Fuel Economy: The bill would, for the first time in decades, raise average fuel-economy standards for cars and SUVs or light trucks (up to 10,000 pounds) ? from 25 mpg to 35 mpg by 2020 (a roughly 40 percent increase). This provision is the most controversial, especially with the auto industry, which argues that it could push up the production costs of each vehicle by thousands of dollars. That has led some Democrats to propose federal financial relief for automakers.
This is good and should not be watered down. If anything, it should be increased, and there certainly should NOT be a "light truck" (aka, SUVs) loophole as there is now.
Renewable Fuels: The bill mandates the use of 15 billion gallons of biofuels annually by 2015 and 36 billion gallons by 2022 (up from 8.5 billion gallons in 2008). In the beginning, most of the biofuel would be corn ethanol. Beginning in 2016, the bill mandates annual increases of 3 billion gallons in the use of advanced biofuels ? such as "cellulosic" ethanol, which can be made from switch grass, wood chips or agricultural waste. Oil refineries and food manufacturers ? who warn that diverting corn to ethanol production could hike up food costs ? oppose this provision.
Corn-based ethanol is a boondoggle that accomplishes absolutely nothing except for enriching big agribusiness companies like Archer Daniels Midland. Using food to produce fuel will never come even close to solving our "addiction" on foreign oil, but it WILL raise the price of food (it already is doing so), and it will hurt the environment (use of water, fertiliizer, large amounts of fossil fuel to produce the ethanol). Ditch corn-based ethanol, and if we're going to do biofuels, move quickly to the next generation - cellulosic, switchgrass, etc.
Energy Efficiency: The bill sets energy-efficiency standards for home appliances, heating and cooling systems, lights and residential boilers. It requires federal agencies to get at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2015 and to reduce oil consumption by 20 percent. It also requires regular government review of efficiency standards.
Energy efficiency is absolutely crucial if we're going to solve our energy and environmental problems. This provision is fine for what it is, but it should go a great deal further. We should be pushing hard on energy efficiency in all areas of our economy, because it saves energy, cuts carbon emissions, and saves money over the long run. The government should set tough, economy-wide standards (not just in federal buildings) for housing, industrial plants, appliances, the transportation sector, power plants, etc., etc. It should also institute a carbon tax, revenue neutral if you prefer it that way, as a strong signal for consumers and businesses to cut their consumption of fossil fuels.
Carbon Capture and Storage: The bill promotes research into methods of capturing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and storing them underground.
I'm highly skeptical about carbon capture and sequestration, but it's at least worth looking into it since we have so much coal in this country. However, I certainly would not take money away from energy efficiency in order to pay for this. Again, carbon taxes would be the most economically efficient way to spur innovation and accomplish the desired outcome in this area.
Public Buildings: The bill requires energy efficiency in federal buildings, mandating a 20 percent reduction in operating expenses over five years through the use of more-efficient lights, heating and cooling. It also authorizes three demonstration projects that put "green-building" techniques into practice.
That's fine, but it should be even more aggressive and not just apply to federal buildings. Still, it's a good start and frnakly a "no brainer."
Energy Security: The bill asks the secretary of state to establish "strategic energy partnerships" with the governments of major energy producers and consumers to increase international energy security.
What on earth is this? Sounds like a bunch of feel-good nonsense, as far as I can tell. What would a "strategic energy partnership" accomplish in a world of fungible (aka, interchangeable) energy? I may write a completely separate diary on the whole issue of "energy security" - what it means, what it does NOT mean, how it relates to environmental goals, etc. But setting up "partnerships" sounds weak. What we need to do is slash our consumption and imports of oil. Period. This doesn't do anything in that regard.
Price Gouging: The bill makes oil industry "price gouging" a federal crime during times when the president has declared a temporary "national energy emergency" ? much like the emergencies that states declared after Hurricane Katrina. The Federal Trade Commission would also be given greater authority to investigate possible manipulation of the oil market ? including refinery shutdowns. Oil companies and the Bush administration strongly oppose this provision, which has prompted a veto threat from President Bush.
