|
George W. Bush on Energy & Oil
President of the United States, Former Republican Governor (TX)
|
FactCheck: US grew more dependent on foreign oil under Bush
The President voiced a "goal" of replacing more than three-quarters "of our oil imports from the Middle East" by the year 2025. He did not mention that the US has grown more dependent on imported oil and petroleum products since he took office.
The US imported 60% of its oil and petroleum products during the first 11 months of last year, up from just under 53% in President Clinton's last year in office. Last year, of all the oil and petroleum products consumed in the US, 11.2% came from Persian
Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.
The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001,
we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable alternative energy sources. And we are on the threshold of incredible advances. So tonight I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22% increase in clean-energy research
Source: Link
Feb 1, 2006
Replace 75% of oil imports from Mideast by 2025
Breakthroughs in new technologies will help us reach a great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. By applying the talent and technology of
America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.
Source: 2006 State of the Union speech
Jan 31, 2006
End America's addiction to oil
Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001,
we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable alternative energy sources. And we are on the threshold of incredible advances. So tonight I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22% increase in clean-energy research
at the Department of Energy to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants; revolutionary solar and wind technologies; and clean, safe nuclear energy.
We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen.
Source: 2006 State of the Union speech
Jan 31, 2006
Safe nuclear energy & less dependence on foreign energy
To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy. Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation,
alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid, and more production here at home, including safe, clean nuclear energy.
My Clear Skies legislation will cut power plant pollution and improve the health of our citizens. And my budget provides strong funding for leading-edge technology, from hydrogen-fueled cars to clean coal to renewable sources such as ethanol.
Four years of debate is enough! I urge Congress to pass legislation that makes America more secure and less dependent on foreign energy.
Source: 2005 State of the Union Speech
Feb 2, 2005
O'Neill: Industry overruled environment in energy taskforce
According to documents in O'Neill's files, along with those obtained in various disclosure actions filed against the Cheney task force, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham met with corporations and trade groups, including Chevron, the National Mining
Association, and the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, each of which delivered policy recommendations in detailed reports. Cheney met with Enron chairman Kenneth Lay and received detailed policy recommendations from one industry group
whose central concern was not allowing carbon dioxide to be regulated as a pollutant, as well as from another--called the Coal-Based Generation Stakeholders. If process drives outcomes--this combination of confidentiality and influence by
powerful interested parties would define the task force's analysis of energy issues. "It meant," O'Neill says, "that environmental concerns went virtually unrepresented."
Source: The Price of Loyalty, by Ron Suskind, p.146-7
Jan 13, 2004
Energy plan is about reducing oil imports, not cheap energy
I once made the mistake of suggesting to Bush that he use the phrase cheap energy to describe the aims of his energy policy. He gave me a sharp, squinting look. Cheap energy, he answered, was how we got into this mess. Every year from the early
1970s until the mid-1990s, American cars burned less and less oil per mile traveled. Then in about 1995 that progress stopped. Why? He answered his own question: Because of the gas-guzzling SUV. And what had made the SUV craze possible? This time I
answered, "Um, cheap energy?" He nodded at me. Dismissed. But if Bush was no energy free-marketeer, neither did he share the crusading zeal of the environmental Left. For Bush, the point of energy conservation was not for Americans to USE less,
but for Americans to IMPORT less. For him, energy was first and foremost a national security issue. He had warned in 2000, "As a result of our foreign oil imports skyrocketing, America is at the mercy more than ever of foreign governments and cartels."
