated $500-$600 million dollars on research and development of solar. say hawks like Todd Hathaway.” says the fast-paced 36-year-old outside the Pentagon. The New York Times and The Washington Post “Green Hawks in the Pentagon: the American Army Is on a Green Mission. This is serious.such as increasing the use of coal to make synthetic fuel -. Even supporters are quick to point out that the Department of Defense is unlikely to accomplish much unless it better organizes its far-flung initiatives. Swedish journalist and writer formerly the editor of Världen i Fokus. as well as conventional green energy sources." says Stuart Funk.ESTABLISHED RENEWABLE PRODUCERS FEAR THEIR TECH WOULD BE UNDERCUT Sohlman.

the 200th at Camp Perry will look at how winds off Lake Erie could help power that base. $5. However. based at Camp Perry near Port Clinton. the base could install a 600 kilowatt wind turbine. environmental. but now we will be producing energy. and the 200th Red Horse squadron.OHIO Plan is an economic boon for Ohio Gilbert. Col.greenenergyohio. solar to help fuel 2 National Guard bases. Miss up plan for solar technologies also will be included in the project. "Projects like this. The idea is to build a ground-mounted photovoltaic array on the base that would convert solar energy directly into electricity. Toledo's history in the glass business makes it a natural leader in solar energy production. Lt. he said. Based on those findings. based at Toledo Express Airport. and energy requirements of the alternative energy sources. Collins said.cfm?pageID=1405] The U. But a back- This is really a cutting edge project. The studies will include wind monitoring. safety. but the base has acres of land to accommodate it.. "We literally are inventing the future. Michael Hrynciw said." Making these bases energy self-sufficient is a two-part process. and avian and bat risks. Marcy Kaptur (D. but that this could create new opportunities and new jobs in related fields in northwest Ohio. they're demonstrations that show what can be done on all scales from the small homeowner to the large businesses in the area.” July 24. Maj. And we're getting it from the most dangerous and undemocratic places in the world. Further east. At the 180th. "Our country is strategically vulnerable because we import two-thirds of the energy that we use. Toledo) announced yesterday. Department of Defense is investing the money for research and implementation of the renewable energy sources to fuel the Ohio Air National Guard's 180th Fighter Wing." Miss Kaptur said. wetland evaluation. Mr. Rep. paving the way for the second phase in spring or summer of next year in which they would implement the plans." The University of Toledo's Wright Center for Photovoltaics Innovation and Commercialization will help with the research and implementation." he said. among other factors. Of the $7. The bases hope to have that complete by the end of the year.1 million is directed to the 180th project and $2 million to the 200th. said Robert Collins. which already has replaced about 20 percent of its streetlights with solarpowered models. the petroleum we use. Toledo Blade Staff Writer. http://www. That means the array at the 180th would be about 80 times the size. U. 350 . 2007 [Meghan. "We've done a lot of energy reduction. The array would be similar to the one at the corner of Dorr Street and Westwood Avenue at UT's alternative energy incubator.THE FORT PLTX DOD POP." she said. adding that not only will these projects help reduce utility costs and our dependence on petroleum.org/page. Colonel Giezie said. “Wind. Bill Giezie said." Major Hrynciw said. interim co-director of the Wright Center and a professor of physics at UT. and the one planned for the 180th would generate 1 megawatt.S. "Toledo can help America become energy-independent again.S. that array produces 12 kilowatts of energy.1 million in federal funding. the plan is to focus on solar energy to power the base. " Kaptur said. Phase one will evaluate the operational. if they can be done at low cost.

including Nevada Power Co. "You've got to work with them.NEVADA DoD alternative energy will build support in Nevada Edwards. a former head of the Nevada Development Authority and long-time friend of Reid. “No military objection will blow in wind. While the Defense Department said it would not oppose wind turbines at Wilson Creek. Reid has been arguing that Nevada should cancel plans for coal-fired power projects that emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide. Hill Air Force Base in Utah has been concerned about windpower projects in the area because wind turbines can interfere with radar.. But Reid received assurances from Gates that the department will not object to wind farms in the Wilson Creek area.com/go/in-the-media/no-military-objection-will-blow-in-wind/] Defense Secretary Robert Gates has informed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the military will not object to wind farms in an area of eastern Nevada. The developer said he enjoyed working with Air Force representatives on concerns about the Wilson Creek project and noted that the Air Force uses more renewable energy than any other part of the federal government. Carlson said. which causes global warming. In February. electric cooperatives or the water authority." Reid.. Carlson said. This announcement shows that Reid also is working to support renewable energy projects. for example. The wind power facility's first priority. Tim Carlson. Carlson said he also has been talking with the Southern Nevada Water Authority about connecting the Wilson Creek project to a power line that the water authority will use to supply electricity to pumps for a water pipeline linking Northern and Southern Nevada.." Carlson said. a form of renewable energy. Carlson's company. Nevada Wind. Nevada Wind has been monitoring the wind in the Wilson Creek area for four years.THE FORT PLTX DOD POP. Reid met with area base commanders and members of the Nevada Renewable Energy Task Force about finding ways to build wind farms that do not cause problem for Navy and Air Force pilots. would be to sell power to Nevada users. The site is close to a transmission line that Sierra Pacific Resources proposes to build connecting utilities to a planned coal-fired project near Ely and also to a transmission line that LS Power Group wants to build to its proposed coal-fired power project near Ely. but Nellis Air Force Base objected and the project died in 2002. has been talking with military officials in an effort to find ways that the state can tap wind power. 2007 [John G. 351 . is in talks with a partner for the project. "The Department of Defense plays a very important role in this state." Carlson said. Carlson. D-Nev. Carlson said. Gates is believed to oppose wind projects near Goldfield. "I think it's a great location. plans to build a 450-megawatt wind farm in the Wilson Creek Range area 40 miles north of Pioche. spokesman Jon Summers said Tuesday. The Defense Department's agreement is "another step forward" to developing what would be Nevada's first utility-size wind farm.” ReviewJournal http://www. Nevada State Democratic Party. a renewable energy developer. You can't fight them. moving a $1 billion project closer to reality. Carlson said the project could provide the Air Force with information about flying in areas where wind turbines interfere with radar signals.nvdems. previously tried to develop a $130 million wind farm on the Nevada Test Site. He declined to identify the partner.

communications. research firm.S. Improve Defense Capability. Analysts said the expansion of the Army and U." With the 2008 U.CONGRESS Military spending unpopular -.everything else is just perceived as trading off with that Frost & Sullivan.S. analysts said.000 active and 39.” Feb 5 http://aero-defense." said Curran.THE FORT PLTX MILITARY UNPOP. computers. 2008 [Published as a news service by IHS." said Curran. surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) and special operations capabilities. fighter aircraft and some classes of ships nearing the end of their life cycle will also likely require investments. tanker. "However.000 reserve troops in 2011. intelligence. it appears a point of debate among candidates will be the siphoning of funds from naval and air assets to the ground forces. Marine Corps will necessitate a greater budget allocation for equipment procurement. 106 National Guard and 58 Reserve modular brigades." 352 . presidential election looming.400 active and 533.the only priority is ground force in Iraq -. "This would require an Army end-strength of 482. DoD to Procure Additional Equipment to Maintain.S.com/news/2008/frost-dodequipment. the government will continue to focus on anti-terrorism operations with an emphasis on command and control. the need to keep the Army and Marines well-equipped has deferred new air and naval weapons programs. while the addition of Marine Corps Special Operations Command will ensure that the Marine Corps increases to 175.000 reserve.ihs. "The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) called for the creation of 117 regular Army.htm] Air transport. “U. "Though air and naval weapons systems usually enjoy bipartisan support due to the large number of jobs generated.

1964: "It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the illusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony. The way conservatives see it.usatoday. 6/7/07 http://blogs. that only the strong can remain free. These have been the "rocket fuel" of Republican causes.THE FORT PLTX MILITARY POP.REPS CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT THE MILITARY Wynton C.Just listen to Barry Goldwater accepting the GOP presidential nomination on July 16. Republicans believe that security is the wellspring from which freedom flows. “What's missing in the GOP field? the right message”. civil liberties don't amount to much if an individual ceases to exist. it's their message." 353 . / 1990 AP photo)The first conservative principle is an unyielding support of a strong military. and the world. if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression — and this is hogwash. that only the strong can keep the peace.Reagan: Saw "spiritual" crisis. It's not the individual messengers conservatives dislike. HALL AND Peter SCHWEIZER are research fellows at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the editors of a new book. three core themes emerge. Landmark Speeches of the American Conservative Movement.(Photo -.com/oped/2007/06/whats_missing_i. And that's why Republican oratory has often bulged with military muscularity.Across the great arc of historic conservative speeches. The reason GOP candidates appear to be sputtering is that no GOP presidential candidate is firing on all three cylinders.html [Sharma] Conservatives are feeling glum about the crop of Republican presidential contenders. It is further the cause of Republicanism to remind ourselves.

"We've got to get the job done [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians. "We ended up launching a war (in Iraq) that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged. This is the man who. a radical ex-Marine who has slandered the troops as adulterers and murderous occupiers.000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." 354 . which is causing enormous pressure over there.com/article. He is the author of author of "Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House".php?id=26707 [Sharma] Notice anything missing in that list of public service jobs Obama will push? How about the men and women who protect us abroad? Obama's brash omission of servicemen and women shouldn't be a surprise. 2008.OBAMA OBAMA AGAINST MILITARY Ben SHAPIRO is a student at Harvard Law School." This is the man who employed Demond Mullins. After all. this is the man who stated in February 2007. "Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future". remarked.humanevents. May 28.THE FORT PLTX MILITARY UNPOP. http://www. and to which we have now spent $400 billion and has seen over 3. in August 2007.

" said Lawrence Korb. the 71-year-old Republican senator for Arizona.THE FORT PLTX MILITARY UNPOP. "I think now you're going to see -.. At least (the military vote will) be split this year rather than overwhelmingly Republican.blogspot. 2008.com/2008/07/gop-losing-support-from-military-voters.PUBLIC MILITARY UNPOPULAR WITH PUBLIC – IRAQ PROVES THE SIDETRACK. observers say. Bush won in 2004. the military has tended more and more to vote for the Republicans. will get "at most half of the military votes.not that it's going to be overwhelming -. 355 . He predicted that McCain." instead of the three-to-one ratio that Republican President George W.but a back away from the Republican Party . a liberal think tank. “GOP losing support from military voters” http://thesidetrack. "Ever since the end of the war in Vietnam and the creation of the volunteer military back in 1973. director of military strategy for the Center for American Progress.html [Sharma] Five years into an unpopular war in Iraq. many US military voters are eschewing their traditional Republican ties to support Democrat Barack Obama for president against John McCain. July 2.." said Korb. a deputy defense secretary under president Ronald Reagan.

and an unopposed unanimous voice vote in the Senate. That makes 520 of a total of 535 members of Congress who thought this bill was just dandy. December 10. 356 . President Bush joined the anti-defense horde Nov. the basic payroll for military men and women. which members of Congress from both parties and the president forgot to include in their press releases: Congress cut the Pentagon’s military personnel account. most of whom said so in their press releases ballyhooing the passage of the measure. by $500 million. both it and the president assume — probably safely — that the piles of garbage they inserted and endorsed in the defense bill will be ignored. 13 when he signed this legislative monstrosity into law. Consider the following. “Congress makes the unkindest cuts on defense” http://www.html [Sharma] The vast majority of Congress is fundamentally anti-military. Anti-military monstrosity? Piles of garbage? Doesn’t that seem a bit strong? After all.CONGRESS CONGRESS AGAINST THE PLAN POLITICO.THE FORT PLTX MILITARY UNPOP.com/news/stories/1207/7292. 2007. As Congress continues to bicker with Bush on the war and much else. 8 by an overwhelming 400-15 vote in the House.politico. what’s wrong with voting for defense spending? Let me count the ways. That was amply demonstrated on Nov. on a new Department of Defense Appropriations Act to fund peacetime Pentagon programs for the current fiscal year.

a solution supported by many in private industry.S. 8 (Keith Johnson “Wild Green Yonder: How the Pentagon Could Push Alternative Fuels” 05-21-2008 http://blogs.wsj. Chief Executive John Baardson says he decided to roll the dice on the $6 billion plant because of the military’s interest. As with commercial aviation. to be completed in 2012. “Knowing the military was out there took one huge risk factor out of the decision-making process.. “There isn’t a market for this right now. The paper notes: In late 2006.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/21/wild-green-yonder-how-the-pentagon-could-push-alternative-fuels/) Alternative energy isn’t just for greens—it’s also for the folks who wear dress greens.THE FORT PLTX AIR FORCE POP. Strategic planners are edging closer to the “peak oil” thesis—and getting nervous. which make planes and jet engines.” he says. The WSJ’s Yochi Dreazen reports today on the Pentagon’s latest experiment with alternative fuels. And like computers or the Internet. a supersonic synthetic-fuel flight by a B-1 bomber. the alternative-energy drive is part of a push to reduce fuel bills. civilian industry often reaps the rewards. More importantly. can operate outside economic restraints in a way Silicon Valley—or commercial aviation—can’t.PRIVATE LOBBIES Private industry lobby supports alternative fuels for the Air Force – they see a potential for profit Wall Street Jounal. when the military plants the seeds. The Pentagon’s push could be a way to break the chicken-and-egg stalemate that has plagued alternative-energy development so far. The Air Force is working with companies like Boeing and Pratt and Whitney. Baard Energy of Vancouver had said it would build the first commercial-scale synthetic-fuel refinery in the U. which alone uses 1.5% of oil in the U.” 357 . notorious for $400 toilet seats.S. of course—the Air Force’s gas bill has tripled to $6 billion since 2003. so it takes a little bit of faith to get these plants going. the Pentagon. like GE boss Jeff Immelt. But finding an alternative to petroleum is also increasingly a matter of national security for the Pentagon.

a B-52 bomber made two test runs using a synthetic fuel made with natural gas. the same type of fuel will be made with coal. and by wind and solar power. executive vice president of Syntroleum. Michael Aimone. company that helped produce the fuel for the demonstration project. Told of the price estimate. But two years ago. It accounted for 41 percent of the government's renewable energy purchases. the EPA also gave the Defense Department a "national security exemption" that allowed it to use trucks that did not meet emissions standards for commercial trucks. saying that it will produce as much carbon dioxide pollution as gas. Defense officials say." because coal-based fuel would not generate sulfur dioxide. The department's most promising initiatives are mostly several years away from starting. have criticized coal-based fuel.THE FORT PLTX AIR FORCE (CLEAN COAL) UNPOP. Last week. While officials reported no problems with the new fuel. Jenkins. claiming that it will still produce heavy pollution Boston Globe. p. That figure would be roughly 25 percent of the Air Force's consumption." Aimone said the industry has promised that it could deliver 650 million gallons of synthetic fuel from coal by 2016. Aimone argued that there would be a "marginal improvement in greenhouse gases. “Military Wants a More Fuel Efficient Humvee” 10-02-2006. In the future. who helps oversee the Air Force's energy savings plans.. but acknowledged that coal is far from clean. Greg G. Okla. almost 10 times the cost at the pump. said that once the process was commercialized on a large scale. a Tulsa. said: "He said that? Put that in print. the cost brought looks of astonishment from members of Congress at a hearing last week: $23 a gallon.ENVIROS Environmentalists are opposed to using clean coal for Air Force Fuel. the Air Force won a "Green Power" award from the Environmental Protection Agency as the largest US purchaser of renewable energy.A1. We don't know what the cost will eventually be. 358 . 6 (John Donnelly. Lexis-Nexis Academic) // DCM Last year. by buying gas made from landfill refuse. Environmentalists. A Humvee replacement will not be ready for at least three years. the cost of turning coal into a gas mixture would be less than $3 a gallon. though.

said he was hopeful lawmakers could help the military's effort. 359 ." he told the conference. 3-9. and for us that is great news. Greenwire senior reporter. Rep. p. Rahall wants coal-to-liquids included in House energy package. the Air Force's assistant secretary for installations. William Anderson. 2007.lexis [Cowboy] The Air Force is seeking to use synthetic fuels to displace oil-based fuels to help meet its massive energy needs. "It [the legislation] has got bipartisan support and it has got support in both houses of Congress. environment and logistics.THE FORT PLTX AIRFORCE BIPART AIR FORCE SYNFUEL LEGISLATION BIPARTISAN Ben Geman.

including the prices we pay at the pump. which are other energy choices that McCain is championing. In addition to its use by the military. environmentalists oppose CTL and their powerful allies in the Congress. statistician. the conversion process creates additional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that make CTLs greater GHG emitters than petroleum based fuels. Indeed. 12th and 13th largest coal producing states in the Union. and hopes to be flying half of its missions with the blend by 2016. the CTL issue could be a deciding one for a candidate who takes the lead on the issue. If CTL provided him with a winning margin in all five of these states. the 9th. Colorado and Ohio which are. Not Oil. led by House Oversight Chairman Henry Waxman. but also in potential swing states in the 2008 election such as New Mexico.for John McCain. refuse to grant the Air Force a waiver to pursue their CTL goals. but it could well be an important part in solving one of the most pressing problems of the 21st century – the growing demand for energy in a time when there are severe constraints on the production of petroleum fuel stocks. it provides a solution that does not rely on nuclear power or offshore drilling.converted to CTL. In an election year.and the Air Force has developed technology for converting coal to liquid fuel that is highly efficient. Could Be Defining Issue of 2008 Election”. Such an achievement would have tremendous positive impact on national security. For this reason. respectively. but that might be a good thing in the current electoral climate.THE FORT PLTX AIR FORCE= MCCAIN WIN Coal to Liquid fuel in the air force means McCain wins (Timothy Ryan. the Air Force hopes to convert its entire fleet to CTL (Coal To Liquid) fuel blends. CTL fuels burn as clean as or cleaner than traditional fuels. despite the Air Force's insistence that technology that can capture and sequester the CO2 emissions exists. However. Another roadblock are the significant startup costs in creating the fuel – a new plant would cost $4 to $5 billion to construct. it would be very difficult if not impossible for Senator Obama to put together a winning electoral coalition. If the Air Force and the airline industry – two extremely large energy consumers . CTL based jet fuels could provide an important price break to the struggling commercial airline industry. the United States sits on the world's largest coal deposits – our nation has been called “the Saudi Arabia of Coal” . A possible political compromise would surmount this particular obstacle – acquiescing to Democrats' desire for a form of windfall profits tax on oil companies so long as the revenue was spent on building CTL plants (and other alternative fuel projects). Barack Obama could use CTL to get to the right of John McCain on the energy issue. [Miller]) We think of coal as a 19th century fuel. and even better technology is nearing development. McCain could use the issue to decisive advantage in an Electoral College race. energy security. CTL is a much more obvious issue – and a much stronger one . not only in such well known coal-mining states as West Virginia and Pennsylvania. He is a Fellow of the American Geographical Society and a member of its Writers Circle. 360 . and multiple plants would be required. and the economy as a whole. and to the airline and tourism industries. 6/25/2008. CA. as opposed as the environmentalists are to coal. “Coal.. Also. At a time when Energy Independence is a political issue of increasing importance. That being said. there would likely be significant downward pressure on fuel prices across the entire industry. Timothy Ryan is a geographer. and research coordinator at Infotech Information and Research Consultants in Los Angeles. to the states where the conversion plants would be built (where new jobs constructing the plants and running them after they are built would be created). It would provide a significant boost to the coal industry. It would require that he buck the environmental establishment that is strong in his party.

authorizing a study on synfuel storage in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.41 361 .S. expanding investment tax credit and expensing provisions.THE FORT PLTX AIRFORCE POP. extending existing DOD contracting authority for up to 25 years. and integrate synfuels into the military. Gregory J. The Brookings Institution Foreign Policy Studies. and extending the fuel excise tax credit. test. providing a new program of matching loans to address funding shortages for front-end engineering and design (capped at $20 million and must be matched by non-federal money). Department of Defense Energy Strategy Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks. providing funding for the DOD to purchase.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.OBAMA Obama gets credit – empirically supports military synfuels. U. http://www.pdf Senators Jim Bunning and Barack Obama have introduced legislation to address the need to pull together the investors and the billions of dollars need to build a synthetic fuel plant by expanding and enhancing the DOE loan guarantee program included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.brookings. August 2007. and perhaps most importantly to reduce financial risk associated with starting a US synthetic fuel industry. Air Force Colonel. Lengyel.

AUS staff writer.THE FORT PLTX AIRFORCE UNPOP(LOBBIES) Plan’s unpopular – warming lobby. The US Air Force Synthetic Fuels Program. 362 . the result will be.ausairpower. Carlo Kopp. If the world shifts to synthetic fuels as crude reserves are drained.html The radical environmental and Global Warming lobbies are intensely hostile to the prospect of increased synthetic fuel use. further acceleration of global warming and resulting environmental doom.net/APA-USAF-SynFuels. http://www. January 2008. which is seen to be desirable as a force which retards global carbon based fuel consumption. in the minds of the Global Warming lobby. as it it seen to an escape path from the escalating costs of natural crude oil.

com/modules/news/article. in a clean and environmentally-safe way.THE FORT PLTX AIRFORCE BIPART Plan’s bipartisan – house bill proves. 2208. common sense plan to utilize our country’s most abundant energy resource. McHenry Signs Petition to Force Vote on Clean Coal-to-Liquid. the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Act.” Congressman McHenry stated. The bipartisan legislation written by Representatives John Shimkus (R-IL) and Rick Boucher (D-VA). "This is a bipartisan. would promote the use of clean coal-to-liquid technology to produce alternative energy sources. to help move us toward energy independence and lower gas prices. http://www.lincolntribune.S House of Representatives on H. Lincoln Tribune.php?storyid=9282 WASHINGTON – Congressman Patrick McHenry has signed a discharge petition to force a floor vote in the U. 363 . 7/15/2008.R.

