Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
© St. Petersburg Times, published May 22, 2001
Government leaders have led citizens down the primrose path regarding energy. We have experienced energy shortages in the past, during wars, during peace. We know what we need to do. Or at least we did. Somehow, President Bush believes that since we are used to the benefits of being the wealthiest country in the world, we cannot and will not accept the fact that we are short of power plants and fuel. We must overlook the fact that we are the most wasteful country in the world and cause the most pollution and damage our own air, water and our priceless preserves. We deserve the right to waste fossil fuels no matter what the consequences to humanity and the future of the Earth.
Thirty years ago, Americans understood that there was a need to drive smaller automobiles that would conserve gas. Manufacturers quickly came out with models that conserved gas. When did we decide that more gas consumption was okay and that we deserved cheap gas? When did we start to expect the government to subsidize the automobile owner? When did we, of all the developed countries, decide that we were not riders of mass transit? And when did atomic energy become safe, and solar energy not a viable alternative? Why would we accept the destruction of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or the gulf beaches? Who will restore mountain tops leveled for coal?
When we moved to Florida 20 years ago, we put in solar panels to heat our household water. The developers objected but allowed it since the panels were in the back. It seemed obvious to us that this would become the norm. Twenty years later, no progress.
We need to rethink our priorities and let President Bush know he underestimates us and that we do not share his views on energy. We have the expertise and the technology to do better. We can have cleaner, safer energy and preserve the environment. When you think about it, we get what we pay for. Someone will pay for his energy policies -- probably us.
-- Lynn McGarvey, Tampa
Americans are now paying the price for eight years of failed energy policy by the Clinton/Gore administration. It is now up to President Bush to provide Americans with an energy policy that will provide America with economic growth. I support his policy of increasing the energy supply to provide Americans with a sustained, growing economy. When energy prices increase, it affects every American in an adverse way.
I support the President's actions in pulling us out of the Kyoto treaty. This flawed treaty would hamstring the U.S. economy by more than 5 percent per year. There is no science that definitively determines that global warming is man-made. After recent events at the United Nations, hindsight is clear that the Kyoto treaty was passed by nations trying to hamstring the American economy while providing their economy with an unearned advantage.
We need to decrease our dependance on foreign countries for our energy supplies. I support the president in his efforts to accomplish this goal. Any return to Clinton/Gore era Kyoto policy is unacceptable. Bush needs to hold firm.
-- Holli T. Davis, Gulfport
Re: No one talks about the green virtues, by Ellen Goodman, May 21.
I understand that columnists are writing to express their opinions and perhaps have a lesser obligation to writing the truth than do reporters. But when Goodman writes that "Vice President Dick Cheney huffed that "conservation may be a sign of personal virtue' but it had little value as an energy policy," she deliberately distorted Cheney's statement. He declared that conservation could not serve as the basis for an energy policy.
It appears that if the truth cannot serve to support Goodman's opinion, a lie must be employed.
-- Stephen Small, Indian Rocks Beach
Simply "follow the money." First the oil, coal, nuclear and electric power corporations dig deep to raise huge sums of money to elect the new and improved Bush administration. Now less than six months into the "George the Younger" term, oil, gas and electric profits have skyrocketed, gas pump prices have reached near-record levels and the White House's proposed energy solution involves fewer regulations, new drilling leases and more corporate welfare for the same oil/gas/nuclear/electric cartel that helped pay for all those "compassionate" ads that allowed W's photo-finish win.
The result is billions for America's mega-polluters. And their advice to us: Briefly listen to the hollow environmental slogans and then go back to sleep like good little children.
-- J.J. Spatafora, St. Pete Beach
I think we should be establishing a new theory. How about calling what is currently taking place in the good old U.S.A. "the trickle up theory"? The more money corporate America has, the more power to influence our legislators it has.
At the rate the prices have been going up for gasoline, electric power, drugs and health care, it will not be too long in the distant future before we will return to the good old days when the robber barons had everything to say in running our country.
-- Jack Levine, Palm Harbor
Re: Energy plan: Seek sources, conserve.
Your May 17 article reinforces my fears about the Bush administration's handling of the national energy crisis.
It's all about expanding our reliance on fossil fuels. There was no mention of space solar power and NASA getting charged with its exploitation. I have studied this proven revolutionary new technology and am convinced that it appears low on everyone in Washington's list of priorities because of the oil lobbies. I hope Bill Clinton and Richardson are somehow held accountable for eight years of coddling the sheiks and having no national energy strategy.
