[Mb-civic] Bogus energy bill and hokum about nuclear energy

[ean at sbcglobal.net]

REad to bottom of main article for online action alert....

LIKE APPLES AND RADIOACTIVE ORANGES
Claims that nuclear energy can reduce oil use are largely hokum

President Bush hearts nuclear -- or in the argot of the day, nucular --
claiming that a boost in nuclear energy could reduce oil imports and help
America reach the Shangri-la of "energy independence." But people who, um,
know stuff about nuclear energy are highly skeptical. There are some ways
that nuclear could make a small dent in oil use -- "indirectly, but very
indirectly," says Lawrence Goldstein of the Petroleum Industry Research
Foundation. Thing is, nuclear is primarily used to generate electricity,
and that's not what we're using most oil for. Fewer than 600,000 of the
roughly 20.5 million barrels of oil the U.S. uses every day go to
generating electricity, and replacing that amount wouldn't make much of a
dent in imports. Nuclear might free up some of the natural gas now used to
produce electricity, but other uses for natural gas are highly
underdeveloped. Nuclear could also help make heavy oil into more usable
light oil, but that application is speculative at best and extremely
expensive. Or we could conserve energy ... but what fun is that?

straight to the source: The New York Times, Matthew L. Wald, 09 May 2005
<http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4942>


***************************************
BUSHGREENWATCH
Tracking the Bush Administration's Environmental Misdeeds
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org
***************************************

May 9, 2005

FALSE CLAIMS FOR ENERGY BILL 

As the energy bill makes its way to the Senate floor, and the
Bush Administration promotes the legislation as a cure-all for
our dependence on foreign oil, opponents continue to point out
many of the bill's false claims. Among them:

Energy bill will not reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil 
In stark contrast to the Bush Administration's claims that the
energy bill will reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, the
Department of Energy itself found that by 2025 the energy bill
would actually increase oil imports by 82.9 percent, only
slightly lower than the 84.8 percent expected under current
energy policy. [1] Today the U.S. currently imports
approximately 56 percent of its oil. 

While the bill offers billions of dollars in tax breaks and
subsidies for the oil and gas industry to expand domestic energy
production, it will have virtually no impact on our dependence
on foreign oil (these estimates are based on a D.O.E. study of
the 2003 energy bill, which closely parallels the current bill--
the same conclusions apply). Meanwhile, with Exxon reporting
$7.8 billion worth of profits last quarter alone, the oil and
gas industry has made record profits this past year.

Of the $8 billion the bill allocates to the development of oil
and gas technology, only $500 million in tax incentives are
directed toward renewable energy and efficiency programs. The
bill avoids improving automobile fuel economy, which experts say
is the fastest way to reduce our dependency. [2]

Does not reduce gas prices 
Rising gas prices have become a prominent public concern. But
the proposed bill would not make a dent in prices. While the
Bush Administration has acknowledged this, the Department of
Energy concluded that the energy bill would not only fail to
reduce gas prices, it will likely increase them. [3]

By 2015, the energy bill would result in an 8.7 percent increase
in gas prices, whereas current policies would result in a 6.45
percent increase. In the longer term, by 2025, the energy bill
would increase gas prices by 10.3 percent-- while current
policies would result in an 8.2 percent increase. 

Exempts industry from water contamination clean-up 
A provision that halted the energy bill in the Senate last year
has again spurred controversy. Aggressively supported by Rep.
Tom DeLay (R-Tex), the provision exempts the oil and gas
industry from lawsuits over liability for water contamination
caused by the gasoline additive, methyl-tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE). 

The bill includes a liability waiver that protects producers,
distributors, and users of MTBE from cleaning up their own
contamination. Instead the burden is shifted onto the American
taxpayer. 

MTBE has been found in groundwater in 35 states; thousands of
families across the U.S. have been affected by MTBE pollution.
[4] 

The oil and gas industries claim it is unfair that they be
penalized for using the additive because the government mandated
that companies use it to comply with the Clean Air Act. But oil
companies knew that MTBE was a threat to water supplies years
before the government found out. [5]

The energy bill also exempts the oil and gas industries from
liability for water contamination caused by an extraction
technique called hydraulic fracturing. The procedure, invented
by Halliburton Co., eases natural gas extraction by injecting
highly pressurized chemical fluids beneath the ground, often
contaminating ground water in the process. Outraged by the
effect on their water, communities across the nation have sued
oil companies. The proposed energy bill however, will bar
communities from being able to sue. [6]

