House Republicans Only Want Fossil Fuels, Nukes; No Efficiency, Renewables

Republican leaders in Congress are outlining their "Roadmap for America’s Energy Future" as a step toward defining a national energy policy.

It relies on oil production everywhere possible, including off the coast of Alaska (it’s become clear that oil companies would never be able to contain a spill in the Arctic Ocean). It also relies on developing US tar sands in the West (Canada’s are three times more polluting that conventional oil production). And it mandates construction of 200 new nuclear plants by 2050 (a nuke costs $10-$20 billion to build and takes about 10 years – think of how much solar, wind, geothermal could be built for that price. It takes a week to put up a new, large wind turbine).

And House Republicans unveiled their plan to cut funds for just about all programs that increase America’s efficiency, renewable energy and competitiveness through clean energy research. They want to eliminate weatherization grants, high-speed rail, DOE applied research and numerous other cleantech- related issues.

The so-called Spending Reduction Act of 2011 purports to cut government spending by $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years. It is proposed by members of the  Republican Study Committee, chaired by Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan.

The bill reduces current spending back to 2008 levels and would repeal $45 billion in unspent funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Spending would be further reduced–and frozen for the next decade–at 2006 levels, beginning with the new fiscal year on October 1, 2011.

Among the programs on the chopping block are:

  • $530 million in DOE Grants to States for Weatherization
  • $95 million for beach replenishment
  • $2 billion for New Starts Transit funding for public transit improvements
  • $1.27 billion for DOE applied research
  • $2.5 billion for intercity and high-speed rail grants.
  • $200 million for FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership
  • $56.2 and elimination of National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program
  • $52 million for Energy Star program
  • $12.5 million in funding for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Other programs that would see partial or complete defunding include the National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Amtrak subsidies, Community Development Fund, Title X Family Planning, and administrative costs for new changes to the health care system.

House Democrats say they won’t shy away from environmental issues as they begin to rebuild and look toward the elections of 2012.

(Visited 6,829 times, 7 visits today)

Comments on “House Republicans Only Want Fossil Fuels, Nukes; No Efficiency, Renewables”

  1. Heelerl

    Green technology tends to save more money in the long run, deipste being more expensive to begin with for example, motion-sensing light fixtures that only turn on when someone walks into a room are more expensive than regular lights, but after a few years the reduced power usage saves money. What examples of green energy are you looking at that are so cost-inefficient? Around here (Midwest) people have been installing windmills, which are quite green that have consistently proven profitable.

    Reply

Post Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *