Energy Policy of the Past or For the Future? - FCNL
The Senate completed most of its work on the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6 / S.10) late Thursday night, June 23. After two weeks of floor debate, senators dealt with all of the 170 amendments one way or another. The final bill passed the Senate today (June 28) by a vote of 85-12.
Thank you for contacting your senators about reducing U.S. oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions. Hundreds of people like you sent similar messages to their senators through FCNL’s web site. Polls show overwhelming public support for action to reduce U.S. oil dependence. The message is beginning to get through- slowly but surely.
Thanks in part to your advocacy, the Senate bill is now a stronger bill than the House version in terms of reducing oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions. The Senate bill would
require the administration to submit a plan to reduce U.S. oil dependence by 1 million barrels per day (about 5% of current daily consumption) by 2015
provide tax credits for high-efficiency (e.g. hybrid) and alternative fuel vehicles
expand the production and use of renewable ethanol fuel to 8 billion gallons by 2012
require utilities to produce 10% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020
provide tax credits for residential installation of solar hot water heating or photovoltaics and the purchase of energy efficient appliances
provide tax credits for commercial production of electricity from renewable sources
provide tax credits for energy-efficient homes and commercial buildings
authorize funding for low-income home weatherization programs
expand government procurement of high-efficiency and alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy supplies
authorize funding for research and development of renewable energy technologies
provide incentives for industries to develop technologies that emit less greenhouse gas
commit Congress to draft future legislation to impose mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
If provisions such as these survive the House-Senate conference committee and are subsequently fully funded and implemented, it will be a small, but constructive step toward reducing U.S. oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions. But none of these steps are assured, and, prospects for new funding are exceedingly slim.
Energy Policy Questions and Answers
Does this bill go far enough, fast enough for the public good - to prevent future wars over oil, to reduce energy demand, to meet future energy needs, to slow global warming, and to restore the environment?
No. Like the House bill, the Senate bill places the greatest emphasis on increasing domestic energy supplies rather than on reducing energy demand. Expanding domestic energy production primarily from oil, gas, coal, and nuclear fuels remains the top priority. Amendments to reduce dependence and emissions more dramatically and sooner were soundly defeated, including amendments to reduce oil imports by 40% by 2025, increase automobile fuel efficiency from 25 miles per gallon to 40 by 2016, and mandate extremely modest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
On the whole, the Senate has chosen to deny the urgency and importance of reducing oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions and to ignore the viable opportunities that exist today to pursue a more secure, safe, clean, and sustainable energy future for our country and world. Like the House bill, this bill remains largely stuck in the industries and ideas of the past.
Would this bill do more harm than good?
It’s probably a wash. Greater environmental harm is sure to result from many of the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear provisions, and it’s hardly in the public interest to be providing subsidies and tax breaks to industries that are making record profits today. Proposed investment in so-called "clean coal" technologies would likely result in a net environmental benefit compared to the status quo, albeit in an industry that is on the whole quite harmful to the environment.
However, the compelling features of this bill are the provisions to advance energy conservation, efficiency, and renewables. If fully funded and implemented, these would reduce demand and replace supplies from the other harmful energy sources over the long-term. These are the true investments in our future.
Is this bill better than nothing?
Probably, but only marginally so. There are far more rapid, efficient, and effective ways to reduce oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions. These include phased-in tax increases for fossil-based fuels of up to $2 per gallon or carbon taxes based on the carbon content of various fossil fuels (with offsetting rebates or fully refundable tax credits for all low- and middle-income households); "feebates" where consumers who buy gas-guzzlers pay high fees that are used to rebate consumers who buy gas-sippers; and greenhouse gas emissions "cap and trade" programs with mandatory emissions caps where large utilities and manufacturers buy and sell a limited number of emission credits according to their own best interests.
