Energy at the Crossroads - Talking Points

The National Energy Bill

· The bill is still tilted heavily toward helping traditional energy industries including coal, oil and natural gas companies with little to encourage energy efficiency. Less than $500 million in tax incentives are directed at renewable energy and efficiency programs. It does not address improvements in automobile fuel economy.

· The legislation would boost production of corn-based ethanol, a boon to farmers, by requiring refiners to use at least 5 billion gallons a year as a gasoline additive. Proponents maintain it will reduce the need for oil imports. Currently the industry produces about 3.7 billion gallons annually.

· The bill also contains two controversial provisions that - if pursued in the Senate - would likely prompt a filibuster: a green light to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, and a shield for makers of the gasoline additive MTBE against product liability lawsuits.

· The government estimates about 10.4 billion barrels of oil beneath the refuge's coastal plain. Environmentalists complain oil drilling will harm caribou, migratory birds and other wildlife.

· The House bill also would:

o -Provide more favorable tax treatment for expanding or modernizing the electricity grid, and for building more natural gas pipelines.

o -Establish mandatory electricity grid reliability rules.

o -Give a 20 percent tax credit up to $2,000 to homeowners who put in more energy efficient windows, doors and insulation.

o -Require the Energy Department to stop oil from being added to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if oil prices dip below $40 a barrel.

o -Give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission clear final authority to approve liquefied natural gas import terminals, even over state or local objections.

o -Allow the Environmental Protection Agency to extend compliance deadlines for cities to meet federal smog standards if they show most of the pollution comes from outside the region.

For more on the National Energy Bill legislation, see “House Set to Pass Energy Bill” By H. JOSEF HEBERT http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050414/ap_on_go_co/energy_bill

Energy Consumption:

• Though accounting for only 5 percent of the world's population, Americans consume 26 percent of the world's energy. (American Almanac)
• Worldwide, some 2 billion people are currently without electricity. (U.S. Department of Energy)
• Total U.S. residential energy consumption is projected to increase 17 percent from 1995 - 2015. (U.S. Energy Information Administration)
• World energy consumption is expected to increase 40% to 50% by the year 2010, and the global mix of fuels--renewables (18%), nuclear (4%), and fossil (78%)--is projected to remain substantially the same as today; thus global carbon dioxide emissions would also increase 50% to 60%.
• Among industrialized and developing countries, Canada consumes per capita the most energy in the world, the United Sates ranks second, and Italy consumes the least among industrialized countries.
• Developing countries use 30% of global energy. Rapid population growth, combined with economic growth, will rapidly increase that percentage in the next 10 years.
• America uses about 15 times more energy per person than does the typical developing country.
• Residential appliances, including heating and cooling equipment and water heaters, consume 90% of all energy used in the U.S. residential sector.
• The United States spends about $440 billion annually for energy. Energy costs U.S. consumers $200 billion and U.S. manufacturers $100 billion annually.

For more stats on energy consumption see, www.solarenergy.org

Oil

• The United States now accounts for about a quarter of world oil consumption
• Annual oil consumption in China is growing seven times faster than in the United States. China plans to import half its oil by 2020, the Chinese Peoples Daily quoted a Chinese official as saying shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
• The tipping point in America's long-term security occurred more than 30 years ago when the U.S. passed the point of oil self-sufficiency in 1970, and we have been an importer of oil ever since.
• According to a 2001 report by the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, OPEC had spare production capacity of 25% of global demand in 1985, but by 1990 it had fallen to 8%, and today it stands at a mere 2%. This leaves little margin for error in a global economy growing oil demand at 2% annually, raising the chances of an oil supply crisis with more substantial consequences than those seen in the past. That is why we have $50 oil.
• The Energy Information Administration figures the average price of a gallon will peak at $2.35 cents in May. It will be a lot higher in many places. Gasoline in the West, for example, is often 18 to 25 cents higher than the national average.
• High prices are not making people drive less. The statistical agency projects demand for gasoline this summer to be 1.8 percent higher than last summer.
• According to the most reliable figures published by the US Geological Survey, found in their 1998 assessment1, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) contains somewhere between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels of oil (Gb), with the most likely figure being somewhere in the neighborhood of 10.4 Gb. Recoverable reserves are estimated to lie between 4.3 and 11.8 Gb, with a mean value of 7.7 Gb.
• The United States consumed 7.3 Gb of oil in 2003. So, under the best circumstances ANWR could only supply us with a little over one year and a half worth of oil.
• ANWR is only the most noticeable tip of the iceberg here, as the White House and Congress are working together to open our entire remaining wilderness to resource production. Other prominent targets include opening protected lands in the Rocky Mountain fore-thrust and elsewhere to energy production, and opening all of our national forests to logging.
• The United States Geological Survey has estimated that the Arctic oil field is likely to be at least half the size of the Prudhoe Bay oil field, almost 100 miles to the west. Opening that oil field was like hitting a grand slam: Prudhoe Bay, which has already produced more than 13 billion barrels, is the biggest American oil field.
• The geological survey estimates that the Arctic refuge could produce at least half as much oil as Prudhoe Bay. It is also possible, however, that the refuge could produce no oil at all - it often happens in the oil industry. At the other extreme, the upper range of the geological survey's estimate soars to 16 billion barrels.
• Despite its size, Prudhoe Bay was not big enough to reverse the decline of American oil production. The greatest year of United States production was 1970. Prudhoe Bay started producing oil in 1977, but never enough to raise American production above the level of 1970. The Arctic refuge will probably have an even smaller effect. Every little bit helps, but even the most successful drilling project at the Arctic refuge would be only a little bit.