” the email said.). “However. http://articles.S.” 364 . Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-toliquid fuels unless they emit at least 20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels. including shifting our energy use to renewable fuels and investing in technology that could make coal a clean-burning source of energy. that would give the coal industry tax breaks and other incentives to harness the abundant natural resource as an alternative fuel. unless and until this technology is perfected. At issue is legislation.THE FORT PLTX AIRFORCE UNPOP. Obama yields to a greener side. Obama seemed to be making his choice clear: pledging to oppose any plan to turn coal into liquid fuel unless it adhered to strict environmental safeguards. Jim Bunning (R-Ky. 6/13/2007. With his statement Tuesday. Peter Wallsten. But environmentalists charged that coal would produce a dirty fuel and exacerbate global warming. A bipartisan group of lawmakers. Barack Obama on Tuesday backtracked from his long-held support for a controversial plan to promote the use of coal as an alternative fuel to power motor vehicles. reliance on foreign oil. putting Obama in the awkward position of balancing the desires of an industry with a strong presence in his home state against those of a key voting bloc in the Democratic presidential primaries. Sen. introduced in January.latimes. LA Times staff.OBAMA Obama doesn’t support – changed his stance for the election.com/2007/jun/13/nation/na-energypol13 With pressure mounting on Democratic presidential candidates to adopt hard-line positions on curbing global warming. led by Obama and Sen. “Senator Obama supports research into all technologies to help solve our climate change and energy dependence problems. The Illinois Democrat made his announcement with little fanfare – in a dryly worded and technical-sounding e-mail sent late in the day from his Senate office to environmental advocacy groups – and did not mention the issue during an appearance at a Brentwood gas station designed to shore up his green bona fides with a renewed call to nationalize California’s ambitious goals for reducing carbon levels in fuel. promoted the idea as a way to reduce U.

A dangerous proposition. a bill was introduced into Congress that effectively called for a blockade of Iran. with 169 co-sponsors. They generated tens of thousands of emails. planes. and other contacts with members of Congress and their staff. especially given all the efforts that the Bush-Cheney administration has taken to move us closer to a military confrontation with Iran." and pledged that he would not support the bill with the blockade language. United for Peace and Justice. it was projected to appear quickly on the House Suspension Calendar.. the Friends Committee on National Legislation. phone calls. soon to accumulate more than 200 Representatives. including Peace Action. He apologized for "not having read [the bill] more carefully. the anti-war movement has taken on one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States in an important fight. the Bush Administration could take it as a green light for a blockade. without at least firing a few missiles at the blockaders. letters. and the refusal to engage in direct talks with the Iranian government. 365 . It allows the bill to avoid amendments and other procedural votes. an influential member of Congress who chairs the powerful House Financial Services Committee.huffingtonpost. the National Iranian-American Council. The last thing we need is for the war party to get encouragement from Congress to initiate more illegal and extremely dangerous hostilities in the Persian Gulf. 362.THE FORT PLTX MILITARY UNPOP. the anti-war movement is winning.com/mark-weisbrot/anti-war-movement-success_b_114545. the bill calls for: "prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products. Con. as well as normal debate. and Just Foreign Policy. This is a special procedure that allows the House of Representatives to pass non-controversial legislation by a super-majority. Anti-War Movement Successfully Pushes Back Against Military Confrontation With Iran. Among other expressions of hostility.. And so far.CONGRESS Military funding massively unpopular—lobbies protest Huffington post. which is an act of war. Code Pink. It's hard to imagine the Iranians passively watching their economy strangled for lack of gasoline (which they import). imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons.html [adit]s Who says there's no anti-war movement in the United States? In the past two months. vehicles. Here's the story: On May 22. Whereupon all hell could break loose." This sounded an awful lot like it was calling for a blockade. The first co-sponsor to change his position on the bill was Representative Barney Frank (D-MA). Res. By June 20 this bill was zipping through Congress. ships. Amazingly. 6/24/08 http://www. and cargo entering or departing Iran. An aide to the Democratic leadership said the resolution would pass Congress like a "hot knife through butter. H." Groups opposed to military confrontation with Iran sprang into action. the bluster and the threats. trains. If the bill were to pass.

THE FORT PLTX ***************NANOTECH************* 366 .

Of 1. The issue isn't about informing these people. only 29. environmentalists and countless other non-religious factions. Only about 60 percent of Brits are happy with nanotech. compared to more than half in European countries. even when scientific endeavor produces results with no clear religious implications (unlike.wired." I think he's hyping an angle: religious belief merges neatly into irreligious fear of the new and other objections to science. "They are informed. 367 . Dietram Scheufele. Scheufele insists that it's not a matter of misunderstanding what nanotechnology is — the respondents knew what they were rejecting.com/gadgets/2008/02/two-thirds-of-a.com February 18. In this view. He specifically chooses to forget about the science-skeptical nature of postmodernists. for example. machines and other products fabricated with nanometer-sized components such as single atoms or molecules—is morally unacceptable to most Americans. 2008 “Study: Only 1/3 Of Americans Think Nanotechnology Is Morally Acceptable” http://blog. the university's proferssor of life sciences communication.PUBLIC Nanotech is overwhelmingly unpopular By Rob Beschizza writer for wired.html Nanotechnology—materials.015 adult Americans polled. feminists. evolution or human cloning) it's simply not on to go around thinking empirically about the natural world. claims its due to religious beliefs which inculcate people with a generalized mistrust of science. according to a sampling taken by the University of Winconsin-Madison.5 agreed that it was acceptable. and they're about as religious as cement.THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH UNPOP." he told Science Daily. say. "They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs.

S. Why the big difference? The answer.Is nanotechnology morally acceptable? For a significant percentage of Americans. 2008) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science." The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions. European countries have a much more secular perspective. a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences communication. Addressing scientists here today (Feb.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable. In a sample of 1. Dietram Scheufele. They are informed. is that nanotechnology. according to a recent survey of Americans' attitudes about the science of the very small. 368 . biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities. In the United Kingdom. than in Europe. especially where nanotechnology and biotechnology intertwine. In short. explaining that survey respondents are well-informed about nanotechnology and its potential benefits.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable." The new study has critical implications for how experts explain the technology and its applications. significantly higher percentages of people accepted the moral validity of the technology. the answer is no." he says." says Scheufele. In Germany. structures. presented new survey results that show religion exerts far more influence on public views of technology in the United States than in Europe." says Scheufele.7 percent had no moral qualms about nanotechnology. typically in the realm of individual atoms and molecules. "They still oppose it.S. Scheufele says. 54. researchers are viewed as "playing God" when they create materials that do not occur in nature. "There seem to be distinct differences between the United States and countries that are key players in nanotech in Europe. Scheufele believes.015 adult Americans. 62. and in France 72. only 29. The importance of religion in these different countries that shows up in data set after data set parallels exactly the differences we're seeing in terms of moral views. "They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. Already. He conducted the U.1 percent of survey respondents saw no problems with the technology. Nanotechnology is a branch of science and engineering devoted to the design and production of materials. The moral qualms people of faith express about nanotechnology is not a question of ignorance of the technology. an expert on public opinion and science and technology. 15. in terms of attitudes toward nanotechnology. says Scheufele. survey with Arizona State University (ASU) colleague Elizabeth Corley under the auspices of the National Science Foundation-funded Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU. dozens of products containing nanoscale materials or devices are on the market. devices and circuits at the smallest achievable scale.PUBLIC Nanotech is unpopular-religious beliefs Dietram Scheufele University of Wisconsin-Madison survey center 15-Feb-2008 “Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology” MADISON -.THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH UNPOP. In European surveys that posed identical questions about nanotechnology to people in the United Kingdom and continental Europe. "Our data show a much lower percentage of people who agree that nanotechnology is morally acceptable in the U. says Scheufele. Scheufele believes. is religion: "The United States is a country where religion plays an important role in peoples' lives. The ability to engineer matter at that scale has the potential to produce a vast array of new technologies that could influence everything from computers to medicine. The issue isn't about informing these people. It means the scientific community needs to do a far better job of placing the technology in context and in understanding the attitudes of the American public.

and cloning research.htm Data from 3909 respondents to an Internet survey questionnaire provide the first insights into public perceptions of nanotechnology. especially environmental nanotech aimed at managing risks The Pew Charitable Trusts serves the public interest by informing the public.PUBLIC Nanotech is popular William Sims Bainbridge Journal of Nanoparticle Research. reveals high levels of enthusiasm for the potential benefits of nanotechnology and little concern about possible dangers. advancing policy solutions and supporting civic life. they do not associate nanotechnology with pseudoscience. But at the same time. despite its imaginative exploitation by science fiction writers.THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH IS POP.aspx?id=19602 Americans welcome new potential life-saving and -enhancing applications promised by nanotechnology. and it provides material for an additional 108 questionnaire items that can be used in future surveys on the topic. 2003 “Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology” http://mysite. one positive and the other negative. The respondents mentally connect nanotechnology with the space program. they voice concern over a lack of research into nanotechnology’s potential longterm human health and environmental effects and want to ensure that the government and private sectors are equipped and willing to effectively manage any would-be risks. Quantitative analysis of statistics about agreement and disagreement with two statements.net/wsbainbridge/dl/nanotech.org/news_room_detail. but rate it more favorably.verizon.pewtrusts. 369 . The findings of this exploratory study can serve as benchmarks against which to compare results of future research on the evolving status of nanotechnology in society. The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars was created in partnership with The Pew Charitable Trusts in April 2005. nuclear power. In contrast. Public supports nanotech. 09/08/2005 “Nanotechnology and Public Attitudes” http://www. These are some of the findings in a new study released today by The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Qualitative analysis of written comments from 598 respondents indicates that many ideas about the value of nanotechnology have entered popular culture.

the White House shares Congress' opinion that nanotechnology R&D should continue to be a high priority on the federal research agenda.THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH BIPART Nanotech is bipart Chemical Engineering Progress. May 2003 “Congressional initiatives support nanotechnology” http://findarticles. In addition. 370 .com/p/articles/mi_qa5350/is_200305/ai_n21330586 Bipartisan legislation has been introduced in both the House and the Senate to spur nanotechnology research and development activities.

com/p/articles/mi_qa5350/is_200305/ai_n21330586 Bipartisan legislation has been introduced in both the House and the Senate to spur nanotechnology research and development activities. the "21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. 189 on the "fast track" for approval this year. 371 .MCCAIN Mccain supports bipart nanotech Chemical Engineering Progress. Senate Commerce Committee Chair John McCain (R-AZ) has put S. from the last Congress." in January 2003. 189. the White House shares Congress' opinion that nanotechnology R&D should continue to be a high priority on the federal research agenda. 2945. In addition. The Senate bill Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and 11 co-sponsors introduced S.THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH BIPART/POP. The bill is based on Wyden's bill. May 2003 “Congressional initiatives support nanotechnology” http://findarticles. which received strong support and was unanimously approved by the Senate Commerce Committee only two days after its introduction. S.

there likely will be several hearings in both houses of Congress exploring the policy issues implicit in nanotechnology research and development." he said. he said. he said.smalltimes. Phil Gingrey." Concern about the pace of nanotechnology investment among foreign governments dominated a chunk of the testimony. Boehlert said he will schedule another nanotechnology hearing in early April.. chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. government. director of physical sciences in the IBM Research Division of the Thomas J. is focused much more on driving nanotechnology economic development than the U. "in light of the recent bill we passed in the House banning human cloning. plans to make the nanotechnology legislation in the Senate a priority in his committee.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=268615&p=109 Sen. not every one of them positive and comfortable. but they all championed the idea of dealing with potential problems aggressively and often.S. "Some individuals have suggested that nanotechnology developments may raise concerns." said Alan Marty. "IBM believes that nanotechnology has a big place in the future of the company.com/Articles/Article_Display. nanotechnology with "guys in scary suits" making mysterious concoctions in the deserts of New Mexico." The USPTO is "challenged" right Another big topic during the hearing was potential trouble with ethical and environmental issues associated with nanotechnology. R-Ga. as well as most of the lawmakers who spoke. "Our focus must be widened to include commercialization and the global race. which is not productive. "I do urge the committee to anticipate that there will be societal implications. championed the legislation as the right next step for nanotechnology. "Until we broaden the education base of the general public. asked whether." there were any similarly explosive problems with nanotechnology. Wyden said. the arguments are between academic scientists on one end. Rep. said Carl Batt.S. an investment firm. because of its interdisciplinary nature and the rapid pace of developments in the field. "With a plethora of products in the market and more on the way. and the fringe on the other. co-director of the Nanobiotechnology Center at Cornell University. who is responsible for leading nanotechnology investments for JP Morgan Partners. The bill is not controversial." 372 . Marty said one valuable step government could take would be ensuring that the U. John McCain. Members of the panel rejected the idea that nanotechnology was riddled with ethical land mines. In coming months. There is a danger that people will associate now by nanotechnology. 2003 “Nanotech hearing gets Congress thinking on a grand small scale” http://www. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) "is the very best in the world when it comes to nanotechnology. R-Ariz." The international competition. "We urge the committee to pass this legislation." Theis said.. Watson Research Center. and the people who testified.THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH UNPOP-CONGESS/POP-MCCAIN McCain empirically supports unpopular nanotechnology legislation Small times online news source March 20." said Tom Theis. it's not longer prudent to think of nanotechnology as just a science. and in the future of society.

participation in an international high-energy physics project based in Geneva." And yet.for which.to investigate whether nuclear fusion is a potential source of energy. Switzerland. Competitiveness Now” And McCain.S.based in France -. labs on high-intensity X-rays useful for biomedical research. declared that he would lead "a great national campaign to achieve energy security for America" involving an eventual "great turn" from carbon to alternative fuels -. right now. he said "we will need all the inventive genius of which America is capable. director of public affairs for the American Physical Society. in his energy speech Tuesday in Houston. Also in danger is U.MCCAIN Mccain supports nanotech Mort Kondracke is the Executive Editor of Roll Call. McCain Can Help Advance Energy.S. according to City College of New York professor Michael Lubell.THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH POP. the United States is being forced by Department of Energy budget cuts to withdraw from ITER.700 workers at the DOE's national laboratories already have been laid off and 200 planned university research programs have been canceled. More than 2. and development of work in U. the newspaper of Capitol Hill since 1955 June 19. nanotechnology and computer-chip design -all keys to competitiveness. 373 . the international project -. 2008 “Obama.

encourage undergraduates studying math and science to pursue graduate studies.physicstoday. tapping the diversity of America to meet the increasing demand for a skilled workforce. the flagship publication of The American Institute of Physics. engaging curricula. and a commitment to developing skills in the field of technology. technology and math skills to succeed in the 21st century economy. If we export our best software and engineering jobs to developing countries. Obama also believes that we must strengthen math and science education to help develop a skilled workforce and promote innovation. This is central to the competitiveness of our nation's technology sector and of our citizens. and biotechnology. 374 .OBAMA Obama supports nanotech Physics Today. 2008 “Barack Obama on science education” http://blogs.org/politics08/barack_obama/ Barack Obama will emphasize the importance of technology literacy. is the most influential and closely followed physics magazine in the world January 2. electronics.THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH POP. it is less likely that America will benefit from the next generation innovations in nanotechnology. ensuring that all public school children are equipped with the necessary science. Access to computers and broadband connections in public schools must be coupled with qualified teachers. We must have a skilled workforce so that we can retain and grow jobs requiring 21st century skills rather than forcing employers to find skilled workers abroad. He will work to increase our number of science and engineering graduates. and work to increase the representation of minorities and women in the science and technology pipeline.

This legislation amends the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act to make several changes to the implementation process and priorities of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)." 375 . 2008 Press Releases :: “Committee Passes Legislation to Reauthorize NNI” http://science.gov/press/PRArticle. which reauthorizes and updates the successful federal interagency nanotechnology research and development program. 2008 Alliance Commends House Passage of Nanotechnology Bill http://www. bipartisan margin. It is based in part on recommendations from the formal reviews of NNI by the National Academy of Sciences and the NNI Advisory Panel. and this bill will help make that happen. 5940 is a bipartisan bill which I and Ranking Member Hall jointly introduced. passed by an overwhelming. "H. 5940. DC) – Today.aspx?NewsID=2185 (Washington. "It is imperative that the United States maintain its lead in the global nanotechnology race.R.THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH BIPART NANOTECH’S BIPARTISANLY SUPPORTED House Committee on Science and Technology May 7. along with 23 additional Democratic and Republican Members of the Committee. the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008.aspx?ArticleID=16491 NanoBusiness Alliance Executive Chairman Sean Murdock on June 5 commended the House of Representatives for passing the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 (H.house. The bill." said Murdock." CONGRESS LOVES NANOTECH—RECENT BILL PROVES Industry Week June 9.R.R. "This Committee was instrumental in establishing the National Nanotechnology Initiative through legislation enacted in 2003. 5940)." said Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN). "We are pleased that Congress continues to recognize the importance of nanotechnology.industryweek.com/ReadArticle. House Science and Technology Committee approved H.

REMARKS BY THE HON. Wolf.htm “Like many technology issues. health and safety research and the development of reasonable standards. Ohio. I joined a session of the Environmental Protection Agency's Nanotechnology Work Group.technology. nanotechnology enjoys tremendous bi-partisan support. I was heartened to see that in a bi-partisan statement.THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH BIPART NANOTECH IS BI-PARTISAN The Technology Administration. leadership and dedication to this important innovation issue. 2003. Ltd.” Nanotech has bi-partisan support COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. which was charged with leading the discussion on nanotechnology regulation. HTTP://SCIENCE. http://www. and it also dovetails with the Summit on Innovation held by Chairmen Boehlert.HOUSE. universities. Bond Praises Passage of Historic Nanotech Legislation http://www.aspx?ArticleID=13166 I've been vocal in my support an open sharing of information to expedite environmental. Taking The NanoPulse -Nanotechnology In 2007 -. I couldn't agree more.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.No Ostriches Allowed. 12-6-06 Chief executive of Nanofilm.The Science Committee held three hearings on nanotech this year: In May we heard testimony about the challenges facing companies.ASPX?NEWSID=1020 It isn’t a partisan issue – nanotech also fits in well with the bipartisan legislation based on the National Innovation Initiative that Senators Ensign and Lieberman recently introduced. and national labs that are trying to commercialize nanotechnology. the House Science Committee is urging the Bush Administration and key federal agencies to "quickly put together a plan and a budget to implement recommendations" put forward in a report by concerned scientists. MIKE HONDA ON THE RELEASE OF THE WHITE PAPER OF THE BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE ON NANOTECHNOLOGY. Know that Congress IS paying attention.GOV/PRESS/PRARTICLE. and Ehlers this month. Rickert. CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT FOR NANOTECH IS BIPARTISAN Scott E.gov/PRel/pr031120.” continued Bond. “Senators George Allen (R-VA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and Representative Mike Honda (D-CA) deserve much credit for their perseverance. 376 . November 30. located in Valley View. I've also met with various publications and foundations on the topic. 12-19-2005.

Some of you that are here today were with us last week when I held a forum on innovation with Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Rep.house.pdf The federal government has played a central role in catalyzing U. and the Senate.S. nanotech fits in well with the Innovation Agenda that Democrats announced last month.S. NANOTECH IS BIPARTISAN Committee on Science and Technology. President Clinton launched the U. Zoe Lofgren. the world’s first integrated national effort focused on nanotechnology. As a growing field where global leadership is still up for grabs. 12-19-2005. and wealth creation. renewing U. Sargent.state. Mike Honda on the Release of the White Paper of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Nanotechnology. economic growth. which is a strategy for keeping the US competitive in the global economy. 05/18/08. Remarks by the Hon. Science. addressing critical national needs. Since the inception of the NNI. Congress has appropriated a total of $8. One of the topics discussed that day was nanotechnology. R&D efforts. and improving health. and each year Congress has provided additional funding.THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH BIPART THE NNI SHARES STRONG BIPARTISAN SUPPORT John F. the President has proposed increased funding for federal nanotechnology R&D. technological leadership and to support the technology’s development. The NNI has enjoyed strong. nanotechnology has remained a priority throughout this year that you have been working on this report. with the long-term goals of: creating high-wage jobs. manufacturing leadership.gov/press/PRArticle.S. the environment. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).aspx?NewsID=1020 Let me assure you that on the Congressional side. In 2000. 377 .gov/documents/organization/106153.4 billion for nanotechnology R&D intended to foster continued U. http://fpc. We had folks talk about a number of things that we need to do to make sure that America continues to lead the world in innovation. Specialist in Science and Technology Policy Resources. and the overall quality of life. and Industry Division. http://science.S. bipartisan support from the executive branch. the House of Representatives. Each year.

and this bill will help make that happen. "We are pleased that Congress continues to recognize the importance of nanotechnology.THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH BIPART Nanotech is bipartisan Business Wire 6-5-08 (“NanoBusiness Alliance Commends House Passage of Nanotechnology Bill” pLn) NanoBusiness Alliance Executive Chairman Sean Murdock today commended the House of Representatives for passing the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 (H. The bill. "It is imperative that the United States maintain its lead in the global nanotechnology race. which reauthorizes and updates the successful federal interagency nanotechnology research and development program." said Murdock." 378 . bipartisan margin.R. passed by an overwhelming. 5940).

THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH POP.3/28/2008 Democrats Eye Risk Research Funding Boost In Nano Reauthorization Bill Democrats are drafting legislation that would significantly boost spending to research the environmental.DEMS DEMOCRATS SUPPORT NANOTECH DESPITE REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION TODAY NEWS UPDATE . Democrats have dropped plans to mandate a funding increase for research into the environmental. and would also appoint what one environmentalist describes as a “cheerleader” in the president’s office to lobby across the administration for future nanotech research funds. which the Democrats had hoped to include in a pending bill to reauthorize nanotechnology research funding. 379 . NANOTECH POPULAR FOR DEMOCRATS TODAY News Update . health and safety (EHS) risks of nanotechnology. health and safety (EHS) implications of nanotechnology.5/1/2008 DEMOCRATS DROP BID TO BOLSTER NANOTECH STUDY FUNDS AMID GOP RESISTANCE Facing Republican and White House opposition. sources say.

