New York City, May 26, 2005

Mr. Samuel W Bodman wrote to the New York Times May 19, 2005, and his
letter
was printed in today’s paper. His letter relates to the NYT editorial
of
May 19, 2005 - “Climate Signals”. The editorial, kindly, said that the
President was “passive” in what concerns Climate Change and the head of
D.O.E. thinks that this is “not accurate”.

The mentioned NYT editorial, and follow up editorials in the
International
Herald Tribune and the Toronto Star, were the subject of the May 20,
2005 LINK), and thus we review the Secretary’s letter with the lantern of
truth
in our hand. Is the Secretary informed on the the subject how the
world
looks at the US position regarding climate change and the Kyoto
Protocol?
Is his letter expressing dreams or reality? Are his quotes right? We
will
bring out his arguments and put our comments in parenthesis.

1. - “we are working to develop zero-emission power plants through the
$1
billion Future Gen program”
(there may be a program, there may be money spent, but any indication
that
we are about to attain this by means other then wind-mills or
ocean-wave
technologies, is at this stage, well, a dream of building a castle in
Spain.
To the best of our knowledge the administration thinks of coal and
nuclear -
the first hardly a base for zero emissions, the second very problematic
with
the environmentalists and those afraid of impact of nuclear accidents
or
terrorism).

2. - “we are investing $2 billion in ‘Clean coal’ technologies”
(the spending as above - the reality - there is no “clean coal
technology”
because the burning of coal must produce CO2 which is a GHG. The
possibility of carbon sequestration, or the removal of the CO2 at
source,
and burying it underground, is - well - just talk at this time).

3. - “we are working to create incentives for the construction of more
clean, safe, and reliable, nuclear power plants”
(well - this is what we said in point one - it is good music for the
ears of
Westinghouse folks that were not able to build a nuclear plant in the
US for
decades - people just don’t want them in their neighborhood).

4. - “the comments made by Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE, are proof
that
the free-market approach advocated by the President works”
(this is a complete misstatement of what Immelt said - the gentleman
made it
clear that in order to achieve the needed goals mandatory steps must be
introduced by the government because voluntary steps are indeed rare.
The steps taken by GE are not because of Washington’s help, but
in-spite of
Washington’s inaction - Mr. Bodman, please just read what the whole
world
had to say on this subject immediately after the GE announcement).

5. - “our government has taken a global leadership role in developing
technologies to reduce emissions. America has the largest carbon
sequestration program in the world, and in 2003 we founded the
international
carbon sequestration leadership forum”
(that is dandy - but how many tons of CO2 will be put away by this
program
by 2007 when others will already have initiated real programs to
decrease
emissions? Talk is cheap, even when billions are dished out to the
wrong
people for the wrong reasons. We have a long history of doing just
that
when dealing with oil, coal, and nuclear industry interests - so what
is the
news that propelled the Secretary to the nearest mail box?).

The bottom line is that nothing seems to have changed - our energy
policy
remains - imports of oil from abroad and sending US troops to safeguard
the
sources of oil as shown by the administration’s passivity, yes
passivity we
said, when given a way out. The way out is: take seriously, please,
the
threat from climate change in order to justify the anyway needed
disengagement from imported oil. Understanding this will send the
Secretary
to look at conservation and a myriad changes in the way we create
things,
then for the supply side look at the wind, the sun, the waves and the
butterflies. He may even be able to see again stars in the sky at
night.
For a start, Mr. Bodman, could you phone McCain and Lieberman?