These types of approaches let consumers and producers decide for themselves how best and how much to reduce their energy consumption or emissions. The resulting increased cost of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions would make energy conservation, energy efficiency, renewable fuels, and renewable energy sources much more competitive in the energy market. This new energy market would provide ample incentives for the development and use of more efficient and cleaner technologies.
Is this the best Congress can do for now?
Probably. The Senate must be encouraged to stand firm in the conference committee with the House to support its conservation, efficiency, and renewables provisions. The Senate version is the absolute least the U.S. should be doing.
There is more work for us to do together. Congress can and must do better. The good news is that we don’t have to repeat the bitter legacy of the last century. We have a choice. Ample, affordable, conserving, efficient, renewable, sustainable energy alternatives exist today that are just waiting for Congress to stop subsidizing the old industries at the expense of peace and security, the environment, and public health, and let the new, more efficient, cleaner technologies compete. These alternatives offer hope for a world free from the threat of war over oil, more jobs and a stronger economy, and an earth restored. Stay tuned for further updates and action alerts.
_______________________________________
Stop New Nuclear Weapons! Find out how, http://www.fcnl.org/nuclearThe Next Step for Iraq: Join FCNL's Iraq Campaign, http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/index.htm
Contact Congress and the Administration: http://capwiz.com/fconl/dbq/officials/
Order FCNL publications and "War is Not the Answer" campaign bumper stickers and yardsigns:http://www.fcnl.org/newinfo/special_pub.htmhttp://www.fcnl.org/iraq-war.htm
Contribute to FCNL:http://www.fcnl.org/support.htm
Subscribe or update your information to this list:http://capwiz.com/fconl/mlm/. To unsubscribe from this list, please see the end of this message.
Subscribe to other FCNL legislative, policy, and action alert lists:http://www.fcnl.org/forms/forms.php?type=ls.
________________________________________
Friends Committee on National Legislation245 Second St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-5795fcnl@fcnl.org * http://www.fcnl.org/phone: (202)547-6000 * toll-free: (800)630-1330
We seek a world free of war and the threat of warWe seek a society with equity and justice for allWe seek a community where every person's potential may be fulfilledWe seek an earth restored.
Thank you for contacting your senators about reducing U.S. oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions. Hundreds of people like you sent similar messages to their senators through FCNL’s web site. Polls show overwhelming public support for action to reduce U.S. oil dependence. The message is beginning to get through- slowly but surely.
Thanks in part to your advocacy, the Senate bill is now a stronger bill than the House version in terms of reducing oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions. The Senate bill would
require the administration to submit a plan to reduce U.S. oil dependence by 1 million barrels per day (about 5% of current daily consumption) by 2015
provide tax credits for high-efficiency (e.g. hybrid) and alternative fuel vehicles
expand the production and use of renewable ethanol fuel to 8 billion gallons by 2012
require utilities to produce 10% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020
provide tax credits for residential installation of solar hot water heating or photovoltaics and the purchase of energy efficient appliances
provide tax credits for commercial production of electricity from renewable sources
provide tax credits for energy-efficient homes and commercial buildings
authorize funding for low-income home weatherization programs
expand government procurement of high-efficiency and alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy supplies
authorize funding for research and development of renewable energy technologies
provide incentives for industries to develop technologies that emit less greenhouse gas
commit Congress to draft future legislation to impose mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
If provisions such as these survive the House-Senate conference committee and are subsequently fully funded and implemented, it will be a small, but constructive step toward reducing U.S. oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions. But none of these steps are assured, and, prospects for new funding are exceedingly slim.
Energy Policy Questions and Answers
Does this bill go far enough, fast enough for the public good - to prevent future wars over oil, to reduce energy demand, to meet future energy needs, to slow global warming, and to restore the environment?
