The Big Energy Plan

"It's a step in the right direction," said Peter Beutel, Cameron Hanover analyst, based in Connecticut.Reuters 4/21/05

Is it really preferable to have an energy plan that does nothing about the energy problems than to have no "energy plan" at all? I certainly don't think so.

The so-called "energy bill" looks like nothing but a big energy corporation wet dream to me. They get ANWR. They get over $8 billion in subsidies over ten years. The makers of MTBE get legal protection. Meanwhile, less than 5% of the bill goes into alternative energy, and nothing into conservation. That is not a surprise as the Bush Administration has gone to court to keep California from raising its emission standards because it might require a mileage increase (4/15/05)

While Bush is stating that the "energy plan" will not impact gasoline prices, he implies that it will:

"I wish I could simply wave a magic wand and lower gas prices tomorrow," Bush told the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. "But we must act now to address the fundamental problem. Our supply of energy is not growing fast enough to meet the demands of our growing economy." The average retail gasoline price hit a record $2.28 per gallon last week. (Wa. Post 4/21/05)

MTBE is truly a debacle, and it may be that Congress is trying to cover its own butt as well as producers'. MTBE is a "clean fuel" additive that is extremely toxic and has contaminated water supplies in 29 states. Congress put its usage into effect even though it was known at the time that it posed a significant hazard. While I am sure that MTBE producers pushed for the law, Congress enacted it which places the feds straight in the sights of communities and states trying to restore polluted wells and water sources. Inclusion of protection from law suits is a gimme all the way around - except for the folks who no longer have a water supply.

Is any energy plan really better than none? Hardly. An energy plan that results in the loss of public lands, increased environmental damage, supports increasing demand and supply of a vanishing resource, makes our situation worse - not better. It is a plan that takes us in the wrong direction. It deepens our problem rather than addressing it, and it causes collateral damages that are unacceptable.

What would a "good" energy plan include? If you want to resolve the issues of US oil dependence, you would focus on consumption, alternatives, and strengthening independence. First, increase mileage standards and put resources into mass transportation - including rail roads. (in other legislation AMTRAK is under attack again.) You would increase food security by cutting back on crop production for sugar and into crops to feed the population. You would do something about the massive trade imbalance and encourage relocalization both nationally and internationally. You would place resources into alternative energy and transforming the plastics industry away from petroleum. You would work with the other nations of the world towards the same ends - rather than forcing increasing competition and demand.

The payoffs in terms of creativity, jobs, and long term survival are beyond my ability to calculate. With the current plan there are few winners, and neither people, the environment, or the country are among them.

Sources

4/21/05 Reuters "US energy bill won't end dependence on foreign oil"

4/22/05 Grist, Souuuueeeee! House passes pork-laden energy bill

4/20/05 USA Today, House approves energy bill

4/15/05 NOW, California's Auto Emissions Laws.

4/21/05 VandeHei & Blum, Wa. Post, Bush Urges Action 'Now' On Energy

Posted by rowan at April 23, 2005 7:19 AM | TrackBack | [eMail this article!] |