|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Bush Energy Plan Subsidizes White House Allies in Big Oil, Utilities |
Current rating: 0 |
by Between The Lines' Scott Harris
Email: betweenthelines (nospam) snet.net (unverified!)
Address: WPKN Radio Bridgeport CT |
29 May 2001
|
|
Greenpeace contends the Bush energy plan employs 19th century technologies to solve 21st century energy problems. Listen to RealAudio and MP3 files of this interview on nationally syndicated radio newsmagazine Between The Lines' website at www.btlonline.org for week ending 6/1/01. To receive a Between The Lines Q&A (print transcript of one of the week's interview segments), and/or Weekly Summary, email btlqa-subscribe (at) topica.com and/or btlsummary-subscribe (at) topica.com. |
BETWEEN THE LINES Q&A
from the nationally syndicated radio newsmagazine
\"Between The Lines\"
http://www.btlonline.org
------------------------------------------------
A weekly column featuring progressive viewpoints
on national and international issues
under-reported in major media
For release May 28, 2001
------------------------------------------------
Bush Energy Plan Exacerbates Global Pollution While Subsidizing
White House Allies in Utilities and Big Oil
*Greenpeace contends the Bush energy plan
employs 19th century technologies to solve
21st century energy problems
The Bush administration, pointing to the rolling blackouts in California
and skyrocketing gas prices nationwide, has declared that the U.S. is in
the midst of an energy crisis. To meet the challenge, the White House
unveiled a plan in early May that emphasizes energy production over
conservation. Major elements of the plan include building up to 1,900
new fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, drilling for oil in Alaska\'s
National Wildlife Refuge and the construction of 18,000 miles of fuel
pipelines. The energy plan, along with the Bush administration\'s
withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, has been widely criticized both in
the U.S. and abroad for aggravating the problem of global warming.
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, both veterans of the oil
business, are viewed by many Americans as having crafted this energy
plan to primarily benefit their allies in the petroleum and utility
industry. The fact that oil, gas, electric power and mining interests
contributed $44 million dollars to the Republican party in the last
election cycle only underscores concern about this unprecedented
government-industry relationship.
Greenpeace is one of many environmental groups that contend the Bush
energy plan employs 19th century technologies to solve 21st century
energy problems. Between The Lines\' Scott Harris spoke with Kert Davies,
Greenpeace USA\'s Global Warming and Energy Campaign coordinator, who
takes a critical look at the Bush energy plan.
Kert Davies: We\'re calling the plan a scam and in fact, the \"energy
crisis\" is a farce. There\'s no energy crisis. There\'s an abundance of
energy and in fact, we use too much energy in this country, if you ask
me. The lifestyle we have in the U.S. and Canada is so consumptive we
have the largest energy use per capita in the world. That\'s not
inherently a bad thing, but the way we use energy is so wasteful it
results in pollution and the harm is eventually felt in global warming,
caused by the emissions from burning fossil fuels. But we say that the
Bush energy plan is basically a subsidy for all of Bush\'s friends in the
energy industry and they\'re using this crisis -- or creating this crisis
-- to trump up public fear and then have a platform to get their plan
through. We hope that people reject that. Just because there are high
gas prices and the oil companies are making record profits, doesn\'t mean
that we should act rashly.
Between The Lines: Conservation is mentioned in the Bush energy plan.
But only days before details of the plan were announced, Vice President
Cheney told the press that conservation and alternative fuels were some
kind of fantasy of environmentalists and Democrats that really had no
place in the short term solution. How do you respond to that?
Kert Davies: The quote that\'s being repeated very often -- and I\'m sure
Cheney wishes he didn\'t say it -- he called conservation a \"personal
virtue, but not a solution,\" as if to demean all the people out there
who care enough to turn out the lights when they leave a room. At the
same, Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesperson, declared that
President Bush would never ask people to conserve energy because it\'s
our right as Americans to do whatever the hell we please. I think it\'s
just ludicrous that they\'re blind to conservation as a solution to the
problem. There is more to be found in conserving energy. It\'s easier to
get there, it\'s easier to replace a thousand old air conditioners and
industrial refrigerators than it is to build a power plant. It\'s just
simpler. It\'s easier to make our cars a little bit more fuel efficient
than it is to build many new refineries and go drill in the Arctic. It\'s
just logical. But it doesn\'t really pay the industries that (the Bush
administration) wants to pay off in this thing. It\'s more than my
cynicism; I mean you can count the billions of dollars in additional
subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, to the coal industry, to the
electric utilities. The most cynical thing is Bush\'s call for a tax cut.
