Tell Bu$h/Cheney What YOU Think About Their Energy Plan

Tell Bu$h/Cheney What YOU Think About Their Energy Plan
Daniel Brown

On August 8, Bu$h's Energy Department finally asked the American people what WE think about their energy plan. Of course, the game is rigged for Bu$h/Cheney's greedy energy cronies, but Democrats.com member Daniel Brown has made it easy to challenge the special interests by simply copy-pasting some excellent comments.

WHAT: Public Comment on Oil/Gas Industry Subsidies

WHEN: By August 30! (NOW!!!!!)

HOW: Suggested responses and addresses included below.

NOTE: Copying local/national media increases the result!

SUMMARY: Public comment has been nearly completely curtailed by the Bush administration in this vitally important area. ONLY by responding by August 30, and by specifically addressing the six questions below can our voices be heard.

From the August 6 Department of Energy Press Release: (HTTP://www.energy.gov/HQPress/releases01/augpr/pr01134.htm)

Those not on the formal panels can submit, through August 30, written statements of up to four single-spaced pages. Statements can be sent by e-mail to OilGasReview@hq.doe.gov or by mail to the Office of Natural Gas and Petroleum Technology, FE-30, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585, Attn: Strategic Review. The statements should address the following questions:

1.What should the federal government's objectives be in promoting advanced oil and natural gas technologies?

2.Have government/industry technology partnerships proven valuable in the past and how can they be improved in the future?

3.Is federal financial support needed in all sectors of the oil and gas industry - exploration, production, distribution, processing, regulatory compliance, etc.? Are there sectors or technologies in which federal support is especially important?

4.Given that small independent businesses account for 50 percent and 65 percent, respectively, of oil and gas production in the lower 48 states, is the current federal program properly focused on this sector's critical technology needs? If not, what should be the focus?

5.Are there research areas not being properly addressed in the current program? If so, what changes should be made?

6.What actions should the U.S. government undertake to promote the global competitiveness of U.S.-developed, advanced oil and gas technologies?

Media Contact: Jill Schroeder 202/586-4940, Drew Malcomb 202/586-5806

Release No. R-01-134 ______________________________________________________________

Here's a response you can just copy and paste into your own email message or printed response, or may edit as you like:

+ --------- copy from here --------- +

Subject: Public Comment on Review of Government's Oil and Gas Technology Programs (Release No. R-01-134 )

1.What should the federal government's objectives be in promoting advanced oil and natural gas technologies?

The federal government should not be involved in promoting oil and gas technologies. According to a report called "Hitting the Jackpot," issued by Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, the oil and gas industries gave $33.3 million to political parties and candidates last year, and in the current energy plan look to gain $21,980,000,000 (nearly $22 billion) in tax breaks and subsidies. That¹s a 65,900% rate of return on investment. These are mature and highly profitable industries that need to be looking beyond their own slide to obsolescence toward alternative sources of energy, not feeding at the public trough. The federal government¹s objectives should be to cut back on reliance on these outmoded forms of energy, and therefore to cut funding and subsidies to these industries.

2.Have government/industry technology partnerships proven valuable in the past and how can they be improved in the future?

Two examples:

First: The High-Performance Computing Act of 1992 (PL 102-194) ushered in the age of eBusiness. The one US Senator who saw the role the internet could play if unhitched from the universities and the military was Al Gore who, in 1988, first proposed what would become the High Performance Computing Act of 1992. The reason Microsoft's even listed in the Nasdaq is because of that act. The reason there's even a Nasdaq today is because of that act.

