There are two reasons that the energy policy is unbalanced. First, any pretense of any consideration of conservationist opinion in formulating the report is complete sham. Requests for position papers from environmental institutions were delayed to the last minute, no meetings with Cheney occurred, and then the opinions that were offerred were not even read anyone, or anyone who mattered.
Second, when the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, large energy producers, especially coal, were given an exemption for certain plants that were to be phased out over time. Now, 30 years later, those same plants are still spewing sulphur and other pollutants because the owners have refused to build new ones or retrofit the old ones(including against CO2 emissions) to comply with the Clean Air Act. In addition, they have been expanding the old ones which is a violation of the law as well. The EPA, after all this time of fighting them, finally put together suits against the worst offenders which would not only expose them to huge liabilities, but also to civil lawsuits. Is it any wonder they put so much into the election of Bush who, (surprise, surprise)did an immediate about face on CO2 after the elction?
So you see, the energy "policy" is really a huge benefit(the definition of corporate welfare)to energy companies who have been resisting compliance with the Clean Air Act for 30 years and now see an opportunity to get official sanction to continue their exemption, continue to spew pollutants into the atmosphere as before, squash the lawsuits, end exposure to civil liability and even roll back existing law against further pollution. This is the huge fix that Bush and the energy cartel are planning to deliver the nation.
So tell me, what's your definition of balanced? |
