GreenYes Archives

[GreenYes Archives] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]

Re: [greenyes] Energy and Bedfellows

It may be a good thing to have these groups work together on an energy strategy that is more sophisticated than drill Alaska. Whether they are serious or not is a different question, as the planned investment, at least as represented in the original e-mail, looks bizarrely small.

$1 billion over the next five years means $200 million per year to get the nation off of oil. In contrast, the annual cost to run the Strategic Petroluem Reserve (SPR) is between $2 and $3 billion PER YEAR. Subsidies to nuclear power now on the table could be double the subsidies to SPR.

Of course the simplest way to bring market behavior in line with the full costs of the oil system is to do appropriate cost recovery of oil subsidies and emissions damages in the price of oil. You wouldn't need to rely on government subsidies to transition the economy. You might even see recycling get a boost as well, no doubt a benefit those on this list would be happy to see.

-Doug Koplow

Doug Koplow
Earth Track, Inc.
2067 Massachusetts Avenue - 4th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02140
Tel: 617/661-4700
Fax: 617/354-0463

This message, and all attachments thereto, is for the designated recipient
only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private
information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you
is prohibited.

>>> "Peter Anderson" <anderson@no.address> 03/28/05 12:13PM >>>


Unlikely Allies Fight
U.S. Oil Dependence
Bipartisan Network to Press
For Reduced Consumption,
Quicker Development of Fuels
March 28, 2005; Page A4

High oil prices are uniting unlikely allies in a campaign to change American
energy policy. A bipartisan coalition -- including an increasing number of
defense hawks -- is backing policies to curb petroleum use, a cause
generally associated with environmental activists.
Today, 26 former national-security officials from Republican and Democratic
administrations will send a letter to President Bush calling for "a major
new initiative to curtail U.S. consumption" by improving the fuel economy of
U.S. autos and developing alternatives to fossil fuels. The group asks the
federal government to spend as much as $1 billion on the effort over the
next five years -- "a level proportionate with other priorities for our
nation's defense."
"The price at the pump is not all we're paying right now. We are also paying
$400 billion for a defense budget," says Robert C. McFarlane, President
Reagan's national-security adviser and a signer of the letter.
Frank Gaffney, another signer and former Reagan official who heads the
Center for Security Policy, a national-security think tank in Washington,
adds: "I don't often find myself in agreement with those at the Natural
Resources Defense Council, but I'm delighted to have them joining us in this
initiative because I do think there is common ground. There is now a
critical mass of national-security-minded people coming together to make the
argument that this is no longer something we should do at some point."
Reducing U.S. oil consumption, he says, is "no longer a nice thing to do.
It's imperative."
Peter Anderson, President
4513 Vernon Blvd. Suite 15
Madison, WI 53705-4964
Ph: (608) 231-1100
Fax: (608) 233-0011
Cell: (608) 698-1314
eMail: anderson@no.address

[GreenYes Archives] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]