THE US plans to burn more fossil fuels and increase output from nuclear power
stations in order to solve its energy crisis, President George W. Bush revealed
last week. His new energy policy also includes a controversial proposal to drill
in an Arctic wildlife refuge. Although the plan also calls for conservation and
alternative energy sources, critics claim those measures are at best
half-hearted.
The emphasis on coal could bump up greenhouse gas emissions, say
environmentalists. The US already generates about 25 per cent of the world鈥檚
greenhouse gases. 鈥淭he President is walking away from any responsible approach
to global warming,鈥� says David Doniger, an official from the environmental group
Natural Resources Defense Council.
But Bush insists the plan actually strikes a good balance between increasing
energy production and conservation. 鈥淣o matter how well we conserve, we鈥檙e still
going to need more energy,鈥� he says.
Advertisement
Many of the recommendations are designed to make it easier to drill and
refine oil. The plan claims the US is in the midst of an energy crisis,
characterised by energy shortages in California and higher fuel prices for
motorists.
Among other things, the plan recommends opening up the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling, and changing the regulations and fees that
stop drilling on other public land. Bush also wants to ease environmental
regulations to make it easier to build new refineries.
Bush proposes spending $2 billion over 10 years on clean coal
technology that would help reduce sulphur and other pollutants. The plan also
calls for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to make it easier for nuclear plants
to get a licence.
Anti-nuclear groups reacted angrily to the proposals. 鈥淭he Bush-Cheney
administration鈥檚 promotion of nuclear energy is distressingly short-sighted and
potentially dangerous,鈥� said Kyle Rabin, an official for Environmental
Advocates, a pressure group based in Albany, New York.
Although the 170-page report devotes entire chapters to conservation and
alternative energy, environmental groups say few of the proposals would be
effective.
Doniger says assumptions in the report play havoc with conservation. For
instance, the report estimates the US will need another 1300 power plants in the
next 20 years, based on a study by the Department of Energy (DOE). But the
report ignores another DOE study that shows conservation measures could cut that
number in half.
Worse still, Doniger says, more coal-fired plants will only increase US
greenhouse gas emissions. Even if new technology can reduce other pollutants, it
will probably not reduce the carbon dioxide from burning coal.
Bush鈥檚 political opponents also attacked the report. 鈥淭he Bush-Cheney energy
plan is not a plan for America鈥檚 future,鈥� says Tom Daschle, the Senate
Democratic leader. 鈥淚t relies almost exclusively on the old way of doing
things鈥攄rilling more oil wells, burning more coal and using more natural
gas. It jeopardises our environment,鈥� he adds.