She said in recent years. Burlington Free Press. government funding of nanotech has fostered public fear Sara Buscher. “Chemical Society Opens Up.” http://www.com/apps/pbcs. a lesson she's learned from experience in her own field of nanotechnology in foods.dll/article? AID=/20080630/NEWS02/806300309/1007/NEWS02 Case says it's up to chemists to keep the public up to speed on what's happening in the field.THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH UNPOP. government funding for the science concerned with matter on the molecular scale not only raised public awareness. 380 . 6-30-08.burlingtonfreepress. but also fostered the spread of misinformation.PUBLIC Empirically. Free Press Staff Writer.

381 .com. A lack of information about the risks and potential health hazards related to this technology is a cause for concern. as is the little information available about U. Chief Science Advisor at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. 7-1-08. “Stricter Federal regulations for nanotech companies must be put into place to ensure safety of suppliers and general public. but with a serious lack of active monitoring.S.aspx? StoryID=52184 “In the absence of clear guidelines from Washington.CONGRESS Both federal and state governments are racing to put up barriers to nanotech development TransWorldNews.THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH UNPOP. Andrew Maynard.transworldnews. no standards have been put into place thus far.” stated Dr.” http://www. The Federal government has recently called for “risk assessments” that would be used to create standards related to nanotechnology. companies that utilize nanotechnology in their research or in the development of various products. the states are being left to fill in the gaps.com/NewsStory.

correlated strongly with how that person felt about nanotechnology. Public outreach efforts may therefore have to overcome previous failures in science communication.. “How the Public makes sense of Nanotechnology” Nanotech News http://nano. health and safety issues relating to nanoscale materials. "I have thought about getting involved in energy conservation and nanotechnology because I always have about 10 products floating around in my head. 12-12-05. Indeed. They also found that most Americans have a positive attitude toward nanotechnology.html/inventions_paving. you have to fill it as quickly as possible or someone else will. The Colorado Springs Gazette. and citizens are taking notice Wayne Heilman.S. the researchers believe.D. at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. will also play a role. conducted a national telephone survey of over 700 adults in the fall of 2004. To better gauge the public’s knowledge about and attitudes toward nanotechnology." NANOTECHNOLOGY IS PUBLICLY POPULAR National Cancer Institute.” http://www. U. Two recent studies suggest it will be important to continue educating the public about these new technologies and their ultimate safety in order to develop support.cancer.gazette. largely. though what they do know they have learned through the mass media.html If there is a need for technology in a certain market. The investigators also found that past controversies in science and an individual’s positive or negative feelings about those areas of science – think genetic engineering and stem cell research . Dietram Scheufele. because most media coverage to date has focused on the bright promise that nanotechnology has for society. The survey also included questions designed to tease out the roles that education and personal beliefs play in forming attitudes toward nanotechnology.D. and among ethnic minorities. but that more general personal beliefs.PUBLIC Currently. 7-5-08. while only fewer than half of those polled knew the difference between a nanometer and an atom.. My goal is to get three of them licensed a year. Ph. various experts have voiced concern that the public’s acceptance of nanotechnology will play an increasingly important role in determining the ultimate impact that nanotechnology has across society. understanding of risk-benefit assessments. and how the public learns about nanotechnology. older individuals. Ph. at Cornell University. 382 .asp Ever since nanotechnology began attracting public attention. and Bruce Lewenstein. The investigators asked a series of questions aimed at determining general attitudes toward nanotechnology. One interesting finding from these studies was that negative feelings towards nanotechnology were stronger in women. The researchers found that most Americans today know little about nanotechnology. about which little can be done. government efforts aimed at promoting the development of nanotechnology have also included funds for studying environmental.gov/news_center/nanotech_news_2005-12-12d. there is a gap in the market for nanotechnology. nanotechnology literacy. As a result.com/articles/good_37949___article." Salazar said. well over half had an appreciation of the economic implications of nanotechnology.THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH POP. “Paving way with good inventions.

383 . associate professor of science. Cobb and Hamlett then put the participants through a deliberative forum in March 2008 that provided structured discussions and educational background on the technologies. Cobb noted that. gave questionnaires to study participants around the country to determine their position on emerging technologies with "human enhancement" applications – such as using nanotechnology to improve therapies for injuries and degenerative diseases. California. called the 2008 National Citizens' Forum on Human Enhancement.THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH POP. Dr. Cobb says the study is also important because it shows that deliberative forums are a viable tool for encouraging informed public engagement in the development of governmental policies. artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies shows that educating people about the new technologies results in those people becoming more concerned about the potential impact of the technologies. “Study shows that increased education on nanotech. compared to their pre-deliberation opinions. Georgia. so that the public's concerns are incorporated into the policy development process. in Malmo.html A new study by researchers at North Carolina State University on public attitudes towards nanotechnology. Colorado. Prior to the deliberation. panelists "became more worried and cautious about the prospective benefits" of the human enhancement technologies. 7-16-08. The researchers. New Hampshire and Wisconsin. 82 percent of the participants were at least somewhat certain that the benefits of the technologies outweighed the risks – but that number dropped to 66 percent after the deliberation. human enhancement increases public concerns” http://www. consumer products and industrial processes. technology and society and political science. Sweden. Patrick Hamlett. Michael D.com/news135423871. The driver for the study was to develop a format for informed interaction about the trajectories of science and technology policies as those policies are being developed. and Dr. Cobb. The participants were then asked to fill out the same questionnaire they had been given before the deliberative forum and asked to provide policy recommendations on how to handle the emerging science. assistant professor of political science.PUBLIC NANOTECHNOLOGY WILL BE IMPORTANT TO THE PUBLIC North Carolina State University. This is significant because there have been questions in the past about whether "ordinary citizens" are able to engage in useful deliberation – or whether collective opinions developed during group deliberation are worse than if the deliberation had never taken place. under a subcontract from the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University. The study was conducted at sites in Arizona. and is expected to have widespread uses in medicine. Cobb and Hamlett conducted the study.physorg. Nanotechnology is generally defined as technology that uses substances having a size of 100 nanometers or less (thousands of times thinner than a human hair). Cobb says. In a recent presentation to the 10th Conference on Public Communication of Science.

com/cmd/articledetail/articleid/16492/default. it’s not just new jobs that are at risk from nanotechnology. large corporations. federal representatives.expansionmanagement.” 384 . – which is exactly what Pelosi wants Ken Krizner. Nanotechnology promises a far greater economic impact because it can affect not just biologically derived products. “Biotechnology created more than 400." Modzelewski said.PELOSI Increased nanotech increases jobs in the U. investors and universities — have a vested interest in making nanotechnology efforts succeed. Managing Editor. but all manufactured goods. 6-22-05 (“Federal.THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH POP.S. startups.000 jobs from 1979 to 1999. existing ones in industries impacted by nanoscale science are on the line as well.asp) “Multiple stakeholders — including state and local officials. State Governments Are Investing Heavily Into Nanotechnology” http://www. Also.

5 and 14 percent).K. The U. the U. Lehigh University.PUBLIC NANOTECH IS UNPOPULAR WITH THE PUBLIC Sharon M. [15]. Indeed. publications had both the most negative and positive headlines.S.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=1563496 Another major concern almost from the birth of nanotechnology among U. headlines (15. readers often glance at headlines but do not read the accompanying articles.S. particularly the Action Group on Erosion.org/iel5/44/33181/01563496.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=1563496 While the paragraphs provided an overall balanced vfocus. Unfortunately. newspapers included more neutral and mixed headlines (20 and 22 percent) compared to U. and 44 percent of the U. [24]. but U. headlines were positive. Interesting. article headlines did not. with twice as many negative as positive ones. and 14 percent of the U. have turned their scrutiny to nanotech. affecting sales of GMO products and blackening reputations of companies associated with the technology [8]. NEGATIVE PRESS ON NANOTECH HAS INFLUENCED PUBLIC OPINION Sharon M. Lehigh University. http://ieeexplore. with the rest either neutral or mixed.K.S. so people could have taken away a more negative impression about nanotech’s health and environmental risks than the articles. the ETC Group called for a moratorium on the use of synthetic nanoparticles in the lab and in any new commercial products until governments adopt "best practices" for research [6]. some environmental groups active in the GMO debate. Close to half of them were negative: 48 percent of the U. Concerned about the nanotech’s potential societal and health impacts. negative headlines were more than three times the number of positive headlines.THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH UNPOP.S. 385 . Friedman Winter 2005. http://ieeexplore.S. Anti-GMO sentiments are particularly strong in Europe. Nanotechnology: Risks and the Media Professor and Director of the Science & Environmental Writing Program in the Department of Journalism & Communication.K. articles.K.ieee. Negative headlines partially reflect the need of headline writers (not reporters) to attract readers and sometimes do not reflect the focus of the articles themselves. Technology and Concentration (ETC Group).ieee. Friedman Winter 2005. Coders in this study often found that negative headlines did not reflect the articles they topped. scientists and government officials has been fear that some members of the public would react to nanotechnology in the same way many reacted to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) [20]. Nanotechnology: Risks and the Media Professor and Director of the Science & Environmental Writing Program in the Department of Journalism & Communication.org/iel5/44/33181/01563496. Only about 23 percent of the U.

K. and U. Nanotechnology: Risks and the Media Professor and Director of the Science & Environmental Writing Program in the Department of Journalism & Communication.K. articles included any mention of risk similarities between nanotechnology and GMOs or biotechnology. Less that 40 percent of the U. and 40 percent of U.THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH UNPOP. leading to calls for more government regulation.S. U.org/iel5/44/33181/01563496. Friedman Winter 2005.PUBLIC PUBLIC HAS NEGATIVE OPINION OF NANOTECH DUE TO PRESS Sharon M.S. scientists and government officials have been concerned about whether the media would link risks from GMOs to those of nanotechnology. Only 31 percent of U. http://ieeexplore. articles discussed a need for new or tightened regulations about nanotechnology.S. Lehigh University.ieee.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=1563496 Media coverage that compares nanotechnology to other technologies that have “bad” reputations could negatively impact people’s opinions of nanotech. In particular. 386 .

Their conclusion: Perceived benefits seems to be the most important predictor for willingness to buy. nanotechnology food is accepted. therefore. foods) is perceived as less acceptable than nanooutside (e. Heinz and Altria you get exactly zero results) this seems a realistic scenario. The industry should. 387 ." Previous findings from research on genetically modified foods ("Societal aspects of genetically modified (GM) foods") indicate that nanotechnology foods with tangible benefits for the consumer will be easier to market than nanotechnology foods without obvious consumer benefits. "We have shown previously that shared values constitute the foundations of trust" says Siegrist. "More research is necessary to better understand the willingness to buy such new food products. Coated tomatoes have a longer shelf life. and that should be included in future studies. the less acceptable will be a genetically engineered version of that product. "If an institution’s behavior is judged to reflect a person’s values. processed or packaged with nanotechnology. the acceptance of nanotechnology foods cannot be reduced to perceived benefits." Rather than just the product itself. risk and the public acceptance of nanotechnology before. "Our study was a first attempt to examine public reactions toward nanotechnology foods" Siegrist explains to Nanowerk. Acceptance of nanotechnology foods could be substantially reduced. it seems that social trust in institutions producing nanotechnology foods is an important factor directly influencing the willingness to buy. the institution will be seen as trustworthy.) Participants were given basic descriptions of potential food nanotechnology applications in bread. "It is more likely that. Nestle. something that is not required under current regulations. but not for other products. But even novel foods that have clear health benefits may not be appealing to all consumers. http://www." In conclusion.. perceived benefits have an impact on how nanotechnology foods are assessed. juice and packaging before being asked a series of questions. Swiss social psychologist Michael Siegrist has looked into the issues of trust.php (Nanowerk Spotlight) Having written in this space about the (possibly) good and the (possibly) bad of food nanotechnology before. that the benefits associated with many upcoming nanotechnology food applications may not provide enough additional value for consumers to induce them to buy these products. participants showed a low intention to consume GM food. A sample description: A nanotechnology coating protects tomatoes from humidity and oxygen. Disadvantages include the uncertainty of experts about the effects of this material on human health and the environment. tomatoes.. therefore. Given that almost all of the large food conglomerates are working on nanotechnology R&D but have gone very quiet on it publicly (when you search for the term 'nano' or nanotechnology' on the websites of Kraft. even though clear benefits to the consumer had been communicated. in more positive attitudes toward nanotechnology food" says Siegrist. Now." This of course would assume that nanofoods are labelled as such. the Swiss researchers constructed a sample of 153 people who are responsible for grocery shopping in their household . for some products." For their study.g. "Perceived naturalness or lack of naturalness could be a factor that also influences attitudes toward nanotechnology foods" he says. Siegrist's findings are in line with recent studies suggesting that benefit alone does not guarantee acceptance. Another advantage is that tomatoes can be harvested when they are ripe. " These results also support our hypothesis that nanoinside (e.nanowerk. promote voluntary initiatives and regulations designed to prevent unwanted side effects. Results suggest.THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH UNPOP. "Our results suggest that nanotechnology packaging is perceived as being substantially more beneficial than nanotechnology foods" says Siegrist.com/spotlight/spotid=1899. The importance of social trust suggests that an event with significant negative consequences could have a disastrous impact on trust in the industry. 5-8-07. Siegrist emphasizes that consumers are not a homogenous group. The importance of trust for the perception of nanotechnology foods consequently raises the question of how trust is created. similar studies on GM foods showed a difference in what people said they were willing to do and what they actually did.PUBLIC NANOTECHNOLOGY IS UNPOPULAR WITH THE PUBLIC Michael Berger. "In sum. In one of these studies. he and his colleagues have taken the area of nanofoods and tried to understand what factors influence the willingness to buy food that has been produced. An important factor that we came across. "It seems that the introduction of novel nanotechnology foods is unlikely to result. If a food manufacturer decides not to tout the nanotechnology aspects of their food product it would be very difficult for the consumer to find out. The participants had a mean age of 38 years and their education level was above average compared to the Swiss population. However." It should also be noted that participants were generally hesitant to buy nanotechnology foods or food with nanotechnology packaging. Siegrist mentions a recent study that suggests that the more a product is seen as natural. is perceived naturalness. generally. they differ in what they perceive as benefits. here is now a scientific approach to assessing how the public perceives nanotechnology in food and food packaging. “Food nanotechnology and public acceptance” Nano Werk.g. packaging). (Previous. One limitation of the study obviously was that it examined the willingness to buy and not the actual buying behavior. resulting in more tasty tomatoes.

THE FORT PLTX **************NATIVES************ 388 .

April 25. The BIA has been unresponsive to requests for this public record. The two firms responsible for the poll. Their findings include: --Fifty-five percent of Americans oppose Indian tribes acquiring lands far from their historic homelands to build casinos.THE FORT PLTX NATIVES POP. April 21. “New Poll Finds Popular Opposition to Off-Reservation Casinos.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_April_21/ai_n16131689 With Congress considering tighter regulations on off-reservation gaming. which is believed to contain several new applications. --Seventy-nine percent expressed concerns that casino companies and developers are exploiting the special historical status of Native Americans. --Eighty percent of voters said the possibility of developers and lobbyists contributing money to politicians in exchange for land recognition is of personal concern to them --Eighty-five percent of participants said they would like to see the government assist Native Americans in economic development other than casinos.PUBLIC Public supports economic development for Native Americans. a poll to be released Tuesday. finds voters strongly opposed to reservation shopping(1). Inc. will present their research in an April 25 meeting with tribal leaders and Congressional staffers. 389 . Hart Research Associates. 2006. and Public Opinion Strategies. This practice entails tribes partnering with developers. lobbyists and elected officials to obtain property outside their ancestral lands for the purpose of establishing a casino. To promote further discussion of this issue the tribal Coalition Against Reservation Shopping is calling on the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to release an updated list of land-trust applications. Tribal Coalition Calls on Federal Agency for List of Tribes Applying for Off-Reservation Casinos” http://findarticles. Business Wire.

M.Both McCain and Obama tried to do just that with messages for the 1.D.BOTH CANIDATES Obama supports talks and federal action concerning Native Americans about their current situation Jackie Jones. Hillary Rodham Clinton in June's Montana primary.Jackson Slim Brossy. said the Indian vote — which traditionally has been Democratic — is up for grabs this year as Sens.” http://www.” http://ap. “the more important thing for the U. government to do is not just offer words..blackamericaweb.S.." Brossy told The Associated Press.THE FORT PLTX NATIVES POP. but there's a trend of it making a difference and I think 2008 will continue the trend. but offer deeds. BlackAmericaWeb. Associate Press. Barack Obama and John McCain both try to woo it."The Native American vote has been overlooked in the past.He said the Indian vote was a factor in Obama's defeat of Sen. McCain at event. Both candidates are vying for the Native American vote Martin Griffith.000-odd attendees at the annual United National Indian Tribal Youth conference in Reno.com/article/ALeqM5glorPeYbVNfQ7Si2wvXl0nIAOapQD91THI4O0 Hundreds of young Native Americans gathering for a five-day conference here are being urged to become politically active because the American Indian vote could make a difference in this year's presidential election. “Young Native Americans mull Obama."The vote will go to the candidate who reaches out more to Indian country and has the best policies for Indian country. and Jon Tester. R-N. D-S. 7-28-08. legislative associate of the nonpartisan National Congress of American Indians. the Illinois senator said he would want to look at the nation’s historic treatment of all groups of color and that he would consult with those impacted before crafting a blanket statement.” noting that by “every socio-economic indicator Native Americans are doing worse” than other Americans. D-Mont. 7-14-08." he added. Heather Wilson. 390 .com/site. Tim Johnson. he said. “Barack Obama Talks Immigration. as well as in past victories of U. Intolerance with Journalists of Color at First Post-Trip Forum. Sens. and Rep.google. Further. The gathering ends Tuesday.com.aspx/bawnews/movingamerica08/obamaunityconfab728 Asked if an Obama administration would issue an apology to Native Americans for centuries of mistreatment by the American government.S.

which provides tax incentives for the operation of renewable energy facilities. with more than a quarter of all American Indians living in poverty and unemployment rates reaching 80 percent on some reservations. human and institutional infrastructure. Energy:Tribal nations have joined in America's quest for alternative. Motor vehicle fatality rates for American Indians are nearly twice as high other races. authentic government-to-government relationships between the federal government and tribes. 391 . Poverty and its effects are pervasive. he supports using a comprehensive approach that includes investment in physical. In addition to harnessing and producing energy. Unfortunately. tribes are effectively unable to use the renewable energy Production Tax Credit. Many reservation roads are unsafe and under-maintained. reliable roads are a basic component of economic development. As president Barack Obama would support increased resources for tribes to maintain their road systems.barackobama. Obama's experience as a community organizer working in poor neighborhoods plagued by high unemployment has taught him that there is no single solution to community poverty. as many as 20 people are forced to live in a single-family home. like the Indian Roads Reservation Program and the BIA Indian Road Maintenance program. the federal government is failing in its commitment to help tribes maintain tribal road systems. Barack Obama supports providing adequate levels of funding for the Indian Housing Block Grant and other Indian housing programs as well as working to increase the effectiveness of these programs. Tribes have successful operations producing gas. Obama supports the production and mobility of sustainable energy in all communities. Infrastructure Housing: American Indians suffer from some of the deplorable housing conditions in the nation.OBAMA OBAMA LOVES THE PLAN. Obama supports creation of a Joint Venture Production Tax Credit that allows tribes to partner with private companies and fully utilize vast tribal energy resources. and recognizes the potential for energy development in Indian country. increased access to capital. the removal of barriers to development. Therefore.THE FORT PLTX NATIVES POP.com/page/content/firstamsecondev American Indians experience some of the most severe socioeconomic conditions in the United States. Some 14 percent of all reservation homes have no electricity. impacting not only economic development but health and safety as well. He also encourages energy companies and Indian tribes to negotiate in good faith to ensure tribes receive just compensation. solar. many tribes have made great strides in economic development in the energy sector. and wind energy. tribes have an interest in energy rights-of-way across tribal lands. and on some reservations. http://my. Additionally. Because of their rural land bases and access to natural resources. Roads: Safe. and above all. renewable energy.

