 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
by
The DMI Staff |
DMI on the 2008 State of the Union: Energy and Environment
PRESIDENT BUSH SAYS: We must reduce our dependence on oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
"Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil. Last year, I asked you to pass legislation to reduce oil consumption over the next decade, and you responded.”
DMI SAYS: “The Energy Independence and Security Act is one of the best pieces of legislation the President has signed during his entire term in office, but it is ludicrous for him to take credit for requesting the bill from Congress. The bill will cut costs for middle-class families filling up at the pump, reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, and decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil all at once. But this is only a first step in tackling the serious energy and environmental problems we face. In fact the original bill, which the President threatened to veto, included $13 billion for clean, renewable energy.”
? The Energy Independence and Security Act requires that all new cars and trucks get at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020, the first increase in fuel economy standards by Congress since 1975. The bill also includes assistance for U.S. automakers to shift their production lines to manufacture the more efficient vehicles in the U.S., preserving middle-class jobs while cutting the cost to fuel cars.
? In addition, the legislation sets new standards for energy-efficient appliances and federal buildings, provides assistance for small businesses to conserve energy, and requires increased use of biofuels, including ethanol made from sources other than corn. Reducing wasted energy and shifting away from oil toward homegrown fuels that reduce greenhouse gas emissions put the U.S. on a more sustainable path that begins to cut the risk of global warming.
? Finally, the bill provides $125 million a year to train workers for “green” jobs such as retrofitting buildings to make them more energy efficient. The legislation's mandate to make buildings and appliances more fuel-efficient will also create middle-class jobs in construction and allied industries, which include “electricians, boilermakers, sheet-metal workers, engineers, and designers” according to the Apollo Alliance, a proponent of clean energy.
? Although this legislation is a significant step into the energy future, the nation must do more to prevent global warming, which left unchecked would have a profound negative impact on Americans" standard of living. This bill is projected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 24% of the total amount needed to prevent the worst effects of global warming. The nation must act quickly to cut emissions further.
? Additional measures were removed from the original bill, in part because they provoked a veto threat from the President. For example, the legislation originally included $13 billion in subsidies for renewable energy to help new industries like solar power get off the ground and become viable. This investment would have been paid for by repealing massive, unnecessary tax breaks for oil companies. The President wanted to keep these subsidies for the oil industry, and they remain in place in the final bill.
? Also cut from the final bill was a measure establishing a standard for the amount of electricity that must be generated from renewable sources, which would have further helped to mitigate global warming.
? Finally, legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions is needed to prevent global warming. The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007, currently pending before Congress, represents one way to make the needed reductions.
Relevant Statistics:
? Estimated annual savings to middle-class Americans at the pump from higher fuel economy standards in this bill: $700-$1,000.
? Daily decrease in the number of barrels of oil used by the U.S. in 2020 as a result of this legislation: 2.3 million.
? Estimated number of jobs that will be created due to the fuel economy provisions in this bill: 149,300.
? Mandated increase in fuel efficiency in U.S. cars and trucks by 2030: 40%.
? Date on which a group of 200 leading U.S. climate scientists and policy experts reported that “the state of the nation's climate policy is poor”: 1/24/08.
? Approximate proportion of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions generated by the United States: ∫.
? Amount of the total U.S. greenhouse gas reduction needed to prevent global warming that is achieved in this bill: 24%.
COAL AND NUCLEAR POWER
PRESIDENT BUSH SAYS: Nuclear power and carbon sequestration are clean energy sources.
“Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. Let us increase the use of… emissions-free nuclear power.”
DMI SAYS: “In a time when global warming is a top concern for ordinary Americans, any energy source that reduces dirty emissions and alleviates Americans’ reliance on oil is worth considering. However, concerns about the integrity of current nuclear facilities and about safe storage of nuclear waste suggest that nuclear power is far from the panacea the President claims. Capturing carbon emissions from coal, meanwhile, presents serious environmental concerns of its own.”
? From mining and enrichment to fuel production, nuclear power emits significantly lower levels of greenhouse gases than traditional fossil fuels. However, safety at nuclear reactors remains a prominent concern not only among the lay public because of frightening accidents like those at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but among scientists as well. The Union of Concerned Scientists report 35 instances of reactor shutdown since 1979 and the General Accountability Office cites 4,000 cases since 2001 in which inspectors found that reactor unit operators had not fully complied with safety procedures. Leaks of nuclear material into groundwater have been frequently documented. The influence of private industry on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has produced a culture of intimidation in which employees are afraid to speak up about safety problems.
? Federal regulation of nuclear safety has been so lax that it casts doubt on the government’s ability to ensure the public’s safety if the nuclear power industry was expanded. The NRC’s policy for new reactors requires adherence only to current safety standards. Meanwhile, the Price-Anderson Act limits a nuclear facility owner’s liability in the case of a serious accident.
? Although the Department of Energy has drafted a strategy to consolidate and dispose of the nuclear waste that remains radioactive for thousands of years and now lies vulnerable in pools of water or casks near ground level, the Government Accountability Office reports that Energy’s plans are woefully inadequate. Indeed, the earliest that the long-delayed first disposal site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada could be completed is 2017 at a cost of approximately $77 billion. Meanwhile, scientists have raised concerns that the Yucca site might be unsuitable for nuclear waste storage (the U.S. Geological Survey has been accused of falsifying quality assurance and water infiltration data). While solutions for storing nuclear waste continue to fall short, public health is endangered by exposure to nuclear material stored at operating facilities that are vulnerable to disasters, both natural and manmade.
? Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) - a process in which carbon dioxide emissions are captured and stored underground - is a feasible means of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. However, environmental concerns are serious, while current proposals for CCS are neither economical nor practical in the short-term. CCS requires energy and so may actually increase the use of fossil fuels, while the potential for CO2 leakage puts groundwater, soil quality, and human health at risk. CCS technology remains expensive, utilities have little incentive to develop the technology without concomitant constraints on carbon emissions, and the availability of geological storage capacity is by no means certain. The use of CCS technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions might prove effective, but such a strategy must be explored along with actual constraints on emissions.
Relevant Statistics:
? Percentage of total U.S. electrical output generated by nuclear power: 20.
? Width in inches of metal cladding preventing a reactor breach and a possible nuclear meltdown when acid erosion forced the shutdown of the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio: 3/8.
? Metric tons of high-level radioactive waste that are produced annually by the 103 operating nuclear reactors in the United States: 2,000.
? Number of states through which nuclear waste would pass to reach the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site: 45.
? Percentage of people who said they were opposed to building new nuclear power plants in a 2005 worldwide survey commissioned by the International Atomic Energy Agency: 59.
? Number of cancer deaths resulting from the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown, as estimated by the European Green Party: 30,000-60,000.
? Square kilometers of agricultural land rendered unusable by radioactive fallout from Chernobyl: 4,400.
Go to the next section: Health Care
DMI on 2008 State of the Union
The DMI StaffJanuary 28, 2008