This is pandering, nothing more. There have been many, many studies done of "price gouging," and none has ever been found on any significant scale. Fine, "investigate" if you want, but this doesn't address the root causes of our oil addiction, of $65 per barrel crude oil, of OPEC's power, etc. Get real.
"The bill also includes a host of smaller items, such as:"
?incentives to spur new inventions in light bulb efficiency?block grants to state and local governments to reduce energy use
?a grant program to reduce school bus idling
?authorization for an initiative to improve car batteries
All perfectly fine, especially encouraging state and local governments to continue their leadership role on this issues. None of this, however, is going to solve our problems.
What is NOT here.
As the Washington Post writes today, "Nowhere in its 277 pages does the legislation even entertain the notion of incentives to curb greenhouse gas emissions, through a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system or both." The Post adds, "Without a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, or at least a serious debate about them, anything Washington does is tinkering around the edges -- expensive tinkering, perhaps, but tinkering nonetheless."
I couldn't agree more. This is just tinkering around the edges without a serious carbon tax, cap-and-trade program, or combination of the two. I'm very disappointed in what I'm seeing here, but sadly not surprised. Political will in Washington is about as plentiful as oil reserves off the Virginia coastline. Not very, in other words.
P.S. One other part of the bill is "coal-to-liquids." As I've written previously, that's an awful idea, harmful for the environment (coal is the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel), very expensive to produce (thus requiring massive subsidies), so bad that even China appears to be ditching it (as "too costly and wasteful"). If China, which relies so heavily on coal, is souring on coal-to-liquids, why on earth are WE talking about it?
Google, Intel and a number of other IT manufacturers came together to launch a project to save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emission by reducing power consumption from computers in the adoption of energy-efficient computers, components and power management tools, according to media reports Wednesday.The goal of the initiative, which currently includes Dell, EDS, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), HP, IBM, Lenovo, Microsoft, Pacific Gas & Electric, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and more than 25 other organizations, is to cut the power consumption of computers by 50 percent by 2010.
Excellent, now let's do this in the rest of the economy!
Global corn stocks have fallen to the lowest level since modern records began as ethanol plants gobble up output and demand balloons in China, early evidence that the era of global food abundance may be nearing an end.Corn (maize) inventories have fallen to just 40 days' consumption in America, according to the US Department of Agriculture, beneath the record low reached in 1973. The average is 88 days.
[...]
"Fundamentals have been tightening ever since 2001, but now we're hitting critically low levels of stocks. We're seeing very big structural shifts in the world and this is going to make farmland much more expensive in the future," he said.
"Shortages are emerging in places like India, which has become a net importer of wheat for the first time since 1975. We expect China to become an importer of corn by late 2008."
Urban sprawl is eating up swathes of China's most fertile land on the eastern seaboard. Crucially, the country's 1.3bn people are switching steadily to a high-protein diet as they become wealthy, following the pattern seen in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea.
China's annual meat consumption is now 6kg per capita, compared with 13kg for its richer neighbours, so it is still likely to double again. Perversely, animal protein diets use much more grain. As a rule of thumb, it takes 10kg of animal feed - mostly corn in China - to produce 1kg of meat.
Supply is diminishing from the United States, source of 70pc of the world's corn. America has switched a fifth of its corn harvest to ethanol as part of a strategic drive to cut dependence on oil from the Middle East. The figure was just 4pc in 2000.
While farmers across the prairies are planting corn to reap windfall gains, this entails a cut in acreage of other crops.
Apocalypse Now! - Ethanol
2) Anyone who has looked at the history of the energy industry from Enron's price manipulations all the way back to standard oil in the 1890s and still seriously believes that there is no market price manipulation going on is a fool. How is it that when Exxon and Mobile were two companies we paid 90 cents a gallon for gas, and magically 2 years after the merger prices are at $2/gallon. A handful of energy companies and governments control all the data, and there is no way to independently verify any of that information. Peak oil is just a repackaging of Thomas Malthus with oil substituted for food. Every time the price of oil gets high, the oil company PR machine rolls this crap out; and you all buy it.
3) We've reached a tipping point with the artic permafrost melting where massive carbon emissions will happen even if we stop emitting tomorrow. We better come up with some way to capture and sequester carbon, or we are going to be amoung the last humans to walk the planet.