June 19, 2007 Editorial Crunch Time on Energy The Senate will tell us this week whether it really wants to do something about oil dependency and global warming or if it is just fooling around. The first week of debate on an energy bill, which the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, says he is determined to finish before the Fourth of July recess, produced a few satisfying moments — mainly involving bad ideas that were made to disappear. The days ahead will be more combative. Here are important points of contention and some thoughts about how they should be resolved in a way that moves this country toward a cleaner, more sustainable energy future: ¶ Fuel Economy. The most effective energy efficiency policy ever adopted by the federal government is the Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirement of 1975. CAFE has saved billions of barrels of oil, but it has not been improved for decades. The bill before the Senate would bring fleetwide averages from roughly 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, hardly an impossible target. This proposal should be approved, and a weaker compromise offered by industry allies should be defeated. ¶ Renewable Electricity. A provision championed by Senator Jeff Bingaman, the leading Democratic spokesman on energy issues, would require utilities to produce 15 percent of their power from wind, solar, biomass and other clean-energy sources by 2020 — reducing demand for fossil fuels as well as greenhouse gas emissions. Senior Republicans, complaining about the one-size-fits-all approach, are threatening a filibuster. Here again, though, the requirement does not seem insanely onerous. The Senate approved a 10 percent requirement two years ago, and the House is talking about 20 percent. ¶Coal-to-Liquids. A coalition of coal interests has been lobbying furiously for subsidies to build a new generation of coal-to-liquid power plants to produce diesel fuel. This could reduce our dependence on foreign oil, although marginally and at great cost. It would also be a disaster in terms of global warming unless ways are found to capture and store the carbon dioxide emissions from the refining process. Without such safeguards, coal-to-liquid plants cannot be allowed to proceed. ¶Renewable Fuels. Biofuels offer a far cleaner and more promising approach to oil dependency than coal-to-liquids. The bill would quintuple production, chiefly ethanol from sources other than corn. This is a generally popular provision that must be amended to make sure that the rush to ethanol does not destroy valuable forest and conservation lands. Waiting in the wings is a tax bill that will eventually be married to the energy bill. On the whole, the tax bill favors renewable and other clean energy sources over the oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear interests that received top billing in the 2005 plan. In fact, the entire energy discussion this year is more forward-looking than it has been for some time. It will be up to the leadership to keep it that way. Crunch Time on Energy The Senate will tell us this week whether it really wants to do something about oil dependency and global warming or if it is just fooling around. The first week of debate on an energy bill, which the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, says he is determined to finish before the Fourth of July recess, produced a few satisfying moments — mainly involving bad ideas that were made to disappear. The days ahead will be more combative. Here are important points of contention and some thoughts about how they should be resolved in a way that moves this country toward a cleaner, more sustainable energy future: ¶ Fuel Economy. The most effective energy efficiency policy ever adopted by the federal government is the Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirement of 1975. CAFE has saved billions of barrels of oil, but it has not been improved for decades. The bill before the Senate would bring fleetwide averages from roughly 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, hardly an impossible target. This proposal should be approved, and a weaker compromise offered by industry allies should be defeated. ¶ Renewable Electricity. A provision championed by Senator Jeff Bingaman, the leading Democratic spokesman on energy issues, would require utilities to produce 15 percent of their power from wind, solar, biomass and other clean-energy sources by 2020 — reducing demand for fossil fuels as well as greenhouse gas emissions. Senior Republicans, complaining about the one-size-fits-all approach, are threatening a filibuster. Here again, though, the requirement does not seem insanely onerous. The Senate approved a 10 percent requirement two years ago, and the House is talking about 20 percent. ¶Coal-to-Liquids. A coalition of coal interests has been lobbying furiously for subsidies to build a new generation of coal-to-liquid power plants to produce diesel fuel. This could reduce our dependence on foreign oil, although marginally and at great cost. It would also be a disaster in terms of global warming unless ways are found to capture and store the carbon dioxide emissions from the refining process. Without such safeguards, coal-to-liquid plants cannot be allowed to proceed. ¶Renewable Fuels. Biofuels offer a far cleaner and more promising approach to oil dependency than coal-to-liquids. The bill would quintuple production, chiefly ethanol from sources other than corn. This is a generally popular provision that must be amended to make sure that the rush to ethanol does not destroy valuable forest and conservation lands. Waiting in the wings is a tax bill that will eventually be married to the energy bill. On the whole, the tax bill favors renewable and other clean energy sources over the oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear interests that received top billing in the 2005 plan. In fact, the entire energy discussion this year is more forward-looking than it has been for some time. It will be up to the leadership to keep it that way. The Senate will tell us this week whether it really wants to do something about oil dependency and global warming or if it is just fooling around. The first week of debate on an energy bill, which the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, says he is determined to finish before the Fourth of July recess, produced a few satisfying moments — mainly involving bad ideas that were made to disappear. The days ahead will be more combative. Here are important points of contention and some thoughts about how they should be resolved in a way that moves this country toward a cleaner, more sustainable energy future: ¶ Fuel Economy. The most effective energy efficiency policy ever adopted by the federal government is the Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirement of 1975. CAFE has saved billions of barrels of oil, but it has not been improved for decades. The bill before the Senate would bring fleetwide averages from roughly 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, hardly an impossible target. This proposal should be approved, and a weaker compromise offered by industry allies should be defeated. ¶ Renewable Electricity. A provision championed by Senator Jeff Bingaman, the leading Democratic spokesman on energy issues, would require utilities to produce 15 percent of their power from wind, solar, biomass and other clean-energy sources by 2020 — reducing demand for fossil fuels as well as greenhouse gas emissions. Senior Republicans, complaining about the one-size-fits-all approach, are threatening a filibuster. Here again, though, the requirement does not seem insanely onerous. The Senate approved a 10 percent requirement two years ago, and the House is talking about 20 percent. ¶Coal-to-Liquids. A coalition of coal interests has been lobbying furiously for subsidies to build a new generation of coal-to-liquid power plants to produce diesel fuel. This could reduce our dependence on foreign oil, although marginally and at great cost. It would also be a disaster in terms of global warming unless ways are found to capture and store the carbon dioxide emissions from the refining process. Without such safeguards, coal-to-liquid plants cannot be allowed to proceed. ¶Renewable Fuels. Biofuels offer a far cleaner and more promising approach to oil dependency than coal-to-liquids. The bill would quintuple production, chiefly ethanol from sources other than corn. This is a generally popular provision that must be amended to make sure that the rush to ethanol does not destroy valuable forest and conservation lands. Waiting in the wings is a tax bill that will eventually be married to the energy bill. On the whole, the tax bill favors renewable and other clean energy sources over the oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear interests that received top billing in the 2005 plan. In fact, the entire energy discussion this year is more forward-looking than it has been for some time. It will be up to the leadership to keep it that way. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. Crunch Time on Energy The Senate will tell us this week whether it really wants to do something about oil dependency and global warming or if it is just fooling around. The first week of debate on an energy bill, which the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, says he is determined to finish before the Fourth of July recess, produced a few satisfying moments — mainly involving bad ideas that were made to disappear. The days ahead will be more combative. Here are important points of contention and some thoughts about how they should be resolved in a way that moves this country toward a cleaner, more sustainable energy future: ¶ Fuel Economy. The most effective energy efficiency policy ever adopted by the federal government is the Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirement of 1975. CAFE has saved billions of barrels of oil, but it has not been improved for decades. The bill before the Senate would bring fleetwide averages from roughly 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, hardly an impossible target. This proposal should be approved, and a weaker compromise offered by industry allies should be defeated. ¶ Renewable Electricity. A provision championed by Senator Jeff Bingaman, the leading Democratic spokesman on energy issues, would require utilities to produce 15 percent of their power from