Climate Change, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Energy, Environment, Global Governance, Headlines, North America

ENERGY-US: Senate Plan Scales Down Fossil Fuel Use

Ellen Massey

WASHINGTON, Jun 14 2007 (IPS) - The U.S. Senate began debate on a complex package of energy legislation this week that is running head-on into the politics of global warming.

The Senate took up the legislation just one week after the Group of Eight Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany, where climate change and greenhouse gas emissions were at the top of the agenda.

While the world leaders in Germany made vague promises to cut emissions and pursue a new deal to fight global warming six years after President George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol, the Senate is debating more specific measures on clean energy in the face of rising oil prices and growing public concern.

In its third day of consideration on the Senate floor, the Clean Energy Act of 2007 throws some contentions issues into the debate, including higher standards for automobile fuel efficiency, higher efficiency standards for appliances, lights and buildings, and converting coal into liquid fuel for transportation.

It would shift some 14 billion dollars in oil and gas industry subsidies to fund future legislation supporting clean energy investments.

The White House has released a statement opposing some of the legislation’s most critical components and senators are also considering a myriad of amendments that would either strengthen or weaken the legislation’s proposals.

One of the most contentions elements is aggressive new fuel economy standards. The bill would require the automobile industry to increase the fuel economy of all new cars sold in the U.S. to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. This would be the first time the standard has been raised in almost 20 years.

But the provision faces stiff opposition from the auto industry. Last week, the big three U.S. car manufacturers – Ford, General Motors and Chrysler, all based in Detroit, Michigan – made their way to Washington to urge members of Congress to weaken the fuel economy standards that are a part of the disputed legislation.

The senior senator representing Michigan, Carl Levin, has proposed an amendment that would let automakers off the hook, according to Anna Aurilio, legislative director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

The proposed amendment “replaces requirements with promises,” Aurilio said, allowing automakers to ignore the new fuel economy standards if they promise to put more efficient cars on the road in the future.

But several senators have stuck to the tougher standards, indicating during the debate on the Senate floor that the rules are both fair and achievable. Carmakers around the world face fuel economy standards significantly higher than in the U.S. In Japan, new rules call for cars that get 40 miles per gallon by 2015, and five years ago in the European Union the standards were 37.2 miles per gallon.

Another provision of the energy package that faces a charged debate is a plan to promote coal as an alternative fuel for automobiles. The coal-to-liquid fuel proposal, as it has been labeled, was touted as a way to decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil. It proposed tax breaks to the coal industry in the hopes of accelerating the development of technology that could convert coal mined in the U.S. into a form that could run the country’s car culture.

However, the environmental benefits of the proposal are still uncertain, with environmentalists arguing that the conversion process actually produces more greenhouse gases than traditional fossil fuels.

Democratic presidential hopeful and Illinois Senator Barak Obama had supported the initiative until this week, when he quietly modified his position. In a statement Tuesday, said that until “clean coal” technology is perfected, he “will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20 percent less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels.”

The debate in the Senate demonstrates the obvious influence of the coal and auto industries, but the oil industry has not been left out. One proposal that will likely face contentious debate calls for penalties for price-gouging, similar to a proposal in the House. President Bush staunchly opposed the House measure.

Republicans also introduced an amendment that would encourage new oil refineries and other alternative production methods for transportation fuels which was defeated in a party-line vote on Wednesday.

Other key components of the energy package include reducing the use of imported oil by 10 million barrels a day by 2031, and funding to support training for “green collar” jobs like installing energy efficient equipment.

The House of Representatives is also working on a clean energy plan that could come up for debate in July. Lawmakers from each branch of Congress plan to hold a conference later this year to reconcile the final versions of the two bills.

The United States currently gets 40 percent of its power from oil, 22.6 percent from natural gas, 22.9 percent from coal, 8 percent from nuclear plants, and just 6.1 percent from renewable sources.

Dramatic increases in the use of ethanol as a substitute for gasoline are also a part of the Senate proposal. The legislation calls for 36 billion gallons of ethanol to be in use by 2022. But the advantages, and politics, of ethanol are not straightforward.

“Ethanol has significant air pollution concerns,” said Jim Presswood, energy edvocate at the Natural Resources Defence Council. He and other experts assert that significant advances in technology and infrastructure are needed before ethanol can replace gasoline.

While the federal government is slowly arriving at a national energy policy, many states have already taken up the challenge of lessening their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. So far, 23 states have renewable energy standards and 12 states are regulating tailpipe emissions.

“We’ve seen a groundswell of activity at the state level while the federal government has taken us backward on energy policy,” said Aurilio.

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency was wrong in 2003 when it claimed that it lacked the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The ruling improves the chances that the EPA will approve a law in California that set stricter emissions standards than the federal regulations.

The U.S. military is also weighing in on global warming concerns. Last month, a panel of senior retired officers called for immediate action on climate change, citing it as a “threat multiplier” and a potential source of instability and conflict over diminishing global resources.

Some in the U.S. Congress appear to agree. In April, two prominent senators, Dick Durbin and Chuck Hagel, introduced bipartisan legislation that would require a National Intelligence Estimate to assess the geopolitical threats posed by climate change.