Media Advisory:
Greens Blast Bush Administration Conflict of Interest on Energy
Policy.
Friday, May 04, 2001
|
The Association of State Green Parties
Media Advisory: Friday, May 04, 2001 |
|
Contacts: |
|
Bush and Cheney would burden the U.S. with a costly, out-of-date, and environmentally unsound "19th century" energy infrastructure based on fossil fuels.WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Pointing to yet another Bush Administration policy designed to enrich former employers and major donors of the President and Vice President, the Association of State Green Parties today criticized statements by Vice President Cheney indicating that this administration will pursue an energy policy based on 19th century models -- and on dangerous 20th century nuclear power. "If Bush and Cheney were judges, lawyers, or even legislators, they would need to recuse themselves from decisions of the type they are making," said ASGP Organizing Coordinator Dean Myerson. "As with administration non-policy regarding the energy crisis in California, where the Administration even ignored pleas from Republican Governors in order to enrich their former employers, this administration has shown again that it does not have the interests of Americans at heart, who continually support renewable energy in polls." Besides President George W. Bush's families own vast holdings in oil companies, Vice President Dick Cheney is a former CEO of Halliburton. The oil and gas industry contributed $1,846,331 to Bush's 2000 campaign, and $242,371 to Spencer Abraham's Senate (Michigan) campaign. After Abraham lost, Bush appointed him Energy Secretary. Among candidates, Bush and Abraham received the first and third highest contributions from these industries (more information: The Center for Responsive Politics). The U.S., with 4 percent of the world's population, uses about 25 percent of the world's energy resources. Instead of conversion to renewable energy, the Bush Administration is using the California energy crisis and threats of higher prices -- a result of deregulation in the early 1990s -- as an excuse to build new nuclear power plants, drill new reserves in protected natural areas, lay more pipelines, and mine more coal. Fossil fuels cause pollution and greenhouse emissions, spoiled natural areas, and depleted reserves. Nuclear power plants cannot guarantee safety, and no facilities exist for disposal of dangerous radioactive waste. Greens have pushed for a massive conversion to hydrogen fuel cell technology and low-cost wind turbines, photovoltaic modules, and solar thermal energy over the next generation, calling these an urgent necessity in light of increasing global climate change, which is in part the proven result of human agency. ASGP Co-Chair Annie Goeke noted that, "The United States is already falling behind in key technology sectors due to the total lack of leadership shown by the Clinton Administration regarding energy and its obstruction of measures to reverse global warming. The Bush policy will speed up and mire the U.S. economy with a 19th century infrastructure as the rest of the world moves head first into the 21st century." Greens have called for the following:
Only through a Green energy policy, including the above steps, can we enact a sane U.S. energy policy and restore hope for a clean, efficient, and sufficient energy system. Energy Conservation and Alternate Sources: The Rocky Mountain Institute http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid171.asp. Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.org/energy/find.ei.html. search: evpol, cpr |