House of Representatives as well. Chair of the Board of the American Diabetes Association." Martinez said..S. At 17 percent. "Either way. We've been doing the same routine and it's getting boring.THE FORT PLTX NATIVES POP." he added. Heather Wilson.R. racial and ethnic groups. The gathering ends Tuesday. Cook. Both McCain and Obama tried to do just that with messages for the 1.or 7." But Mendoza added: "Both of my parents think the country is not ready for a person of color yet. Tim Johnson. SDPI helps to implement prevention. “Young Native Americans mull Obama. 16.S. and Jon Tester. of Arizona's White Mountain Apache Reservation. and Rep.. 392 . Stewart Perry. "The Native American vote has been overlooked in the past." J.marketwatch. "He has to live beside us and he understands how we live and think. in changing the future for all people with diabetes.S. In Reno. a Pima from Arizona's Salt River Reservation.aspx?guid={0D98D83B1E7A-49D6-BB4B-465ACAE3B556}&dist=hppr . a surrogate delivered a message from the Democratic candidate. http://www. "We applaud Congress for their vote to extend the Special Diabetes Programs. Diabetes is among the leading causes of death by disease in the United States.6 million Americans -.CONGRESS There is congressional support for Native American aid Shana Starkand. "He's a simple man and simplicity has a way of winning the heart of people. Sens.. but there's a trend of it making a difference and I think 2008 will continue the trend. Barack Obama and John McCain both try to woo it. The measure recently passed in the U. R-N. Jackson Slim Brossy. Writer for the LA times and Associated Press. it's a win-win for Native Americans because of the commitments of McCain and Obama to provide a greater voice for Native Americans in their administration. said neither candidate is automatically assured of the Indian vote.S.D. Both require periodic joint Congressional re-authorization and will now continue through September 2011." Cook said. a Cherokee who is director of nonpartisan UNITY based in Oklahoma City. He said the Republican is better plugged into the concerns of Native Americans because he represents a state with more than 15 reservations and is former chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. Recent government studies have demonstrated that the program's prevention and treatment efforts have contributed to significant reductions in diabetes complications in these targeted populations. D-Mont. praised McCain after hearing the Arizona senator's videotaped message.com/news/story/american-diabetes-association-applauds-us/story. [T-Jacob] The American Diabetes Association (ADA) applauds the U. "He inspires me a lot because he's not white. Obama and McCain want their vote MARTIN GRIFFITH." Mendoza said. D-S. He offers us stuff that he can actually deliver on. The concerns of the nation's 11.com/article/ALeqM5glorPeYbVNfQ7Si2wvXl0nIAOapQD91THI4O0 Hundreds of young Native Americans gathering for a five-day conference here are being urged to become politically active because the American Indian vote could make a difference in this year's presidential election. Hillary Rodham Clinton in June's Montana primary. said she supports Obama because she thinks his commitment to Indians and the environment is more sincere.000-odd attendees at the annual United National Indian Tribal Youth conference in Reno." said R.9 million American Indians gained renewed attention in May as Obama visited Montana's Crow Indian reservation and was adopted into the nation during a private ceremony. education and treatment programs in Native American communities. said the Indian vote — which traditionally has been Democratic — is up for grabs this year as Sens. Okla. Native American aid is popular. McCain at Event” http://ap. online independent writer for news organizations such as market watch. Senate voted in support of a Medicare package that included a two-year extension of the Special Diabetes Programs. legislative associate of the nonpartisan National Congress of American Indians. Congress for voting in favor of extending the Special Diabetes Programs (SDP) for two more years.. He said the Indian vote was a factor in Obama's defeat of Sen. "We know the value of these programs and the real difference they make in the quality of life for millions of people with diabetes and. "The vote will go to the candidate who reaches out more to Indian country and has the best policies for Indian country.S." 23. 7/14/08.have diabetes. 7/9/08 “American diabetes association applauds us”. Jose Martinez Jr. American Indians and Alaska Natives have the highest age-adjusted prevalence of diabetes among all U. as well as in past victories of U.google. Today.M." But Mykhal Colelay Mendoza." Brossy told The Associated Press.8 percent of the population -. "Maybe this country would change with a person of color in the White House. the U. These programs consist of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) and the Special Statutory Funding Program for Type 1 Diabetes Research (SDP-type1) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). 17.

and there was a growing concern tribal gaming was tarnishing the public perception of American Indians.'' said Alan Parker. “… there must be a systemic radical change so that those who pray the land and those who have lived on the land for thousands of years determine the destiny of their lands. “For over 500 years.. depleted a pristine aquifer and caused toxic spills. health care and natural resources. processing. the 109th U. ''We're seeing for the first time. and enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. Millions of Native Americans live on the front lines of U. ''We are our languages. coping with the effects of the extraction. borders. a Longest Walk 2 organizer. developers and individual citizens. 7/19/08 “walking for the earth”. … Today they call those things resources.THE FORT PLTX NATIVES UNPOP. “Palermo: We can sway perception and policy”. The current debate about “clean coal” fails to address myriad environmental justice concerns regarding the toxic reality of coal mining. our natural resources.indiancountry. Department of Interior and BIA to ignore the nation's trust responsibility for the more than 2. our spirituality and our prayers. land means life. environmental injustice and racism. it is estimated that more than 50 percent of all uranium extracted for nuclear energy and weapons has been mined from indigenous lands. ''It seems a large segment of the public believe that what Indian people are about is operating casinos. corporations. In the Navajo and Hopi Nations. There is a nagging fear the ''myth of the rich Indian'' is prompting Congress. which has forced people off their ancestral lands. told the Denver Post.com/content. Since 1940.” says the Manifesto. and dumping of coal.cfm?id=1096417707. Statistics show economic growth on tribal lands is three times the national average. told those at the meeting. federal policy makers and bureaucrats with the U. energy policy and warefare. The Senate Indian Affairs and House Resources committees are focusing on more urgent.org/2008/07/18/walking-for-the-earth/ [T-Jacob] The long trek gathered firsthand accounts of how Nations are grappling with adverse affects of 500 years of colonization. our culture. “To a traditional indigenous person. a trend that to a large degree can be attributed to a federal policy of tribal self-determination introduced in 1975. U. congress perceives that natives don’t need aid Dave Palermo.'' ''Casinos . public perception of American Indians. “We have witnessed the desecration of sacred sites by the United States government. About two years ago. The gathering took place as convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff was dominating headlines. founder of the Indigenous Democratic Network and a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. quoted in the Manifesto. the candidates are reaching out.S. independent writer for various online current event databases.'' Kalyn Free. promises etched in treaties made in exchange for Native lives and lands.'' That was two years ago. tribal leaders gathered at Portland State University to discuss how tribal government gaming and the evolving image of Native America was impacting American Indian policy on Capitol Hill.S. processing and burning. http://www.'' Nisqually tribal elder Billy Frank Jr. capitalism. Abramoff has since faded from the front pages of the Washington Post and New York Times. http://www. thanks to tribal government gaming. And tribes can rejoice at the attention the presumptive Republican and Democratic presidential candidates are giving to tribal issues. natural gas and uranium. particularly the notion that. indigenous Americans are no longer economically and socially disadvantaged. those holding economic power backed with weaponry have imposed upon us their agenda. ''They are recognizing the power of the Indian vote and that Indians could be pivotal in this election. professor of Native American law and a citizen of the Chippewa Cree Tribal Nation.” says Western Shoshone grandmother Carrie Dann.CONGRESS Native Americans are being ignored in congress Jessica Lee. Supreme Court rulings upholding the right to game on tribal lands.” Despite elections. leaving massive radioactive contamination. Congress was taking shots at tribal sovereignty. 393 .S. the community continues to fight Peabody Coal’s strip mining. are not who we are. non-gaming tribal issues such as education. ''Public polls seem to suggest our support has eroded in recent years due to the backlash created by the Abramoff scandal and negative images surrounding tribal gaming. (Dave Palermo is a freelance writer and president of Native First Communications) 7/11/08.4 million citizens of more than 560 federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native villages.'' But many remain concerned about the nationwide.S.” said Jimbo Simmons..indypendent.

Democrats support and respect tribal sovereignty 2. 2008. The Democratic Party focuses on policies that promote the economic development strides that strengthen tribal governments in Indian Country 10. Like Tribes the Democratic Party knows the value of community – Democrats are about "We" Not "Me. Democrats support full funding of programs that are critical to Native Americans – crucial health care and education programs 5. our elderly. 1.php Democrats stand for the issues important to American Indians.democrats. Tribal governments know what it means to meet the unmet needs of their citizens with unmet resources -. Democrats.org. Democrats stand for working families who pay their fare share. our veterans and those less fortunate 6. Democrats understand the federal government has a fiduciary trust responsibility to tribes that must be managed openly. honestly and responsibly and support a resolution of the trust fund case affecting thousands of Native citizens 9. Democrats stand for the protection of families and communities 3. Democrats support federal assistance for public safety programs in tribal communities 8. “Ten Reasons Why Native Americans. The Democratic Party respects tribes as the original stewards of the environment 7. Democrats have historically fought for and continue to fight for the same things that Indian Tribes believe in: providing for our children.THE FORT PLTX NATIVES POP. not just those few born into wealth 4. Democrats believe in the protection of the environment and preservation of our natural resources.org/a/2006/08/reasons_for_ind.providing care and services to those less fortunate.DEMS Democrats support the plan." 394 . Alaskan Natives and Native Hawai‛ians are Democrats” http://www.

In Arizona. . in the housing market. It’s just too much to spend at a time when Americans are feeling pain at the gas pump. but I could not. and a hazard to both inmates and staff alike. unsanitary. Federal funding is also needed to meet critical water needs.KYL Republican Senator Kyl supports Indian Rights. According to the Indian Health Service.” In the Navajo Nation. Assistant Republican Leader and serves on the Senate Finance and Judiciary committees. detention facility construction. I am pleased that I was able to redirect $2 billion to help Native American communities.947 inmates booked into its facilities. I did not believe we could afford to spend $50 billion abroad. In 2007. my amendment will direct up to $1 billion toward law enforcement and health projects. . The overcrowding that has resulted has caused the majority of tribal court judges to defer or reduce sentences. and replacement. as well as safe drinking water and sanitation facilities.shtml While fighting HIV/AIDS outside of this country is clearly a worthy cause. Senator Jon Kyl. support the larger PEPFAR bill that still authorized $48 billion for the foreign aid. a number of detention facilities have been closed for health and safety reasons. rehabilitation. Congress must also meet its obligation to citizens here at home. That amount will go towards. supported amendments to reduce and restrict the spending (they were unsuccessful) and offered the amendment to at least divert $2 billion of the $50 billion to fund critical needs of Native Americans.com/artman/publish/article_272621683.THE FORT PLTX NATIVES POP.nationalledger. and is a national disgrace. A 2004 report by the Interior Department Inspector General stated that “some [Indian detention] facilities we visited were egregiously unsafe. Specifically. this funding could be very helpful in implementing Indian water settlements in Arizona. Especially with such high fuel and food prices and the mortgage crisis. almost a third of households on the Navajo Nation do not have a public water system and are forced to haul water long distances to provide drinking water to their families. for example. and at the grocery store 395 . and often they must release and return serious offenders to their community within hours. I.” A 2008 Interior report confirms that tribal jails are still grossly insufficient. [Bureau of Indian Affairs’s] detention program is riddled with problems . in the end. the remaining are released through a variety of informal practices due to severe overcrowding in existing detention facilities. stating that: “[o]nly half of the offenders are being incarcerated who should be incarcerated. therefore. 7/22/08 “Helping Native Americans” http://www. The measure also provides up to $1 billion for Indian water supply projects approved by Congress. it only had bed space for 59 inmates to serve a total of 50. about 11 percent of Native Americans lack adequate water supply and waste disposal facilities in their homes. Native Americans are facing a public safety and health crisis because of a lack of federal funding.

he said. writer Inside Energy with Federal Lands. that the urgency is now. and stop holding the candy hostage to political arguments and games and distractions. and pass "clean. proposed the PTC as part of the enacted economic stimulus package. 396 . So far. 3-10-08 “Karsner scolds Democrats for linking renewable measure to oil tax package”. uncontingent legislation. The White House opposes this so-called "renewable portfolio standard" as well. myself being a former wind power developer. DOE's assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy. Alexander Karsner." He pointed out that the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee." Karsner told reporters Thursday at the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference.THE FORT PLTX NATIVES PART Plan causes a fight in Congress – Democrats will tie it to roll backs in oil industry subsidies Alexander Duncan. The PTC has been credited with helping advance the entire renewable energy industry in the US. blasted Democrats for continually linking the extension legislation to a controversial provision that would roll back billions of dollars in tax breaks for the oil and natural gas industry. been linked with the oil company tax provision. he said. Pete Domenici of New Mexico. Democrats should "stop playing games and tricks." President Bush supports the extension of the renewable-energy tax credits. Karsner noted the success of the 26 state renewable portfolio standards and the maturing markets that have grown around the local policies and tax frameworks. but he has vowed to veto any bill that would pay for the extensions by rescinding tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. ranging from biofuels to power production. The PTC has. l/n [Ades] A top Energy Department official scolded Democratic lawmakers last week for the way they have tried to extend a popular tax credit for producers of wind. The federal renewable production tax credits are slated to expire at the end of 2008. making a federal program invasive to the progress already made." he said. given regional differences in wind. on several occasions in recent months. Republicans have argued that encouraging state-by-state renewable portfolio standards is the best way to advance the technologies. simple. solar and other renewable resources. Democrats have tried that strategy several times in recent months. Democrats have also linked the extensions to legislation that would require electric utilities to generate a certain percentage of their power from wind and other renewable sources. solar and other forms of renewable energy. "The states are reconciling the tax credits and monetizing them in ways that the market is used to and without interruption. "Most people in the renewable industry would agree with me. uncomplicated. Senate Republicans have managed to beat back the Democrats' efforts to link the popular PTC extensions to the controversial RPS and oil-company rollback provisions. but they have yet to get a bill out of Congress and to the president's desk. Democrats should drop the oil-industry provision. These states produce about three quarters of the nation's power. But the move was thwarted when most Senate Republicans voted to keep the PTC out of the package.

MARTIN GRIFFITH – Jul 14.9 million American Indians gained renewed attention in May as Obama visited Montana's Crow Indian reservation and was adopted into the nation during a private ceremony. McCain at event. We've been doing the same routine and it's getting boring.” [Alex Kats-Rubin] http://ap.com/article/ALeqM5glorPeYbVNfQ7Si2wvXl0nIAOapQD91THI4O0 But Mykhal Colelay Mendoza. In Reno. "He inspires me a lot because he's not white. of Arizona's White Mountain Apache Reservation. said she supports Obama because she thinks his commitment to Indians and the environment is more sincere. 2008. "Maybe this country would change with a person of color in the White House. 16." Mendoza said.THE FORT PLTX NATIVES = OBAMA WIN SHIFTING TRIBAL FOCUS TO THE ENVIRONMENT WOULD GIVE OBAMA THEIR VOTE. “Young Native Americans mull Obama. a surrogate delivered a message from the Democratic candidate. The concerns of the nation's 11." 397 . ASSOCIATED PRESS.google.

THE FORT PLTX 398 .

“Young Native Americans mull Obama. He said the Indian vote was a factor in Obama's defeat of Sen. but there's a trend of it making a difference and I think 2008 will continue the trend.google. as well as in past victories of U. 399 . Jackson Slim Brossy. said the Indian vote — which traditionally has been Democratic — is up for grabs this year as Sens. 2008." Brossy told The Associated Press. D-Mont. Tim Johnson. and Jon Tester..com/article/ALeqM5glorPeYbVNfQ7Si2wvXl0nIAOapQD91THI4O0 Hundreds of young Native Americans gathering for a five-day conference here are being urged to become politically active because the American Indian vote could make a difference in this year's presidential election. Barack Obama and John McCain both try to woo it. legislative associate of the nonpartisan National Congress of American Indians.. D-S. Heather Wilson.D.THE FORT PLTX NATIVES POP. MARTIN GRIFFITH – Jul 14. and Rep. Hillary Rodham Clinton in June's Montana primary.M. Sens.MONTANA Natives popular in Montana ASSOCIATED PRESS.” [Alex Kats-Rubin] http://ap. "The Native American vote has been overlooked in the past. R-N. McCain at event.S.

those federal tax breaks in place. “If we don’t get those tax incentives.lodinews. “McNerney supports Obama. Barack Obama said during an interview Friday with the Argus Leader. but federal tax incentives must be extended to keep that development in the United States. June 4th. Obama says wind power could provide up to half the nation’s electricity needs.” 400 .com/articles/2008/06/04/news/10_mcnerney_080604.com.THE FORT PLTX NATIVES POP.” he said. then you’re going to see a whole lot of wind power generation and industry moving to Europe.” < http://www.txt> The federal government needs to take responsibility for building transmission lines to encourage the development of wind power in South Dakota. 2008. “It’s already starting to happen. Democratic presidential candidate Sen.OBAMA OBAMA HAS SPOKEN OUT FOR FEDERAL INCENTIVES FOR MORE WIND POWER – HE’D GET THE CREDIT Iodinews.

THE FORT PLTX 401 .

Also gone were extensions for investment and production tax credits set to expire next year for generators of geothermal.com/story/2008062505130300002. wind and solar power. After a long struggle. director of government affairs at the American Wind Energy Association. HE HATES PTCS US Newswire [Democratic National Committee .John McCain's Energy Plan: Fewer Jobs." 402 . It increases vehicle fuel mileage standards and encourages energy efficiency in federal buildings and in electricity-guzzling appliances. But passage was assured only after negotiators removed provisions that would set a requirement that 15 percent of electricity come from renewable sources by 2020. the Senate passed the bill late Thursday. Wind And Solar Power.pnw/topstory.' said Gregory Wetsone. and they were out of step with much of the support we get from across the country. 'From the standpoint of renewable energy.THE FORT PLTX NATIVES UNPOP-MCCAIN MCCAIN WON’T TAKE CREDIT FOR THE PLAN. wind and solar resources out in the cold. More Waste for Nevada http://newsblaze. the compromises were certainly a missed opportunity. 2008 Legislation McCain Opposed Included Investment Set To Expire Next Year For Generators Of Geothermal. The House is expected to take a final vote next week. "Compromises that won passage for a major energy bill in the Senate this week left investors for geothermal.html] June 25.

the party used OneUnited. In Boston in 2004.” according to Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera. not just for our vote.. and helping them in start-up efforts. She’s just one example of how the Democratic Party is recognizing Native American issues and courting Indian voters. says LaVera. which is owned by 26 federally recognized Indian tribes. which provides financial support to small business owners and the Asian American community.DEMS DEMOCRATS ADVOCATE FOR NATIVE AMERICAN POLICY – COURTING THEIR VOTE Francisco Tharp. he initiated the party’s “50 State Plan. now has at least three full-time party employees. It’s an exciting time to be a Native American and take our place in the political process of the U. intern for High Country News.” The plan is working. When Dean took his seat as chairman of the Democratic Party in February 2005. The national party is working with state parties to hire full-time staff to reach out at a state level. as the depository of $2 million in federal grant funds.S.THE FORT PLTX NATIVES POP. Democrats hope that by the time the funds are withdrawn -. The party has also been reaching out to Native Americans. D. instead of keeping it in New York or Washington. “They have a long track record of working with tribal and other underprivileged communities. Alaska and New Mexico -. http://www.” says Natalie Wyeth.” says La Vera. “But Chairman Dean said that wasn’t enough..have fulltime Native American party organizers. 403 .C.hcn. “The Democratic Party has always said everyone deserves a place at the table. a record 64 Native Americans were elected to state legislatures in 14 different states. he adds. And four states – Arizona.org/articles/17590 Women and African-Americans aren’t the only demographics receiving extra attention from Democrats this year. He said Native Americans needed a place on the ballots. The 50 State Plan also encourages American Indians to seek office. and not take for granted voters we thought we already had. too. Native American voters have been ignored. Last August.their economic and political support will have encouraged Native American voters to continue supporting Democratic candidates.a few months before the convention begins in late August -. Democrats are also helping Native Americans financially. but for our participation and economic support. says Wyeth. Every state.” High Country News. 7/16/08. “The money provides the Native American Bank with a little bit of publicity and support for the great work they’ve been doing.S. or thought of in the last minute. is one of an “unprecedented” six Native Americans appointed to the Democratic National Convention’s standing committees. a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Convention Committee. who serves as the executive director of the nonprofit Americans for Indian Opportunity.” Harris. rather than engaging only voters in key demographics or during election years. Oklahoma. noting that in 2006. the party chose the Native American Bank in Denver. the largest African-American bank in the U.” in order to “not write off voters who we didn’t expect to win. “In the past.” says Laura Harris of the Comanche Tribe.” The party’s convention committee has recently begun depositing a portion of its federal grant funds in “minority and woman-owned banks” in the convention’s host city. “What (Democratic National Committee Chairman) Howard Dean has done is incorporate us into the process. “Dems reach out to Native Americans. and Asian American Bank.

that attitude is not offered to the Native American community. “Republican party declares economic war against Native Americans.com/articles/12126 The republican party's attitude toward Native Americans' economic well being is "Why can't Indians live in Death Valley and be happy?" While federal and state governments offer well endowed financial incentives for businesses to operate in America.americanchronicle. http://www.THE FORT PLTX NATIVES UNPOP. Our government wants the myth "Indians don't pay taxes. state and federal are fully supporting anti-Indian groups like "One Nation United" and "Citizen's Equal Rights Foundation" by enacting new legislation and changing laws to block Native Americans' economic well being and advancement. Americans are not hearing about this issue on CNN & Fox national TV news for a good reason. THERE’S NO WAY MCCAIN COULD SPIN IT AS A WIN FOR HIM Mike Graham. TURN – ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO NATIVES IS WAY UNPOPULAR WITH REPUBLICANS Mike Graham. citizen of the Oklahoma Cherokee Nation. the Republican party is waging a national political economic war against the Native American community through their anti-Indian politics. “Republican party declares economic war against Native Americans.” American Chronicles. http://www." to continue. citizen of the Oklahoma Cherokee Nation. The federal government has failed miserably in it's lawful duties to ensure the economic well being of all Native Americans! The Indian Federal Trust Fund has been robbed of around one hundred billion dollars. Republican party elected representatives.com/articles/12126 Although the U. 404 . Federal Government today does not issue bounties for Indian scalps and calling for their extermination.” American Chronicles. 8/04/06.S. The federal government wants Indians to settle for eight billion. 8/04/06.REPS TURN – AMERICAN INDIAN ASSISTANCE IS UNPOPULAR.americanchronicle.

however. which counts the incentives as revenue lost to the federal treasury. l/n [Ades] The Finance Committee bill "is the next-best chance. there is disagreement over how and whether to pay for them. including hedge funds. A Republican aide on July 1 said that Hoyer seemed unwilling to pass an extension for the alternative minimum tax credit in 2007 without including payfor provisions. as was the case with an extension bill enacted last year. He said that as an observer of the process." said one industry source who spoke not for attribution. he thought it was likely that the McConnell-Grassley letter was just another attempt to remind Senate leadership that the Republicans still preferred not to pay for the extensions. Funding PTC’s is the key. That transcends [the tax credit extensions] whether they're in the extenders bill." said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus in a June letter to McConnell and Grassley. continue to point to the Congressional Budget Office. “Renewables incentives may have to wait for a new year. the supplemental or an energy bill. 6049. The House leadership has said repeatedly that it has no plans to cross the Blue Dogs by passing an incentives package that relies on deficit spending. biomass and other technologies and investment tax credits for solar energy and fuel cells are set to expire at the end of 2008. 7-3-08. But the pay-for problem remains. wonder if the House will really hold that hard a line on offsets into the fall. as gridlock rules”. Under the Republican-controlled 111th Congress. said Wicker. "Hoyer has a history on this issue of holding to the party line up until he's not. divisive issue surrounding the plan Cathy Cash. l/n [Ades] Production tax credits for wind. "It goes back to the Senate Republicans that don't want to pay for [the tax credits] and the Senate Democrats that want to pay for [the tax credits]. They demand that the incentives be offset with new federal income. and Senate Republicans in this Congress have consistently blocked attempts by majority Democrats to bring bills to the floor that include such provisions.R. "There's a building pressure to get this done with or without offsets" from the banking and business community. meanwhile. Eletric Utility Week. similar tax cuts were extended without revenue raising provisions." said the aide. some say.THE FORT PLTX PTC PART Dispate bipart veneer. Republicans stymied the most recent Housepassed bill. which is composed of 39 fiscally conservative Democrats from swing districts. Republicans have insisted that since the tax credits already exist. Republicans. Bill Wicker. right up until he did. Democrats. It's an impasse at this point. a spokesman for Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico." 405 . writer Global Power Report. has made enforcing congressional budget rules its top priority since its members helped their party take control of that chamber in 2007. While there is bipartisan consensus that these should be extended. "House Democratic leaders have made it clear that they will not approve an extenders bill that increases the deficit. who heads the Finance subcommittee responsible for the tax bill. It would have paid for the extensions by changing the tax rules for employees of offshore corporations. said he had seen little evidence that the House was likely to accept an unpaid for bill. The House Blue Dog Coalition. they need not be paid for with reductions in spending or new taxes somewhere else. in June. “Senate Republicans revive efforts to extend renewable energy credits”. disagreement over how to fund PTCs creates partisan divisions Jean Chemnick. H. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland has said repeatedly that he will not bring such a bill to the floor if it lacks offsets. even after the November elections. 5-5-08.