Source: The Right Man, by David Frum, p. 65-66
Jun 1, 2003
Incentives for high-mileage cars, but drill for more oil
The problem | The Bush plan | Other choices |
---|
Soaring gasoline prices | Open new federal lands to oil exploration and drillingEase regulations on refineries and pipelines | Establish
regional gasoline reserves to smooth out price spikesLimit the types of summer gasoline blendsInvestigate if oil companies are withholding supplies to bolster pricesLift sanctions on Iraq, Iran, and Libya |
---|
Increasing
dependence on foreign oil | Promote domestic on oil exploration, especially in ANWRProvide tax incentives for the purchase of high-mileage cars | Mandate higher fuel efficiency standards for cars, trucks, and SUVsIncrease
funding for gasoline-electric “hybrids” and hydrogen-powered carsDiversify foreign supplies away from OPEC nationsPromote energy-sector reforms in Russia and the Caspian Sea regionExpand mass transit |
---|
Source: USA Today, p. 2A
May 14, 2001
More exploration, more nuclear, more energy research
The problem | The Bush plan | Other choices |
---|
Tighter natural gas supplies | Open new lands in the Rockies & Gulf of Mexico to oil explorationEase regulations on pipelinesDiversify electricity
generation to fuel sources such as nuclear & coal | Construct a gas pipeline in AlaskaOpen ocean coasts to gas explorationImport more liquefied natural gas |
---|
Blackouts | Extend federal eminent domain
rights to include power line right-of-waysStreamline regulations on new power plantsFederal aid for upgrading & relicensing nuclear power plantsFund clean-coal researchNew efficiency standards on TVs, radios, & other appliances |
Cap wholesale power costs in CaliforniaFund research into alternative power sourcesConnect regional electrical grids into a national power gridDeregulate electricity nationallyPromote electricity conservation |
---|
Source: USA Today, p. 2A
May 14, 2001
Make Amtrak more efficient and competitive
Q: Should the federal government be spending more to help Amtrak expand intercity rail travel and develop high-speed corridors?? A: Our national railroad network is a crucial component of our public transportation system. I support a healthy intercity
passenger rail system. I support current efforts to make Amtrak more efficient and competitive. I believe these efforts will result in better, more extensive and more reliant rail service for the millions of Americans who travel by train.
Source: Associated Press
Sep 17, 2000
Natural gas is hemispheric; find it in our own neighborhood
Bush has not been much more precise about his plans than he was in the first presidential candidates’ debate in October, when he mentioned the need for “a hemispheric energy policy where Canada and Mexico and the United States come together.” Bush has
said, “Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods.”When the electric power squeeze hit California last month, he said, “The quickest way to have impact on the
energy situation is for us to work with Mexico, and a certain extent Canada, to build a policy for the hemisphere.“ Last week, he said, ”We need more product, and it doesn’t matter where the product comes from.“ Mexico has plenty of natural gas and oil
in the ground but lacks the technology and money to exploit them fully. Mexico’s president says he welcomes foreign investment, but first he must persuade Mexico’s Congress to allow a mix of public ownership and private development in energy production.
Source: Tim Weiner, NY Times
Feb 13, 2001
Clarify rules to allow for more nuclear power generation
Q: Should the US increase its use of nuclear power as part of a strategy to come closer to energy independence? A: Nuclear power plays an important role in meeting the energy needs of the New Economy, supplying over 20% of electricity consumed. As
part of my energy policy, I would clarify IRS rules to make it easier for companies that specialize in operating nuclear power plants to purchase them from companies that do not. My overall energy policy also includes using diplomatic leverage, working
with our allies, OPEC, and other oil-producing countries to ensure greater stability in world oil markets. I will also encourage greater exploration at home including opening the ANWR up to environmentally responsible exploration. We must also
develop our natural gas resources, which are clean-burning and hemispheric in nature, not subject to whims of OPEC. I will also promote renewable sources of energy as part of my agenda because the New Economy is very electric-intensive.
Source: Associated Press
Oct 16, 2000
Better to drill ANWR than import oil from Saddam Hussein
GORE (to Bush): Gov.Bush is proposing to open up some of our most precious environmental treasures, like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to the big oil companies to go in and start producing oil there. I think that is the wrong choice. It would only
give us a few months worth of oil, and the oil wouldn’t start flowing for many years into the future. I don’t think it’s a fair price to pay, to destroy precious parts of America’s environment. BUSH: We need an active exploration program in America.
