Energy and Matter

U.S. House approves toned-down energy bill, Bush to sign it tomorrow

Posted at 12:13 PM on 18 Dec 2007

The U.S. House of Representatives today passed a toned-down version of an energy bill that will boost fuel-economy requirements for cars and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 -- the first such increase since 1975. The bill, which was approved by the Senate last week, also mandates using 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022 and will increase efficiency requirements for some appliances. Dropped from the bill in exchange for passage, however, were provisions that would have required utilities to get 15 percent of their energy from renewables, and would have invested billions of dollars in renewables to be paid for by cutting tax breaks and subsidies to the oil and gas industry. Nevertheless, legislators weren't shy about talking up the bill's significance. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared the bill "groundbreaking in what it will do." And House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said, "This legislation is a historic turning point in energy policy." Expect a lot more gushing when President Bush signs the bill into law tomorrow.

sources: Associated Press, Reuters, Houston Chronicle

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (12 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

The fact that this was posted

at 12:13 pm today and there has not been any comments on it, speaks for itself. There is little enthusiasm for what we got for our efforts, and we have already moved on.

Randy Cunningham

Randy Cunningham

by randino at 3:21 PM on 18 Dec 2007

Some Good, Some Bad

It's good that the CAFE standards are being raised, but requiring biofuels without prohibitions on environmentally harmful ones (i.e., biofuels made from plants instead of waste) could create more environmental harm than the good caused by the raised CAFE standards.

Enviros need to quit being so gaga over biofuels. There will be no magical solutions to the environmental problems humans cause by living so unnaturally. We either learn to live more simply and more in harmony with nature, or we continue to cause massive environmental destruction. Those are the only realistic choices. Things like biofuels are just wishful thinking.

by Wolverine at 3:39 PM on 18 Dec 2007

No fertilizer for switchgrass or algae?

My understanding is that neither switch grass for ethanol, nor algae for bio-diesel, needs fertilizer. Is this so? Not needing fossil fuel based fertilizers seems to make these two versions of bio-fuels much more interesting and sustainable.

-Christopher

by christophersj at 5:47 PM on 18 Dec 2007

On a related subject...

Fox News just aired their report on the bill. It started off with the words, "The President is about to sign..." and ended with "The President is expected to sign it tomorrow."

No mention of anyone who actually wrote, sponsored, or fought for the bill; no mention of how watered down the bill was in part due to the President's threat of a veto. Just that in the strictest technical sense, they could attach his name to it.

At least they didn't try to claim imcreased gas milage and improvements to energy efficiency were bad things. I suppose we have to take what we can get. -sigh-

by Pathos at 8:21 PM on 18 Dec 2007

Fertilizer and Switchgrass

While switchgrass doesn't need fertilizer to grow and you shouldn't fertilize it while establishing it, like any other grass in a nitrogen limited soil it will grow better and provide greater yields with fertilizer. Since the increased yields will almost certainly be more than the cost of fertilizer, you can pretty much count on the fact that it will be fertilized.

While increased yields is good for reducing the number of acres needed for production, there are going to be some major climatic downsides to its production.

1st, acidic soils will need to be limed to produce switchgrass well, the liming reaction releases carbon dioxide directly to the atmosphere.

2nd, when nitrogen fertilizer is used it can make soils release nitrous oxide (a 310 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) into the atmosphere when it otherwise wouldn't.

3rd, According to the USDA the remaining ground cover biomass after harvest will need to be burned before the new growing season. This releases CO, CO2, Methane (21 times more potent than CO2), and nitrous oxide. The spring burning will release greenhouse gasses equivalent (factoring in GWPs) to about 20% more carbon than the weight of the carbon in the remaining biomass.

Hopefully somebody smarter than me has looked into these three production issues, and switchgrass is still a net positive.