In November, 1991, in his comments on final passage of the bill he had introduced, S. 272, THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING ACT, he defined the network to be established:

"[T]he National Research and Education Network, as defined by the bill, will consist of hundreds, even thousands, of smaller subnetworks. These subnetworks will be controlled and paid for by more than a dozen Federal agencies, by the States, by colleges and unversities, and by the private sector. Each subnetwork will use compatible communications protocols and equipment so that traffic from one network can be transmitted via other networks. In this way it will be like the national telephone network, which consists of subnetworks run by hundreds of local phone companies and long-distance carriers, all interconnected. It is worth noting that the NREN will rely largely on the existing physical network of telephone cables. In many cases, the same fiber optic cable that carries telephone conversations will be carryign NREN traffic. The NREN will not require installing a wholly new fiber optic network." (137 Cong.Rec. S17894-01)

Up to this point, no unified network structure available to the private sector had existed. This law provided the inception, and more importantly, the federal funding and cooperation to make it happen. The bill was introduced by Senator Al Gore.

The federal government can improve government/industry technology partnerships related to the internet by fully funding initiatives related to improving the infrastructure of the public school system, bolstering the infrastructure of public libraries, and building rural fast internet connection, thereby bringing all consumers into contact with this trade and education source, and by continuing the federal government moratorium on taxing the internet.

Second:

In March 1998 the Triana Satellite was envisioned to by placed at position L1 to measure changes in the Earth's climate. Weather satellites can observe continent-sized swaths of the surface, but not an entire hemisphere. Satellites in low-earth orbit glimpse only fragments of the planet. There are currently NO satellites in space that can measure global warming from a single, strategic position. Currently, information on Earth¹s atmosphere has to be pieced together, with large margins of error, by multiple satellites. NASA has spent more than $120 million getting Triana ready to monitor global atmospheric changes.

The Earth will become a much hotter place over the next century, according to researchers who predict in a study published on Friday, July 20, 2001, there is a 90 percent chance the planet's average temperatures will rise 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. Researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, used a computer model to predict probable long-term increases in the Earth's temperature if no actions are taken to curb the emissions of gases and pollutants that many scientists blame for global warming. The researchers said the planet has warmed up by about 1 degrees over the last century. But they say it is likely to heat up by about 1 or 2 degrees as early as 2030. By 2100, the most likely increase would be in the range of 4 to 7 degrees, while there is a 90 percent chance global average temperatures will rise 3 to 9 degrees, they said.

In March 2001, Bush rejected the Kyoto Accord. In Bush¹s first trip to Europe he told the Europeans that global warming "needs more scientific study." On July 13, 2001, Bush announced in his "Statement by the President on Climate Change Policy" that "NASA will invest over $120 million in the next three years in research on the natural carbon cycle, climate modeling, and the link between atmospheric chemistry and climate."

NASA has ALREADY spent $120 million getting a satellite ready to accomplish this PRECISE task - studying global warming and atmospheric changes.

The federal government can improve government/industry technology partnerships related to understanding global warming by fully funding NASA to fly Triana out to L1 and start studying global warming and atmospheric changes, instead of just giving lip service to global warming while dumping money into the pockets of the oil and gas industries.

There is no real economic justification for pouring tax money into mature, profitable businesses. The federal government should spend NO money promoting outmoded oil and natural gas technologies. These are the technologies of the past, not of the future. They are wildly profitable industries, and not in need of ANY government support. Funding should be reserved for industries that are start-up in nature and that are exploring new and ecologically sensitive sources, i.e. solar and renewable resources.

5.Are there research areas not being properly addressed in the current program? If so, what changes should be made?

The top priority of the program -- new oil exploration, ie., increasing supply, is the 'Drain America First' stratagem. It is a myopic plan that, while profitable for the oil corporations in the short-run, leaves America even more dependent upon foreign oil in the long-run. The point of maximum production (known as the Hubbert Peak) coincides with the midpoint of depletion. With oil, this means that when we reach the Hubbert Peak, we will have used half of all the recoverable oil that ever existed on our planet. The U.S. peaked in 1970 (predicted by Dr. Hubbert in 1956), others will peak soon, eg., Britain, and others have years to go ... like Iraq and Saudi Arabia. According to world renown geologist, Dr. Colin Campbell, global oil production has peaked or will within the next few years. Already, 74 percent of the world's oil wells have been drilled in the United States alone.

