Renew On Line (UK) 31

Extracts from the May-June 2001 edition of Renew
These extracts only represent about 25% of it

Bush’s Energy Policy

"I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 % of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy....there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns....I do not believe that the (US) government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act." George W. Bush March 13, 2001.

Tragic though it is, this U- turn in policy from Bush should have come as no surprise. The COP-6 negotiations were widely seen as the last chance to get an agreement. With Bush in command the situation is now very different. The same presumably goes for all the other aspects of US energy policy. In the election run up, the Bush camp spent a lot of time knocking the Democrats who, it said, had ‘raised gasoline taxes, discouraged domestic production of oil and natural gas’, and ‘failed to plan for the New Economy's accelerating demand for electricity’. Worse still ‘our international credibility has been diminished, and Saddam Hussains Iraq is now a major oil supplier to the U.S’.

Instead, the Bush camp outlined a new energy policy which included ‘more than 20 initiatives, helps low-income households with their energy bills, improve air quality, and encourage the development of renewable and alternative fuels’, but also noted ‘that alternative sources supply less than 4 percent of U.S. energy needs,’ so it was important to promote ‘the development of U.S. oil, coal and natural gas resources’.

So, although renewables and conservation get a role, there’s likely to be a major commitment to coal, oil and gas. In particular, the Bush camp noted that opening ‘only 8% of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to environmentally responsible exploration could replace the oil that the U.S. now imports from Iraq’. In addition, the new plan proposed that the government should ‘invest $2 bn over ten years to fund research in ‘clean coal’ technologies, $1 bn over ten years to establish clear rules to help efficient utilities purchase nuclear plants, streamline the re-licensing process for hydroelectric projects, and oppose the breaching (i. e closure-ed) of dams’.

However there are also some more welcome ideas, including ‘legislation requiring electric utilities to reduce harmful emissions’ and support for ‘tax credits for electricity produced from renewable and alternative fuels at a cost of $1.4 bn over ten years’. More contentious is the proposed creation of a ‘Royalties Conservation Fund’ which would earmark ‘potentially billions in royalties from new oil and gas exploration’ to support conservation efforts. In particular, ‘an estimated $1.2 bn of bid bonuses’ would be raised, from opening up 8% of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other Federal land, for funding research into alternative energy resources such as wind, solar and biomass. What a trade off- land for oil, emissions for renewables! But then, nowhere in the analysis, is there any mention of Climate change. Instead it is dominated by talk of new oil and gas fields, new pipelines, more coal, and more nuclear plants.

As noted, renewables did get a look in and we should welcome that- however tentative the commitment. The Bush camp commented, ‘with over 95 % of electric generation coming from coal, nuclear, natural gas, and hydro, any energy policy that focuses exclusively on alternative fuels and energy efficiency would be dangerously incomplete. Nevertheless, alternative fuels need to play an important part of any strategic plan to meet the nations future energy needs’.

But the main strategic concern seem to be oil imports and geopolitics. The Bush camp noted that in 1973, before the oil crisis, the USA imported 36% of its oil, but now it imports 56% of its crude oil from foreign sources and ‘over 7 % of that comes from Saddam Husseins Iraq’. If these pre-election views get translated in to US policy, as seems to be happening, then the fate of COP-6 part II, now scheduled for July in Bonn, will be only one of the uncertainties ahead.

US Energy data: Petroleum products account for nearly 40% of total U.S. energy consumption, followed by natural gas (23%), coal (23 %), nuclear energy (8 %), hydro (3%), and other renewables (4 %). But electricity use is rising rapidly, with nuclear providing 20% but set to decrease as plants retire.

For more details see : http://instacontent.mirror-image.net/georgewbush/

Media/Photos/energychart_1.jpg and then go on to _2.jpg_3.jpg and_4.jpg