Invokes detrimental changes to the Clean Air Act 
Another provision allows certain states to delay cleaning up
their air when air pollution drifts in from other states. The
provision would allow "downwind" states a time-extension in
meeting clean air standards until "upwind" states contributing
to the problem met their standards. [7] Opponents of the
provision claim it would undermine the Clean Air Interstate
Rule, leaving millions of Americans who live "downwind" to
breathe unsafe amounts of smog, and causing 10-year delays in
emission cleanups across the country. [8]

A distraction from the Tom DeLay scandal 
According to The Hill, Congressional leaders developed a
conference-wide communications strategy to shift attention away
from ethical questions surrounding Tom DeLay and win headlines
with gas prices at all-time highs. [9]

The strategy will focus on specific regions-- using high gas
prices to gain support for the energy bill, even though most
Republicans, including the President, have conceded that the
bill will not reduce prices. 

Industry overwhelmed with drilling permits, but energy bill
offers more
The Bush Administration claims that lack of access to federal
land poses a major barrier to increasing domestic gas
production. But the oil and gas industries cannot keep up with
the permits they already have, particularly in Western States.
[10]

Even though many oil companies are straining to make use of
existing permits-- and the communities surrounding drill sites
complain of the environmental impact of drilling --the energy
bill contains a slew of provisions designed to ease access to
federal and public land. [11]

Johanna Wald, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense
Council, told Grist Magazine that "in 2004, 6,130 drilling
permits were issued, but only 2,702 [were] drilled due in part
to a shortage of rigs." [12] 

### 

TAKE ACTION
To take action on this issue please contact your Senator. You
can send an e-mail to your Senator's office through New Energy
Future: http://ga3.org/ct/Pp1g7oM1kRxG/. 

### 

SOURCES: 
[1] Summary Impacts of Modeled Provisions of the 2003 Conference
Energy Bill, Energy Information Administration, US Department of
Energy, Feb. 2003, http://ga3.org/ct/Rp1g7oM1kRxC/. The 2005
energy bill closely parallels the bill analyzed in this study so
the same conclusions apply.
[2] "House Set to Pass Cheaper Energy Bill,"Business Week, Apr.
21, 2005, http://ga3.org/ct/Qp1g7oM1kRxD/.
[3] "Bush Concedes Energy Bill Offers No Help on Gas Prices,"New
York Times, Apr. 21, 2005, http://ga3.org/ct/Yp1g7oM1kR3z/. 
[4] BushGreenwatch, Feb. 8, 2005,
http://ga3.org/ct/Qd1g7oM1kRx-/. 
[5] "MTBE: What the Oil Companies Knew and When They Knew It,"
Environmental Working Group, http://ga3.org/ct/Y11g7oM1kR31/. 
[6] BushGreenwatch, Apr. 28, 2005,
http://ga3.org/ct/Q71g7oM1kRxJ/. 
[7] "Clean Air Change is Built Into Bill," New York Times, Apr.
16, 2005, http://ga3.org/ct/Y71g7oM1kR3a/.
[8] "EPA Backs Energy Bill's Ozone Provision," Greenwire, Apr.
20, 2005, http://ga3.org/ct/R11g7oM1kRxK/.
[9] "Energy Bill Campaign Set to Roll Out Today,"The Hill, Apr.
22, 2005, http://ga3.org/ct/T11g7oM1kR3S/. 
[10] "Gas-Drilling Permits in Rockies Outstrip Ability to Tap
Resource," Washington Post, Apr. 28, 2005,
http://ga3.org/ct/Td1g7oM1kR3L/. 
[11] "Energy Bill Packed with Provisions Aimed at Expediting
Leasing, Permitting," Land Letter, Apr. 28, 2005,
http://ga3.org/ct/Rd1g7oM1kRxZ/. 
[12] "Jagged Little Drill," Grist, May 5, 2005,
http://ga3.org/ct/Yd1g7oM1kR3q/. 

***************************************
:: TELL A FRIEND ABOUT BUSHGREENWATCH
http://ga3.org/ct/Pd1g7oM1kRxT/


-- 
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, 
option D (up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options 
(option A - 1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option D - 
up to 3x/day) please reply and let us know!  If someone forwarded you 
this email and you want to be on our list, send an email to 
ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which option you'd like.


"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
   ---   George Orwell


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20050509/d0b7b517/attachment.html