For more on oil and gasoline demand, see “Chevron Texaco's CEO banking on peak oil situation,” by David Lazarus http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/04/08/BUGA4C50P61.DTL

And “Oil Reserves: True National Security,” by Kenneth Reid http://www.forbes.com/investmentnewsletters/2005/04/11/cz_kr_0411soapbox_inl.html

Also, “$2.35 Will Be Peak For Average Gas Prices, Agency Says, Spike Will Reach Highest Level In May, Analysts Say” at www.TheBostonChannel.com

And for more information on proposed drilling in ANWR, see “Nominee favors drilling in reserve Energy secretary candidate would support Alaskan project” By TOM DOGGETT and CHRIS BALTIMORE at HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Energy

Coal

• By 2012, the [coal fired power] plants in three key countries - China, India, and the United States - are expected to emit as much as an extra 2.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide, according to a Monitor analysis of power-plant construction data. In contrast, Kyoto countries by that year are supposed to have cut their CO2 emissions by some 483 million tons.
• About 100 miles north of Reno, outside a desert town named Gerlach, a subsidiary of San Diego-based Sempra Energy is proposing to build a coal-fired power plant that could supply enough electricity to California and the Pacific Northwest to light up 1.5 million homes. Nearby, green-power advocates are pushing an equally ambitious proposal to harness the force of the wind, as well as the heat of the sun and the Earth's core, to create enough electricity to power 1.2 million homes. Both proposals would connect to the same high-voltage transmission line in order to move electricity to consumers. But there is only enough space left on the electrical freeway for one of the two — at least at the current sizes. So government regulators and politicians must make a choice.
• More than 100 coal-fired power plants are being proposed across the U.S., as energy companies seek to take advantage of electricity shortages and a coal-friendly regulatory climate in Washington to revive a source of power that had fallen out of favor due to its polluting emissions.
• “Clean Coal?”
• When I ran for President in 2000, I pledged to invest $2 billion over 10 years to promote research into clean coal technologies. I kept my promise. My budget for 2006 brings clean coal funding to $1.6 billion over five years, and that puts us on pace to exceed my pledge by more than 50 percent. It's an important pledge, because I believe by utilizing the brains of America, like those I met at Battelle, we can come up with ways to burn coal cleanly. --George W. Bush, March 9, 2005
• The Bush administration currently spends about $400 million a year on coal research
• Here's how it works: In a type of power plant called an integrated gasification combined-cycle facility, we change any fossil fuel, including coal, into a superhot gas that is rich in hydrogen - and in the process strip out pollutants like sulfur and mercury. As in a traditional combustion power plant, the heat generates large amounts of electricity; but in this case, the gas byproducts can be pure streams of hydrogen and carbon dioxide. This matters for several reasons. The hydrogen produced could be used as a transportation fuel. Equally important, the harmful carbon dioxide waste is in a form that can be pumped deep underground and stored, theoretically for millions of years, in old oil and gas fields or saline aquifers. This process is called geologic storage, or carbon sequestration, and recent field demonstrations in Canada and Norway have shown it can work and work safely.
• About half the nation's electricity is already generated by coal-fired plants, so there's an infrastructure for coal in place.