" Kevin Book. "encapsulated virtually all areas of energy policy consensus among Washington's warring factions. a senior policy analyst with the Heritage Foundation. "That will all be back. 406 . Still." Lieberman said. 6. Washington analysts say. and envisioned this happening one of two ways. director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies' energy program ? one of several analysts interviewed on the House and Senate agendas for energy and the environment ? offered a similar assessment. and the Senate and the House may give more attention to climate change legislation. a wide-open presidential race could ignite a partisan brawl as soon as mid-February. actions that lawmakers take this year could help set the tone for breakthroughs once voters choose a new president and Congress in November. “2008 seen as 'table-setter' year for energy issues”.CONGRESS Their evidence assumes unpopular packages – tax credits themselves have bipart support Cathy Cash. Wetstone said. the analysts add. Ben Lieberman. the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. "Does this mean another energy bill is on its way? Not so fast. pitting Big Oil against clean and green power in a battle for subsidy dollars. they can still move forward. some analysts say Congress likely will at least enact bills extending production tax credits for renewable energy production. l/n [Ades] Book predicted that the production tax credits for renewable energy would be extended this year. "Those things still have a lot of supporters in the House and Senate. saying because scaled-down versions of those three measures could not pass muster in the Senate last year. they would not be back this year. Ramsey. leaving little doubt that would-be presidents and returning legislators will keep petroleum prices and the need for 'energy security' at the forefront of debate." Moreover. 1-7-08. even as it fights for extension of its tax credits”. Plan is popular in Congress – not perceived as major energy legislation Global Power Report. environment laws to make little headway in 2008. the RES and gasoline price-gouging language. which failed by one vote in the Senate. Book said. because they have bipartisan support." Book added. Congress appears unlikely to pass major energy and environmental laws in 2008. although probably will not pass such bills. l/n [Ades] With a new energy law on the books and a national election around the corner. Book said." Verrastro disagreed." Still. H. amid a veto threat over other provisions of the tax package. including repeal of about $13 billion in tax credits for large oil and natural gas companies. which are scheduled to expire at the end of 2008. "Democrats command a narrow margin in Congress. l/n [Ades] Late last year. even with oil prices flirting at or near $100/barrel. “Wind industry reports huge gains in capacity. but will lay groundwork. or would be approved late in the year." Similarly. 1-21-08. Either the item would be added to a farm bill reauthorization with offsets. said in a report. Electric Utility Weekly. Congress jettisoned credit extensions from an energy policy bill." he said. "This year. "I don't think anything new is going to come unless they're responding to some sort of crisis. say analysts”. however." he said. Recent history shows how difficult it is for Congress to pass energy laws. an analyst with the investment firm Friedman. "There are gaps that have to be filled in." Frank Verrastro. as required under House rules. but my sense is that the congressional leaders will defer to the presidential candidates. if clear front-runners emerge from early state primary elections and Democrats appear determined to continue 'pay-as-you-go' fiscal strictures. when he said the rules for "pay-as-you-go will be like legwarmers in the 1990s ? no one will remember that it ever existed. predicted House and Senate votes this year on the tax package.THE FORT PLTX PTC POP. Widespread support for PTC’s in Congress – deferments of passage only because of technicalities Inside Energy.R. Billings. even when there are supply interruptions and a single party controls Capitol Hill and the White House. "I'm thinking it's going to be very bare bones. “Energy. which Congress passed and President Bush signed in December. the odds are even worse. "The first week of 2008 brought a taste of $100[/barrel] oil and the Iowa caucuses. If the renewable tax credits are not part of a big package. 1-10-08." he said.

). March 10. lexis] The House recently passed a roughly $18 billion tax package that provides multi-year extensions for a host of renewable energy and energy efficiency tax incentives and offsets the costs with higher taxes on major oil producers. lexis] To their version of the bill. “ENERGY POLICY: Corporate tax conference leaves door open for energy tax package”.on repeated occasions in the Senate last year in the face of GOP-led filibusters and White House veto threat due to the taxes on oil companies. 2004. Senate lawmakers attached the $19 billion energy tax package.as well as extensions of marginal oil and gas production tax credits for research and development. targeting the oil and gas. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash. while continuing to seek the support for the broader type of package that has fallen short thus far. renewable power and alternative fuels industries in an effort to get some part of the stalled-out comprehensive energy bill through Congress this year. who is among the Senate Democrats' leaders on energy policy.albeit narrowly -. solar and other projects that expire at year's end. September 30. 2008. Mary O’Driscoll and Ben Geman. E&E Daily reporters. Alex Kaplun. The House version of the bill only extended the popular wind power tax credit -.which was included in the family tax cut bill passed last week -. Ben Geman and Allison Winter. Also in the House bill are some some nuclear import-related measures addressing the industry's need for steam generators and reactor vessel heads for nuclear power plants. Renewable energy industry officials are pressing Congress for fast action to extend the availability of popular credits for wind. warning that plans for new projects are already starting to dry up. 407 . E&E Daily reporters. “BUDGET: Funding fight poised to dominate both chambers' weekly agenda”. Wind Energy PTCs are popular with Congress E and E Daily 04 [Environment and Energy Daily. But this approach has failed -.THE FORT PLTX PTC POP.CONGRESS Wind Energy PTCs are popular with Congress – address industry concerns E and E Daily 04 [Environment and Energy Daily. told E&E Daily last week that she is adopting a two-fold strategy: pressing for a vote to provide short-term extensions of credits. coal.

Tribes. in order to broadly encourage the activities targeted by tax credits. Congress decided to enact a tax incentive (the PTC) that will cost taxpayers over $ 300 million a year over the next decade.want Indian tribes to face the same set of incentives as non-Indian business entities. Congress would like tribal corporations to work toward resource development in the same manner as non-reservation businesses. Both logic and congressional action indicate that the government would want all economic activity within the boundaries of the United States to face the same incentive system. American Indian Law Review 2008 [Mark Shahinian.S. Development of those resources must be encouraged. An examination of the record of congressional debates surrounding the renewal of the PTC in 2005 makes clear Congress was interested in both reducing dependence on foreign fossil [*286] fuels 78 and stimulating the growth of domestic renewable energy businesses. Congress should .THE FORT PLTX PTC BIPART This congress recently renewed the PTC and enacted portions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 both are consistent with the mandates of the plan. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 81 408 . given the proper incentives.it has aided renewable energy developments from California to Maine. 79 To this end. 267. The PTC is a broad incentive . the record indicates.and." 82 Making the PTC tradable would merge those two goals. wrote "There are abundant energy resources available for production on Indian lands. meet those goals.Congress has also acted on its goals of increasing tribal energy resource production by enacting parts of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. does . can help the U. Congress has articulated its goals of energy security and clean energy production. 80 Congress has acted on its goals of increasing renewable energy production by enacting the PTC . and a tradable PTC. Indian L. Rev. The PTC is a tax credit Congress created to foster the production of renewable energy. in its report on the bill. third-year law student at the University of Michigan] SPECIAL FEATURE: THE TAX MAN COMETH NOT: HOW THE NON-TRANSFERABILITY OF TAX CREDITS HARMS INDIAN TRIBES American Indian Law Review 2007 / 200832 Am. The 2005 Energy Policy Act articulates Congress' intent to foster energy development on tribal lands.

THE FORT PLTX PTC BIPART Wind PTCs have bipartisan support in Congress NPR 03 [National Public Radio. 409 . “Development of wind power in Texas”. You should understand that wind does enjoy very strong bipartisan support in Congress and has for some time. We feel fairly confident. then that changes the whole picture for the development of wind. if Congress does not renew it. September 19. the production tax credit is a critical element that's driven the development of wind projects. If that's not renewed and it comes to an end this time at the end of this year. And this production tax credit has been extended--I guess this is going on the third time. Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association. Executive Director. Ira Flatow and Russell Smith. that it will be renewed. and no less so in Texas. And we're confident that it will be again. Talk of the Nation/Science Friday. lexis] And throughout the United States. 2003. I think.

Any measures that give the tribes a leg up in the economic development game reduce their economic dependency on the federal government. said the legislation." This goal of reduced tribal dependence was first codified in the economic development context nearly 100 years ago . the ideas from the Hayworth amendment are incorporated into the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ." the administration wrote." 410 ." Dorgan said. The United States government has a legal trust responsibility. Indian L. Wind power development would provide the "greater percentage of the cost of [tribal] self government" that the Reagan administration sought and it would push the tribes toward "real and permanent progress". improves communicable and infectious disease monitoring.in the Buy Indian Act of 1908. 84 The Act directs the Department of Interior to give preference to Indians as far as is practicable in hiring and procurement. it was made to apply to all federal contracts. "But we have to remember that this is just a start to the work that needs to be done to meet and pay for the health care obligations that we have to American Indians and Alaska Natives. the Federal Government has made clear through the years that it would like to see the tribes less dependent on direct grants of federal dollars. the twisted logic of the time said that forcing tribal members into farming would push the Indians toward "real and permanent progress. 83 85 86 87 88 89 LEGISLATION TO AID NATIVE AMERICANS IS BIPARTISAN Justin Kitsch February 26 2008 [accessed via lexis nexis] The United States Senate gave overwhelming final approval to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2008 Tuesday. Wind power development could play a role in this economic development. Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. House Bill 4. Rev. and enhances recruitment and scholarship programs for Indian health professionals. Increasing tribal revenues from wind energy production . "Today marks a major step in health care for Native Americans.S. It expands cancer screenings. Even during the passage of the Allotment Acts in the late nineteenth century. American Indian Law Review 2008 [Mark Shahinian. third-year law student at the University of Michigan] SPECIAL FEATURE: THE TAX MAN COMETH NOT: HOW THE NON-TRANSFERABILITY OF TAX CREDITS HARMS INDIAN TRIBES American Indian Law Review 2007 / 200832 Am. For example. The legislation creates important new Indian health programs and improves existing successful programs. the full House of Representatives passed the Hayworth amendment to the proposed energy bill adding "energy products and energy by-products" to the categories of materials covered under the Buy Indian Act. statutes and long-standing practice. However. to provide health care to the estimated 1.THE FORT PLTX NATIVES BIPART THERE HAS BEEN BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR OVER A CENTURY TO LESSEN TRIBAL DEPENDENCE ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT--ENERGY DEVELOPMENT POLICIES LIKE THE PLAN ARE EMPIRICALLY POPULAR. but only if tribes have access to the PTC. Congress has been willing to extend the same type of support evinced by the Buy Indian Act to tribal energy programs. which passed with a vote of 83-10. U. Even outside the energy development or economic development contexts.the Act provides for federal purchases of power generated by Indian tribes. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND). is the first update of this critical Indian Health Care legislation in 16 years. That bill. In 1974.is a good way to meet federal goals of reducing tribal dependence. The bill includes several programs that will help combat the most serious health issues facing American Indians and it contains programs to promote Native Americans entering the health care field. in 2001. died in conference committee in 2002. 267. The Buy Indian Act has been expanded over the years.or any other economic activity that prospers offreservation in a tax-credit environment and could benefit tribes if tax credits are made tradable . The Reagan administration advocated reduced tribal dependence in an important policy statement issued in 1983. based on treaties. "It is important to the concept of self-government that tribes reduce their dependence on federal funds by providing a greater percentage of the cost of their selfgovernment. The reduction of tribal dependence has been a congressional goal since the nineteenth century.9 million Native Americans.

the Act provides for federal purchases of power generated by Indian tribes. Even during the passage of the Allotment Acts in the late nineteenth century. The Reagan administration advocated reduced tribal dependence in an important policy statement issued in 1983. n85 The Buy Indian Act has been expanded over the years. Wind power development could play a role in this economic development. the twisted logic of the time said that forcing tribal members into farming would push the Indians toward "real and permanent progress. died in conference committee in 2002. In 1974. it was made to apply to all federal contracts. Wind power development would provide the "greater percentage of the cost of [tribal] self government" that the Reagan administration sought and it would push the tribes toward "real and permanent progress".is a good way to meet federal goals of reducing tribal dependence." n83 This goal of reduced tribal dependence was first codified in the economic development context nearly 100 years ago . Increasing tribal revenues from wind energy production . n87 That bill. the full House of Representatives passed the Hayworth amendment to the proposed energy bill adding "energy products and energy by-products" to the categories of materials covered under the Buy Indian Act. However. CENTRAL CONGRESSIONAL GOAL Mark Shahinian.or any other economic activity that prospers off-reservation in a tax-credit environment and could benefit tribes if tax credits are made tradable . "It is important to the concept of self-government that tribes reduce their dependence on federal funds by providing a greater percentage of the cost of their self-government. in 2001." the administration wrote. n89 [*288] Any measures that give the tribes a leg up in the economic development game reduce their economic dependency on the federal government. n88 Even outside the energy development or economic development contexts. 267. Rev. The reduction of tribal dependence has been a congressional goal since the nineteenth century.THE FORT PLTX NATIVES POP. the ideas from the Hayworth amendment are incorporated into the Energy Policy Act of 2005 .in the Buy Indian Act of 1908. n86 Congress has been willing to extend the same type of support evinced by the Buy Indian Act to tribal energy programs. the Federal Government has made clear through the years that it would like to see the tribes less dependent on direct grants of federal dollars. but only if tribes have access to the PTC. n84 The Act directs the Department of Interior to give preference to Indians as far as is practicable in hiring and procurement.CONGRESS PLAN POP . 2008 American Indian Law Review SPECIAL FEATURE: THE TAX MAN COMETH NOT: HOW THE NON-TRANSFERABILITY OF TAX CREDITS HARMS INDIAN TRIBES American Indian Law Review 2007 / 200832 Am.ENERGY DEVELOPMENT POLICIES ON RESERVATIONS GIVE NATIVE AMERICANS THE PUSH THEY NEED TO REDUCE TRIBAL DEPENDENCE. House Bill 4. For example. [third-year law student at the University of Michigan]. Indian L. 411 .

412 . given the proper incentives. An examination of the record of congressional debates surrounding the renewal of the PTC in 2005 makes clear Congress was interested in both reducing dependence on foreign fossil [*286] fuels n78 and stimulating the growth of domestic renewable energy businesses. The 2005 Energy Policy Act articulates Congress' intent to foster energy development on tribal lands. 2008 American Indian Law Review SPECIAL FEATURE: THE TAX MAN COMETH NOT: HOW THE NON-TRANSFERABILITY OF TAX CREDITS HARMS INDIAN TRIBES American Indian Law Review 2007 / 200832 Am. Congress has articulated its goals of energy security and clean energy production. Indian L. Rev. n80 Congress has acted on its goals of increasing renewable energy production by enacting the PTC . in its report on the bill. n81 The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Congress would like tribal corporations to work toward resource development in the same manner as non-reservation businesses. Both logic and congressional action indicate that the government would want all economic activity within the boundaries of the United States to face the same incentive system. 267. The PTC is a broad incentive . meet those goals. the record indicates.want Indian tribes to face the same set of incentives as non-Indian business entities. The PTC is a tax credit Congress created to foster the production of renewable energy. does . Congress decided to enact a tax incentive (the PTC) that will cost taxpayers over $ 300 million a year over the next decade.CONGRESS CONGRESS SUPPORTS DEVELOPMENT OF NATIVE AMERICAN RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES Mark Shahinian.it has aided renewable energy developments from California to Maine. Tribes. [third-year law student at the University of Michigan]. Development of those resources must be encouraged.and. Congress should ." n82 Making the PTC tradable would merge those two goals. can help the U.Congress has also acted on its goals of increasing tribal energy resource production by enacting parts of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. in order to broadly encourage the activities targeted by tax credits.S. n79 To this end. wrote "There are abundant energy resources available for production on Indian lands.THE FORT PLTX NATIVES POP. and a tradable PTC.

Con. points to the priorities of the Democrats in charge. l/n [Ades] The Senate last week voted to make room in the fiscal 2008 federal budget for a long-term extension of the renewable power production tax credit and a $600-million increase in science spending at the Energy Department. which although it does not set taxes and spending. 21).DEMS DEMS SUPPORT PTC – BUDGET RESOLUTION PROVES Daniel Whitten. “Senate makes room for long-term renewable credit”.THE FORT PLTX PTC POP. The chamber Friday approved its budget resolution (S. 3-26-07. Res. writer Inside Energy with Federal Lands. 413 .

which would be authorized through 2010. "I feel we have a fighting chance to get another vote. the statement said. This is at a time when oil companies are making record profits. The committee estimated that this "clarification" would bring in about $4 billion over ten years.R. 24 December.R. integrated oil companies from the "section 199" manufacturers' tax incentive. a limitation that is not popular with Congress' most ardent wind energy advocates." Reid said last week. with increases for energy efficiency. "there is a potential for oil and gas companies to manipulate their extraction income in order to achieve beneficial results under US foreign tax credit rules. The $18. the plug-in hybrid credit would be good for one quarter after a manufacturer records 60.000 credit for qualifying hybrid vehicle purchases. A variety of residential energy efficiency credits would be extended and expanded. It would also establish a new 50¢ per gallon production tax break for cellulosic ethanol producers. Last week. “House votes again to rescind big oil tax breaks”." Republicans. because the extra costs would simply be passed along to the consumer exacerbating high fuel costs. H. 5351) would extend production and investment tax credits for wind. making a shift from conventional to renewable energy was more crucial than ever. his advisors would advise him to veto it. he does not approve of the House bill because "it would use the tax code to target tax increases on a specific industry in a way that will lead to higher energy costs to US consumers and businesses. 1)." said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Investors could only receive credit for up to 35% of the value of their investment. a veto is likely. geothermal and some hydropower through 2011. The measure also would change the rules for how petroleum companies calculate their foreign production taxes. http://www. 5351 says that under current law. 414 . which allows manufacturers to deduct a portion of income garnered from domestic production activities. It would be extended through 2009.R. where its prospects for passage are much less certain. As passed by the House last week. The measure would also extend solar and fuel cell ITCs through 2016. The package is similar to one that Senate Republicans successfully kept out of the comprehensive energy bill (H. however. argued that the bill would have little effect on oil company profits. and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview. These credits would be paid for with a corresponding $18.THE FORT PLTX PTC POP.R. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that although similar proposals had failed twice in his chamber. If the measure passes both chambers of Congress. DemocratCalifornia. "Seventy-five cents since we first took up this legislation ?imagine what that means to a household's income. It would cap the incentive at 6% for the rest of the industry." If the bill was sent to his desk in its current form. the Democratic-led House once again passed legislation to redirect tax breaks for big oil companies to producers of ethanol.billion cut in petroleum incentives. It could be vetoed by the president. wind and other green forms of energy. It would pay for the extensions by rolling back billions of dollars in tax incentives for the largest US oil companies. biomass and other technologies that are set to expire at the end of 2008. solar. A new plug-in hybrid incentive would give consumers a $4. leading proponents of renewable energy were working to secure the needed 60 votes to overcome another Republican filibuster. the Bush administration issued a statement saying that while the president supports the renewable energy tax credits. The House approved the bill Thursday by a vote of 236 to 182. It now moves to the Senate. which could only be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both chambers. including a credit for improvements to the efficiency of existing homes that expired on January 1.1. The package would have succeeded last December if it had drawn one additional vote. House Democrats said last week that with the cost of oil skyrocketing. meanwhile.000 vehicles sold. The measure would exclude five large. 5351 would extend the PTC for wind. biomass." The memo said the bill would require oil and gas companies to calculate their foreign income based on "ascertainable independent market values" where they drill. 6) that Congress passed in December (IE. Rather than having an expiration date.do? docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4074194610&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4074191955&cisb=22_T4074194612&treeMax =true&treeWidth=0&csi=7989&docNo=1) With oil prices hovering around $100 a barrel last week.1 billion tax bill (H. The budget bill cannot be filibustered in the Senate.lexisnexis. including Senate Finance Committee Ranking Republican Charles Grassley. have both said they would consider attaching the extensions with offsets to a budget resolution package due out this week. so 51 votes would be sufficient to pass it. "The price at the pump has increased 17 cents just in the past two weeks.DEMS TAX CREDITS FOR WIND ENERGY HAS DEMOCRATIC BACKING Chemnick 2008 (Jean. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota. A House Ways and Means Committee memo on H.

