A Snippet Here, A Snippet There

I had intended to spend more time writing on the nature, science and history of Global Warming, and perhaps I will later on. But with the Energy Bill going into the second week of debate on the Senate Floor, deals flying in every direction, there just isn't time. We may see a major floor fight this week over the various amendments being proposed as global warming solutions.

The Energy Bill, as passed by the House and sent to the Senate, is a travesty of what is really needed to change the direction we are headed. Of course, many Republicans, along with their friends and financial supporters in the energy business have no desire to change the direction we're headed.

The bill is a gift for the very people whose activities for the past thirty years have created the situation of climate disruption in which we now find ourselves: the oil, gas, automobile and electric utility companies. Instead of loading the bill with tax incentives to research and develop renewable energy technologies capable of replacing oil, gas and coal, the bill offers billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies for the oil and gas industry to expand domestic energy production, which will have virtually no impact on our dependence on foreign oil. The energy companies are also being exempted from liabilities that are rightfully theirs to take care of. At the same time, the bill avoids improving automobile fuel economy, which experts say is the fastest way to reduce our dependency. (Information taken from Bushgreenwatch, "False Claims for Energy Bill.")

The McCain-Leiberman Climate Stewardship Act, which was defeated 19 months ago, has been added to this Energy Bill as an amendment, but in a new version. It calls for a mandatory cap on carbon dioxide emissions, but would allow companies that don't meet the targets to buy pollution credits from those that exceed them. Renamed the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, this new McCain-Lieberman includes a subsidy of more than five billion for the nuclear industry. The nuclear energy industry is still having problems disposing of spent products from reactors built in the fifties and sixties. Nuclear plants are also at high risk for terrorist attack. Why on earth would anyone in their right mind see nuclear power plants as a replacement for fossil fuels?

As U.S. PIRG Legislative Director Anna Aurilio tells us in her May 26 statement:

We can meet our future electricity needs and reduce global warming pollution far beyond the goals in the Climate Stewardship Act without increasing our reliance on nuclear power. For example, a 2004 study by Synapse Energy Economics found that America could reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide from electricity generation by more than 47 percent by 2025 compared to business as usual and meet projected electricity demand, while saving $36 billion annually in electricity costs. In fact, we can do this while cutting our reliance on nuclear power by nearly half.

We continue to support the original Climate Stewardship Act, as a good first step in tackling the challenge of global warming. We do not support this new bill, which adds expensive and unnecessary subsidies for dangerous nuclear power plants.

The Senate is actively working on changing the bill as it came to them from the House, with efforts to make it more environmentally friendly (See Blues News headline: "Senate Makes Environment the Focus of Energy Bill." However, in same post also read the preceding news story from the WP: "U.S. Pressure Weakens G-8 Climate Plan." If the right hand don't getcha, then the left one will, is what I say.).

This is the first of several posts on the Energy Bill and the contortions the Senate is going through to make it look more "environmentally friendly." This link from Environmental News Service will give you a comprehensive look at what happened on the floor last week, with good clarifications on the amendments being argued. Another good site for news and information about the Energy Bill, as well as much more, is Renewable Energy Access. It's good that the Senate is finally acknowledging that something needs to be done. However, the truth most likely is that nothing in this bill will actually accomplish what needs doing right now, not twenty, thirty or forty years from now. It is urgent and comprehensive action that we need, not a snippet here and a snippet there.

| +Save/Share | |