He uses every excuse for this tax cut he wants. Now he\'s saying we need
a tax cut so people can pay their outrageous energy bills and fill their
cars up this summer. Well, where\'s that money going to go then? It\'s
going to go straight back to Exxon. It\'s outrageous.
Between The Lines: Now one of the planks of the Bush energy plan that
really threw me for a loop was the idea that they strive for a revival
of the nuclear power industry in the United States, despite the failures
of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and a lot of studies that suggest low
level radiation from nuclear power plants is affecting the health and
well being of citizens who live within a 20 to 50 mile radius of
currently operating nuclear power plants. Is that going to fly? Do
people want nuclear power plants built in their back yards in the 21st
century?
Kert Davies: You know I think this is the one that\'s really going to
come back to bite them. They\'re going to wake up a lot of activists who
had hoped that their careers as activists were done when Three Mile
Island hit and nukes stopped being built. Clearly, (the Bush
administration) went to the nuclear industry, and they said, \"What\'s
your wish list? What do you need to get your job done,\" as they did with
other industries. Newsweek magazine documented it really well last
week, in this meeting that was held where they basically all sat down
and wrote up their wishes for regulatory relief. I don\'t see how any
community in this country is going to allow a nuclear power plant to be
built anywhere near it. Unless they throw it at very poor,
under-educated communities -- environmental racism to the nth degree --
I don\'t see how they\'re going to get that done.
Meanwhile, there\'s a massive public relations blitz going on by the
nuclear industry where they show ads featuring young kids with nose
rings, head phones on and spiky hair and say nuclear power is clean
energy and all this kind of bunk. This is the last gasp of the nuclear
industry. They see global warming and the opportunity to pretend to be
clean power in terms of air pollution as their last chance.
The bottom line is, Greenpeace sees U.S. energy policy as global policy
and it has global ramifications. If we make the wrong choice, if we
invest the wrong way now, we waste time and we cause irreparable damage
-- more damage to the planet. So we\'re looking at every option to push
the money being spent and the solutions being devised towards clean,
green energy. It\'s a major battle.
It\'s great we\'re having this debate because we have to come to the right
choice soon, for the sake of the planet. You\'re going to see a lot of
advertising from both sides. There\'s an industry coalition that\'s
ramping up television ads to promote the Bush energy plan.
Environmentalists are launching ads to decry the plan. We\'re launching
campaigns here and there and doing actions to publicize the negative
aspects. It\'s going to be hot and we\'ll see how it all rolls out this
summer.
Contact Greenpeace by calling (202) 462-1177 or visit their Web site
at:http://www.greenpeaceusa.org
See related links and listen to an excerpt of this speech in a RealAudio
segment on our Web site and archives at:www.btlonline.org
for the week ending 6/1/01.
=============================
Scott Harris is WPKN Radio\'s public affairs director and executive
producer of Between The Lines. This interview excerpt was featured on
the award-winning, syndicated weekly newsmagazine, Between The Lines,
for the week ending June 1, 2001.
Between The Lines is celebrating its 10th Anniversary with a CD \"News &
Views That Corporate Media Exclude,\" featuring Noam Chomsky, Ralph
Nader, Z Magazine\'s Michael Albert and others. Visit our Web site for
more information and to hear a promotional announcement with audio clips
at http://www.wpkn.org/wpkn/news/cdpromo.html
To subscribe to Between The Lines Q&A, e-mail btlqa-subscribe (at) topica.com
To subscribe: Send an email from the subscriber account to
btlqa-subscribe (at) topica.com
|
See also:
http://www.wpkn.org/wpkn/news/btl060101.html
|
