Nuclear Energy Information Service
Illinois' Nuclear Power Watchdog for 25 Years
Home | About Us | Join NEIS | Contact | Upcoming Events | Take Action | Alerts | Donate | About Nuclear Power | For the Press | Literature | Newsletter | For Young People | Links
COMMENTS TO U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY
ON NATIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY
by David A. Kraft, Director
June 12, 2001
My name is David A. Kraft. I am Director of Nuclear Energy Information Service of Evanston, Illinois, whom I represent today. I am here to provide comments on the National Energy Strategy proposed by the Administration on behalf of the 700 members and the Board of NEIS.
In 1991, after soliciting public comments for a year to develop the National Energy Tragedy of George Bush I, Deputy Secretary of Energy Henson Moore, reported: "Energy efficiency and renewables are basically the cleanest, cheapest, and safest means of meeting our growing energy needs in the 1990s and beyond."
NEIS agrees with the Deputy Secretary, and therefore calls on DOE to support continued and expanded funding for the following programs: Building Equipment and Materials; Commercial Buildings Integration; Community Energy Program; Energy Star Program; Residential Buildings Integration; State Energy Program; Weatherization Assistance Program; DUET; FEMP; Enabling Technologies; Financial Assistance; Industrial Technology Assistance; Vision Industries; BioPower; Distributed Energy Resources; Geothermal Energy; High Temperature Superconductivity; Hydrogen; Hydropower; International Programs; Solar Technologies; Wind Energy; Advanced Combustion Engine R&D; Biofuels; Electric Vehicles R&D; Fuel Cell R&D; Fuels Utilization R&D; Heavy Vehicle Systems R&D; Hybrid Systems R&D; Materials Technologies; Transportation Technology Assistance.
NEIS also advises that the DOE:
Having satisfied your very specific requests for comment, NEIS now asks that you deliver the following message to the Administration.
After ignoring the advice of Deputy Secretary Henson and the overwhelming majority of those who provided testimony and comments in 1990-91, George I then went on to propose an energy strategy that called for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; more nuclear power; more oil and gas exploration; so-called "clean coal" technology; ignoring better vehicle fleet mileage; eliminating tax breaks for renewables and some energy efficiency; and ignoring the threat of global warming.
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.
The environmental community is incensed that the highest officials of the most powerful nation on earth are hell bent to repeat the same energy policy mistakes that have resulted in decades of environmental degradation. While it is amply clear that the Administration wishes to live in the past, it is equally clear that it has no interest or ability to learn its lessons.
And so the Administration proposes this joke of an energy policy which:
The Administration insults the intelligence of the American people first by proposing such a monstrous leap "forward -- into the past;" and secondly for believing that self-serving dog and pony shows like these will satisfy its requirements at public participation.
We object to the lack of visible advance public notice and woefully short timeline to prepare comments for this hearing; we will not be so tolerant of such oversight in the future.
We demand that all the other energy sources mentioned in the NEP and supported so vocally by the Administration -- expanded nuclear power, nuclear fusion, so-called "clean coal" technologies, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, etc. -- undergo the same line of questioning and justification and public meetings for their continued funding before receiving a single cent of DOE R&D money; and that if they fail to meet the standards for justification that you are requiring for EE/RE programs, they be immediately terminated. In conclusion we would like to point out the results of a June 5th ABC poll on energy production which indicates the following trends:
"In terms of production, eight in 10 also strongly support the development of more solar and wind power. But strong support falls off sharply for some of the proposals President Bush has made -- more oil and gas drilling (49 percent), more coal mining (33 percent) and more nuclear power (29 percent).
"Support 'strongly': More fuel-efficient vehicles, 81%; More solar/wind power, 80%; More conservation by businesses, 79%; More conservation by consumers, 78%; More oil/gas drilling, 49%; More coal mining, 33%; More nuclear plants, 29%."
If it is the United States that the President wishes to govern, it would be advisable that he listen to the people of that land. To fail to do so could have disastrous consequences for the environment and the public health and welfare. It will also guarantee similar political consequences for the President. Thank you. We are available for questions, should you have them.
Click here for links to additional press items on Bush's National Energy Policy and "20-20 Energy Vision"
Back to the top of this Page
Home | About US | Join NEIS | Contact | Upcoming Events | Take Action | Alerts | Donate | About Nuclear Power | For the Press | Literature | Newsletter | For Young People | Links
Copyright 2001, 2004 NEIS, Nuclear Energy Information Service
Last Revised August 31, 2004