The only way to become less dependent on foreign sources of crude oil is to explore at home. And you bet I want to open up a small part of Alaska because when that field is online, it will produce a million barrels a day.
Today we import a million barrels from Saddam Hussein. I would rather that a million come from our own hemisphere, our own country, as opposed from Saddam Hussein.
Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA
Oct 3, 2000
Replenish energy supplies with new domestic coal & pipelines
Q: What is your energy policy?GORE [to Bush]: We have to free ourselves from big oil, from OPEC. We have to give new incentives for the development of resources, like deep gas in the western Gulf, but also renewable sources of energy and domestic
sources that are cleaner and better. I’m proposing a plan that will give tax incentives for the rapid development of new kinds of cars, trucks, buses, factories, boilers, and furnaces that don’t have as much pollution.
BUSH: I want to build pipelines
to move natural gas. I want to develop coal resources. It’s an issue I know a lot about. I was a small oil person for a while. This is an administration that’s had no plan. And now, the results of having no plan have caught up with America. We’ve
got abundant supplies of energy here, and we better start exploring it. There’s an interesting issue up in the Northwest, as well. And that is whether or not we remove dams that propose hydroelectric energy. I’m against removing dams in the Northwest.
Source: (X-ref Gore) Presidential debate, Boston MA
Oct 3, 2000
Use ANWR fees for alternative energy and home oil help
[Under Bush’s plan for drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge], the federal government would get up-front fees from oil companies that wanted to bid to explore the refuge, and eventually get royalties from oil and gas that was
found. Bush said he would direct part of this money to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program-perhaps as much as $1 billion over 10 years, Bush said. We would also start a Royalties for Conservation Fund,
which would use money from Arctic drilling to “protect the environment and develop alternative energy sources,” including wind and solar power. He said that could total $1.2 billion over 10 years.The energy proposals offered
by Bush today, some of which are new and some of which he had unveiled earlier, total $7.1 billion over 10 years. Of that, $3.1 billion would come from new revenue, including royalties and bid fees.
Source: Mike Allen, Washington Post, p. A7
Oct 1, 2000
Look for oil in US rather than tap into emergency reserves
Bush assailed Gore’s suggestion as “bad public policy,” and accused the vice president of trying to manipulate a national strategic asset for political purposes. The reserves are “an insurance policy meant for sudden disruptions of the oil supply.
It should not be used for political gain at the expense of national security.” Rather, plans must be implemented to make the United States less dependent on oil imports. “I would like to aggressively explore our own continent for oil and natural gas.”
Source: CNN.com
Sep 21, 2000
Remove federal impediments to states’ clean energy
Q: What would you do to promote the use of cleaner energy?A: I would remove federal impediments, such as unclear jurisdiction over who is responsible for grid
reliability, to help states be able to deregulate their electric industries effectively. This way states’ green power can be identified and rewarded. As governor, I presided over an electric
deregulation bill that brings competition to Texas residents, makes mandatory emissions reductions from older power plants, and calls for 2,000 megawatts of new renewable
energy by 2009, making Texas the largest market for renewable energy in the country. The Environmental Defense Fund calls this Texas law ‘the strongest in the nation.“‘
Source: Associated Press
Sep 12, 2000
Explore ANWR; explore for gas; reduce foreign dependence
Our country better become less dependent on foreign crude, that’s why I’m for the exploration of ANWR, that’s why I’m for the exploration of natural gas, which is hemispheric. It’s not subject to price. In the
meantime, I support the congressional attempt to fund LIHEAP, which is that low-income heating assistance program.
Source: GOP Debate in Manchester NH
Jan 26, 2000
Wean from oil, via electric deregulation & natural gas
I did something in Texas and that’s decontrol our electricity system, to invite a different type of demand into the equation into Texas. In other words, you’re focusing on the supply side, I think we need to wean ourselves off of
foreign oil and rely upon other products and in my state of Texas we’re doing that. We’ve got a huge demand for natural gas, which as you know is immune from OPEC and immune from overseas pricing controls.
