This morning the New York Times calls on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to take a stand on fuel efficiency, a national renewable energy standard, and taxing Big Oil:Even if the leadership gets all this right, it still won't be a substitute for comprehensive climate change legislation. It would, however, represent an important down payment on that larger obligation. With so much more to be done, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid simply have to deliver a good energy bill.All this comes as Robert Samuelson warns oil's push towards $100 a barrel has much deeper implications than just higher gas prices:
Do not think this just another price spike. It suggests a new geopolitical era when energy increasingly serves as a political weapon. Producers (or some of them) will use it to advance national agendas; consumers (or some of them) will seek preferential treatment. We already see this in Hugo Chavez's discounting of Venezuelan oil to favored allies, China's frantic efforts to secure guaranteed supplies, and Russia's veiled threats to use natural gas -- it supplies much of Europe -- to intimidate its neighbors and customers.You can take action here to tell Virginia's members of Congress to support a strong RES, tough new fuel economy standards, and needed oil and gas reforms.
Call Pelosi and Reid
Pelosi's offices number is 202- 225-4965 (fax 202-225-4188)
Reid's office's number is 202-224-3542 (fax 202-224-7327)Call wavering Dem and GOP Senators and House members. I don't know who these are right now, but will update this if anyone can tell me. Apparently, wavering Senators are more important than House members. Democrats and Republicans.
Tell them you support renewable energy.
On energy efficiency, as the article you reference notes, California's appliance standards, building code, and utility incentive programs have just stabilized per capita consumption. This suggests that even if we mirrored California's standards at the national level, we would just stabilize per capita demand which would not result in a decrease in associated emissions. And despite this stabilization of per capita demand, California now uses 24.5% more electricity than in 1990 (according to EIA information).
On fuel efficiency, it remains to be demonstrated whether Congress can enact tough CAFE standards. But let's assume they can. Let's say they raise the standard to 50 mpg by 2012 (change as you see fit). There is current fleet of 136 million automobiles (according to FHA's vehicle registration statistics). And US auto sales are about 15 million vehicles for this year. So, that means the entire fleet would turn over in 9 years at that rate; but that will not provide you a fleet at the full 50 mpg rate. Because people would be turning over their cars at successively improved efficiency rates but not necessarily at a 50 mpg rate. But it could if the option of 100 mpg cars were available or perhaps super efficient electric cars, then you could conceivably get to that target sooner. Regardless, this comes at a cost to manufacturers that must be passed on to consumers. So, what is the end result in terms of price that consumers will pay for this conversion?
On renewables, they are mandating only 15% of utility's generation and that is only in the House bill. The question I have here is what is the cost on residential consumers? It will cost a good deal of money for utility's to change the mix of their generation portfolios. The capital costs of doing that will need to be passed on to rate payers or in deregulated environments direct increase in rates. So, what is the cost of that?
The Energy Bill really represents small potatoes in your goal to reduce emissions by 80%. And it's doubtful that it will achieve any cuts in total emissions. That being said, what is the ideal bill that you would push for that would achieve the 80% target and what would be the cost to consumers? Ultimately, I think this requires a fundamental change in our way of life that most people are not fully informed of or would be willing to accept. On top of all that, assuming you could even enact such a transformation, it would still be years to achieve that target. In the interim, you are still generating green house gasses and contributing to Global Warming which is already happening.
I see this as nearly an insurmountable challenge. Americans generally don't deal with fire prevention; we mostly work in terms of putting out fires we started. I think the AEI is right on this one. When Americans realize the cost and the level of change required, they'll balk, especially when you consider the potential disaster has not even occurred yet. Don't misunderstand me though; I am for all of these proposals. I just have a fatalistic view about the problem, and I don't know that we as a society can really make the changes necessary. Though pandemic flu might change that entire equation.
But I don't want to adopt fatalism. So, prove me wrong. Show me that the cost is minimal or at least something we can all absorb (though consider that private debt is at an all time high). Tell me if I am wrong about changing our way of life and the public's willingness to accept that. I just want a strong argument to make me optimistic.
Also, see here and here. This problem is certainly NOT insurmountable, we just need our politicians to get their heads out of their butts...er, the fossil fuel/auto industry lobbyists' butts and start leading for a change. So far, it's been utterly pathetic.
On the solar power idea, that is great idea. I hope that Europe does get on that, because the Northern African nations aren't sitting on a pile of money to get that done.
Even after that you have to contend with China and India and the coal plants that they are building.
I would note that you have yet to have a constructive dialogue with me about any of the points I have ever raised with you. I raise concerns, put forth counter-arguments, and try to create dialogues. I do this to strengthen the arguments we make and take us out of the realm of idealism into realism and pragmatism.
I don't think it makes me a Republican to praise them when they make a good argument. They are not entirely stupid. And in this case, I don't see what is wrong with their argument. All of these initiatives are not free. And they would be on top of already popular initiatives (like Medicare and Social Security) that require a lot of money. It is unreasonable then to think that Americans might balk at higher taxes to pay for all of that. It's not a bad argument, and I tend to agree.
URGENT: Call Senator Webb
Urge him to support a Strong Federal Energy Bill!Dear ,
Right now the U.S. Congress is moving towards voting on an energy bill very soon, perhaps this Friday. It is possible that by combining the best elements of two different versions passed this summer in the House and the Senate, we could get a solid and hopeful bill that would reduce global warming pollution and move us toward the efficient and clean energy economy we need.
Senator Jim Webb is a key vote to the success of a strong energy bill. Reports indicate that the Senate opposes including a renewable energy standard for utilities in the final bill. That provision would require that by 2020 15% of our electricity be produced using renewable energy sources.
We need Jim Webb to speak out loudly and clearly right now in support of the inclusion of a renewable energy standard in the energy bill! Call Senator Webb right now and urge him to stay strong on the energy bill.
His number is 202-224-4024.
Here's a sample script: Hi, my name is _______. I am a Virginia resident and am calling to urge Senator Webb to support a strong energy bill. The consequences of global warming are too scary to continue to do nothing. We need a strong energy bill that includes a renewable energy standard and high CAFE standards. Thank you.
Sen. Webb must also stand firm in support of other key aspects of this bill: increasing average fuel economy for cars and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon, tax provisions that shift money from oil companies to renewables, tax credits for solar and wind energy, and no support for coal or coal-to-liquids.
The best thing you can do is to call Senator Webb's office today to urge that he do the right thing, right now. If you call after hours, be sure to leave a voicemail.
His number is 202-224-4024.
You can follow up your call with an email. Find a sample email here>>
Time is of the essence! Please act now.
Sincerely,
Mike Tidwell
Director, Chesapeake Climate Action NetworkP.S. Senator Warner is even more uncertain about supporting a strong federal energy bill. If you have time, please give Senator Warner a call as well at (202) 224-2023, you can use the same script as above.