|
America's Future Under the Bush Energy Plan Introduction | Dig, Drill and Destroy | Lands At Risk | Coasts At Risk
The president's plan calls for oil and gas exploration on public lands. The Energy Map that accompanies this report shows 21 wild areas that could be irreversibly damaged if his plan were implemented. We don't have to sacrifice these lands to meet our nation's energy needs. The president's plan calls for 1,300 new power plants by 2020. Where will he put all these plants? This map shows how the country could look if we spread the new power plants evenly around the country. We can choose a better future. A Department of Energy study shows that we can avoid the need for approximately 610 of the new power plants with energy-efficiency measures and avoid another 180 plants by using renewable energy. We could meet remaining demand by replacing old, dirty coal-fired power plants with new, cleaner, high-efficiency natural gas plants.
Dig, Drill and Destroy President Bush's "dig, drill and destroy" approach to energy policy puts some of America's most treasured wildlands at risk in a shortsighted attempt to address energy needs. Wildlands from the remote coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to the waters off the California shore could be threatened by oil spills and the inevitable degradation that large-scale operations cause. In addition, neighborhoods all across the United States would be at risk of increased air pollution and resulting health problems from new power plants. Multinational oil companies already have access to the bulk of public lands in the West — 95 percent of lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management in the Rocky Mountain West are available for oil and gas leasing. Yet Bush's energy plan would target for industrial development the few remaining pristine wild areas of the West, as well as fragile coastal waters currently protected from industrial development. Fortunately, we have other choices: There are quicker, cleaner, cheaper and safer ways to solve our energy problems. By making our appliances and cars more energy efficient and switching our focus to renewable energy options like solar and wind power and cleaner natural gas, we make an immediate impact, save money, maintain the quality of life in our neighborhoods and preserve our wild places for generations to come. Lands At Risk
National monuments at risk include:
Other special places in the West have been protected from destructive development through administrative actions, as agencies recognized the irreparable harm that energy development would exact on these fragile landscapes. But under the Bush administration energy plan, these protections could be stripped away. Endangered public lands include:
Other federal public lands currently free from destructive oil and gas development but threatened by Bush's drive to expand energy exploration include:
America's Coasts at Risk
The Bush energy plan threatens to undo this protection for some coastal areas, threatening our shorelines and rich coastal waters with devastating oil spills as well as the routine but substantial pollution associated with oil and gas development. Wild Forests Vulnerable to Drilling Wild roadless forests purify our drinking water, provide our families with places to hike, hunt, fish and camp, and give homes to fish and wildlife, including endangered species like grizzly bear and salmon. In January 2001, following years of public debate in which the majority of the American public expressed strong support for permanently protecting our wild forests, President Clinton created a rule that would protect nearly 60 million acres of wild national forests from new and damaging roadbuilding and oil and gas development. But President Bush has derailed this plan, leaving our most pristine forests vulnerable to development. For instance, several wild areas of the San Juan National Forest at the heart of Colorado's Rocky Mountains are at risk. The Hermosa area contains perhaps the most diverse array of forest habitats on the entire San Juan National Forest, with numerous superb examples of old-growth ponderosa pine stands, and two significant proposed Research Natural Areas. Hermosa also harbors thriving populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout. In addition, the HD Mountains area includes some of the highest quality old-growth ponderosa pine left in the San Juan Mountains, and in Colorado for that matter. But the oil and gas industry have their sights set on the San Juan, with numerous proposals to drill for coalbed methane in the HD Mountains, as well as other development. It's not just oil and gas development that threatens our wildlands. The Bush energy plan will undoubtedly push for new uranium mining in many states. The Bush plan to expand nuclear power poses a distinct threat to places like the Kaibab National Forest in Arizona and New Mexico's Crown Point, where proposed uranium mines would threaten the groundwater and the health of 10,000 local people, mostly