For more on coal and proposed coal fired power plants, see “Energy Quest Sets Up Power Struggle” by Miguel Bustillo http://www.latimes.com/news/local/valley/la-me-power10apr10,1,768239.story?coll=la-editions-valley&ctrack=1&cset=true

For information on clean coal technologies, see “Clean coal: A good investment?” By Katie Benner, http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/18/news/economy/coal/

Energy Efficiency:

· By taking appropriate energy-saving measures, by 2010 the United States can have an energy system that reduces costs by $530 per household per year and reduces global warming pollutant emissions to 10 percent below 1990 levels. (Energy Innovations report)

· Just by using the "off the shelf" energy-efficient technologies available today, we could cut the cost of heating, cooling, and lighting our homes and workplaces by up to 80%. (U.S. Department of Energy and Maryland Energy Administration)

· Replacing one incandescent lightbulb with an energy-saving compact fluorescent bulb means 1,000 pounds less carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere and $67 dollars is saved on energy costs over the bulb's lifetime. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Alliance to Save Energy)

· A decrease of only 1% in industrial energy use would save the equivalent of about 55 million barrels of oil per year, worth about $1 billion.

For more facts on energy efficiency, see www.solarenergy.org

Useful Energy Conservation Tips

Flex Your Power

http://www.earth911.org/master.asp?s=lib&a=Energy/Conservation/FlexYourPower/flexyourpower.html

For Consumers:

1. In the winter, turn your thermostats down to 68 degrees or below. Reduce the setting to 55 degrees before going to sleep or when leaving for the day. (For each 1 degree you turn down the thermostat in the winter, you'll save up to 5% on your heating costs.)

2. Turn off non-essential lights and appliances. The electricity generated by fossil fuels for a single home puts more carbon dioxide into the air than two average cars!

3. Avoid running large appliances such as washers, dryers, and electric ovens during peak energy demand hours from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

4. Close shades and blinds at night to reduce the amount of heat lost through windows. This also applies during the day for warm climates.

5. Buy Energy Star appliances, products and lights.

Tips for Kids and Teachers:

1. Choose an energy monitor for your classroom every week who will make sure that energy is being used properly.

2. At home, hold a ribbon up to the edges of windows and doors. If it blows, you've found a leak. Tell your parents.

3. When you leave the room, turn off the light.

Here are some more detailed tips to help you conserve energy.

Solar Tips

• Keep all south-facing glass clean.
• Make sure that objects do not block the sunlight shining on concrete slab floors or heat-absorbing walls.
• Consider using insulating curtains to reduce excessive heat loss from large windows at night.

Indoor Lighting Tips

• Turn off the lights in any room you are not using and consider installing timers, photo cells, or occupancy sensors to reduce the amount of time your lights are on.
• Use task lighting; instead of brightly lighting an entire room, focus the light where you need it. For example, use fluorescent under-cabinet lighting for kitchen sinks and countertops under cabinets.
• Consider three-way lamps. They make it easier to keep lighting levels low when bright light is not necessary.
• Use 4-foot fluorescent fixtures with reflective backing and electronic ballasts for your workroom, garage, and laundry areas.
• Consider using 4-watt mini-fluorescent or electro-luminescent night lights. Both lights are much more efficient than their incandescent counterparts, and the luminescent lights are cool to the touch.

Energy Alternatives

Hybrid electric vehicles (hybrids)

• Over the next three years, the number of hybrid models will increase to almost 20, and by 2012, there could possibly be more than 50 models.
• Even under a business-as-usual scenario, the global market for hybrids is by one estimate 4.5 million units by 2013 -- perhaps $65 billion in the U.S. alone in just eight years' time
• With both an internal combustion engine and a battery-operated electric motor, hybrids can achieve up to twice the fuel economy of a conventional car and produce30 to 50 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to reducing our dependence on oil and improving the environment, hybrids can offer cost savings over the lifetime of vehicle ownership.
• They get their driving power from both an internal combustion engine and a battery-powered electric motor, which results in greater fuel efficiency and cleaner emissions than most conventional cars. And unlike other alternative fuel vehicles, hybrids use standard gasoline pumps for refueling.
• New York City has purchased over 650 Toyota Prius vehicles for use in a range of municipal agencies, such as the Departments of Parks and Recreation, Health, Buildings, and Transportation.
• In Martin County, Florida, the Sheriff’s Office uses 11 Priuses and 8 hybrid Civics for non-emergency tasks. The county estimates that it saves an average of $103 a month in gasoline, compared with the performance of the Crown Victoria — the typical police fleet vehicle — which gets only about 11 mpg.
• King County, Washington saw hybrids as a good way to meet their alternative fuel program goals in a cost effective and convenient manner. The county purchased 60 Toyota Priuses between 2001 and 2003. In a customer survey, King County employees expressed considerable satisfaction with these vehicles (4.6 on a 5-point scale). Employees in King County have so enjoyed driving the hybrid vehicles that many request these cars while on the job, and many have chosen to purchase hybrids for personal use.