wind, solar, biomass and other clean-energy sources by 2020 — reducing demand for fossil fuels as well as greenhouse gas emissions. Senior Republicans, complaining about the one-size-fits-all approach, are threatening a filibuster. Here again, though, the requirement does not seem insanely onerous. The Senate approved a 10 percent requirement two years ago, and the House is talking about 20 percent. ¶Coal-to-Liquids. A coalition of coal interests has been lobbying furiously for subsidies to build a new generation of coal-to-liquid power plants to produce diesel fuel. This could reduce our dependence on foreign oil, although marginally and at great cost. It would also be a disaster in terms of global warming unless ways are found to capture and store the carbon dioxide emissions from the refining process. Without such safeguards, coal-to-liquid plants cannot be allowed to proceed. ¶Renewable Fuels. Biofuels offer a far cleaner and more promising approach to oil dependency than coal-to-liquids. The bill would quintuple production, chiefly ethanol from sources other than corn. This is a generally popular provision that must be amended to make sure that the rush to ethanol does not destroy valuable forest and conservation lands. Waiting in the wings is a tax bill that will eventually be married to the energy bill. On the whole, the tax bill favors renewable and other clean energy sources over the oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear interests that received top billing in the 2005 plan. In fact, the entire energy discussion this year is more forward-looking than it has been for some time. It will be up to the leadership to keep it that way. The Senate will tell us this week whether it really wants to do something about oil dependency and global warming or if it is just fooling around. The first week of debate on an energy bill, which the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, says he is determined to finish before the Fourth of July recess, produced a few satisfying moments — mainly involving bad ideas that were made to disappear. The days ahead will be more combative. Here are important points of contention and some thoughts about how they should be resolved in a way that moves this country toward a cleaner, more sustainable energy future: ¶ Fuel Economy. The most effective energy efficiency policy ever adopted by the federal government is the Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirement of 1975. CAFE has saved billions of barrels of oil, but it has not been improved for decades. The bill before the Senate would bring fleetwide averages from roughly 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, hardly an impossible target. This proposal should be approved, and a weaker compromise offered by industry allies should be defeated. ¶ Renewable Electricity. A provision championed by Senator Jeff Bingaman, the leading Democratic spokesman on energy issues, would require utilities to produce 15 percent of their power from wind, solar, biomass and other clean-energy sources by 2020 — reducing demand for fossil fuels as well as greenhouse gas emissions. Senior Republicans, complaining about the one-size-fits-all approach, are threatening a filibuster. Here again, though, the requirement does not seem insanely onerous. The Senate approved a 10 percent requirement two years ago, and the House is talking about 20 percent. ¶Coal-to-Liquids. A coalition of coal interests has been lobbying furiously for subsidies to build a new generation of coal-to-liquid power plants to produce diesel fuel. This could reduce our dependence on foreign oil, although marginally and at great cost. It would also be a disaster in terms of global warming unless ways are found to capture and store the carbon dioxide emissions from the refining process. Without such safeguards, coal-to-liquid plants cannot be allowed to proceed. ¶Renewable Fuels. Biofuels offer a far cleaner and more promising approach to oil dependency than coal-to-liquids. The bill would quintuple production, chiefly ethanol from sources other than corn. This is a generally popular provision that must be amended to make sure that the rush to ethanol does not destroy valuable forest and conservation lands. Waiting in the wings is a tax bill that will eventually be married to the energy bill. On the whole, the tax bill favors renewable and other clean energy sources over the oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear interests that received top billing in the 2005 plan. In fact, the entire energy discussion this year is more forward-looking than it has been for some time. It will be up to the leadership to keep it that way. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe RECENT ACTIVITY 1 New Members Visit Your Group SPONSORED LINKS New york college New york hotel Finger lake lodging Finger lake vacation Finger lake accommodation Yahoo! News Odd News You won't believe it, but it's true Yahoo! TV Want the scoop? Check out today's news and gossip. Yahoo! HotJobs Be Discovered! Employers find you Upload your resume . __,_._,___ ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. _______________________________________________ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
