Posted by Jane Clark

January 30, 2002
Who's Checking the Math?
Cheney Claim Distorts the Truth

The message is the same whether it's coming from White House spokespersons,
Ari Fleischer and Mary Matalin, or Dick Cheney himself: According to
Administration officials, The Bush Energy Plan contains 11 out of 12
proposals put forward by the Sierra Club.

This is news to the Sierra Club.

In fact, even a cursory comparison of the two plans reveals a very different
story than Mr. Cheney would have us believe. As executive director Carl Pope
puts it, "If the Bush Administration thinks they've got 11 of our 12 points
in their energy plan, then Arthur Andersen must be checking their math."

While it might be correct to say that the Bush Energy Plan touches upon many
of the same subjects as discussed in the Sierra Club proposal, the two
visions of America's energy policy are as different as night and day.

Consider:

The Sierra Club supports raising fuel economy standards for cars and trucks
to 40 mpg by 2012 from the current levels of 27.5 mpg for cars, 20.7 for
SUVs and light trucks. This measure alone would save the country three
million barrels of oil per day over the next ten years, more than offsetting
any need to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Bush plan, by
contrast, only recommends studying the idea of raising fuel economy
standards and views arctic drilling as essential. The energy bill that just
passed the House of Representatives will increase fuel economy standards by
less than a single mile per gallon between 2004 and 2010.

Consider:

The Sierra Club's plan would require that fully 20 percent of the nation's
power be supplied by non-hydro renewable sources by the year 2020. The
Administration, on the other hand, would cut funding for renewables nearly
in half while only increasing the level of non-hydro renewable energy by 2.8
percent over the same period.

At the same time, the Administration aims to build anywhere from 1300 to
1900 new conventional power plants, including coal-fired and nuclear
facilities. For its part, the Sierra Club wants to see old, inefficient
plants replaced by cleaner, more efficient combined-cycle gas-fired units.
The Sierra Club does not support the development of new coal and/or nuclear
plants.

Consider:

The Sierra Club plan would give Production Tax Credits to solar and
geothermal power producers. The Bush administration would not extend the tax
credit to either technology. Furthermore, the Administration is preparing to
weaken the New Source Review provisions of the Clean Air Act which are
designed to protect citizens against pollution increases caused by the
expansion of existing power plants. The Sierra Club has been unwavering in
its support of New Source Review.

These are only a few of the all-too-obvious differences between the Sierra
Club's energy prescriptions and the Administration's final package. Anyone
interested in a more thorough comparison of the two should read the Sierra
Club's 12 Key Benchmarks for Achieving a Sound Energy Plan.

Note however that these discrepancies haven't stopped the administration
from trotting out the claim that the two energy plans are nearly identical.
In fact, if anything, the frequency of the assertion has increased of late,
just as the shadow of the Enron scandal looms over the White House.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]