Navajos. Building 1,300 new power plants will also require massive construction of new transmission lines. Arizona is especially threatened by this construction. One power line is slated to cut through the Ironwood National Monument, another is to be built just outside the boundaries. A Balanced Energy Plan: Quicker, Cleaner, Cheaper, Safer President Bush's energy plan relies heavily on drilling for oil, mining for coal and expanding nuclear power. The president's plan won't work. We need a plan that is quicker, cheaper, cleaner and safer. Instead of relying on 20th-century energy sources, we need a plan that will move us into the 21st century, and that will shift our focus from coal and nuclear to renewable energy sources and energy efficiency. The president has included $2 billion in his budget for the coal industry, and he supports so-called "clean coal." The fact is that coal is not clean. In the electric-utility sector, coal-fired power plants are responsible for 88 percent of carbon-dioxide emissions, which contribute to global warming; 93 percent of smog-forming nitrogen-oxide emissions; and 99 percent of mercury emissions, which contaminate our water and land. The president also wants to expand our nation's nuclear industry. This move would increase stockpiles of high-level radioactive nuclear waste that remain dangerous for tens of thousands of years. Right now, this waste is piling up around the country with nowhere to go, because there is no acceptable place to store it. To make matters worse, nuclear power requires huge government subsidies that force taxpayers to support this dangerous industry.
We also need to substantially increase our use of renewable energy. Wind power has become competitive with natural gas, and the Department of Energy has estimated that wind power could be expanded to serve the electricity needs of 10 million homes. In addition, 200,000 homes in the United States use some type of photovoltaic solar technology and the market is expanding by 15 percent annually. We need to supplement these clean options with responsible use of fossil fuels, replacing our coal-fired power plants with cleaner-burning natural gas. Learn More
Photo credits (from top): Pamela A. Miller (oil rig), Freestockphotos.com (Rocky Mtns.), Ken Durling (CA Coast), Douglas Canfield (Arctic). All photos used by permission. Up to Top HOME | Email Signup | About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use |
President Bush says we need to drill for oil and gas on America's public lands, build 1,300 new power plants and increase our reliance on nuclear power. But there's a better way to meet America's energy needs. We must increase our energy efficiency, expand our use of clean, renewable energy and switch from dirty coal power to cleaner natural gas. At the same time, we can and must protect our public lands.
The president's plan calls for an expansion of nuclear power. But there is no safe way to store the dangerous radioactive waste from existing nuclear plants, and nuclear energy could only be expanded with huge federal subsidies. We should instead invest those monies in wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable technologies that can help meet our energy needs and protect the environment.
Among the special places at risk from Bush's energy plan are our national monuments. His plan would "review public lands withdrawals" and "impediments to oil and gas leasing" on our public lands. Both President Bush and Interior Secretary Gale Norton have indicated they would exploit our national monuments for oil and gas extraction and coal mining, despite overwhelming public opposition. In fact, 68 percent of Americans oppose oil drilling in national monuments.
America's coastlines provide outstanding tourism and recreation opportunities, as well as crucial wildlife habitat for a host of coastal and marine species. A moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling has protected the bulk of our sensitive coastlines for almost two decades. The ban has been renewed year after year due to the support of an overwhelming majority of citizens in coastal states, who oppose the adverse effects that offshore development will have on critical shoreline habitat and regional economies that depend largely on tourism.
Instead of depending on big oil, dirty coal and dangerous nuclear power for our energy needs, we should be adopting an energy policy that is based on energy efficiency, renewable energy and responsible supply. Increasing energy efficiency guarantees that we won't waste as much energy in the first place. For example, raising our automobile fuel-economy standards to an average of 40 miles per gallon would cut global warming pollution by 600 million metric tons, save consumers at least $45 billion at the gas pump and save 1 billion barrels of oil per year. Increasing the energy efficiency of our residential air conditioners by 30 percent, versus the 20 percent increase that the president proposed, could eliminate the need for 43 new power plants.