First Energy Bill of the Global Warming Era
Starting today, Congress embarks on crafting the first Energy Bill of the global warming era. Every couple of years, Congress guides the future of energy production and usage in what's called an Energy Bill. Through taxes, tax subsidies, laws, guidance to agencies and more, these federal energy bills determine whether the country will use more oil, gas, nuclear or solar and wind power to light our homes; they help determine how much we'll pay at the gas station; and--ultimately--they determine how much global warming pollution goes into the atmosphere.
The Senate is first to take up the Energy Bill this year, so, coming out of Washington for the next couple days, we'll be hearing about issues like renewable energy, biofuels and "liquid coal." Some of these have clear benefits to reducing global warming pollution, some have benefits but need to be promoted responsibly, and some will push us backward in stopping global warming.
So the National Wildlife Federation is calling on the Senate to make sure stopping global warming is the number one deciding factor on all the energy issues that come up.
Some issues we think will come up include:
1. Renewable Energy Standard (RES): this would require at least 15 percent of our energy come from renewable sources by 2020. NWF supports.
2. Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS): this would require the US to lower our total electricity use by 10 percent by 2020. NWF supports.
3. Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard (CAFE): this would require cars to have an average fuel economy of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020. NWF supports.
4. Sustainable Biofuel production: this would support the production of crops grown for fuel that are far less polluting than gasoline and are grown in a wildlife friendly manner. NWF supports.
5. Liquid Coal Provision: this would support coal being turned in to liquid that you can use in your car, but would be twice as polluting as gasoline. NWF opposes.
Look for daily updates on what energy issues are happening each day and don't forget to let your senators know where you stand on these energy issues.
I am disappointed not to see that the number one way to save on energy is conservation. I have great fear of an even greater threat to forests, habitat, and biodiversity by switching from a focus on gasoline to biofuels that will replace existing forestland and other wild habitat.
Posted by: Nancy Lee Trihey | June 11, 2007 at 03:12 PM
I am supportive of efforts to produce sustainable biofuels, crops grown in a wildlife friendly manner, and am concerned about the loss of genetic diversity in flora and fauna. Loss of polinators is a threat to forests, farmers fields and to the wild life indiginous to the biome.
Posted by: Mary Cathleen Brockamp | June 12, 2007 at 05:00 PM
Nancy and Mary make really good points. We did work to get a provision in the underlying bill that would require any new ethanol facilities to improve upon the carbon impacts of conventional fuels by 20%. When factoring in land use practices this could help ensure new lands are not broken out for biofuels. We are seeking additional language for advanced biofuel facilities to secure at least a 50% improvement from conventional fuels.
We are also working with the House for a number of other land use safeguards. Again, great comments.
Thanks,
Adam Kolton
Director of Congressional Affairs
NWF
Posted by: Adam Kolton | June 12, 2007 at 05:56 PM