[pvusers] Fw: Waste more, (friends)want not

["David & Sheila Knapp" <solar@aeroinc.net>]

This ought to make him some more friends in the oil industry!  Time to sharpen my pencil and write our fine president a little letter.

Dave
----------
> From: "Howard Greene" <hjgreene@ocinet.net>
> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 07:01:11 -0600
> To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
> Subject: Waste more, (firends)want not
> 
> But if you increase efficiency, we might not need to did up the earth as much,
> and my friends won't make as much money. Where's the compassion in that?  Even
> I'm amazed he could be this transparent.
> Please forward this to help more people understand what's happening
> 
> April 5, 2001
> Energy Efficiency Programs Are Set for Bush Budget Cut
> 
> By JOSEPH KAHN
> 
> 
> 
> Reuters  
> President Bush and Spencer Abraham at a meeting of Mr. Bush's energy task
> force.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holding Down Discretionary Spending
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Text of Bush's Budget Proposal  (Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)
> 
> Expanded Coverage
> . In Depth: Budget
> . Politics: Congress
> . Politics: White House
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Join a Discussion on Tax Cuts and the Budget
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ASHINGTON, April 4 - The Bush administration plans to cut programs intended to
> make buildings and factories use less energy and to generate more power from
> the wind and the sun, people who have seen the administration's budget
> proposal say.
> 
> The cuts, being proposed despite the administration's contention that the
> nation faces an energy crisis, would reduce the Energy Department's overall
> spending on energy efficiency and renewable energy by about $180 million, or
> 15 percent, though some people involved in the process said the administration
> had talked of cuts of up to 30 percent.
> 
> The spending reductions reflect how the Bush administration has sought to
> upend the Clinton administration's approach to energy policy by emphasizing
> efforts to increase the supply of oil and gas while reviewing or canceling
> some programs intended to reduce demand.
> 
> President Bush has repeatedly warned that California's electricity shortages
> are part of a broader energy crisis that requires urgent action. Mr. Bush
> cited the nation's energy needs in abandoning a campaign pledge to impose
> controls on carbon dioxide emissions by power plants. He has also said he
> wants to open protected federal lands to oil and gas exploration.
> 
> The administration has tended to play down the potential of efficiency
> programs or new sources of energy, arguing that they impose a burden on
> private industry and might not contribute much to alleviating shortages.
> 
> For example, the administration is now reviewing whether to delay or scrap
> Clinton administration standards that would require new clothes washers, water
> heaters and central air-conditioners to use less electricity and natural gas.
> The air-conditioner standards offer the greatest potential for energy savings
> - they would require that new central air- conditioners use one-third less
> energy than under current minimum standards of efficiency - but they are being
> fought by an industry group that calls them too expensive.
> 
> Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham declined to discuss details of the budget
> cuts, which officials say are not final until the president's budget proposal
> is formally unveiled on Monday. But in a recent television interview, Mr.
> Abraham referred to some such programs as "not having returned a very good
> investment for the taxpayers."
> 
> The programs in question have helped develop a range of standards and other
> tools to reduce energy demand and increase the supply of energy from
> nonpolluting sources. Supporters say the programs have had some notable
> successes, among them reducing the cost of wind power by as much as 90 percent
> and developing software that architects often use to design energy-efficient
> office buildings.
> 
> Not all such programs are scheduled for cuts. Mr. Bush promised in the
> campaign to increase financing to help low-income families insulate their
> homes, and an Energy Department program devoted to such weatherization is
> scheduled to get $120 million more next year than it received in this year's
> budget, a 100 percent increase.
> 
> But a program to reduce energy use at steel, glass, pulp paper and refining
> companies, all heavy users of energy, is set for a sharp reduction, people who
> have seen the budget proposal said. The budget also envisions less spending to
> improve the design of offices and homes.
> 
> Research into wind, solar and geothermal energy development is also scaled
> back under the plan. California relies on geothermal energy sources for 6
> percent of its electricity needs, and some who served in the Clinton
> administration say investment in deploying that source of energy more broadly
> could help ease the state's electricity crisis.
> 
> Some lawmakers from both parties have pressed the administration to maintain
> financing levels for energy efficiency programs, but they say the
> administration has stood firm.
> 
> "My impression is that this is just not a priority for them, which is
> inconsistent in that they keep sounding the alarm about an energy crisis,"
> said Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, the ranking Democrat on the Senate
> Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
> 
> But some Republicans have signaled support for a new energy policy that puts
> less emphasis on protecting the environment.
> 
> "The problem is that over the last eight or nine years we've not had an energy
> policy, we've had an environmental policy that drove energy policy,"
> Representative Joe L. Barton, Republican of Texas, told an audience of
> electricity industry executives at an Energy Marketers Association conference
> today.
> 
> Government financing for energy efficiency and renewable energy has varied
> sharply over the last two decades. It was highest at the end of the Carter
> administration, when the nation faced a severe energy crunch. President Ronald
> Reagan discontinued most such spending, but it rose during both the Bush and
> Clinton administrations. At $1.2 billion, the total spending today measured in
> constant 1998 dollars is still only one- third the level of 20 years ago.
> 
> Though supporters of such programs acknowledge that some government research
> has proved ineffective, they say the nation would face a far greater energy
> crisis today without government- and industry-backed efficiency advances.
> 
> They cite studies concluding that energy efficiency technology developed in
> the last two decades created $200 billion in energy savings last year.

05budg.1.jpg

--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*
  List sponsored by CREST/REPP  
	http://solstice.crest.org/   http://www.repp.org/