pnw/topstory..000 in the solar industry. according to his staff he did. Recent Study Concluded More than 116. and they were out of step with much of the support we get from across the country.000 for installing solar panels to power their homes." 415 . 2008 One thing McCain won't bring toNevada.com/story/2008062505130300002.MCCAIN MCCAIN OPPOSES PERMANENT PTC – NEVADA PROVES US Newswire [Democratic National Committee . After a long struggle.THE FORT PLTX PTC UNPOP. in fact. 2008 McCain Opposed Legislation Extending The Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit.com/story/2008062505130300002. "Compromises that won passage for a major energy bill in the Senate this week left investors for geothermal. But the measure failed on a 59-40 vote. According to the San Francisco Chronicle. Congress passed another version of the legislation that did not include an extension of the tax credit." MCCAIN OPPOSED RENEWABLES LEGISLATION UNTIL THE PTC WAS ELIMINATED US Newswire [Democratic National Committee . director of government affairs at the American Wind Energy Association.com/story/2008062505130300002. the 2007 energy bill that McCain opposed "would have revoked $13. which eventually killed the bill. however. and approximately 40. More Waste for Nevada http://newsblaze. 2008 Legislation McCain Opposed Included Investment Set To Expire Next Year For Generators Of Geothermal. including more than 76. wind and solar power. Also gone were extensions for investment and production tax credits set to expire next year for generators of geothermal.com/story/2008062505130300002. 2008 Legislation McCain Opposed Also Sought to Eliminate Tax Cuts for Oil Companies and Instead Fund Tax Incentives for Renewable Energy.' said Gregory Wetsone. John McCain supported the filibuster of the 2007 energy bill that included an extension of the production tax credit to 2011. Wind And Solar Power. biomass. McCain has repeatedly voted against the kind of tax incentives that would promote investments in renewable energy and create green jobs. McCain opposed legislation that would have extended the renewable energy production tax credit. falling one vote shy of the 60 votes needed to end debate and move the bill forward.000 U. More Waste for Nevada http://newsblaze.S. the Senate passed the bill late Thursday. 'From the standpoint of renewable energy.5 billion in tax breaks from the five largest oil companies. But passage was assured only after negotiators removed provisions that would set a requirement that 15 percent of electricity come from renewable sources by 2020. investment could be lost in just one year if renewable energy tax credits are not renewed by Congress. Just last year.John McCain's Energy Plan: Fewer Jobs. wind and solar resources out in the cold.html] June 25.000 tax credit for buying an electric plug-in hybrid and a tax credit of up to $4.S. The study concluded that over 76. MCCAIN HATES PTCS US Newswire [Democratic National Committee .. The House is expected to take a final vote next week. wave energy and other renewables.html] June 25. geothermal.000 jobs in the solar industry.pnw/topstory.000 in the wind industry and 40.pnw/topstory. More Waste for Nevada http://newsblaze. jobs and nearly $19 billion in U. More Waste for Nevada http://newsblaze. the compromises were certainly a missed opportunity.000 Jobs Could be Lost If the Tax Credit is Not Extended.000 American jobs at risk. wind. In its place.pnw/topstory.html] June 25.John McCain's Energy Plan: Fewer Jobs.000 jobs are put at risk in the wind industry." MCCAIN OPPOSED TAX INCENTIVES FOR RENEWABLES US Newswire [Democratic National Committee . is green jobs. The money would have been redirected into tax incentives for solar. While McCain missed the vote on the bill.John McCain's Energy Plan: Fewer Jobs. putting an estimated 116.John McCain's Energy Plan: Fewer Jobs. Consumers would have received a $3.html] June 25. It increases vehicle fuel mileage standards and encourages energy efficiency in federal buildings and in electricity-guzzling appliances. support the continuing the filibuster. A 2008 economic study by Navigant Consulting found that "over 116.

com/story/2008062505130300002.html] June 25.THE FORT PLTX PTC UNPOP.John McCain's Energy Plan: Fewer Jobs. hydropower. 2008 McCain Voted Against Extending The Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit And Over $290 For an amendment to extend the renewable energy production tax credit and clean renewable energy bonds programs for four years including $290 million for renewable energy R&D on Solar. biomass. geothermal.MCCAIN MCCAIN HATES PTC US Newswire [Democratic National Committee .pnw/topstory. More Waste for Nevada http://newsblaze. 416 . wind.

coal. “'Blue Dog' energy plan counters House speaker's program”. domestic infrastructure." The group also considers renewable energy "the key to long-term energy security" and recommends that the federal government invest substantially to help develop wind. according to a statement at the group's web site. and policies should be directed toward maintaining domestic conventional energy capabilities. We have diverse energy resources in America today. and gas). Reps. coal. gas. 'Reliable supply' "In the long run. and technology development. climate change. both members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. and we can't discard any of them. and other sustainable energy technologies. nuclear power. "Until that takes place. fuel cells. Its core beliefs include a commitment to US financial stability and national security. hydroelectric. which produced the eight principles dealing with energy production. The principle states that US energy policy should not reduce access to domestic resources. and other traditional sources key components of US energy supply. a reliable supply of conventional fuels will be important for our economy.BLUE DOG DEMS Blue Dog Dems support PTC’s for renewable energy Nick Snow. "America's energy policy cannot depend solely on a future technological breakthrough. geothermal. the Blue Dog Coalition considers oil. or incentives for domestic production unless there is a corresponding initiative to replace lost capabilities. alternative fuels will provide a significant contribution to our country's energy profile. Until technology catches up. 7-9-07. While renewable resources are increasingly contributing to energy supply. according to the Blue Dogs. biomass. "Congress should also extend the wind energy production tax credit to provide greater long-term market certainty. Matheson said the first principle applies the "pay as you go" concept to domestic energy. a reliable supply of conventional fuels is essential for our economy. Jim Matheson of Utah and Charlie Melancon of Louisiana. nuclear." the group says. They consider encouraging domestic exploration and production of petroleum "a responsible component of a national energy policy." he explained. solar. Heavy US reliance on foreign petroleum suppliers contributes to the country's balance of payments and distorts foreign policy by encouraging energy development in unstable regions. 417 . oil.THE FORT PLTX PTC POP." Other group principles address climate change (which the Blue Dogs believe should be handled with predictable long-term policies that don't disproportionately affect one industry or sector) and fuel diversity (which the group says should include biofuels. cochaired the Blue Dog Energy Task Force. Washington Correspondent Oil & Gas Journal." it says. l/n [Ades] The fiscally conservative Blue Dog coalition of Democrats was formed in 1995 with an aim of representing the House's political center. fuel diversity.

THE FORT PLTX *************** NET METERING*************** 418 .

some consensus between parties that the United States is nearing an energy crisis. Given the recent shift in congressional power and. 11-17-2008. then there could be a "level playing field. Kristyn Ecochard. D-Okla. 6 (United Press International. either to upgrade overloaded grids or develop individual power generation. States have ultimately taken the responsibility on themselves. some of the stalled legislation may be passed. James Covey.Info News Archive." emphasized Rep. The NNEC and its supporters suggest that with or without net-metering there will be a cost. 419 .info/shared/reader/welcome. for the first time.THE FORT PLTX NET METERING UNPOP. that everyone will have to pay for at some point. The cost is also a concern. EcoEarth. “Will federal law help netmetering goals?. If the federal government set standards." he said. Another issue is the lack of consistency among programs. Dworkin said he believes utilities also have a sense of responsibility that they are hesitant to let go of. "Energy is going to cost something no matter what.” http://www.UTILITY COMPANIES Net metering unpopular with utility companies UPI.aspx?linkid=63863&keybold=renewable%20energy %20microgeneration Some utility companies don't like the idea of private production of energy and see net-metering as a threat to revenue.ecoearth.

" the Arizona Republican said at a campaign stop in Santa Barbara. called June 24 for a transformation of the national electric grid.THE FORT PLTX SMART METER POP.platts. McCain said "smart meter" technologies will have to be deployed as part of a "redesign" of the grid to spur efficiencies and conservation. and a shortage of power where it is needed. “Obama and McCain clash over energy policy”.com/Electric %20Power/Resources/News%20Features/uselection08/index." 420 . Platts. 6-24-8 (Cathy. Platts. The meters. meanwhile. saying the system needs to expand to eventually allow low-carbon sources of generation to power electric cars. allow consumers to adjust their consumption and reduce peak demand in response to prices.xml.MCCAIN McCain supports smart metering Cash.com. "The result is an excess of power where it's not needed. accessed 6-29-8) McCain. "Our national power transmission system has not been built to match supply and demand. when used in conjunction with time-based rate plans or dynamic pricing options. http://www. California.

2008. 5. The US has been accused of dragging its heels on climate change in the past.Portfolio Update. p.MCCAIN MCCAIN SUPPORTS FEED-IN TARIFFS PR Newswire. We have been reinvesting that money in wind companies and other stocks where we see more valuation upside. Democrat or Republican. With the US being such a large potential market. John McCain recently pledged his support for a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade system in the US as well as a goal of reducing emissions by 60% by 2050. BLACKROCK NEW ENERGY INVESTMENT TRUST PLC . such a change would likely prove to be an important catalyst for the new energy sector. In addition.lexis Performance at month end with net income reinvested Portfolio Activity We continued to take profits among certain companies in the solar sector.particularly in cell and module manufacturing. We could now see an important step change in policy from the next US administration.THE FORT PLTX FEED IN TARIFFS POP. there is uncertainty about Spanish and German feed-in tariff rates in 2009. Outlook The outlook for political support for new energy continues to strengthen in the US. 421 .22. where the industry looks to be moving towards over-capacity .

com/rea/news/story?id=52899 Six states have introduced feed-in tariff legislation for their own purposes: California. Inslee Introduces Renewable Energy Pricing Legislation: Bill Tackles Viability of Federal Pricing Head-On” http://www.PUBLIC FIT’S POPULAR. Florida. STATES PROVE Jim Pierobon. Illinois. Oregon. they demonstrate that at least the concept of feed-in tariffs is not going to fade away any time soon and may. in fact. gain support in the next Congress and with the next President.THE FORT PLTX FEED IN TARIFFS POP. Together. Wisconsin. 422 . Rhode Island and Hawaii. 6/27/2008 Contributing Writer “US Rep. Maine and Vermont. Michigan.renewableenergyworld. Minnesota. Massachusetts. New Jersey. Eight other states have begun considering some type of feed-in tariff or incentive pricing plan: New York.

greentechmedia. 6/27/2008. an analyst with New Energy Finance. If it’s consumers. “It’s an election year. somebody has to pay for feed-in program. Would Americans be wiling to pay more for energy? That’s unlikely. Ucilia Wang.PUBLIC Plan’s unpopular – cost increase falls on consumers. U. At the end of the day. 423 . then utilities might find it difficult to signing on. http://www.THE FORT PLTX FEED IN TARIFF UNPOP. After all.” Zindler said. said Ethan Zindler. greentechmedia staff. Proposes Feed-In Tariffs. the utilities have no interest in absorbing all the cost of the government mandate.S.com/articles/us-proposes-feed-in-tarrifs-1061.html One downside of the feed-in tariffs is the higher energy bills that German consumers have had to pay.

org/briefings/2008/061808_hboell_rep/Feed-in %20Tariffs%20and%20Renewable%20Energy%20in%20the%20USA%20-%20a%20Policy%20Update.pdf From a political perspective. Florian Bennhold. Rickerson Energy consultant. In addition to resistance to national renewable energy legislation from the conventional energy industry. and Climate System Research Center Department of Geosciences University of Massachusetts Amherst. 2008. and non-governmental advocacy groups (Inslee. 424 .eesi. May 2008. Hoexter. Hering. 2008.THE FORT PLTX FEED IN TARIFF COST POL CAP Moving feed-ins through Congress is a political food-fight – conventional energy lobbies and lack of renewable industry consensus. 2008). On the other hand. Kho. despite the bill’s attempts to balance federal and state jurisdictional concerns. Wilson Rickerson. renewable energy companies. 2008. 2008). and James Bradbury. Feed-in Tariffs and Renewable Energy in the USA – a Policy Update. 2008). there is not unanimity among solar industry stakeholders that the Inslee proposal is the best place for limited lobbying efforts to be focused (Browning. http://www. Chief Policy Intelligence Officer and Applications Engineer at Wilson TurboPower. moving the Inslee PBI bill through the US Congress is not expected to be easy (Tezak and Stanco. there is substantial grass-roots support for the concept from investors.

com/2008/07/06/renewable-energy-feed-in-tariff-fit-introduced-in-congress/ In Germany this has motivated citizens and businesses to put up solar panels wherever they can. we’d have to see a very strong collective effort made by the solar industry and consumers. Dallas Kachan. Structure change. unless it includes specific solar pricing.PUBLIC Feed-ins unpopular – A.org/news/2008/07/02/us-rep-inslee-introducesrenewable-energy-feed-in-tariffs/ A quick survey of electricity policy analysts pointed to challenges Inslee and his allies will have finding a way to pay for the raterecovery mechanism. “I personally would love to see it happen. Hanis said. Cost and uncertainty.com/node/874 In response.” said David Hochschild of PV Now. Stalling on tax credits. Contributing Writer renewableenergyworld.wind-watch.html A feed-in tariff could cost more. D. http://www. feed-in tariff. Utilities would be reimbursed by this organization for the additional cost of their power purchases. FITs will surely be in the news more as the election season heats up. We do have this process in place and will probably give it a try for a couple of years. it would be a mistake to revamp the program we’ve got in California. allowing Germany to get 14. Carol Gulyas.” echoed California commissioner Grueneich. But it would be a huge political fight. “From my perspective.com. Though Inslee’s legislation has little hope of getting through this Congress (they are still stalling on renewing the existing solar energy tax credits). How all those costs are determined adds layers of complexity to an already complicated legislative proposal. Jennifer Kho.THE FORT PLTX FEED IN TARIFF UNPOP. It already took three years to get through the legislature. http://media. Tax Credits. adding that she thinks a feed-in tariff would be a good "longer-term" strategy. Jim Pierobon. B. presenters essentially said it was too late.greentechmedia. "We’re not pursuing it at this time. Rate-recovery mechanism is divisive. 425 . cleantech staff. 7/6/2008. The bill would facilitate cost recovery through a new private — and independent — utility organization called “RenewCorps.” “For us to change the structure that we now have in place. 2008. March 4.S. http://cleantechnica. Policy Food Fight: Feed-In Tariffs vs. Cleantech Group. plus all costs associated with interconnection and network upgrades needed to accommodate the new renewable sources. Inslee Introduces Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariffs.cleantech. 7/2/2008. Among the possibilities being tossed around are revenues from auctioning carbon credits in a future carbon cap and trade law. might be more difficult to pass than the proposed incentive package and wouldn’t necessarily increase solar installations. 3/13/2007. Solar insiders lament lack of U. We’ve worked for years already just to get to where we are.com/articles/policy-food-fight-feed-in-tariffs-vs-tax-credits-657.2 percent of its energy from renewable sources. http://www. US Rep.” which would be subject to FERC oversight. and that there was too much momentum for California-style incentives. Financing Renewable Energy: Feed-in Tariff (FIT) Introduced in Congress." she said. a lobby group for a consortium of leading photovoltaic solar vendors. staff writer for greentech media. E.

and inaccurate. McCain continues to say that a suspension of the federal gas tax will lower prices for consumers. and opposes them for wind and solar energy. The cap is a mandatory limit.THE FORT PLTX WIND & SOLAR UNPOP.” McCain tried to paint Obama as an opponent of nuclear power.MCCAIN MCCAIN WOULD OPPOSE WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY George Dailey – writer for the newspaper.” But.santamariatimes. which isn't pictured. Santa Maria Times. and McCain even says so on his Web site. statements. Among them: He said that ending a moratorium on offshore oil drilling “would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis. McCain rightly said that he bucked his party in supporting action on climate change years ago. McCain didn't claim offshore drilling would lower prices in the short term. in that he supports subsidies for nuclear power. but that it would provide “psychological impact that I think is beneficial. In a new ad.com/articles/2008/07/15/opinion/letters/letter2. 07-15-08. at a town hall event on June 23. http://www. but Obama has said he is open to nuclear energy being part of the solution. even denying that it would be a mandate. John McCain made some surprising.txt While spending a recent week focusing on energy policy. offshore oil wouldn't have much of an impact on supply or prices until 2030. But. 426 . McCain has soft-pedaled the “cap” portion of his cap-and-trade proposal for greenhouse gases. Sen. and has supported bills that contained nuclear subsidies. though hundreds of economists say he is wrong. But its images of windmills and solar panels are misleading. according to a government report. Santa Maria Times. however.

THE FORT PLTX ***********NIF************* 427 .

CONGRESS 428 .THE FORT PLTX NIF UNPOP.

THE FORT PLTX ****************NUC POWER*************** 429 .

director of the University of California Energy Institute. Sensing opportunity. near Beulah. “The dream is that green power will turn out to be so cheap that it will actually beat out fossil fuels. partially because their prices do not include associated environmental or security costs. lenders and business executives are angling not only for bigger and better loan guarantees but also for subsidies. April 16. If the fundamental economics don’t change.com/wmspage. Fossil fuels are cheaper. with 143 applicants requesting more than $27 billion in guarantees.cfm?docID=news-000002490558) The last time the Energy Department put up taxpayer dollars to commercialize a major energy venture in the name of national security.” The loan-guarantee program authorized in the 2005 energy law (PL 109-58) has attracted huge interest. the Great Plains Synfuels Plant. The administration has requested authority for $9 billion in fiscal 2008. Concerns are growing. Billed as a way to promote energy independence after the 1970s oil crisis. buffeted by renewed concern over oil imports and the threat of global warming. the government again is aiming to nudge the energy industry in a new direction with billions of dollars in loan guarantees for advanced technologies. the Bush administration wants Congress to more than double the amount of money authorized for such guarantees. that Congress and the Bush administration might inadvertently endorse technologies that are bound to fail 10 years down the line. 430 . In the next fiscal year. Two decades later. but that is not realistic over the next decade.cqpolitics. Some experts fear that expensive new technologies won’t be able to compete with conventional energy. but Congress authorized the department to guarantee up to $4 billion in loans in fiscal 2007 (PL 110-5). he said. creating a long-term drain on the Treasury as lawmakers prop them up with subsidies and incentives. “Concerns Grow Over Funding Energy Projects”. government assistance for alternative-energy production is “headed towards failure.” said Severin Borenstein. it wound up owning a coal-gasification plant in North Dakota. and some lawmakers are pushing for more. is a lesson in what happens when federal loan guarantees go wrong. outright price supports. tax incentives and. however. The law did not specify a funding level for the loan program. It sold the facility three years later and remains $330 million in the red today — despite an ongoing revenue-sharing agreement with the current owner. http://www. The government assumed ownership after energy prices crashed in 1985.THE FORT PLTX LOAN GUARANTEES POP-BUSH Bush is already pushing for loan guarantees CQ 07 (Congressional Quarterly. in some cases. according to the Energy Department.

431 ." Domenici said. Instead. said his new post produces even more headaches than balancing a federal budget. "There are obviously a lot of views about energy problems in America. and feels good about doing something to make America less dependent on the turbulent Middle East. as well.accessmylibrary. who helped steer Congress to adopt a balanced budget amendment when he was Senate Budget Committee chairman in the 1990s.com/coms2/summary_0286-829835_ITM) Domenici managed to avoid similar controversy over his beloved nuclear power incentives by not insisting that Congress adopt controversial loan guarantees for construction of nuclear power plants. No one -.ever said it would be easy. he has taken the less contentious approach of seeking tax credits for the developers. Domenici said he enjoys the give-and-take with fellow members of Congress. Domenici.THE FORT PLTX LOAN GUARANTEES COST POL CAP LOAN GUARANTEES ARE CONTROVERSIAL IN CONGRESS (Michael Coleman 10-12-03 “Energy Policy Proves Divisive” http://www. But it has its rewards.including Domenici -.

intends to pursue a DOE loan guarantee for construction of its American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon. included in the omnibus appropriations legislation (H. the ability to bring plants online and fund those plants is a key part of this next generation of plants.net/tv/transcript/726 ) Jim Curtiss: Well. Congress just in the appropriations process. So there's a lot of attention with Wall Street talking with the industry about the importance of some of the things that Congress has done.com/doc/1P2-15046943. here before they left town in December.5 billion for loan guarantees for nuclear projects. a Bethesda-based global energy company. authorized $18. The Department of Energy recently published guidance on how they're going to implement that program that's very positive and has a loan guarantee program that will provide for the risk support that we're going to need as we get back into nuclear construction. in terms of funding new nuclear.5 billion of loan guarantees for nuclear power facilities.” http://www.R. The financial community. including $18.S. Of the 18 companies that have announced plans to go through the permitting process for 32 plants none of those companies has yet decided to build a plant.S. The U.highbeam. So there's a lot of support with some key financial issues that will need to be addressed going forward. has in recent years understood that plants can be operated safely and efficiently.CONGRESS CONGRESS SUPPORTS LOAN GUARANTEES (Jim Curtiss 1-24-08 “Former NRC head Curtiss discusses future of Yucca. But from a financial standpoint. Ohio 432 .THE FORT PLTX LOAN GUARANTEES POP. expansion of nuclear in U. commended Congress and the administration for their strong support for the renaissance of the nuclear power industry through the loan guarantee program administered by the U. the establishment of the loan guarantee program in the 2005 Energy Policy Act is an important piece of this. 2764) signed Wednesday by President George W.eenews.5 billion in energy projects. I think there are a number of dimensions of that.html) USEC Inc.S. Bush. Thirty years ago I don't think you would have had that kind of view right after Three Mile Island until we saw the improved operation of the plants. USEC. Department of Energy. The legislation includes loan guarantee authority for up to $38. LOAN GUARANTEES POPULAR IN CONGRESS (The Daily Record 12-28-07 “USEC applauds Congress” http://www.

coal and natural gas. China. each cause several thousand deaths each year. spent fuel or radioactive waste except in the Chernobyl accident.yet the only competitors of nuclear power.S. 3/23/08 (Susan and Mal. and several utilities have submitted Early Site Permits. In 2006. They have received four license applications for combined construction and operation. considered the founder of the environmental movement. environmental protection and low costs. Nuclear energy is receiving increased public support as one of the few available. founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue. and Jonathan Lash.C. "Facts are stubborn things. we can do something about that without reducing our standard of living by going to nuclear production of electricity and using hydrogen for transportation. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. nuclear is already competitive. Fortunately.PUBLIC Times have changed – nuclear power overwhelmingly popular because climate and energy supply fears Science Letter.72 cents per kilowatt-hour. and is expected to gain an advantage as the price of new nuclear plants comes down. has received expressions of interest for building 32 new reactors. utilities are considering whether to invest in building new fleets of advanced reactors to help address the country's converging concerns over energy supply security and global climate change. coal. Many professional environmentalists and ecologists support nuclear power.75 and oil 9. will be even safer. global warming. It is likely that the cheapest way to make hydrogen will be in nuclear plants. natural gas 6. Many countries are building new reactors or plan to. James Lovelock. nuclear plant operating cost in the United States averaged 1. oil. Ukraine. the cost advantage of nuclear over coal has grown in part because coal plants are spending money to reduce their emissions.. founder and past president of Greenpeace. augusta chronicle) A much-needed nuclear power renaissance is sweeping the world There is no doubt that a renaissance of nuclear power is under way in the United States and around the world.THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER POP. the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have estimated that 30. Anglican Bishop Hugh Montefiore. including Southern Nuclear (Georgia Power) and Duke Power." Here are some pertinent facts: * Safety. nuclear power has had an incredibly good record of safety.37. S. Brazil. Americans have become aware of these advantages. coal 2. Russia. chairwoman of the board of directors for Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness in Aiken. Support among people living near existing nuclear plants is 87 percent. base-load sources of power that do not create carbon emissions during the generating process. and the executive director emeritus and a consultant for CNTA. The outstanding environmental record of nuclear power plants is becoming legendary. already being built. including Canada. Nuclear is safer by a huge margin. Bulgaria. Patrick Moore. A partial list includes: Dr.000 people die prematurely each year in the United States from the emissions of coal-powered plants. Global warming is indeed occurring. If construction costs are included. which licenses and regulates commercial nuclear activities. and gas. worldwide. Friends of the Earth. ozone depletion or heavy-metal pollution. The operating cost for making electricity in nuclear plants is lower than any of its competitors. gas explosions and fires. which could not happen anywhere else .S. They have no emissions that make acid rain. smog. The reason is clear. * Cost. A wise person once said. South Korea and others. People have become aware that for several decades. Finland. and everyone wants a way to produce electricity that does not pollute. Also. 433 . and are supportive of nuclear power. from coal-mining accidents. France. England. 7/8/08 DTE's selection of the ESBWR comes as a growing number of U. Since then. and the cost and time to get licenses is reduced. Stewart Brand. No one has died from the radiation from power reactors. and the next generation of nuclear plants. president of the World Resources Institute. * Public support. A May 2008 public opinion survey by Zogby International shows 67% of Americans support the construction of nuclear plants. Several national polls show that 68 to 70 percent of adult Americans support building more to meet our growing need for electricity. Japan. The U. * Environment. Public loves it – environmental benefits and reduced safety fears Wood and McKibbon. and the principal human contributor is carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from the burning of trees.63. and among college graduates with a technical degree is 85 percent.

