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]