For more on Hybrid Vehicles see, “Harnessing the Power of ADVANCED FLEET VEHICLES” A Hybrid Electric Vehicle Fact Sheet for Government Officials at http://www.naco.org/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm?ContentID=11481

And “Hybrids and the Future of Detroit” by Roland Hwang http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/pautomotive.asp

Wind and solar

· Wind power is the fastest-growing energy source in the world. (Worldwatch Institute)

· The wind in North Dakota alone could produce a third of America's electricity. (The Official Earth Day Guide to Planet Repair)

· Wind power has the potential to supply a large fraction--probably at least 20%--of U.S. electricity demand at an economical price.

· In 1990, California's wind power plants offset the emission of more than 2.5 billion pounds of carbon dioxide, and 15 million pounds of other pollutants that would have otherwise been produced.

· Providing power for villages in developing countries is a fast-growing market for photovoltaics. The United Nations estimates that more than 2 million villages worldwide are without electric power for water supply, refrigeration, lighting, and other basic needs, and the cost of extending the utility grids is prohibitive, $23,000 to $46,000 per kilometer in 1988.

· A one kilowatt Photovoltaic (PV) system each month:

o prevents 150 lbs. of coal from being mined

o prevents 300 lbs. of CO2 from entering the atmosphere

o keeps 105 gallons of water from being consumed

o keeps NO and SO2 from being released into the environment

For more on wind and solar power, see www.solarenergy.org

Alternative Energy Potential

• About 1.7 billion people in developing nations do not have electricity, but as the cost of solar cells declines, it often is cheaper to provide electricity from solar cells than from a centralized source.
• At the end of 2002, more than 1 million homes in villages in the developing world were getting their electricity from solar cells. But this is less than 1 percent of the estimated 1.7 billion people who do not have electricity. The principal obstacle slowing the spread of solar-cell installations is not the cost, but the lack of small-scale credit programs to finance them. As this credit shortfall is overcome, purchases of solar cells could climb far above the rate of recent years.
• In Japan, where companies have commercialized a solar roofing material, some 70,000 homes now have solar installations. Japan leads in solar-cell manufacturing and controls 43 percent of the global solar-cell market; residential installations produced roughly 100 megawatts in 2001.
• In industrial nations, most installations reduce the consumer’s dependence on grid-supplied electricity, much of it originating from coal.
• Germany produced 75 megawatts that year, and the European Union, led by Germany’s vigorous program, is in second place behind Japan with 25 percent of the world’s total output. The United States is third — with 32 megawatts of installations and 24 percent of the market. India is fourth with 18 megawatts.
• Over the last seven years, solar-cell sales expanded an average of 31 percent annually, doubling every 2.6 years. Only modest government incentives are needed to accelerate the growth of solar power and make it a major player in the world energy economy.

For more on alternative energy sources, see “Turning on Renewable Energy” By Lester R. Brown http://www.motherearthnews.com/renewable_energy/2004_April_May/Turning_on_Renewable_Energy