Today. with a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points. Seventy-three percent of Americans would find it acceptable to add a new reactor at the nearest existing nuclear power plant site. We are experiencing falling reserve margins. while only 30 percent opposed it. and President of Bisconti Research Inc. majority of american public supports nuclear energy Bisconti.000 U. In summary. Nuclear power has new public support and momentum MIKE WALLACE. October 1) Twice as many Americans support nuclear power as oppose it. A national sample of 500 college graduates who are registered to vote also was surveyed. are in line with increasing support for nuclear power in newspaper editorial departments.. 2006 (Ann Stouffer. Combining this with the increased focus on energy security and the environment as well as rising natural gas prices. great progress has been made over the last few years as we have increased our focus on energy and dependence and global climate change bringing nuclear power back into the energy mix. we are experiencing a significant increase in public support with 64% of public opinion now in favor of new nuclear.D. according to a new poll by Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times. “Public Favors Nuclear Power: Poll”. In a telephone poll of nearly 1. momentum continues and as we are working to make new nuclear a reality. The margin of error in this survey was plus or minus three percentage points. the Miami Herald and Kalamazoo Gazette published house editorials supporting increased use of nuclear power.S. Additionally. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll results. according to two March national public opinion surveys conducted by Bisconti Research Inc. as well as with the current administration most readily manifested in the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. particularly in the Mid Atlantic. May) There is a consensus among Americans that nuclear energy will play an important role in meeting the nation’s electricity needs in the years ahead. Managing Editor of Environment and Climate News at the Heartland Institute. The Nuclear Energy Institute sponsored the two surveys. The poll continues a trend of ever-increasing public support for nuclear power as a clean.THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER POP. The general public survey was based on telephone interviews with a nationally representative sample of 1. but also across the country to some degree. Eighty-six percent of the public and 88 percent of college graduate voters agree that nuclear energy will play an important role in meeting future electricity demand. ENERGY GENERATION GROUP. published August 4. 2006 (James M. A number of driving forces are coming together that are particularly supportive of new nuclear plants being built in the United States. Shortly after the poll results were released.PUBLIC Public loves nuclear power Taylor. and very importantly. Global warming fears have swayed many former opponents to support nuclear power. Majorities also support license renewal for existing nuclear power plants and “definitely building” new nuclear power plants. and environmentally friendly power source.500 Americans conducted from July 28 through August 1. 1/30/08 Let's begin on slide 41. and Texas regions. PRESIDENT. Republicans and Democrats. Ph. fair disclosure wire. we have Congressional support from the Senate and the House. economical. Today. “Clear Majority of Americans Agree Nuclear Energy Will Play Important Future Role in Electricity Supply”. 434 . nuclear energy is becoming a cost competitive clean alternative for base load generation. with GfK NOP (formerly NOPWorld and RoperASW). adults age 18 and older. West Coast. 61 percent of respondents said they support the increased use of nuclear power as a way to contain projected global warming.

however. and in particular. several factors favor a nuclear renaissance. But Peck said he doesn't expect anything to pop up here anytime soon.” http://www.PUBLIC Nuclear energy is popular among Americans. "There are Now almost the same number. 2008. outside the U. Then. power that has no greenhouse gas emissions. MSNBC.S. The first is President Bush's approval of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. state incentives for new projects (10 reactors are slated for Texas alone). 7-10-08.onlineathens. the public power co-op who runs the northwest's only nuclear power station. right now.msnbc. in recent years the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has streamlined its licensing processes. Athens Banner-Herald. A $917 million 2008 budget for the NRC supports new reactor design and project implementation. Furthermore. Several factors are all facilitating a rise in nuclear power’s popularity Sean Wilson. including federal loan guarantees for new plant construction. nearly three dozen nuclear power stations actually under construction around the world.S. Numbers also show more than 70 percent of Americans in favor of new plants at already existing sites.com/stories/071108/opinion_2008071100416. So it's clear that people are tumbling toward the idea that nuclear is a way to make huge quantities of reliable affordable energy. “Poll Reveals Surprising Support for Nuclear Power”.shtml Now. June 25. 435 . which includes significant incentives for the industry to expand output. there are fading memories of Three Mile Island.msn.com/id/25371194/ a new poll shows about 67 percent of Americans are in support of building more nuclear power plants to expand the nation's energy portfolio. and popular concern with climate issues. No longer can endless appeals and challenges from organizations such as Greenpeace hold up plants indefinitely. “Nuclear power makes sense as an energy option in Georgia. The nation's nuclear regulatory agency is reviewing about 36 new applications for plants here in the U.THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER POP. http://www." said Brad Peck with Energy Northwest.

html ) Nearly 80 percent of Americans endorse the use of federal financial incentives to help promote development of carbon-free energy technologies. 436 . (“Nuclear power expert testifies on safety and non-proliferation.PUBLIC THE POPULACE SUPPORTS A INCREASE OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS (Nuclear Energy Insititute. Zhang] Nuclear energy has long been viewed with suspicion by the general public because of various health and safety concerns. including new nuclear power plants.” http://www. there has been a noticeable shift in public perception. “Eight of 10 Americans Support Federal Incentives to Spur Growth of Carbon-Free Energy Technology” http://www. but over the last decade. in light of mounting public concern about global warming. Other countries recognize the value of nuclear energy and worldwide.org/publications/capitolhillquarterly/200607/nuclear-power. more than thirty new nuclear plants are under construction. THE PUBLIC AND OTHER NATIONS ARE INCREASINGLY LIKING THE IDEA OF NUCLEAR POWER DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING American Physical Society. Nuclear energy is a viable option to carbon-based energy sources.000 adults.cfm.) [G.aps. according to a new national survey of 1.verticalnews. who chaired the APS report. according to Roger Hagengruber (University of New Mexico).THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER POP.com/newsletters/Global-Warming-Focus/2008-05-05/4830GWW. 5-5-08. last updated 2008.

WORLD-NUCLEARNEWS. Some 78% agreed that electricity companies should be preparing now so that nuclear plants could be built in the next decade. if needed. Eighty-four percent of those polled agreed that the USA should take advantage of all low-carbon energy sources including nuclear. 437 .HTML) Unrelated surveys of public opinion have found continued support for the use of nuclear energy in both the USA and Russia. with nearly 80% feeling that financial incentives such as tax credits should be used to help push the development of such technologies. hydro and renewable energy.THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER POP.PUBLIC NUCLEAR ENERGY IS POPULAR WITH THE PUBLIC (WORLD NUCLEAR NEWS 4-29-08 “OPINION FAVOURS NUCLEAR” HTTP://WWW. with 33% opposing it. Overall. strong support for the continued use of the country's existing nuclear plants. double the 14% who described themselves as strongly opposed to nuclear.ORG/NP-OPINION_FAVOURS_NUCLEAR_2904089. while 59% agreed that the US should "definitely" build more nuclear power plants. with the proportion of people "strongly" in favour. A survey of 1000 US citizens carried out by Bisconti Research and published by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) found broad support for possible future nuclear construction projects. while US citizens are firmly in favour of federal incentives for the development of carbon-free energy options including nuclear. at 28%. 63% of those surveyed favoured the use of nuclear energy in the USA. and even stronger support for the use of federal incentives to promote the development carbon-free energy technologies including advanceddesign nuclear power plants.

Inc. economical. http://www. Shortly after the poll results were released. nuclear power plants accounted for 73 percent of U. Heartland institute. The greatest factor contributing to nuclear energy’s revival may be the growing concern over global climate change. In an interview with the HPR. Environment and Climate writer.” He emphasizes that nuclear power will be successful only with popular support.” No other type of renewable clean energy can compete with nuclear energy to relieve dependence on fossil fuels.cfm?artId=19723 Twice as many Americans support nuclear power as oppose it. The poll continues a trend of ever-increasing public support for nuclear power as a clean. In a telephone poll of nearly 1. “Never has one death been attributed to nuclear power plants” in America . published August 4. or at least with the absence of virile opposition—and the data suggest that the people are ready for expanding nuclear energy. Global warming fears have swayed many former opponents to support nuclear power. 58 percent of Americans opposed building new nuclear power plants. Public favors nuclear power: poll. showing that 54 percent either somewhat or strongly favor the use of nuclear energy in the United States . 10-1-06. told the HPR that the “worst mistake would be to jam nuclear power down people’s throats. Is nuclear energies day here? http://hprsite. 438 . the damage was entirely psychological.PUBLIC PUBLIC OPINION SUPPORTS PLAN Adam Solomon. MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS THE PLAN. 2-26-06. a poll done in May 2005 by Bisconti Research.S. a Lecturer on Public Policy at the Kennedy School of Government. According to the NEI. Mitch Singer of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) highlighted the spotless safety record of American nuclear power plants as a main contributor to warming public attitude. the Miami Herald and Kalamazoo Gazette published house editorials supporting increased use of nuclear power.500 Americans conducted from July 28 through August 1. A Gallup Poll conducted in March 2005 corroborates this shift. for the Nuclear Energy Institute found that 58 percent of those polled supported building new plants. Nuclear energy’s improving popularity is pivotal to its expansion. while only 30 percent opposed it. and environmentally friendly power source. 61 percent of respondents said they support the increased use of nuclear power as a way to contain projected global warming.heartland.THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER POP. are in line with increasing support for nuclear power in newspaper editorial departments. AND NUMBERS ARE CONTINUING TO GROW James M. emission-free generation. Greenpeace coFounder James Lovelock caused a stir in the environmentalist community when he was quoted as saying.org/Article. Even at Three Mile Island . “Only nuclear power can halt global warming.squarespace. Taylor. Henry Lee. Harvard political review. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll results. the closest America has ever come to experiencing a meltdown. According to Singer. According to a 1990 Gallup Poll.com/is-nuclear-energysday-here/ The last two decades have seen a considerable shift in public opinion. according to a new poll by Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times. By contrast.

with Bruskin Research 439 . The nationwide survey for the Nuclear Energy Institute was conducted July 6-8 and included telephone interviews with a nationally representative sample of 1. and there is near public consensus on renewing federal licenses of existing nuclear power plants that meet federal safety standards. Ph.THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER POP.pdf A new national survey finds that the dramatic increases in public support for nuclear energy have held at high levels. Support for nuclear power plants remain high. D. Public opinion magazine.S. despite lower public concern about energy shortages.com/education/facts/public/support_high. Almost two-thirds of U. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points. adults. September 01’. even as energy concerns begin to wane. adults continue to support definitely building new nuclear power plants.000 U. The survey was conducted by Bisconti Research Inc.nmcco. http://www.PUBLIC PUBLIC SUPPORTS PLAN ACTION Ann Stouffer.S.

environmentally safe option. 440 . that nuclear power plants will not become permanent dumps for the 45. October 4) Through aggressive public-relations campaigns. has vowed to use his chairmanship to breathe new life into an industry that he sees as a source of clean. In recent congressional testimony.THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER POP. Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin. The Republican leadership in Congress firmly supports it. one of nuclear power's most steadfast friends..000 metric tons of radioactive waste now in "temporary" storage there. featuring it prominently in its May 2001 National Energy Policy report. 2003 (Margaret. recent polling data show that more and more Americans are receptive to the idea of nuclear power as are some key environmental figures. shares that perspective. Domenici's House counterpart. That Ukrainian accident has also been blamed for countless birth defects. Nev.the world's worst nuclear disaster -. Nuclear power industry officials see approval of the Yucca Mountain facility as critical to reassuring the public.800 cases of thyroid cancer in children. National Journal. as a permanent storage site for the nation's commercial nuclear waste. The U. such as Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore.PUBLIC PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR NUCLEAR POWER INCREASING CNS News. reliable energy. 2007. “Still Radioactive”. Domenici. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham formally approved Yucca Mountain. NATIONAL JOURNAL ENVIRONMENTAL WRITER. R-La. The Bush administration enthusiastically backs nuclear power. Congress subsequently gave its blessing to that decision. Moore expressed strong support for nuclear energy as a viable. Even so. NUCLEAR POWER ENJOYS ITS STRONGEST PUBLICSUPPORT IN 30 YEARS KRIZ.S.caused about 25. as well as state officials. September 28. In early 2002. The United Nations estimates that the Chernobyl meltdown -. nuclear industry is enjoying its strongest political support in Washington in 30 years.. safe. Volume: 35.000 deaths and 1. the industry has neutralized the fervent public opposition to nuclear power that developed after the Three Mile Island accident and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in what was then the Soviet Union.

.PUBLIC Voters like nuclear power – high energy prices Market Watch. “Nuclear power wins support on the campaign trail. John McCain and Barack Obama embrace nuclear power as a viable form of energy.S. alternatives including nuclear power are enjoying a renaissance on the campaign trail.marketwatch. 441 . where to store the related waste and how to transport it.aspx?guid= %7B4C4C7CA5-E406-4E17-AA8C-55E59DBD68CE%7D&dist=msr_4 WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -.As the soaring cost of fossil fuels grabs both voters' and the candidates' attention.com/news/story/nuclear-power-wins-support-campaign/story. But while both Sens. including the cost of building plants. Experts say that the public is warming up to nuclear energy despite long-held reservations.S. With 104 nuclear power plants in the U.” http://www. power and is mostly used to make electricity. hurdles remain to ramping up production. nuclear energy currently produces about 20% of U. So expect nuclear power to be on the table no matter who is elected president. 7/24/08. politicians will have to overcome jitters about building new plants in local communities.THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER POP. Moreover.

up from 58% in last year's survey. 69% in the Northeast. Ann Bisconti. based on a three percentage point margin of error." The survey also found that 65% of Americans believe that spent fuel can be safely stored at a plant site until it is moved to a repository. which is virtually the same as the opinions expressed in a May 2005 survey. In the May 2005 survey. where last year 72% of those polled. showed that 68% of respondents had favorable views on nuclear energy. and 44% said they had come across a report stating that nuclear energy was one way to fight global warming and climate change. up slightly from about 24% who said they opposed it in last year's survey. 47% said they heard or read about the clean air benefits of nuclear power. while 67% in the South and 66% in the West were supportive. The newest survey found 63% of Americans believed more nuclear plants should "definitely" be built in the future. The results of last year's survey were touted as a record high for public support of nuclear power.” Lexis For the second consecutive year. But support from those in the South ? where most new nuclear reactors are proposed ? slipped slightly from last year. The poll also found that 27% opposed the use of nuclear power. 9/28/06. according to a new poll commissioned by the Nuclear Energy Institute. She attributed the increase to the concentration of stories appearing in the media on global warming and clean air issues. which far exceeds expansion plans in any other region in the US. released this week. Last year's study preceded the question with the statement: "Scientific study by more than 3. In last year's survey. “Public support of nuclear power remains high. president of Bisconti Research Inc.000 adults across the US. 17% of respondents said they believed most Americans favored the use of nuclear energy. she said. In the September survey. The largest change was in the South. 72% of the respondents believe the federal government should continue to develop the Yucca Mountain. but there might be a few proposals in the Northeast. No company is talking about building new plants in the West or Midwest.PUBLIC 70% of Americans support nuclear energy – a record high because of environmental awareneness Nucleonics Week. 73% in the Midwest. with the assistance of the company GfK NOP.000 scientists demonstrates that the proposed Yucca Mountain site for a national disposal facility for nuclear waste is safe. There have been public announcements from companies planning to submit applications to NRC in the next couple of years requesting permission to construct 17 or more units in the South. 71% of respondents said they favored that course of action. Bisconti said that in recent years an increasing number of people have expressed an awareness of the benefits of nuclear energy. According to this month's poll. She said that participants also believe others might have formed their views based on exposure to negative news about nuclear energy. 442 . as long as it meets NRC regulations. 49% said they recalled seeing a report about the need to build more nuclear power plants in the US. said the views reflected in the latest survey marked a "high plateau. 58% of the respondents said they had heard or read information about the importance of nuclear energy. This question was not included in past industry surveys. Bisconti said.THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER POP. 68% of the respondents said they favored nuclear energy but only 33% said they believed most of the public favored nuclear energy. The survey. conducted the poll for NEI through telephone interviews with 1. Participants in industry-sponsored focus groups have attributed the gap between their views and the perception of the public's views to having more education on the topic. nearly 70% of Americans said they favor nuclear energy. Bisconti Research." She told Platts she did not see any statistically significant changes. said they favored the use of nuclear energy. says industry poll. In a May 2003 survey. The new poll found that 70% of respondents in the Northeast and Midwest favored nuclear energy. or about 5% more than this year. and 65% in the West said they supported nuclear energy.. Bisconti also said that the "perception gap" has been changing in recent years. Nevada site as a high-level waste repository. That references the difference between a respondent's view on nuclear energy and his or her perception of others' views on the subject. In the latest survey.