In truth, a comprehensive national conservation plan is indeed the best immediate solution to America's energy problem. The Hubbert Peak indicates that we have a window of opportunity of approximately 30 years in which to end our dependency on petroleum. It is during this period that urgent development and implementation of sustainable energy sources must be pursued. The real challenge, therefore, is to begin the task of weaning our civilization off of fossil fuels and on to solar energy, wind power, and hydrogen fuel cells.

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable power, "can meet 60 percent of the nation's needs for new electric power plants over the next 20 years." NRDC arrived at this calculation based on a November 2000 Dept. of Energy report that was ignored by the Cheney committee.

Conservation and efficiency will not mean sacrifice from the American people. As reports Daniel Lashof, a senior scientist for NRDC and co-author of "A Responsible Energy Policy for the 21st Century," (a comprehensive energy plan published earlier this year). Lashof says that through conservation and efficiency "Americans would save more than $30 billion per year on their electric bills."And as for the quality of our health, "Power plant emissions that cause smog and dangerous fine particles would decline by more than half of current levels. And power plant emissions of carbon dioxide would be cut by one third from today's levels."

The research areas not properly addressed are: solar power, wind power, hydrogen fuel cells, and the development of a national comprehensive energy conservation program.

6.What actions should the U.S. government undertake to promote the global competitiveness of U.S.-developed, advanced oil and gas technologies?

+ --------- down to here ---------- +

+ paste into your own email or letter, sign it & send +

Statements should be sent to:

e-mail to OilGasReview@hq.doe.gov (OilGasReview@hq.doe.gov)

or by mail to The Office of Natural Gas and Petroleum Technology, FE-30, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585, Attn: Strategic Review.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Published on Sunday, August 19, 2001 in the Denver Post Big Oil, Little Public Editorial

On the campaign trail, Bush frequently criticized then-President Clinton for ramming a narrow agenda into policy without getting enough comment from the industries and communities affected. But the insider game being played by the Bush team is even more egregious than the acts for which Bush berated Clinton.

The latest example surfaced very quietly at the U.S. Department of Energy. The department just held three "public meetings" at which the public was not allowed to speak. Instead, DOE took testimony only from oil and gas executives and local elected officials favorable to the industrys.

At issue is whether and how much the government should increase subsidies to the oil and gas companies.

The meeting schedule was announced on Aug. 6, but the first hearing was only two days later in Denver - and it was set conveniently on the heels of a big oil industry conference here. The announcement didn't come out in time for people outside the industry to rearrange their schedules. But even if citizens could have attended, they would not have been allowed to have their say - the meeting time was reserved for industry speeches. DOE followed the same narrow format in public meetings in Pittsburgh on Aug. 13 and Houston on Aug. 14.

These points deserve repeating: DOE held some of the most important energy policy meetings of the year, with very little advance public notice and only a select crowd allowed to give meaningful comment.

Common citizens will be permitted to submit only written remarks, due by Aug. 30. Even then, they can only comment on a series of very leading questions pre-determined by DOE.

The wording of those questions makes it clear the administration contemplates advocating new subsidies for the oil business. For example, one asks: "Is federal financial support needed in all sectors of the oil and gas industry?"

Usually, federal subsidies are reserved for start-up industries. There seldom is any real economic justification for pouring tax money into mature, profitable businesses. The true explanations for such government give-aways always boil down to politics.

Based on the quick meetings and limited public comments, the DOE plans to announce its budget priorities in September. Thus the Bush team will take just a few weeks to craft a core policy that will affect the nation for generations.

Yet even in its press release and on its website, the DOE buried the real issues, reserving notice of the public meetings and the implications for the last few pages.

America does need a long-term national energy policy, but it should be based on input from a wide range of citizens and industries. Bush needs to listen to more people than just his oil business buddies. By the way, citizen comments may be e-mailed to the DOE at OilGasReview@hq.doe.gov or by snail mail to the Office of Natural Gas and Petroleum Technology, FE-30, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 20585; Attn: Strategic Review.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0820-09.htm