For every good intention, there are a thousand bills
rubber-stamped by Congress.
Take for example President Bush’s new energy bill, on
which he wants Congress to vote by the middle of this month. This
bill has all the components of a great 15-second sound bite but
lacks the substance of a long-term energy solution. It addresses
attractive issues such as the power grid outage of a few months
ago, but it hardly touches on alternative energy sources for the
future.
The bill is less about sustainable environmental policy than it
is about corporate appeasement. It represents the worst of
politics-as-usual, and it is just a bad idea.
The main elements of Bush’s energy bill read like a
point-by-point analysis of how to ensure short-term success at the
cost of total and complete desecration of the environment. For
example, the bill calls for an increased emphasis on coal
industries at a time when alternative energy sources should be
developed instead. Bush and his congressional allies aim to cut
funding for solar, wind and geothermal renewable electricity by 50
percent ($190 million) while investing just enough in hydrogen fuel
technology to claim he is a champion for alternative energies,
according to the Sierra Club.
Additionally, despite the Sierra Club’s recommendation to
raise the fuel efficiency of cars to a manageable 40 miles per
gallon over the next decade, the White House would rather
“study” the situation ““ while breaking ground in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Sierra Club has also
written that the amount of oil estimated to be found in the refuge
would last six months if the United States only consumed the Arctic
oil during that time. Is it worth the defilement of one of the last
truly pristine wildlife areas in the world?
The shortsighted goals of this bill are even more disgusting in
light of the perversion of the democratic process that occurs when
the Bush Administration involves itself in energy issues.
Take a look at the list of major donors to Bush’s 2000
presidential run. Many are from energy companies that could benefit
from the proposed energy bill. It is littered with the broken-moral
centers of mega-companies like Vice President Dick Cheney’s
beloved Halliburton Co., Koch Industries and the now defunct Enron;
many such companies are licking their chops at the chance for a
slice of the jackpot that is the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge.
Bush will be literally handing money in the form of subsidies to
industries such as the so-called “clean coal” energy
producers. Subsidies amounting to $2 billion will be given to
companies that continue to employ an energy source commonly
accepted as the dirtiest in the world and a leading cause of global
warming. Of course Bush spins this beautifully, stating in a recent
speech given in Columbus, Ohio: “We can use our
nation’s most plentiful energy resource in an environmentally
responsible way.” In reality this “clean” process
is still dirtier than alternatives like natural gas or the
aforementioned renewable energies.
Indeed, it seems that even Bush recognizes the futility of
gaining significant public support for this abomination, opting
instead to ram it through Congress with the hope of not rustling
public feathers. In the process, he is playing the party card,
working to see that it passes in the Senate through almost straight
party-line voting. CNN reported that he sent Cheney to Congress to
prod Republicans closer together and block Democratic input
altogether in the bill-writing process.
As the air becomes grimier, Bush’s alliances become
clearer. The Bush-administration-energy-company axis is so
one-sided and secretive that last year a district judge actually
ordered Cheney and his energy task force to release more
information to the public.
The fact is, no responsible, informed person outside the major
energy companies could accept this bill, and for good reason. The
proposed energy bill is nothing more than tit for tat ““ after
securing election, Bush is now exchanging subsidies and the
Wildlife Refuge for those companies’ continued
“support.”
In his most recent speech in Columbus, Ohio, Bush avoided
talking directly about the plan’s main benefactors, instead
winning over the crowd with sentimental babble about Sept. 11, 2001
and the need for new jobs. In Bush’s defense, I suppose it
would take quite a few man-hours to physically destroy the Wildlife
Refuge, so that might create the opportunity for more work.
I find it hard to believe how one-sided Bush’s proposal
is. It is a step back from our existing energy plan. It represents
everything that is wrong with the political process: secrecy,
special interest bankrolls and indifference over the source of
natural resources. Bush’s plan is a short-sighted, hush-hush
proposal meant to be pushed through against fierce opposition by an
overzealous administration in obvious debt.
Public outcry over this bill should be huge. The only reason it
hasn’t been is the strategic lack of information. Do not fall
prey to this tactic. Educate yourself and get angry. The Iraqi war
was a test of Bush’s credibility; now, he should have
none.
Moon is a second-year psychology student. E-mail him at
jmoon@media.ucla.edu.