There's about 80 percent support within 10 miles of the plant. There are three reasons for that. The closer people live to the nuclear plants the more supportive they are of nuclear energy.” Lexis Polls are pretty clear that about two-thirds of the people support nuclear energy and think it should be part of the future. environmentally-friendly and good for the economy St.PUBLIC 2/3 of the public support nuclear energy – safe. Two. They employ about twice as many people as a coal plant and they employ higher-skilled and higher-paid people than a coal plant. “ADVOCATE GOES FROM NATURE TO NUCLEAR.THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER POP. it's a huge economic generator. One. the air is clean and compared to living near a coal plant they know it's not causing any environmental damage. they know it's safe because they live there and it's never hurt them. 7/7/08. 443 . Petersburg Times (Florida). And third.

the second-highest ever. "it's hard to ignore the principal source of noncarbon power generation in the country today.S. 7-9-07. ‘Must Start Building Nuclear Power Plants.104/search? q=cache:TCe5i1yzPzIJ:www. http://72. executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy. Support also is coming from public officials. supported the increased use of nuclear energy "to prevent global warming. "There's no question that the attention to climate change over the last several years has materially changed the public discussion of nuclear power. he said. http://www.’ President Bush Tells Industry Executives”.org/temp_news/nuclear_power050907. including: Industry-average production costs of 1. Polls over the years have shown that a slim majority backs nuclear power. Given the threat of global warming." Legislation introduced recently in California seeks to repeal a 1976 ban on new nuclear plants in the state. “Nuclear power enters global warming debate”." said Jason Grumet. 61%.7 cents per kilowatt-hour remain the lowest among all forms of energy except for hydroelectric facilities and represent a 33 percent decline over the past 10 years.yuccamountain. The industry produced 782 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2005. 444 . “U.PUBLIC PUBLIC SUPPORTS NUKE POWER – PERCEIVE IT AS BATTLING CLIMATE CHANGE Richard Simon.THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER POP.pdf+nuclear+power+ %2Bglobal+warming&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=43&gl=us The public's attitude toward nuclear power is more favorable when such energy is seen as part of an effort to fight climate change.org/newsandevents/271/ Earley identified the business and political conditions that bode well for new nuclear plants. The industry also is enjoying broad public support as evidenced by recent polls showing 75 percent approval for new nuclear plants in general and nearly 80 percent approval from people living within a 10 mile radius of current plants. but a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey last summer found that a larger majority. LA Times Staff Writer.14." “NOT IN MY BACK YARD” IS NO LONGER IMPORTANT – POLLS PROVE NEI (Nuclear Energy Insitute). a bipartisan group of energy experts.205. Capacity factors—a measure of efficiency—averaged about 90 percent for the fifth year in a row. ’06.nei.

org/Article. Poll”.. The poll continues a trend of ever-increasing public support for nuclear power as a clean. The federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 removed some of the obstacles to new plant construction. “Public Favors Nuclear Power. if and when the decision is made to build a new nuclear power plant in a specific area. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll results. and environmentally friendly power source.S. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. However. 10-1-2006. The Heartland Institute. the Miami Herald and Kalamazoo Gazette published house editorials supporting increased use of nuclear power. "Expanded baseload production will be needed to meet growing demand [for electricity]. mobilized minorities of local citizens will prove decisive. In a telephone poll of nearly 1. http://www. "There are several factors working in favor of development and expansion of nuclear power plants in the near future. 6-1-2006. vote. Nuclear energy is also likely to remain an ambivalent issue for the generation of Americans who lived through Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. 61 percent of respondents said they support the increased use of nuclear power as a way to contain projected global warming. Global warming fears have swayed many former opponents to support nuclear power. Environment and Climate News. are in line with increasing support for nuclear power in newspaper editorial departments. or speak out at the local level will have a stronger impact on the future of nuclear energy in the U. according to a new poll by Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times. However. 10-1-2006. than the current struggle to shape national opinion. Nuclear technology popularity growing now – recent energy policies prove Taylor ‘6 [James E.org/scienceandmedia/nuclear/] Nuclear energy is likely to remain a “third rail” of environmental politics. economical. Environment and Climate News. As a result. And public support is really lining up behind nuclear power. Who shows up to protest.csicop. The Skeptical Inquirer. Entergy plans to add a second new nuclear power plant in Louisiana.org/Article. as recent poll trends suggest. and it is likely to receive an NRC site permit for that plant in 2008. “Public Favors Nuclear Power.. Poll”. Framing will be the central device by which both advocates and opponents of nuclear energy manage public opinion at the national level. published August 4. http://www. Energy producer Entergy has taken the lead on new plant construction and is likely to receive a site permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 2007 allowing a proposed new plant in Mississippi. “Going Nuclear: Frames and Public Opinion about Atomic Energy”. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 has made the regulatory process less difficult. 16 companies have formally notified federal authorities they are considering building new nuclear power plants. The Heartland Institute. and for Good reason.cfm?artId=19723] The growing public support for nuclear power is already having positive effects on future construction plans. http://www. while only 30 percent opposed it.500 Americans conducted from July 28 through August 1.PUBLIC Public support for nuclear energy will continually grow CSI ‘6 [Matthew Nisbet. Shortly after the poll results were released. public support in the aggregate is also likely to increase. the more time passes with no new focusing events related to the dangers of nuclear energy. according to testimony by Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Nils Diaz in May 2006 before the Senate Energy Committee. and as the perceived urgency of energy independence and global warming increases." said Nuclear Energy Institute spokesperson Trish Conrad.THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER POP." 445 . with the images and frames of a runaway technology easily evoked by carefully designed message strategies.cfm?artId=19723] Twice as many Americans support nuclear power as oppose it.heartland. Polls prove nuclear technology is popular with the majority of American public Taylor ‘6 [James E. with many environmental groups willing to devote heavy resources to opposing any new plant construction.heartland.

Majorities also support license renewal for existing nuclear power plants and “definitely building” new nuclear power plants. 2006 (James M. while only 30 percent opposed it. according to a new poll by Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times. Managing Editor of Environment and Climate News at the Heartland Institute. The poll continues a trend of ever-increasing public support for nuclear power as a clean.PUBLIC NUCLEAR ENERGY IS POPULAR AMONG THE PUBLIC Taylor. Ph. October 1) Twice as many Americans support nuclear power as oppose it. In a telephone poll of nearly 1. with GfK NOP (formerly NOPWorld and RoperASW).500 Americans conducted from July 28 through August 1. according to two March national public opinion surveys conducted by Bisconti Research Inc. MAJORITY OF AMERICAN PUBLIC SUPPORTS NUCLEAR ENERGY Bisconti.S. The Nuclear Energy Institute sponsored the two surveys. and President of Bisconti Research Inc. “Clear Majority of Americans Agree Nuclear Energy Will Play Important Future Role in Electricity Supply”. are in line with increasing support for nuclear power in newspaper editorial departments. 2006 (Ann Stouffer.. The margin of error in this survey was plus or minus three percentage points. 446 . published August 4. “Public Favors Nuclear Power: Poll”. with a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points. Shortly after the poll results were released. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll results. economical. A national sample of 500 college graduates who are registered to vote also was surveyed.D. and environmentally friendly power source. Global warming fears have swayed many former opponents to support nuclear power. 61 percent of respondents said they support the increased use of nuclear power as a way to contain projected global warming. Seventy-three percent of Americans would find it acceptable to add a new reactor at the nearest existing nuclear power plant site. Eighty-six percent of the public and 88 percent of college graduate voters agree that nuclear energy will play an important role in meeting future electricity demand. May) There is a consensus among Americans that nuclear energy will play an important role in meeting the nation’s electricity needs in the years ahead.000 U. The general public survey was based on telephone interviews with a nationally representative sample of 1.THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER POP. the Miami Herald and Kalamazoo Gazette published house editorials supporting increased use of nuclear power. adults age 18 and older.

If we can't site Wal-Marts without a lengthy battle. http://www. Ansolabehere said.THE FORT PLTX NUC WASTE UNPOP. is going to be difficult. because the rich are better able to defend themselves against environmental insults than the poor. Americans warming to nuclear power . No one wants to host the nuclear-waste repository. 447 .com/business/story/1048035. It helps the opponents to have a dollar figure to object to. In the United States.newsobserver. http://www. but the percentage of people who want to increase nuclear power use has grown from 28 percent to 35 percent. John Murawski.. and definitely not the answer. why does anyone seriously think that we will be able to site the hundreds of new nuclear power plants that may be necessary to meet our energy needs without increasing greenhouse-gas emissions? PLAN'S UNPOPULAR – PUBLIC PERCEIVES ESCALATING COSTS. Environmental justice has also reached the political stage. and only 28 percent agree that "nuclear waste could be stored safely for long periods of time. NO TURNS – PUBLIC'S RELUCTANT TO PAY AND 35% APPROVAL. the MIT political scientist who conducted the survey through Knowledge Networks. Cost estimates are expected to continue escalating. Grist staff writer. Anne Trafton." Ansolabehere said. 7/23/2007.S. dangerous.MIT survey. the national survey of 1. "The Future of Nuclear Power. Steven Cohen. In an increasingly crowded and interdependent world. public preferences have remained fairly stable.200 Americans' opinions on different types of energy indicated growing concern about global warming -. 7/23/2007. News Office staff writer. The report. The report also found a U. Professor Stephen Ansolabehere. "getting the public behind a serious expansion of nuclear power in the U. That increase in popularity is likely due to concern over global warming caused by carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Moreover.org/comments/soapbox/2006/08/08/cohen/ That leads to the politics.PUBLIC PLAN'S UNPOPULAR – WASTE STORAGE CONCERNS FUEL OPPOSITION.MIT survey. should do to encourage new kinds of energy development or different patterns of energy consumption.S. Nev. Cost of nuclear plant fuels battle. L/N The Bush administration has been pushing to expand nuclear power. with projections now hitting $6 billion to $9 billion per reactor. L/N CAMBRIDGE. Soaring costs make the prospect of new nuclear power even harder to sell to a public that will ultimately pay for new plants through rate increases. News Office staff writer. but Americans are still concerned about storing nuclear waste. Mass. local politics in many places has become the politics of land use and development." In the five years since the last survey. 8/8/2006. Anne Trafton. but one of politics.grist. people have grown more sensitive about questions of land-use development.but an apparent reluctance to pay to fight it." was recently published by MIT's Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems. which doesn't produce carbon dioxide.Americans' icy attitudes toward nuclear power are beginning to thaw. but electric utilities are reluctant to cooperate. Just Say No: Nuclear power is complicated." Ansolabehere said. Ansolabehere conducted a similar survey in 2002 as part of the MIT study. 4/24/2008. "We're trying to understand what public policy in the U. .S. Nuclear critics are homing in on the staggering costs to lobby their case. public increasingly unhappy with oil and more willing to develop alternative energy sources like wind and solar. according to a new survey from MIT. said he hopes that tracking Americans' attitudes toward energy will help policy-makers decide how to chart the United States' energy future. PLAN'S UNPOPULAR – LOCATION SELECTION. a consumer information company." Because of those concerns. Nearly 40 percent oppose the proposed storage site at Yucca Mountain. No one wants a nuclear power plant next door. "Public Attitudes Toward America's Energy Options: Insights for Nuclear Energy.html The estimated cost of new nuclear power plants has tripled in the past few years. This is not an engineering or economic issue. Americans warming to nuclear power . staff writer.

” lexis [BB] If costs don't come down. Moens says. "There are so many things that can change in a hurry. The "Not In My Backyard" factor associated with nuclear waste makes nuclear energy unpopular in some communities.THE FORT PLTX NUC WASTE UNPOP. just because companies are applying to build new plants." he said. these obstacles haven't stopped energy companies from submitting applications to the government for new plants. The rising cost is one of those things. "it sounds like more companies are getting interested in building the reactors and the list of companies that [the government] anticipates will apply has been growing rather than shrinking. "Even with the rising cost of materials. The economic factor could prove to be the tipping point.PUBLIC NOT-IN-MY-BACKYARD MEANS NUCLEAR POWER IS HEAVILY UNPOPULAR AMONG GENERAL POPULACE Washington Independent. 448 . that waiting period could stretch out much longer. And it's something that can only add to an already poor public perception of nuclear energy. “Pricey Alternative: Nuclear Energy. nuclear industry specialist at the EIA . doesn't mean those plants will definitely get built. So far. according to the Energy Information Administration. 6/12/08."But." said JohnMoens.

THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER UNPOP. 449 . Encourage off-shore exploration for oil and natural gas. Nuclear power was last. Encourage the construction of nuclear power facilities.php A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll asked a much more neutral question: Which one of the following actions do you most support as a way of addressing the rise in energy and gas prices? Encourage the development of wind and solar power." Wind and solar was the winner.us/2008/06/19/gingrich_misrepresents_public_opinion_and_likely_results_of_offshore_drilling.PUBLIC Public against Nuclear Power Newshounds 8 Newshounds.newshounds. June 2008. http://www.com. Open up protected areas in Alaska for oil and gas exploration. Encourage American consumers to conserve energy. conservation third and exploration fourth. with Alaska second.

News Office staff writer. it's a clarion call for more public education.newsobserver. http://www. Americans are far more concerned about global warming and climate change. It helps the opponents to have a dollar figure to object to. and are increasingly conscious of the harm carbon dioxide emissions are causing.THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER UNPOP. develop alternative energy incentives. 6-5-07. with projections now hitting $6 billion to $9 billion per reactor. It's the only way for policy makers to address a situation where everyone wants energy selfsufficiency but no new traditional energy plants. concerned about the price they will have to pay in their personal lives." said Hallead. It shows that while nine out of 10 Americans may believe the U." said RBC Capital Markets analyst Kurt Hallead. Nuclear Facilities”.S. 84 per cent opposed the construction of an oil refinery in their hometown. Unpopular – public perceives escalating costs John Murawski. Americans warming to nuclear power .S." The survey also found that compared to a year ago. Cost estimates are expected to continue escalating. L/N The Bush administration has been pushing to expand nuclear power.MIT survey. which doesn't produce carbon dioxide. http://findarticles. 83 per cent opposed the construction or re-commissioning of a nuclear power plant and three out of four opposed the construction of a liquefied natural gas facility in their city or town. 4/24/2008.001 Americans was released in conjunction with RBC Capital Markets' annual Energy Conference being held in New York today and tomorrow. Nev. is going to be difficult.. Only a third of those surveyed say they are spending more time learning about what they can do and two-thirds admit they need to do more. but Americans are still concerned about storing nuclear waste." Because of those concerns. "getting the public behind a serious expansion of nuclear power in the U. but electric utilities are reluctant to cooperate. RBC Capital said. "Clearly the 'Not In My Backyard' phenomenon still prevails.html The estimated cost of new nuclear power plants has tripled in the past few years. "To me. and 67 percent said they would also pay more for cleaner fuels than pay less for fuels that pollute.com/p/articles/mi_m5CNK/is_2007_June_5/ai_n25006940/pg_1 The national survey of 1.PUBLIC UNPOPULAR WITH PUBLIC – NOT IN MY BACKYARD Energy Resource. while the vast majority of Americans support government activities to increase energy conservation programs. and unsure that they can do anything about it. and only 28 percent agree that "nuclear waste could be stored safely for long periods of time. even if it meant higher energy costs. there is still resistance to policies or initiatives that intrude on Americans' lifestyles or pocketbooks.S. Waste storage concerns fuel public opposition Anne Trafton. in almost three decades. "We haven't built a new refinery in the U." Moreover. and reduce the nation's reliance on foreign oil. 450 . staff writer." Ansolabehere said. Cost of nuclear plant fuels battle. needs to produce its own oil and eight of 10 say they are concerned about the nation's energy self-sufficiency. 7/23/2007. Nuclear critics are homing in on the staggering costs to lobby their case. Soaring costs make the prospect of new nuclear power even harder to sell to a public that will ultimately pay for new plants through rate increases. "It's as if consumers are paralyzed by the magnitude of the problem.com/business/story/1048035. “Energy Survey: 'Not in My Backyard' Still a Factor When It Comes to Building New Oil. The majority of those polled (68 percent) said they were in favor of carbon dioxide regulations. Nearly 40 percent oppose the proposed storage site at Yucca Mountain.

58 percent of Americans disapprove of nuclear energy and 59 percent don't want to see a nuclear power plant built in their community. Daks 10-1-07 “NRG Seeks The Lead in Going Nuclear” http://findarticles. 451 . And at a June conference.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535) According to an April poll by CBS News and The New York Times.PUBLIC NUCLEAR POWER IS UNPOPULAR (Martin C." the institute warned in a report on the conference.THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER UNPOP. doubts were raised about the ability of companies to secure financing for nuclear power projects. a free-market think tank in New York City. sponsored by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. the political climate for other subsidies that could make or break nuke projects could change as federal administrations change. "While the government has never reneged on a loan guarantee once issued.

when burnt. 452 .PUBLIC People are still wary of 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl accidenets SeekingAlpha.THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER UNPOP. 40 years ago the US decided to use CNG as fuel for power plants built in the future.com/article/87234the-benefits-of-shifting-to-cng-for-fuel Use of CNG as fuel for electric power generation: Since nuclear power plants have become unpopular (due to security fears after 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear power plant accidents). Now a significant (about 20%) of our electricity comes from CNG.” http://seekingalpha. each molecule of it releases one CO2 molecule and two water (H2O) molecules. 7-27-08. so generating power by CNG is only about a third as damaging (in terms of CO2 releases) as generation from coal. CNG is mostly methane (NH4). and hydro-electric power generation has almost reached its natural upper limit. coal burning power plants also became unpopular (due to concerns about global warming). “The Benefits of Shifting to CNG for Fuel.

and the possibility that the availability of the high-grade plutonium may increase the possibility of the manufacture of nuclear weapons. many American conservatives have attempted to spur a "nuclear revival". which led to the cancellation of over 100 reactor orders. Because of these concerns. the image of nuclear power was permanently tarnished. accessed 7-9-08) This points to a second salient fact in the history of energy technology: the quest for an endless. In 2005. Pg. be the guiltless source of fuel America longs for. 2004 (Stephanie. television. 96) However. Energy: A Historical Perspective and 21st Century Forecast. there is now a lack of public confidence in nuclear power. In 1973. PROFESSOR OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. there are serious reasons for concern about nuclear power plants. For a time. the expansion of nuclear power has been limited since the Chernobyl reactor explosion of 1986 and the less serious accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. Mistaken public perception of the reality of nuclear power has resulted in a strong opposition to the increase in electric generation in nuclear plants. Spring.it produced no emissions. and guiltless source of energy. 2005 (Amos. a one-year record. at least for now.THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER UNPOP. 453 . Many countries around the world (especially in Europe) rely extensively on nuclear power as a national energy source. Most worrisome problems are the disposal of the high-level radioactive waste (HLW). and the American faith in nuclear technology has never fully been restored. the ire of American environmentalists and fears about nuclear weapons proliferation mean that nuclear power will not. involved limited purging of the earth's resources.far too significant to be handled adequately here. 2007 (Mayer. the product of the operation of nuclear reactors.thenewatlantis. stainless. However. intensely scrutinized and widely publicized in the press. No nuclear plants have come online since 1996.PUBLIC POLITICIANS AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ARE DISTRUSTFUL OF NUCLEAR POWER COHAN. STRONG PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO THE EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR POWER SALVADOR. but in the end. “Energy Dreams and Energy Realities”. ASSOCIATE EDITOR OF THE NEW ATLANTIS. some people thought nuclear power might be the answer -. Still. The New Atlantis. there were 104 reactors providing 20 percent of the country's electricity supply. SENIOR FELLOW POLICY INSTITUTE IN LONDON. Pg. and journals are stridently magnified by vocal environmental organizations. 101-102) The United States is the world’s largest user of nuclear energy. However these incidents have not stopped governments and the nuclear industry in recent years from promoting a revived program of construction. the debate over nuclear energy remains a crucial one -.com/publications/energy-dreams-and-energy-realities. The Suicidal Planet: How to Prevent Climate Catastrophe. and seemed almost magical in the extent of power it could produce. 41 nuclear power plants were ordered for construction in the United States. http://www. Although no one suffered injuries. the radioactivity of the plutonium generated as a result of the fission reaction. particularly in the case of the breeder reactors. PUBLIC OPPOSITION PREVENTS THE CONTINUED EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR ENERGY HILLMAN ET AL. But the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania devastated the nation's nuclear energy industry.

Jim Webb is a freshman senator [from Virginia]. 454 . serious. Almost none of them associate any major policy initiative with him in Congress. nuclear power is still on the table — which is very insensitive. which is the principle way defrauded and wrongfully injured people challenge corporate power…. look at his back-tracking on Supreme Court decisions. Obama supports nuke power – political backers Atlanta Journal Constitution. Never mind going into the areas of exploitation in the ghettos — predatory lending and all that. That’s pretty inexcusable. Interview w/ Ralph Nader. he even voted to cap pain and suffering damages of medical malpractice victims to $250. He’s never met a weapons system he didn’t like.ajc. For him. He really did it seriously on veterans’ education.OBAMA .Look at FISA. energetic agenda to deal with the abuses and exploitations of the lower 100 million Americans on the income ladder. obviously. He’s not challenged the military-industrial complex at all. his supporting the credit card industry.com/metro/content/sharedblogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/07/24/something_for_those_turned_off. He’s probably said some things on this. you know? I’ve talked to thousands of Obama supporters. That’s what I mean. but look at Jim Webb. No one in Washington associates Barack Obama with a major.html Because he’s a corporate Democrat…. given that some of his major backers are nuclear power executives in Chicago.THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER POP. He’s weak on the civil justice system. http://www. going around the country. “Something for those turned off by the conservatism of Barack Obama”.000. 7-24-08. And he gets a huge amount of money — more than [Republican John] McCain has got — from corporate interests and corporate attorneys…. And as a state senator.

With gas prices at record highs. Obama. In his energy plan. Meanwhile Sen." he said." 455 . but Democrats were unable to muster the two-thirds vote required to pass the measure without amendment. Daniel Seligman. things like wind. Both a national Zogby poll and a Florida Rasmussen Reports poll show tremendous support for drilling." The debate is spilling into Congress. but so far in the presidential election only Sen. l/n Conventional wisdom has put offshore drilling off-limits for Florida politicians. If it doesn't. and earlier this week he proposed a $300 million prize for the inventor of a next-generation car battery. McCain is trouncing Mr. Obama. McKenna said. Mr. demand." as compared with "Dr. "There's kind of a consensus about thinking about energy that cuts across ideological boundaries. On Tuesday. But they are also willing to go further than even Mr. Both oppose drilling in ANWR. "Things like solar [photovoltaics]. Obama has proposed increased fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks and $150 billion in investments to develop alternative energy sources. Mr. has stood firm. Obama is matching his party's stance. McCain. he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people. though he gave the edge to Mr. Obama said. McCain on Tuesday said his proposals lay out "a plan of action. That follows last week's call for 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and a position reversal in which he embraced expanded offshore drilling for oil and gas." he said. the fees will go toward more investment in renewable sources of energy. and the promotion of renewable and alternative energy. arguing that the problem is U. and that's what Obama 's proposing to do. a Republican pollster and energy strategist who said Mr. Mr. Both support a cap-and-trade approach to carbon emissions. "Somebody's doing their polling work. In his own speech Tuesday. No. but polls released this month appear to have changed that decades-old line of thought. the presumptive Republican nominee said he will make the federal government's automobile fleets and offices greener.MCCAIN MCCAIN IS STARTING TO ADAPT TO PUBLIC OPINION ON ENERGY – HE CAN SEIZE UPON NUCLEAR POWER TO HELP HIM WIN IN NOVEMBER Stephen Dinan. which advocates for a federal program to push for alternative energy solutions. but there are nuances that separate the two.voters trust him over Mr." Mr. McCain rides wave for energy solutions”. "If that compels them to drill. such as translating new technology from the lab to the marketplace. John McCain has changed with it. Obama for focusing on specifics. were invented in American laboratories but have been commercialized by the Germans and the Japanese and the Danes. the former national campaign director of the Apollo Alliance. They've made money off these things because they took them from the lab to the market. Democrats are faring better. Obama winning the issue . But on the specific issue of more drilling. he didn't put a bounty ou