Energy, Ecology, and the Economy

• An alliance of labor, environmental, civil rights, business, and political leaders have laid out a vision for a "New Apollo Project" to create 3.3 million new jobs and achieve energy independence in ten years.
• These jobs include new, high-wage jobs for manufacturing, construction, transportation, high-tech, and public sector workers, while reducing dependence on imported oil and cleaning the air. A New Apollo Project would also position the U.S. to take the lead in fast- growing markets, dramatically reduce the trade deficit and more than pay for itself in energy savings and returns to the U.S. Treasury.
• Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) said, "The New Apollo Energy Project is an opportunity for a bold new energy policy that can free us from our over-dependence on Middle East oil, expand the economy, and address environmental challenges. We should call for a total national commitment to harness the genius of America's can-do attitude that would design, invent and deploy the new clean energy technologies that benefit this new century. No single national endeavor has such capacity to expand our economy by tapping our innate and unique technological genius for innovation, and creating millions of new jobs."
• A report issued by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley concluded, "Across a broad range of scenarios, the renewable energy sector generates more jobs per average megawatt of power installed, and per unit of energy produced, than the fossil fuel-based energy sector… All states of the Union stand to gain in terms of net employment from the implementation of a portfolio of clean energy policies at the federal level."
• The UC Berkeley report found that a comprehensive, coordinated energy policy works best, emphasizing not only renewable energy sources but also energy efficiency and sustainable transportation. These "yield far greater employment benefits than supporting one or two of these sectors separately."
• The study considered all types of job creation, both direct — those created in the manufacturing, delivery, construction and installation, project management and operation and maintenance of the different components of the technology or power plant under consideration — and indirect, that is, those induced through multiplier effects of the industry under consideration. Installing wind turbines, for example, is a direct job, while jobs created to manufacture the steel used to build the wind turbine are indirect jobs.
• In the scenario assuming most renewable energy comes from biomass burning, this could amount to as many as 240,000 new jobs created by 2020, versus no more than 75,000 new jobs if the country sticks to fossil fuels.
• According to Greenpeace-USA, North Dakota alone has enough to produce 1.2 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity each year, which amounts to 32 percent of the total U.S. electricity consumption in 2002.

For more on energy and the econmy, see “Clean Energy and Efficiency Investments Would Create 3.3 Million High-Wage Jobs, Says Study” http://www.greenbiz.com/news/news_third.cfm?NewsID=26314

And, “Report finds that renewable energy promotes U.S. job growth better than investment in fossil fuels” http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/renewables.press.pdf

US Arms Race - Against Ourselves?--Talking Points

Arms Sales and Transfers

Countries worldwide agreed to nearly $26 billion in new arms purchases last year and made actual transfers worth almost $29 billion.
The United States accounted for more than half of all new arms sales agreements in 2003, as global arms sales declined for the third year in a row, while U.S. sales rose for the second year running.
According to the Congressional Research Service, between 2000 and 2003 -- the last year for which accurate figures are available -- worldwide arms sales totaled $148 billion. The US share amounted to $76 billion, more than the rest of the world combined
Since 1996, the United States has concluded $105 billion in arms sales, while its closest competitor, Russia, amassed only $40 billion in new deals.
Although Russia has orchestrated an upswing in its arms sales since the late 1990s, China and India account for most of the deals, and they are increasingly looking to produce their own weapons and exploring new partners with which to do business. New Delhi is testing the waters with Israel and the United States, while Beijing is trying to persuade Europe to scrap its almost 15-year-old arms embargo on Beijing. (See ACT, September 2004.)
While the president criticizes Europe for wanting to sell arms to China, which still has an egregious human rights record, the United States consistently exports arms to some of the worst human rights offenders. In 2003 alone, 46.2 percent of US arms sales went to the developing world, many to regimes in volatile regions with poor human rights records.
For example, the Middle East: In the last four years, the United States sold more than $12 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Kuwait, none of which meets any criteria for democratic governance or has a sterling record on human rights.
In the last four years it delivered $3 billion in arms to Israel, the second largest arms provider to China after Russia. It has never put pressure on Russia to reduce its arms sales to China.
In 1999, Congress passed the International Arms Sales Code of Conduct Act, which required the administration to begin negotiations on international agreement criteria for arms transfers. But the Bush administration, like the Clinton administration before it, has made little progress. Instead, most of their efforts in this area appear to involve relaxing export controls.
Our arms transfers have indirectly strengthened violent groups and problematic regimes in Afghanistan, Colombia, Haiti, and Liberia, contributing to widespread human rights violations and instability. Many of the weapons used by the Taliban and Al Qaeda to fight US troops during military operations in Afghanistan were originally sold to insurgents by the United States in the 1980s.
Small Arms kill an estimated 500,000 people every year, injuring many times more. There are approximately 500 million small arms in circulation around the world

For more information on global arms sales, see “Global Arms Market Still U.S. Domain” by Wade Boese http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_10/Grimmett.asp?print

And, “US Should Set Example on Limiting Arms Exports” by Lawrence Korb and Caroline Wadhams http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/03/27/us_should_set_example_on_limiting_arms_exports/


Intelligence and ‘The Strategy’

