Nuclear Energy Information Service
Illinois' Nuclear Power Watchdog for 25 Years

Bush Energy Policy - the Same Old Flawed Approach

"20-20 ENERGY VISION: FOR NOW, AND FOR THE FUTURE"

Introductory Remarks
Press Statement

Introductory remarks

Good Morning. Thank you for attending today's press conference on the single most important resource in an advanced, technology-dependent society -- energy.

Energy is a topic on everyone's mind of late. Today, 22 environmental and citizen advocacy groups are announcing a new vision for the energy future of the United States: a "20-20 Energy Vision."

This energy vision states clearly the energy choices we can and must make to ensure that safer, cleaner, reliable and affordable energy resources exist to meet legitimate energy needs, now and in the future.

It is a vision that produces the energy we need without needlessly increasing pollution, or exacerbating other environmental problems. It is a vision that leads to a healthy, sustainable economy, where people are not blackmailed into choosing between EITHER a clean environment, OR keeping their jobs or their lights on.

Our "20-20 energy Vision" couples the best and most successful elements of our traditional energy infrastructure and programs -- namely conservation, energy efficiency, and less-environmentally damaging energy production -- with the best available and most promising 21st Century energy technologies, such as wind power, advanced solar power, fuel cells, and others.

Our vision stands in stark contrast to the recent pronouncements of George Bush II and Dick Cheney, leading up to the release of their so-called National Energy Strategy later this week. This plan to date is re-tread of his father's failed National Energy Strategy of 1991; the only major difference between the two being that we are not currently at war in the Persian Gulf.

The Administration's plan has been created behind closed doors by an energy team, over 80% of which represent the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries; only one of whom has energy efficiency background; and none of whom hail from the renewable energy sector, environmental, or consumer groups, or the general public. It's a team of foxes asked to design the next generation of chicken coops.

The majority of Administration pronouncements to date indicate that this plan is about: expanding energy resources that are major polluters; emphasizing and subsidizing inflexible, costly, large-scale projects; ignoring proven, quicker and effective ways of reducing consumption and pollution; disparaging efficiency and decentralized, sustainable approaches to energy. It is a 19th Century approach to energy, designed to maximize benefit to campaign contributors who run energy companies, not consumers and ratepayers. Most charitably, it deserves to be called, "Forward -- into the Past!"

This is not policy, it is pork. It is not strategy, but tragedy.

The American people deserve better. The Illinois environmental community is united here today to fight for something better: a "20-20 Energy Vision" for now, and for the future.

You will now hear from the following Illinois environmental leaders:

Ashley Collins, environmental associate from Citizen Action of Illinois, will discuss energy conservation and efficiency in homes and businesses;

Diane Brown, executive director of Illinois Public Interest Research Group, will discuss auto fleet efficiency and the current gas price issue;

Hans Detweiler, staff associate at the Environmental Law and Policy Center, will discuss viable renewable energy alternatives: wind and solar power, based on the recently released study, "Repowering the Midwest;"

Jennifer Johnson, global warming specialist with the Sierra Club, will discuss energy impacts on global warming, and how these relate to coal/fired power plants;

Dave Kraft, director of Nuclear Energy Information Service, will conclude with reasons why nuclear power is not and should not be a part of our energy future.

We will then open up the session for questions and discussion.

PRESS STATEMENT
by David A. Kraft, Director, NEIS
May 15, 2001

"WHY YOU CAN'T "NUKE" YOUR WAY OUT OF AN ENERGY CRISIS"

Ten years ago, President George Bush I unveiled his new "National Energy Strategy." After one year of fact finding, public hearings, and focus groups, even the DOE concluded in 1990 that, "Energy efficiency and renewables are basically the cleanest, cheapest and safest means of meeting our nation's growing energy needs in the 1990s and beyond." But instead, George I's plan called for -- drilling in ANWR; more nuclear power; more oil and gas exploration; "clean coal" technology; ignoring better vehicle fleet mileage; eliminating tax breaks for renewables and some energy efficiency; and ignoring the threat of global warming.

Sound familiar? Ten years and one failed energy war in the Persian Gulf later, George II is calling for exactly the same things. Only this time the energy war is being waged AGAINST the American people and the environment.

I suppose we should expect no better than "more nukes" from two ex-oil men masquerading as national leaders while conducting the "welfare for status-quo energy producers" business promotional tour.

If we say, "no nukes," it's because we've come to "know nukes" -- all too well.

The Bush Administration calls for continued reliance on the failed technology of the past; and for a future that will contain:

a reliance on speculative technological developments, government subsidized where possible;

the continued production of more radioactive wastes that are yet to be perpetually stored in an environmentally safe and acceptable manner;

certain proliferation of nuclear know-how, technology, materials, and ultimately weapons, and the threat of future Chernobyls
Instead, we call for:

no new nuclear plant construction;

elimination of existing subsidies, and no new subsidies for nuclear power;

no extension of nuclear plant operating licenses prior to the year 2020.

Better, cleaner, reliable and comparably costing ways already exist to produce power and meet legitimate energy needs. Technology is no longer the barrier; obtaining the economies of scale that could be brought about by gaining larger market share is.

Nuclear power's continuation simply crowds out more reliable, more environmentally friendly energy options like wind, solar and biomass. It also sucks up sorely needed, increasingly scarce and competitive R&D money, both in the DOE budget and from the private energy sector, already dead-last among major industries for investment in R&D.

Further the marketing-manufactured nuclear renaissance occurs while its congressional allies call for legislation that would provide up to $1 billion in various subsidies for an industry they previously claimed was "mature," and "competitive."

Finally, without huge doses of paradoxic subsidies and protections, nuclear power simply can't continue, making it embarrassingly inconsistent with the deregulated, market-based environment that lawmakers -- including Bush and Cheney -- have been touting.

If markets are supposed to deliver efficiently what customers want, then future energy policy should promote the renewable energy and energy efficient future they have been demanding consistently for two decades. No amount of cutesy, fraudulent advertising campaigns or misinterpreted opinion polls can alter this fact: that the American public has wanted and continues to want more energy efficiency and renewable energy resources, not nuclear power plants.

We call for an energy future that won't bring us Chernobyls and Tokaimura's, Yucca Mountain's or Mobile Chernobyls, nuclear wastes and nuclear weapons. Such a future will not merely spring up like mushrooms after a spring rain; it must be methodically planned and implemented.

This energy future begins today.

Thank you.

Back to the top of this Page