From: Greenpeace via Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,alt.activism,sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: NEWS: Washington State Environmentalists Decry Energy Bill
Followup-To: sci.energy,talk.environment
Date: 17 Oct 1992 04:48:25 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

[Greenpeace Press Release from Greenbase -- Redistribute Freely]
  
  HOTLY DEBATED ENERGY STRATEGY LEAVES CONSERVATIONISTS COLD;      
 Groups Call on State to Forge a Brighter Energy Future   
  
SEATTLE September 22, 1992 (GP) Local public interest groups
gathered in Seattle today to highlight failures in the draft
Washington State Energy Strategy and called on the state to turn
off the path of nuclear power and fossil fuel dependence and
onto a path of renewable energy and conservation.
  
The speakers cited that the plan does too little to promote
the priority resources of conservation and renewable energy  
called for in the 1980 Pacific Northwest Power Planning and  
Conservation Act. It also fails to adequately address urgent  
changes needed in transportation of people and goods throughout  
the state, and lacks concrete action on a range of critical  
decisions from global warming and air pollution to the fate
of two mothballed nuclear reactors from the disastrous WPPSS
era of the late 1970s.
  
"As it stands, the proposed strategy would do little to reduce
our dependence on fossil fuels or prevent a repeat of the costly
mistakes of the WPPSS era," said Richard Green, an energy
campaigner for Greenpeace. "What is missing is a definitive
action plan to deliver a clean and sustainable energy future."

"We've heard ten years of talk from the region's utilities and
energy planners,"said K.C. Golden, executive director of the
Northwest Conservation Act Coalition, "Now it's time for some
conservation action." Golden stressed that the Energy Strategy
should encourage conservation in Washington, including requiring
the Bonneville Power Administration to deliver on its promise to
acquire all cost-effective conservation first before building
new power plants.
  
Another message at today's press conference was that the
strategy does little to encourage and promote renewable energy
development in the state. Wind power is already available and
cost-effective. Additionally, electricity generated from wind
turbines would avoid the environmental damage caused by
conventional power plants. All of the speakers insisted that
Washington should pursue a proactive plan to make renewables a
reality, given the overwhelming bias of federal subsidies in
favor of conventional supply.
  
Dave Mozer of the International Bike Fund warned of the growing
toll of air pollution, congestion and lost productivity that has
resulted from our reliance on single occupancy vehicles in the
transportation sector.
  
"Single occupancy vehicles create a hostile environment for
ourselves and our children, regardless of their fuel source,"
said Mozer. "We need more mass transit and bikes, and to
reorganize our communities so we can get to work, school and
shops without using motorized transport."
  
Vehicles are the single largest contributor to rapidly
escalating state global warming emissions. The plan discusses
various approaches to potential climate change including more
studies and a "wait and see" attitude that it admits could be
dangerous, leaving us vulnerable to flooding and drought.
The groups recognized the need for deep cuts in greenhouse
gas emissions, starting with a realistic goal of reducing
carbon dioxide emissions 25 percent by the year 2005.
  
Despite the fact the Trojan plant in Oregon is due to be closed
for economic reasons and the one remaining nuclear plant in
the Northwest (WNP2 at Hanford) produces the most expensive
electricity in the region, two mothballed WPPSS reactors are
reconsidered as well. Recently published polls show the American
public are more opposed to nuclear power than ever before.
  
"Spending millions annually to maintain the mothballed WPPSS
plants represents an ongoing distraction from our priority
resources of conservation and renewables, and a diversion of
much needed funds," said Green. "Rather than throwing good money
after bad the state strategy should take heed of public opinion
in calling for the termination of those plants."
  
The groups reiterated that a strategy of aggressive conservation
programs, development of renewable energy alternatives and
cogeneration, and transit alternatives to more freeway
construction and oil dependency can altogether eliminate the
need for dangerous and polluting forms of energy such as coal,
gas, oil and nuclear power.
  
"Failure to implement visionary energy policies now will cost
us a great deal more in the long run, damaging both our economy
and the environment," said Green.
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive