Bush contro la protezione ambientale

["AlessandroGimona"<agimona at libero.it>]

Cari tutti,rimangiandosi le promesse in campagna elettorale, Bush mostra 
ora le sue vere intenzioni, e' cioe' condurre un attacco deciso alle 
norme che proteggono l'ambiente e una politica pro-industriale che ci 
riporta agli anni 60.


March 25, 2001-NYTimes

         A New Role for Greens: Public Enemy

         By JOSEPH KAHN

         WASHINGTON — PRESIDENT BUSH has declared that, once 
         again, the nation has an acute shortage of energy. But the 
enemy 
         his administration has identified is not one of the usual 
suspects: 
         profligate usage, OPEC or Saddam Hussein. Instead, it is 
         environmentalism.

         As Mr. Bush's energy team prepares a comprehensive energy 
         strategy, its members are meeting
         with conservationists as well as oil industry lobbyists. But 
the team 
         has begun outlining what
         sounds like a supply-side crusade under an anti-green flag. 

         Among the measures under consideration, according to 
         administration officials and some
         Congressional and industry experts, are: easing clean-air rules 
for 
         coal-fired power plants;
         loosening federal standards on river flows to protect fish; 
giving 
         refiners relief from diverse
         anti-pollution standards in different states; allowing states 
to 
         control drilling rights on some federal
         lands; pushing construction of nuclear plants; and, the 
headline 
         grabber so far, opening the Arctic
         National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration. 

         Mr. Bush has not been shy about taking on environmentalists: 
last 
         week, he reversed a Clinton
         administration executive order that tightened arsenic standards 
for 
         drinking water, a boon to the
         mining industry. And in a preview to his approach to energy 
policy, 
         he dropped a campaign
         pledge to require power plants to control emissions of carbon 
         dioxide, a greenhouse gas. 

         Spencer Abraham, the energy secretary, called the drafting of 
the 
         energy plan a search for a
         middle ground between environmentalists and industry. But he 
         sounded the new battle cry at a
         Washington energy conference last week, ridiculing a recent 
         newspaper ad from a
         pro-conservation group, which argued California should solve 
its 
         electricity shortages by a crash
         efficiency plan. 

         He cited a study his department prepared that claims that the 
         United States will need 1,300 new
         power plants during the next 20 years. It was the Clinton 
         administration's folly, he said, to think that
         the nation could limit demand and just let supply take care of 
itself. 

         "Through neglect or complacency or ideology, this approach has 
         led us to the crisis we face
         today," he said.

         THE Bush arsenal includes pointing out that a proliferation of 
         "green tape" has made blocking
         energy projects on environmental grounds too easy, and that it 
has 
         cost the nation an adequate
         fuel supply. And the Bush team also points the finger at people 
         who use environmental rules to
         simply pursue their own narrow interests. 

         "We've had an approach that isn't balanced because it's been so 
         easy to stop projects," said
         Vice President Dick Cheney, who is heading the energy team. 
         "Nobody wants to be able to see a
         transmission line from their front yard. Nobody wants a gas 
pipeline 
         through their community.
         Nobody wants a power plant in their county. It's going to be 
very 
         important that we change the
         circumstances." 

         Part of the Bush focus comes out of politics. Environmental 
groups 
         gave generously to
         Democrats, while Republicans collected $10 million of the $14 
         million in political contributions by
         oil and gas companies and their trade groups, according to the 
         Center for Responsive Politics. 

         There is also the question of experience. Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney 
         and Donald Evans, the commerce
         secretary, who is also a member of the energy team, are 
         themselves oil industry veterans. They
         are very aware that the clean-air act of 1970, as amended in 
1990, 
         is the industry's bête noire.
         And there is no question that it has forced companies to reduce 
         output from older power plants
         and refineries. 

         Yet some of the measures under consideration have, at best, a 
         tangential relationship to the
         electricity shortage in California. Mr. Bush's backing of 
legislation 
         introduced by Senator Frank
         Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, to open a part of the Arctic 
         National Wildlife Refuge to oil
         exploration will do nothing to increase the nation's capacity 
to 
         produce electricity. Oil is not a
         major fuel for power plants.

         Natural gas shortages are a different story. Because it is a 
clean-
         burning fuel, power generators
         have come to rely heavily on it to produce electricity. What 
seemed 
         like an endless bounty of
         cheap gas a few years ago now seems more precarious. Prices 
         have soared, and strains on gas
         pipelines are obvious.

         But it's not clear that natural gas is in crisis. Natural gas 
has been 
         so cheap for so long that
         companies have not had the incentive to fully exploit known 
         reserves or invest in new
         infrastructure. High prices — as opposed to government 
incentives 
         — could work to secure more
         supply relatively quickly, many experts argue. And while it is 
true 
         that community groups have
         made it difficult to build gas pipelines, the mother of them 
all — a 
         $10 billion gas superhighway
         from Alaska's North Slope to the lower 48 states — has been 
         stalled for economic reasons, not
         environmental ones.

         WITH California experiencing rolling blackouts and other parts 
of 
         the country, including New York,
         worried about shortages this summer, it seems sound enough to 
         review environmental controls.
         But the administration also seems to be tailoring the problem 
to fit 
         a narrow, deregulatory solution
         long favored by the industry. 

         What Mr. Bush is calling an energy crisis — scattered shortages 
         of electricity generating capacity
         and last year's isolated gasoline price spikes — is more 
complex 
         than the label suggests. An
         anti-green approach, which focuses on how environmental 
controls 
         have helped create the
         problem, may obscure how they could also be part of the 
solution. 

         "I haven't heard a single word from them about energy 
efficiency," 
         said Representative Edward J.
         Markey of Massachusetts, a Democrat. "Our nation's competitive 
         advantage is technology, not oil
         reserves, so we ought be using that technology to make our 
         society more efficient." 

         A recent study by five national laboratories under the 
Department of 
         Energy found that
         market-based energy efficiency policies, like tax credits for 
fuel-
         efficient vehicles, could reduce
         the growth of energy demand by a third through 2010.

         David Nemtzow of the Alliance to Save Energy says that energy 
         efficiency regulations Mr. Clinton
         promulgated at the end of his term, most notably new standards 
for 
         air conditioners, could reduce
         projections for future energy needs by 50,000 megawatts through 
         2020. That's one-eighth of the
         total projected growth in demand during that period.

         Yet the president's budget framework envisions cutting funding 
for 
         energy efficiency and
         renewable energy programs by 30 percent, Congressional experts 
         who have been briefed on the
         planned cuts said. And in what seems like a bit of smash-mouth 
         budgeting, the administration has
         even suggested linking funding for efficiency programs to 
royalties 
         from Arctic drilling.

         Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
Alessandro Gimona
agimona at libero.it