Source: Phoenix Arizona GOP Debate
Dec 7, 1999
George W. Bush on Global Warming
The Kyoto Treaty would have cost America a lot of jobs
BUSH: Had we joined the Kyoto Treaty it would have cost America a lot of jobs. It's one of these deals where in order to be popular in the halls of Europe you sign a treaty. There's a better way to do it. The quality of air is cleaner since I've been the
president of the US. And we'll continue to spend money on research and development, because I truly believe that's the way to get from how we live today to being able to live a standard of living that we're accustomed to and being able to protect
our environment better, the use of technologies. KERRY: The Kyoto Treaty was flawed. I was in Kyoto and I was part of that; I know what happened. But Bush didn't try to fix it, he just declared it dead, ladies and gentlemen.
And we walked away from the work of 160 nations over 10 years. You wonder why it is that people don't like us in some parts of the world. You just say, Hey, we don't agree with you, good-bye. Bush's done nothing to try to fix it. I will.
Source: Second Bush-Kerry Debate, in St. Louis MO
Oct 8, 2004
Kyoto Treaty is the "emperor with no clothes"
[Under the Kyoto Protocol], the United States was supposed to reduce emissions by 7% below 1990 levels, while developing countries like India, Mexico, and China were exempted. Clinton gave lip service to the treaty and had signed it, but didn't dare
submit it to congress for ratification. He knew it would never pass.Bush would have none of that. If there was anything he hated, it was charades. He forthrightly announced he would not support the treaty and would instead devote funds to study how to
reduce global warming through less drastic measures, including building more environmentally friendly vehicles.
"The emperor Kyoto was running around for a long time, and he was naked," Andy Card said. "It took President Bush to say, 'The guy doesn't
have any clothes on.'" European nations, in particular, were incensed that Bush rejected the Kyoto treaty. The French environment minister called it a "scandal." Yet none of those countries had agreed to honor the treaty.
Source: A Matter of Character, by Ronald Kessler, p.119-21
Aug 5, 2004
$1.7 billion program will make hydrogen cars common by 2020
Bush is proposing a total of $1.7 billion over the next five years to develop hydrogen-powered fuel cells, hydrogen infrastructure and advanced automotive technologies. Through partnerships with the private sector, the hydrogen fuel initiative
and FreedomCAR will make it practical for Americans to use hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2020. This will dramatically improve America's energy security by reducing the need for imported oil.
Source: White House Press Release
Jan 28, 2004
Energy production overrules CO2 emissions
The President's letter mentioned a new report that showed how caps on carbon dioxide emissions would lead to an even more dramatic shift from coal to natural gas for electric power generation and significantly higher electricity prices. With the
California energy shortage & other states worried about prices and availability this summer, we just can't harm consumers. Kyoto was dead. Plans to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants were abandoned. Energy production is all that matters.
Source: The Price of Loyalty, by Ron Suskind, p.121-123
Jan 13, 2004
$1.2B to develop hydrogen fuel via private partnerships
In his State of the Union address, President Bush announced a $1.2 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to reverse the nation's growing dependence on foreign oil by developing the technology for hydrogen-powered fuel cells to power cars, trucks, homes and
businesses with no pollution or greenhouse gases. Through partnerships with the private sector, the hydrogen fuel initiative and FreedomCAR will make it practical and affordable for Americans to choose to use clean, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2020.
Source: Campaign website, www.georgewbush.com
Aug 30, 2003
Reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over next decade
President Bush has committed America to an aggressive strategy to meet the challenge of long-term global climate change by reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy by 18 percent over the next 10 years.
