In the shadow of Colorado’s Rocky Mountains, in a town called Golden, some 800 people research solar power, wind power, and other energy alternatives at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Founded in 1974, the laboratory is a project of the U.S. Department of Energy, which provides 97 percent of its funding. Among the lab’s practical, award-winning achievements, over the years: a catalytic converter that reduces emissions on "cold-starts" of cars; a cost- effective energy efficient model house that uses solar technologies for more than 90 percent of energy needs; and a solar air heating system that cuts heating costs in industrial buildings.
Under the Bush budget plan released last week, the laboratory would lose anywhere from one-third to one-half of its workforce. Bush’s budget plan slashes spending for environmental and natural resources departments by $2.3 billion, or 7.2 percent, in fiscal year 2002, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The plan is toughest on energy efficiency programs like the NREL. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham called renewable energy "a failed effort."
Not so, apparently, drilling for oil: the Bush plan includes projected revenue from opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. This, along with other moves by the Bush Administration-backing out of the international treaty on global warming and reversing a campaign pledge to regulate power plants’ emissions of carbon dioxide, to name just two-reveal a bias toward the oil and gas, utilities, and other traditional energy industries. It’s a bias that means more pollution and harm to wildlife and the environment, not to mention dependence on foreign sources of oil.
Bush’s assault on programs fostering practical, less environmentally harmful, approaches to the nation’s energy needs doesn’t seem to make sense. Until you follow the money. Overall, the traditional energy industry-oil and gas, utilities, mining, and so on-distributed a whopping $64 million dollars to federal candidates and parties in the 2000 elections. In contrast, the alternative energy industry--solar and wind power, for example--gave less than a million. Bush’s campaign alone got $2.9 million dollars from the traditional energy sources, and just $950 from alternative energy donors; Abraham, in his last Senate campaign, got $413,000 dollars from the traditional energy industry and nothing at all from alternative energy donors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Well, critics might say, the energy industry gave money to Bush and Abraham because they believe in the industry to begin with, not because their opinions could be bought. But the alternative energy industry, still in its infancy, can’t possibly compete with the campaign cash of the big oil companies when it comes to giving candidates a lift. Does the fact that the alternative energy industry doesn’t have ready campaign cash mean that the public and the environment should suffer from higher prices at the gas pump every time there is an oil shortage? How does it make good public policy sense to stiff the research that could make us less reliant on foreign oil in the long-term? As long as the energy industry keeps dominating its competitors with big campaign contributions, this question will never get the hearing it deserves.
