Gore energy plan stakes out battleground

© 2000 Reuters Limited
June 28, 2000
Story by Randall Mikkelsen

PHILADELPHIA - Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore's $75 billion environment-and-energy package unveiled yesterday is likely to stake out a tough battleground in his contest with Republican George W. Bush.

"The differences couldn't be clearer between the two candidates. It's like the difference between (pioneering naturalist) John Muir and the 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' guy," said Daniel Weiss, political director of the Sierra Club environmental group.

The Sierra Club and other environmental groups gave a warm initial appraisal to outlines of Gore's plan before he announced it with a speech in Philadelphia. Environmental groups said it could help fight global warming and increase energy efficiency.

But the campaign of Republican rival George W. Bush denounced the plan as nothing new and a knee-jerk response to a sudden spike in gasoline prices this election year.

"In a transparent attempt to fix a political problem with voters angry over higher gas prices, Al Gore is offering recycled ideas that will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil," said Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett in a news release.

The Gore plan is aimed at reducing pollution, fighting global warming and weaning the United States from a dependence on foreign oil.

It relies largely on tax incentives for car makers, homeowners and power companies to adopt more efficient technologies such as solar energy in the home, hybrid gasoline and electric powered vehicles and more efficient power plants.

"This has generally been the approach we have articulated," said Ashok Gupta, senior energy economist with the Natural Resources Defence Council, which does not take positions on political campaigns.

"There exists new technology to help improve the environment and any proposal that helps consumers bring that technology into the marketplace is a win," he said.

INCENTIVES VERSUS PENALTIES

Gupta said financial penalties - such as the energy taxes Gore proposed in his 1992 book "Earth in the Balance" and early in the Clinton administration - did not work as well as incentives such as the tax breaks Gore is now proposing.

Such incentives give consumers more access to alternative technologies and speed their adoption, he said.

Michael Oppenheimer, chief scientist of Environmental Defence, said the plan was a welcome development.

"We have been waiting for a long time for a significant initiative from any of the major candidates," he said.

He said incentives to use new technologies were "one component" of the solution to global warming, which he said promised to be "the biggest headache of the 21st century if nothing is done about it."

However, he said, "We're also aware the problems won't be solved without ultimately an explicit limit on emissions that cause global warming."

Bartlett said the plan did little to make up for what he said was a failure by the administration of President Bill Clinton to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, which he said was to blame for a current increase in gasoline prices.

Gore's based his proposals on "things that the Clinton administration has already proposed and been rejected," he said.

CONTRAST BETWEEN BUSH, GORE

Bartlett, speaking on Monday, contrasted the Gore plan with Bush's proposals to reduce U.S. energy dependence by allowing oil exploration in the Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - which is hotly opposed by environmentalists - and ensuring the continued use of hydroelectric power from dams.

He said Bush, as Texas governor, also had been a leader in deregulation of the electric power industry, which he said would ensure the stability of electricity supplies as also sought by Gore, and in using financial incentives to get power plants to operate more efficiently.

Weiss criticised Bush's environmental record as "dismal." He cited what he said was a lack of action in fighting pollution in Texas, Bush's support for drilling in the Alaska refuge and his backing for changes Weiss said would weaken national clean-air legislation.

Weiss said the Sierra Club already had run television ads critical of Bush on the environment, but that the group had not yet endorsed a presidential candidate, in keeping with its practice of not doing so before September. The Sierra Club backed the Clinton-Gore campaigns in 1992 and 1996, he said.