Ironically, I live in Florida's seemingly uninterrupted daily sunlight, and we are still heating, lighting and cooling our buildings via fossil-fuel-burning power plants. And this is a long term solution? Give me a break!
Finally, after the bizarre statement from conservative "point man" Dick Cheney downplaying conservation, Bush lists some belated items on conservation. In the May 17 article, Cheney is quoted as saying, "Viewing energy production and environmental quality as adversaries . . . "no longer makes sense given the state of our modern technology.' " I believe he really means technologies that apply mostly, if not exclusively, to expanding our reliance on power sources that pollute our finite and delicate planet. No doubt we must explore for more fossil fuels. However, I believe that exploration should be a balanced approach with an emphasis on clean power sources.
Rush Limbaugh, in his inimitable defense of the Republicans, was bellowing recently that Americans deserve to be fuel gluttons. Let all who can afford them have their SUVs.
Give the oilmen their way, and we won't be breathing any easier for some time to come.
-- Jack Bechtold, New Port Richey
Re: Conservation? Who needs it?, letter, May 16.
The letter writer is correct, in my opinion, on most of her points. However, I must take exception to her diatribe against SUVs.
Many sport utility vehicles today have much better gas mileage than some cars! I know that sounds hard to believe, but with the state and federal governments requiring low emissions, it is possible. For instance, a 2000 Explorer gets 16 miles per gallon in the city and 20 mpg on the highway. Granted, this vehicle is smaller than an Excursion or Escalade, but it is the No. 1 one selling SUV in the country. In the next three to five years GM and Ford have pledged to improve fuel economy by 25 percent.
Of course, we all need to conserve energy as much as possible, but did anybody realize that maybe there are other problems more serious than SUVs? My 20-year-old Camaro gets worse gas mileage than an Explorer, and I am not getting rid of it. Also understand that more and more vehicles require premium fuel instead of regular fuel. The SUVs are not the only reason for the energy crisis!
-- Alan Smith, St. Petersburg
Re: Conservation? Who needs it?
The letter writer is absolutely right. I used her letter as inspiration and went out and bought my wife a new Suburban.
While it true that I did buy a new Suburban, the thing that strikes me is the judgmental attitude of the letter. We are bombarded by reports from friends and co-workers about how much property they can buy in Spring Hill or in Manatee County for their money and how the commute really doesn't bother them. I live less than two miles from work and even with my "uneconomical SUV," do not consume more than eight gallons of gasoline per week.
Do not think it is acceptable to judge another human being. You probably could not withstand a thorough scrutiny, and my SUV's fuel consumption is none of your business.
-- Terry R. Arnold, St. Petersburg
Re: Power crisis seen in Pompano protest, May 12.
Right there in black and white we read that Enron, a Texas company with strong ties to the White House wants to build "merchant power" plants in Florida (at one end of the country) while California (at the other end) is being plagued by deregulation. Any thoughts on the company's game plan?
Florida Power & Light and Tampa Electric both say their supply is adequate and they are in no need of merchant power. So why build the plants here -- a tourist state with a "severe" water shortage and air pollution that ranks fifth worst in the nation? Makes no sense, but it does make cents! Money is the issue, as seen in the arrogant statement made by Enron spokeswoman Les Gibson Sooter, "If we build this plant and it's not needed, then it is our $250-million mistake." No sound company will take a chance or make a mistake in the tune of $250-million without the certainty of profit. Enron denies the money issue and claims it is meeting a "need." I'm sorry, but it is not meeting a need. As these merchant plants start to crop up, they will create a need and then deregulation will be "shoved down our throats!" The money will roll in for them.
Deregulation is causing havoc for the people of California as these merchant plants are making fortunes. Money is not the issue, is it? A basic necessity of life for everyone is being offered to the "highest bidder." Deregulation of electricity is not wanted in Florida along with merchant power plants. Is that plain enough for you, governor?
-- Jack Peter Burlakos, Kenneth City
I was thrilled to read that President Bush believes his proposed tax cut will enable us to pay for the increased cost of gasoline. What a wonderful incentive for the oil companies to lower prices.
Now -- about the millions who will receive nothing under the president's plan. They must have been ecstatic. Talk about fuzzy math!
-- William Bierley, Bayonet Point
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.