No. Like the House bill, the Senate bill places the greatest emphasis on increasing domestic energy supplies rather than on reducing energy demand. Expanding domestic energy production primarily from oil, gas, coal, and nuclear fuels remains the top priority. Amendments to reduce dependence and emissions more dramatically and sooner were soundly defeated, including amendments to reduce oil imports by 40% by 2025, increase automobile fuel efficiency from 25 miles per gallon to 40 by 2016, and mandate extremely modest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
On the whole, the Senate has chosen to deny the urgency and importance of reducing oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions and to ignore the viable opportunities that exist today to pursue a more secure, safe, clean, and sustainable energy future for our country and world. Like the House bill, this bill remains largely stuck in the industries and ideas of the past.
Would this bill do more harm than good?
It’s probably a wash. Greater environmental harm is sure to result from many of the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear provisions, and it’s hardly in the public interest to be providing subsidies and tax breaks to industries that are making record profits today. Proposed investment in so-called "clean coal" technologies would likely result in a net environmental benefit compared to the status quo, albeit in an industry that is on the whole quite harmful to the environment.
However, the compelling features of this bill are the provisions to advance energy conservation, efficiency, and renewables. If fully funded and implemented, these would reduce demand and replace supplies from the other harmful energy sources over the long-term. These are the true investments in our future.
Is this bill better than nothing?
Probably, but only marginally so. There are far more rapid, efficient, and effective ways to reduce oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions. These include phased-in tax increases for fossil-based fuels of up to $2 per gallon or carbon taxes based on the carbon content of various fossil fuels (with offsetting rebates or fully refundable tax credits for all low- and middle-income households); "feebates" where consumers who buy gas-guzzlers pay high fees that are used to rebate consumers who buy gas-sippers; and greenhouse gas emissions "cap and trade" programs with mandatory emissions caps where large utilities and manufacturers buy and sell a limited number of emission credits according to their own best interests.
These types of approaches let consumers and producers decide for themselves how best and how much to reduce their energy consumption or emissions. The resulting increased cost of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions would make energy conservation, energy efficiency, renewable fuels, and renewable energy sources much more competitive in the energy market. This new energy market would provide ample incentives for the development and use of more efficient and cleaner technologies.
Is this the best Congress can do for now?
Probably. The Senate must be encouraged to stand firm in the conference committee with the House to support its conservation, efficiency, and renewables provisions. The Senate version is the absolute least the U.S. should be doing.
There is more work for us to do together. Congress can and must do better. The good news is that we don’t have to repeat the bitter legacy of the last century. We have a choice. Ample, affordable, conserving, efficient, renewable, sustainable energy alternatives exist today that are just waiting for Congress to stop subsidizing the old industries at the expense of peace and security, the environment, and public health, and let the new, more efficient, cleaner technologies compete. These alternatives offer hope for a world free from the threat of war over oil, more jobs and a stronger economy, and an earth restored. Stay tuned for further updates and action alerts.
_______________________________________
Stop New Nuclear Weapons! Find out how, http://www.fcnl.org/nuclearThe Next Step for Iraq: Join FCNL's Iraq Campaign, http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/index.htm
Contact Congress and the Administration: http://capwiz.com/fconl/dbq/officials/
Order FCNL publications and "War is Not the Answer" campaign bumper stickers and yardsigns:http://www.fcnl.org/newinfo/special_pub.htmhttp://www.fcnl.org/iraq-war.htm
Contribute to FCNL:http://www.fcnl.org/support.htm
Subscribe or update your information to this list:http://capwiz.com/fconl/mlm/. To unsubscribe from this list, please see the end of this message.
Subscribe to other FCNL legislative, policy, and action alert lists:http://www.fcnl.org/forms/forms.php?type=ls.
________________________________________
Friends Committee on National Legislation245 Second St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-5795fcnl@fcnl.org * http://www.fcnl.org/phone: (202)547-6000 * toll-free: (800)630-1330
We seek a world free of war and the threat of warWe seek a society with equity and justice for allWe seek a community where every person's potential may be fulfilledWe seek an earth restored.
posted by T. Scott Brineman at 11:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home