The National Defense Strategy released March 18, 2005: cites four major threats to the United States: traditional, irregular, catastrophic and disruptive.
Traditional challenges are posed by well known and recognized military powers using "well-understood' forms of war.
The irregular threats come from forces using "unconventional" methods to counter stronger power.
The catastrophic challenge concerns the use of weapons of mass destruction by an enemy.
Disruptive refers to potential adversaries utilizing new technologies to counter U.S. advantages.
The paper outlined four major strategic objectives.
Securing the United States from direct attack is first on the list.
Securing access by the United States and its partners to key regions and lines of communications is the second major objective.
The third objective stresses strengthening alliances. "We will help partners increase their capacity to defend themselves and collectively meet challenges to our common interests," the document reads.
The fourth objective urges the creation of a favorable international system, which would help to foster, "a common appreciation of threats, the steps required to protect against these threats and a broad, secure, and lasting peace."
The strategy calls for four implementation guidelines. The first step calls for an active, layered defense.
Two of the main threats will come from "problem states" and "non-state actors." The document refers to "problem states" as those who "disregard international law and violate international agreements." The non-state actors are described as "a diverse collection of terrorists, insurgents, paramilitaries and criminals who seek to undermine the legitimate governance of some states and who challenge the United States and its interests."

For more information see “Pentagon plans new defense strategy for nation” by Dennis Ryan at: http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/10_12/national_news/33962-1.html

Nuclear Weapons and Space

Dollars the US spends per day on maintaining its nuclear arsenal: $100 Million
Number of nuclear weapons in the world: 30,000
8 countries (US, Russia, China, Great Britain, France, Pakistan, India and Israel) possess nuclear weapons. In the worst case scenario, a nuclear weapon launched could reach the US within minutes.
Number of countries capable of developing nuclear weapons: 44
More than 4,500 warheads remain on hair trigger alert.
The US and Russia possess over 95 percent of all nuclear weapons. More than 4,500 warheads remain on hair-trigger alert.
Pounds of fissile material necessary to build a crude nuclear bomb: 8-10
As little as 8 lbs of plutonium is needed to build a bomb. A missile is not needed to deliver such a device; a tugboat or truck could be used.
Number of accidents, false alarms, and malfunctions involving U.S. nuclear weapons before 1980 according to the U.S. government: 32 . Several of these have put us on the brink of accidental nuclear war.
The Pentagon is developing a suborbital space capsule that could hit targets anywhere in the world within two hours of being launched from U.S. bases. It also is developing systems that could attack potential enemy satellites, destroying them or temporarily preventing them from sending signals.
Krepon last week attended a conference in Geneva organized by the Chinese and Russian governments on preventing an arms race in outer space. Moscow and Beijing have for years promoted a new treaty to govern arms in space, since the current international agreement prohibits only nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction in space.
Analyzing the proposed Pentagon fiscal 2006 budget just sent to Congress, Theresa Hitchens, vice president of the Center for Defense Information, and her colleagues pointed to $60.9 million for an experimental XXS spacecraft whose "microsatellite payloads" could attack enemy satellites. Another $68 million is earmarked for a Near Field Infrared Experiment that would use infrared technology to disable enemy satellite transmissions.
As another defensive measure, the United States last October announced deployment of its first mobile, ground-based system that can temporarily disrupt communications from an enemy satellite. The Counter Communications System uses electromagnetic radio frequency energy to silence transmissions from a satellite in a way that is reversible. Two more units are due later this year.

For more Nuclear Facts, see: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/broken.arrows/intro.html

For more on weapons in space, see: “Plans by U.S. to Dominate Space Raising Concerns Arms Experts Worried at Pentagon Push for Superiority” By Walter Pincus
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7995-2005Mar28.html

The US and the Non-Proliferation Treaty

Renewal talks for the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are scheduled for May, yet the United States and other nuclear powers seem indifferent to its fate. This is remarkable, considering the addition of Iran and North Korea as states that either possess or seek nuclear weapons programs.
So far the preparatory committee for the forthcoming NPT talks has failed even to achieve an agenda because of the deep divisions between nuclear powers that refuse to meet their own disarmament commitments and the nonnuclear movement.
Until recently all American presidents since Dwight Eisenhower had striven to restrict and reduce nuclear arsenals -- some more than others. So far as I know, there are no present efforts by any of the nuclear powers to accomplish these crucial goals.
While claiming to be protecting the world from proliferation threats in Iraq, Libya, Iran and North Korea, American leaders not only have abandoned existing treaty restraints but also have asserted plans to test and develop new weapons, including anti-ballistic missiles, the earth-penetrating "bunker buster" and perhaps some new "small" bombs. They also have abandoned past pledges and now threaten first use of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states.

For more on the NPT see, “Saving Nonproliferation” By Jimmy Carter http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5754-2005Mar27.html