Greed versus green on the energy bill 5

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   Karen Lee Orr Posted 1:06 pm
   10 Dec 2007

   Stop the Dirty Energy in the Energy BillMike Ewall of the Energy Justice Network has an excellent analysis of the energy bill here:
   
   http://www.energyjustice.net/energybill/
   Also see the EJN action alert below ~
    You may have seen one-sided action alerts about how a great clean energy bill got passed in the U.S. House on 12/6 and was rejected Friday (12/7) by the Senate.  As with ANY legislative alerts that urge you to support something, we encourage you to look into some of the details.  At a minimum, please look at the table of contents of the bill and see what it is you'd be supporting.
   If you look over the 1,038 page bill, as I've been doing for the past day, you'll notice many problematic policies in the bill.
   While we've had some great victories so far, in keeping $50 billion/year in nuclear power subsidies out of the bill and in placing some limits on the bill's support for agrofuels and trash incineration, there is still a lot of work to do to make this a bill clean enough to deserve unqualified support.
   The bill still supports ethanol, waste-to-ethanol, coal, trash incineration, biomass (including poultry waste) incineration, landfills and nuclear power.  Visit http://www.energyjustice.net/energybill/ for a link to the bill and details on how the bill supports these dirty energy sources.
   The vote in the Senate will be close.  There are efforts to overcome the Senators who are opposing the bill for the wrong reason.  These efforts will weaken the bill be pulling out some of the stronger renewable (but not necessarily "clean") energy policies in the bill (like the 13.8% by 2020 Renewable Electricity Standard).
   This is a great opportunity to push back on them and work to change the debate.  If we can get even 1-2 senators to vote against the bill for the right reasons, we can have a chance of getting a cleaner bill passed.  It's only a matter of time until the big enviro groups -- with all of their alerts on the issue -- get the extra votes needed to PASS the bill by persuading Senators to support the good aspects of the bill.  Given the grave consequences of the dirty aspects of the bill, it's worth however many months it might take to send this back to the drawing board in order to clean it up before passing it.
   PLEASE look over our http://www.energyjustice.net/energybill/ page.  Read over it.  Feel free to check the bill itself (or call me) to verify things.  Then, call your Senator and urge them to remove the Renewable Fuels Mandate, the language supporting the coal and waste industries as well as the other dirty energy issues outlined there.
   Thank you,
   Mike Ewall
   
   Energy Justice Network
   
   (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
   
   //
   var l=new Array();
   
   var output = '';
   
   l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[26]='\"';l[27]=' 103';l[28]=' 114';l[29]=' 111';l[30]=' 46';l[31]=' 97';l[32]=' 112';l[33]=' 110';l[34]=' 111';l[35]=' 105';l[36]=' 116';l[37]=' 99';l[38]=' 97';l[39]=' 64';l[40]=' 116';l[41]=' 115';l[42]=' 121';l[43]=' 108';l[44]=' 97';l[45]=' 116';l[46]=' 97';l[47]=' 99';l[48]=':';l[49]='o';l[50]='t';l[51]='l';l[52]='i';l[53]='a';l[54]='m';l[55]='\"';l[56]='=';l[57]='f';l[58]='e';l[59]='r';l[60]='h';l[61]='a ';l[62]='

   Permalink

2. 

   David Roberts Posted 4:04 pm
   10 Dec 2007

   WTF?If we can get even 1-2 senators to vote against the bill for the right reasons, [then] we can have a chance of getting a cleaner bill passed.
   Can you please explain to me how that "then" follows from that "if"? I'm missing the causal connection. As far as I know, no one records their reason for voting against a bill. The bill just dies. I guess any bill dying represents "a chance" to pass an even stronger bill, in la la land. Back in the real world, a bill dying is good evidence that a stronger bill ... would also die.
   It's only a matter of time until the big enviro groups -- with all of their alerts on the issue -- get the extra votes needed to PASS the bill by persuading Senators to support the good aspects of the bill.
   OMFG. If big enviro groups send out enough press releases, they'll be able to sway Senators on the RPS and the tax package? Really? That's the strategy?
   Maybe Ewall thinks "it's just a matter of time" before his pony arrives, but some folks would rather not live with the status quo while waiting for it.
   
   grist.org

   Permalink

3. 

   Karen Lee Orr Posted 11:39 pm
   10 Dec 2007

   David Roberts' questionsDear David,
   I'm not sure whether your questions regarding Mike Ewall's Energy Justice Network action alert are rhetorical or you'd like a reply.
   If you'd like a reply, Mike Ewall can be reached at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
   
   //
   var l=new Array();
   
   var output = '';
   
   l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[26]='\"';l[27]=' 103';l[28]=' 114';l[29]=' 111';l[30]=' 46';l[31]=' 97';l[32]=' 112';l[33]=' 110';l[34]=' 111';l[35]=' 105';l[36]=' 116';l[37]=' 99';l[38]=' 97';l[39]=' 64';l[40]=' 116';l[41]=' 115';l[42]=' 121';l[43]=' 108';l[44]=' 97';l[45]=' 116';l[46]=' 97';l[47]=' 99';l[48]=':';l[49]='o';l[50]='t';l[51]='l';l[52]='i';l[53]='a';l[54]='m';l[55]='\"';l[56]='=';l[57]='f';l[58]='e';l[59]='r';l[60]='h';l[61]='a ';l[62]='

   Permalink

4. 

   wesrolley Posted 2:55 am
   11 Dec 2007

   RFSKaren,
   
   I am sitting out in California where the transfer of food to energy production with corn has led to a $1 / gal. increase in the price of milk at the supermarket and still Roberts and the other polemicists for the Democrats will not address the bad effects of RFS.
   Why don't they include the cost of corn subsidies in their calculations?  In 2005, corn subsidies cost the tax payers $4.5 Billion.  Every time we plant more corn, whether for food or energy, it costs more.
   That is just a beginning.  But, they will swallow a lot to get a little.
   
   Wes Rolley
   
   
   
   CoChair - EcoAction Committee
   
   Green Party US

   Permalink

5. 

   Ron Steenblik Posted 12:51 am
   12 Dec 2007

   Stronger, or simply better?David writes:
   I guess any bill dying represents "a chance" to pass an even stronger bill, in la la land. Back in the real world, a bill dying is good evidence that a stronger bill ... would also die. ... [B]ut some folks would rather not live with the status quo while waiting for it.
   Is that it? Is the debate over? No more arguing? We'd better like the existing bill -- complete with its huge increase in the Renewable Fuels Standard -- or lump it?
   In my view, it is a matter of perspective. For some, the good parts of the bill (if they survive) are worth the bad parts (which no doubt will). For others, it is a Faustian bargain. Is it so unreasonable to argue that holding up a poor bill might lead to a better -- not necessarily stronger (in what sense?) bill.
   And I'm not talking about CAFE standards. They are largely irrelevant, given that other factors -- high fuel prices of one -- will probably drive improvements in fuel economy much more than will an unambitious CAFE standard.
   So, in sort, I'm with Karen and Mike and Wes on this one.

   Permalink