Source: Campaign website, www.georgewbush.com
Aug 30, 2003
Rejected CO2 trading permits as solution to global warming
While Bush disdained Kyoto, he could never quite bring himself to deny that climate change was very likely real & man-made. When he repudiated Kyoto [in March 2001], he promised to produce a climate change policy of his own.The green-green-lima-beans
(as Bush called the enviros) had prevailed. Bush handed responsibility for the climate change brief to two midlevel aides who were absolutely convinced that the lima-beans had it right. They cobbled together an ambitious program of controls and trading
permits intended to lower American carbon dioxide emissions by almost as much as Kyoto demanded, without international supervision or payoffs to foreign entities.
Their policy was tossed aside, their [proposed] speech was ripped to shreds, and a new
one was hastily cobbled together that promised to take the issue seriously-and study it some more. [A press leak described them as] "a contingent of greens inside the administration, pressing the president to look more and more like Al Gore."
Source: The Right Man, by David Frum, p. 70-71
Jun 1, 2003
Solution to global warming is safe & clean nuclear power
The press interpreted Bush's commitment to further study on climate change as a commitment to do nothing at all. But Bush had a climate change agenda: safe and clean nuclear power. Nuclear power emits no greenhouse gases at all, and yet the US had not
brought a new nuclear power plant on-line in nearly 20 years. As the capacity of America's existing nuclear plants maxed out, electrical utilities burned more and more coal, the dirtiest fuel of them all. Bush believed that technological problems
demanded ultratechnological solutions. Again and again, in public and in private, he observed longingly that while the US obtained only 20% of its power from nukes, France obtained 80%. If the US could catch even halfway up to France, it could
overfulfill its Kyoto commitments-without changing the American way of life at all.
The most daunting problem was waste disposal. Bush gave the order: The waste would go to Yucca Mountain. The US nuclear industry could grow again.
Source: The Right Man, by David Frum, p. 71-73
Jun 1, 2003
Abandons campaign pledge to reduce CO2 emissions
Responding to President Bush’s decision not to support regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, US and European environmentalists said yesterday that one of his main arguments has been debunked. Bush said he would not seek to regulate
so-called greenhouse gas because, in part, the Clean Air Act does not consider carbon dioxide a pollutant. Environmentalists said Bush had ignored a finding by more than 3,000 international scientists who concurred that the gas is one of the main
causes of global warming. Last week, satellite data showed evidence that greenhouse gases were indeed building up in the Earth’s atmosphere.
In New England, Bush’s abandonment of the campaign pledge to propose regulating carbon dioxide emissions
probably will have limited impact, because the region is less dependent than elsewhere on power plants fired by coal or oil. Administration officials said Bush had made a mistake in the campaign by promising to regulate carbon dioxide.
Source: Beth Daley & Robert Schlesinger, Boston Globe, p. 3
Mar 15, 2001
CO2 is not a pollutant under CAA; no emission caps
I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80% of the world from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy. The Senate’s vote, 95-0, shows that there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of
addressing global climate change concerns. I support a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy. I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not
a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act. Including caps on carbon dioxide emissions as part of a multiple emissions strategy would lead to an even more dramatic shift from coal to natural gas for electric power generation and significantly higher
electricity prices. This is especially true given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change and the lack of commercially available technologies for removing and storing carbon dioxide.
Source: Press Release, “Letter to Senators Hagel, Helms, et al.”
Feb 13, 2001
Scientists are unsure about global warming
Q: What about global warming?BUSH: It’s an issue that we need to take very seriously. I don’t think we know the solution to global warming yet and I don’t think we’ve got all the facts before we make decisions.
GORE: But I disagree that we don’t know the cause of global warming. I think that we do. It’s pollution, carbon dioxide and other chemicals that are even more potent. Look, the world’s temperatures going up, weather patterns are changing,
storms are getting more violent and unpredictable. And what are we going to tell our children?
BUSH: Yeah, I agree. Some of the scientists, I believe, haven’t they been changing their opinion a
little bit on global warming? There’s a lot of differing opinions and before we react I think it’s best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what’s taking place.
Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University
Oct 11, 2000
Kyoto Treaty puts too much burden on US
Q: What about global warming?BUSH: It’s an issue that we need to take very seriously. But I’m not going to let the US carry the burden for cleaning up the world’s air, like the Kyoto treaty would have done. China and India were exempted from that
treaty.
Q: The Senate did turn it down.
BUSH: 99 to nothing.
GORE: A lot of supporters of the Kyoto treaty actually ended up voting for that because of the way it was worded, but there’s no doubt there’s a lot of opposition to it in the Senate.
Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University
Oct 11, 2000
Opposes Kyoto treaty, ESA, & other intrusive regulations
Bush opposes an agreement signed in Kyoto, Japan, that establishes emission targets for industrial nations. In the past he has criticized federal regulation, particularly when he regards it as too intrusive.
In his 1994 campaign for governor, he lashed out against the Endangered Species Act as overly intrusive on landowners.
Source: New York Times, p. A20
Nov 9, 1999
Voluntary partnerships reduce greenhouse gases economically.
Bush adopted the National Governors Association policy:
Considering the evidence and the risks of both overreaction and underreaction, the Governors recommend that the federal government continue its climate research, including regional climate research, to improve scientific understanding of global climate change. The Governors also recommend taking steps that are cost-effective and offer other social and economic benefits beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, the Governors support voluntary partnerships to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while achieving other economic and environmental goals. - The Governors are committed to working in partnership with the federal government, businesses, environmental groups, and others to develop and implement voluntary programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in conjunction with conserving energy, protecting the environment, and strengthening the economy.
- The Governors urge that those
who have successfully achieved reductions of greenhouse emissions receive appropriate credit for their early actions. The Governors strongly encourage these kinds of voluntary efforts.
- The Governors believe that federally required implementation of any treaty provisions, including those that mandate limits or reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, must not occur before the U.S. Senate ratifies an international agreement and Congress passes enabling legislation.
- The Governors support continued federal funding for research and development technology in this area. They also believe it is essential to engage the private sector by fostering technology partnerships between industry and government. Public-private partnerships serve to achieve desired environmental goals, speed the introduction of new technologies to the marketplace, and meet consumer needs and product affordability goals, while avoiding market distortions and job losses.
Source: NGA policy NR-11, Global Climate Change Domestic Policy 00-NGA3 on Aug 15, 2000
Kyoto Treaty must include reductions by all countries.
Bush adopted the National Governors Association policy:
The Governors recommend that the federal government continue to seek the advice of state and local officials and nongovernmental organizations with expertise in economic, trade, jobs, public health, and environmental issues and assess the potential economic and environmental consequences of proposed policies and measures, including a thorough and broadly accepted analysis of costs and benefits. The Governors recommend that the US: - not sign or ratify any agreement that mandates new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the US, unless such an agreement mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for developing countries within the same compliance period;
- aggressively undertake strategies for including emissions-reduction commitments from developing countries;
- not sign or ratify any agreement that would result in serious harm to the US economy;
- support flexible policies and measures in
continuing negotiations that provide an opportunity for the US to meet global environmental goals without jeopardizing US jobs, trade, or economic competitiveness;
- insist on flexible implementation timetables in continuing negotiations that permit affected parties adequate time to plan strategies for meeting commitments; and
- ensure that no single sector, state, or nation is disproportionately disadvantaged by the implementation of international policies.
If appropriate international commitments are established and are ratified by the US, the Governors believe implementation should be allowed to be achieved through cost-effective market-based activities, which account for scientifically verifiable and accountable reductions in greenhouse gas levels regardless of where the reductions are achieved. Any multinational emissions trading program must provide a flexible and workable framework that takes full advantage of market forces and maximizes international participation.
Source: NGA policy NR-11, Climate Change International Policy 00-NGA4 on Aug 15, 2000