Bush diverts Envio $'s to Fossil Fuels-makes hydrogen plan as dirty as oil

[papau]

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=31606 >

BUSH DIVERTING ENVIRO FUNDS INTO FOSSIL FUELS

President Bush yesterday tried to deflect questions about his environmental record by claiming that he supports efforts to reduce America's fossil fuel usage (1). He said he had "introduced ideas like a hydrogen-powered automobile, put money behind it and research behind it" so that so that we will be "less dependent on foreign sources of energy" and we will "improve the environment." But Bush's hydrogen-automobile proposal is purposely engineered to be fossil fuel dependent, and it is paid for by taking money out of programs that are actually reducing fossil fuel use.

As Mother Jones reported, "the Bush Administration has been working quietly to ensure that the system used to produce hydrogen will be as fossil fuel-dependent - and potentially as dirty - as the one that fuels today's SUVs. According to the administration's National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap, drafted last year in concert with the energy industry, up to 90% of all hydrogen will be refined from oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels" (2). Such a system, experts say, would effectively eliminate most of the benefits offered by hydrogen because the Bush plan's use of oil/coal/gas to create fuel cells would generate large amounts of pollution. Not surprisingly, such a system would insure the massive profits of the energy industry, which bankrolls Bush's campaign (3).

Bush is, in part, paying for this fossil-fuel-based program by stripping funding from programs that are actually reducing fossil fuel use in America. As AP reported, Bush moved money into his hydrogen program at the same timehe "ended an eight-year program to help automakers develop high-mileage,family size cars" such as the successful hybrids now beginning to permeate the U.S. market (4). Additionally, Bush proposed reducing "federal funding for renewable energy and efficiency research program by more than $200 million in 2002" (5).

Sources:
1. President Bush Touts Benefits of Health Care Information Technology,04/27/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=31607.
2. "Hydrogen's Dirty Secret", Mother Jones, May/June 2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=31608.
3. OpenSecrets.Org,http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=31609.
4. "Bush abandons high-mileage car program for hydrogen fuel-cell approach",Environmental News Network, 01/10/2002, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=31610.
5. "Proposed Bush Budget Cuts Renewables and Energy Efficiency Programs",Resources for the Future, 04/11/2001,http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=31611.

[havocmom]

1. system used to make hydrogen will be dirtier because

most people will actually think it is a 'clean' fuel and will foolishly support what amounts to as same ol dirt from the same ol industries making $$ the same ol way - destroying the air, water, earth and all who share it.

I have talked to several people about this and they were very surprised when they found out the same extraction empires were gonna be the ones hauling in the $$ for hydrogen. Always get the same question: Isn't there another way to get it.

Always give the same answer: Yes, but a different technology would be used so a different set of people would be getting the $$. The folks getting the $$ now are not about to let it happen. Remember back when Carter wanted us to wean the nation off energy dependence on other nations? There were tax credits given for the purchase and use of alternative energy sources and folks starting using solar, wind and water to get off the gird. Well that sure changed when Reagan and crew took over. It is all about the $$ and who gets it.

I would like very much to feel the youngsters I work with today will have a decent planet to live out their lives on, but I am sadly not counting on it.

[papau]

2. I agree that the problem can not be solved with Corporate owned GOP but

I still hold out hope that Dems will be able to reverse.

The Gore/Clinton funded mid-size sedan 65 mph gas engine car was 2 years from use when Bush killed the funding.

Add in the hybred tech and after 8 years of a Dem we have an interm solution.

The hydrogren via non-fossile fuels may be replaced via the oil from waste tech if we learn to scale it up at a reasonable cost (also solves some of the landfill problem!)

Don't give up Hope! :toast: :-)

Although I think I will if Bush is given 4 more years.

:-(

[havocmom]

3. Give up? Never! My family calls me Crusader Rabbit

Been working hard to show people the environment can be safe and we can create new employment opportunities doing it IF we just wrestle control of the government from the control of the industries who have bet everything on maintaining the current energy sources.

And I do see some progress. Some folks are finding better ways to build homes and rely less on the meter to keep them comfy. It's a small victory, but I see it more and more. There are technologies that have been in use in Europe for decades finally getting applied here. As more people wake up to the possibilities in building energy wise homes, more might just start sniffing into the vehicle fuel possibilities.

And it is not just the bush* junta having 4 more years that we need to prevent. We have to replace the puppets in Congress with people who will see beyond what they can deposit into their bank accounts today.

We need to get progressives on school boards so schools will stop this slide into useless arguments about 'intelligent design' being science and start making sure real science classes start sparking kids' natural imagination. Who knows what these kids can invent and developer if we can take their education out of the hands of xtian Tailban radicals wanting to send us back to the dark ages.