Land_Man

by LandMan at 5:58 AM on 19 Dec 2007

bio-fuels

I was at first enamored by the idea of bio-fuels.I have since found out,as some here have posted,that bio-fuels can cause as much as or more damage to the atmosphere,water,and food sources as oil or gasoline.
I still think that limited use of bio-fuels(bio-diesel etc.)can help,but we needed that tax break money back from big oil to help fund renewables.As usual the other party of our wonderful(sarcasm)two party system sold us down the river,as usual.This just stinks.One party says vote for us,we will get things done in the first 100hrs.,B.S..Every time the president THREATENS a veto they crap their pants and fade away.The same junk happens again when some one THREATENS a filibuster.What a bunch of cowardly,inept,moronic bastards we put into office,,,,,,,again.
The other aspect of bio-fuels such as corn ethonol is that it takes crop for food land out of the matrix and causes higher food prices and lower production of food crops for humans and animals.They also still require the burning of oil based products to produce the ethonol or coal,which as we know is one of the dirtiest and environmentally damages fuels that we could use.Maybe some of you people just don't care and are saying,Let's use nuclear energy!Gee what a wonderful idea.We already have 40 plus years of nuclear waste that we can't take care of ,why don't we just add to it.No Nukes means NO Nukes!!!I don't care if it is weapons or energy.

Why not ask why!?

by usandthem at 11:08 AM on 19 Dec 2007

The Real Harm From Biofuels

Usandthem,

Speaking for non-humans, our concern is not about human food supply. In fact, you humans take up far too much of the planet growing food for your far too large population. The problem with biofuels is that people are destroying natural areas -- OUR HOMES! -- to grow plants for biofuels. Brazil, Indonesia, and Malaysia are already destroying tropical rainforests for this. Biofuels are only environmentally friendly if they're made from waste or some other material that doesn't need a natural area to grow on. Drilling for petroleum doesn't harm our planet as much as destroying rainforests or other natural areas.

by Wolverine at 11:16 AM on 19 Dec 2007

RE: On A Related Subject

Fox is part of huge corporate conglomerate .....they detest govt regulation of any kind ..... need I say more ???

"We Have Found the Enemy and It Is Us" ... Pogo

by rrecroc at 11:22 AM on 19 Dec 2007

RE: Some Good .... Some Bad

Most homo sapiens listen to the emotions of the reptilean part of their brain rather than use their cerebral cortex to reason ....... this is supposedly what separates us from the "lower" animals but what good is it if we don't use it.

No one wants to talk about overpopulation .... a problem we've known about since its discussion in the 60's.

The "right to breed" is now as arcane and unsupportable as the "right" to dump chemical waste from your factory into the nearest river.

So far, only China has the guts to do what obviously has to be done by every country ...... control their population ....

As the number of people increases, the consumptive level at which they must live must decrease if the environment is not to be destroyed.

Can you imagine the consequences if everyone in the world was presently consuming at the same level as america?

And apparently, based on what is happening in China and India, they all wish to .....

Americans themselves must abandon "consumption" as being the meaning and be all of life ....

Unless the species evolves beyond the "self" as primary motivator, it is doomed.

"We Have Found the Enemy and It Is Us" ... Pogo

by rrecroc at 11:33 AM on 19 Dec 2007

More Nothing

I get really tired of all the hoopla that our government & industry leaders feed us to (hopefully) make us think that they are actually doing something. There are so many things that could already be done using technology that has been in use for years, processes that were patented years ago and materials that are readily available that the BS that we are being fed is just that - - BS ---

Here is just one thing that is immediately available, that has built on technology that has been in use for years and patented ideas from the 60's & 70's. This would really DO something, but do you think that Government & Oil is going to let the public benefit from it???

http://www.4engr.com/press/catalog/1968/index.html

The only way a consumer is going to benefit from this technology is to build it themselves.

by olmon at 11:52 AM on 19 Dec 2007

Work for the Green Tax Shift

I have no doubt that we humans can overcome the prospects of climate change, peak oil, and other looming disasters...but only if we true-cost the environment. CAFE standards don't do this and are, thus, a distraction.

We need to clamor for a complete overhaul of our tax system to remove taxes on labor and the fruits of labor and to charge user fees on all natural resources -- including the pollution of our atmosphere.

Join the Green Tax Shift movement NOW!
Tax Waste, Not Work
Tax Human Entropy, Not Human Effort

by geoark at 3:34 PM on 19 Dec 2007

No nuclear medicine

Usandthem wrote: We already have 40 plus years of nuclear waste that we can't take care of

If you refer to nuclear spent-fuel, it might appear that it is being taken good care of:
images.google.com/images?q=onsite+storage+nuclear

Usandthem wrote: No Nukes means NO Nukes!!!I don't care if it is weapons or energy.

Does that include nuclear medicine?

by Nucbuddy at 5:34 PM on 19 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?