Sorry about the rant, but I see that it is all connected. There is much to do but it actually is pretty simple, once the dominate power elite is relieved of their stranglehold on us and our future.

[treepig]

4. ok, this thread appears appropriate for a re-posting

of this story of now-unknown-origin (but don't worry, i'm confident it's not copywritten - that much i remember):

By Dave Neads

The Other Side of the Story

President George Bush has launched a hydrogen initiative as part of his administration’s Clean Air policy. Touted as the new fuel of the future because it is abundant and clean burning, hydrogen technology could be the way to solve the problems created by traditional fuels. The device that will be used for the conversion of hydrogen to energy will most likely be the fuel cell which could -- and should -- be produced in an environmentally sensitive manner. A look at the other side of the story shows how political machinations are subverting the process of fuel cell production and ultimately, the hydrogen dream. One of the essential elements in the construction of hydrogen fuel cells is a group of palladium isotopes called palladium group metals or PGMs for short. These metals speed up the hydrogen oxygen reaction inside fuel cells while decreasing the amount of corrosion that occurs.

In a deal recently brokered by presidents Bush and Putin, Norelisk Nickel, a major Russian producer of nickel, took over Stillwater Mining Co. which has major palladium mines in Nye, Montana. Immediately we’re off to a bad start -- Norelisk Nickel is known to be a notorious polluter in its home operations. Satellite imagery shows 100 mile long plumes spreading from Norelisk’s smelting operations in northern Siberia. Estimates are that two million acres of forest are affected or killed annually by the two million tons of sulphur dioxide the smelter releases into the atmosphere each year.
Meanwhile, in the U.S., Norelisk Nickel hired a law firm run by former Secretary of State and Bush family friend, James Baker, to obtain regulatory approval for the deal. With that in the bag, Norelisk named five new directors to Stillwater’s previous board. These new appointments are American and are pro-Bush friends and supporters.

Now that they control the primary production of palladium, Norelisk will be able to significantly influence the price of these precious metals. The potential for increased profits is huge. The brokering of this inside deal driven by political expediency is potentially the first of many such ‘arrangements’ to emerge under the Clean Air Policy based on the hydrogen dream.

U.S. domestic coal fields are expected to be part of the energy sources used to produce hydrogen. Big coal is expecting windfall profits from these deals. The nuclear industry has also been lining up to be involved in the hydrogen process. Coal and nuclear, both proven in the past to be very dirty and very harmful, have been the target of huge campaigns in the past decades. But now under the guise of being part of the clean, non-polluting hydrogen initiative they are receiving new life and opportunity. For example, the U.S. Senate recently passed a bill that will give an $8 billion subsidy to fossil fuel production, especially coal bed methane. This is twice the amount set aside for renewable energy sources such as wind, tidal and solar.

Forward thinking that cared about the health of the nation would use non-polluting energy sources to produce hydrogen. Instead, the push is to go back to yesterday’s fuels that have already created a plethora of unhealthy conditions from asthma to global warming. The promise of hydrogen-based energy is that these problems would be reduced; yet the reliance on traditional polluters in the implementation of these new technologies could destroy the hydrogen dream. The Clean Air Initiative may simply become another profit-making scam for the same old grou

[AbsolutMauser]

5. A question of redistribution of pollutants

The difference between hydrogen cars + dirty hydrogen production vs. gasoline cars is that the former will tend to transfer pollution production to a smaller area.

Automobiles produce a lot of the pollution in big cities, where people suffer the most from the effects of pollution. Replacing gasoline cars with hydrogen cars, even if the hydrogen production is dirty, will improve air quality in places where there are a lot of automobiles.

Also, if we get the hydrogen car infrastructure up and running, it's a much shorter leap to cleaner hydrogen production. Instead of doing it all at once, you get people into hydrogen cars first, and then focus on dismantling the reliance on fossil fuels.

In the interim, everyone in auto-heavy cities is breathing easier.

~AbM

[treepig]

6. if you have access to the may 2004 scientific american

they have a fairly comprehensive comparision of different energy sources, focusing on output of emissions. depending on the source of hydrogen, hydrogen is actually one of the highest polluting forms of energy to use as a source of energy for automobiles

if you have online access to scientific american, go here:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000600B1-1A4E-1085-94F483414B7F0000

if you don't, it might not be a bad way to spend $4.95 (and you also get a scathing editorial about bush's science policies for your money).

[NNadir]

7. Thanx for pointing out that article. It was a pretty good review of

hydrogen. I think it could have been stronger if it had covered hydrogen as a chemical intermediate, though. It also more or less ignored thermochemical decompositon of water as a source of hydrogen.

It was excellent however it pointing up the transport, safety, and efficiency issues associated with hydrogen fuel. It would be a disaster to use hydrogen directly in automobiles, and Bush's proposal to the contrary demonstrates exactly how scientifically illiterate he is.