<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for What’s going on with the energy bill in Congress]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/energy-bill-for-dummies/ Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:35:26 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/energy-bill-for-dummies/1 Unbelievable

There are other differences in the bills, but those [the raising of the CAFE standard and the introduction of a renewable energy standard] are the ones to watch.

The only ones to watch??!! What about the proposal in the Senate version of the bill (not contained in the House version), to increase the so-called Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022?

If enacted this five-fold increase in the annual use of biofuels will have enormous repercussions, not just for the budget, but also for food prices and the environment -- far more than a change in the CAFE standard that would not even bring the new car fleet fuel intensity any lower than that already achieved by France and Italy.

To paraphrase Ms. Bovey, in 20 years, when we're paying more for food, bemoaning the massive expansion of the hypoxic ("dead") zone in the Gulf of Mexico, wondering why we have squandered billions of dollars for at best slight reductions in greenhouse gases, will we care whether our ill fortune came out of pre-conference or conference? I think not.

]]> Unbelievable

There are other differences in the bills, but those [the raising of the CAFE standard and the introduction of a renewable energy standard] are the ones to watch.

The only ones to watch??!! What about the proposal in the Senate version of the bill (not contained in the House version), to increase the so-called Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022?

If enacted this five-fold increase in the annual use of biofuels will have enormous repercussions, not just for the budget, but also for food prices and the environment -- far more than a change in the CAFE standard that would not even bring the new car fleet fuel intensity any lower than that already achieved by France and Italy.

To paraphrase Ms. Bovey, in 20 years, when we're paying more for food, bemoaning the massive expansion of the hypoxic ("dead") zone in the Gulf of Mexico, wondering why we have squandered billions of dollars for at best slight reductions in greenhouse gases, will we care whether our ill fortune came out of pre-conference or conference? I think not.

]]> Comment #2 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/energy-bill-for-dummies/ Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:49:28 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/energy-bill-for-dummies/2 NRDC

Why the shoe fashion article (yes we know DC is a capitol of perversion, but must eco-lobbyists pander to that aspect)?  And if she is taking the shoe fetish tack, why no pictures?

 We know NRDC opposes Cape Wind, and probably all offshore wind power and wind power in general.

We know NRDC favors "clean" coal, gas guzzling (coal to liquid fuel) nukes, and fuel farming.

They don't say much about solar PV, but one can assume they also are fighting that behind the scenes.

Sometimes it's wise to consider the source of information, even if it does not count in a perfectly reasoned discussion.  In a political battle identifying a covert enemy of renewable energy, like NRDC is necessary.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> NRDC

Why the shoe fashion article (yes we know DC is a capitol of perversion, but must eco-lobbyists pander to that aspect)?  And if she is taking the shoe fetish tack, why no pictures?

 We know NRDC opposes Cape Wind, and probably all offshore wind power and wind power in general.

We know NRDC favors "clean" coal, gas guzzling (coal to liquid fuel) nukes, and fuel farming.

They don't say much about solar PV, but one can assume they also are fighting that behind the scenes.

Sometimes it's wise to consider the source of information, even if it does not count in a perfectly reasoned discussion.  In a political battle identifying a covert enemy of renewable energy, like NRDC is necessary.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Comment #3 by Chessia http://www.grist.org/article/energy-bill-for-dummies/ Sat, 03 Nov 2007 07:18:29 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/energy-bill-for-dummies/3 This is a monumental bill

Maybe by "things to watch" she meant "the good parts of the bill".  I am not for biofuels...a 20 page paper in college taught me that they are a big fat waste and, in a lucky little bonus damage the environment (cutting down forests to create corn fields, ug) and do all the bad things you mentioned.  However, the fuel standard of 35 mpg by 2020 and 15% renewable energy by 2020 are big steps in the right direction for the US.  The content of this bill is a really big deal, and I urge you to log onto http://www.energybill2007.org to sign a petition to pass these 2 provisions, or to write a letter to a congress(wo)man to get your voice heard.  Julia, you say that in 20 years we will be driving cleaner cars ect. but truly, thats what people said in the 70s after the oil crisis, and nothing has been done.  It is imperative that we use our voices to get standards in the US.

]]> This is a monumental bill

Maybe by "things to watch" she meant "the good parts of the bill".  I am not for biofuels...a 20 page paper in college taught me that they are a big fat waste and, in a lucky little bonus damage the environment (cutting down forests to create corn fields, ug) and do all the bad things you mentioned.  However, the fuel standard of 35 mpg by 2020 and 15% renewable energy by 2020 are big steps in the right direction for the US.  The content of this bill is a really big deal, and I urge you to log onto http://www.energybill2007.org to sign a petition to pass these 2 provisions, or to write a letter to a congress(wo)man to get your voice heard.  Julia, you say that in 20 years we will be driving cleaner cars ect. but truly, thats what people said in the 70s after the oil crisis, and nothing has been done.  It is imperative that we use our voices to get standards in the US.

]]> Comment #4 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/energy-bill-for-dummies/ Sat, 03 Nov 2007 07:43:27 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/energy-bill-for-dummies/4 An important criterion for legislation ...

... is how much difference government intervention makes compared with the outcome that could be expected to happen in the absence of that intervention.

Since there is no technical barrier to achieving a 35 mpg average fuel economy for new cars today (several European countries are already there), how much difference is establishing a CAFE standard of 35 mpg in 2020 really going to make? If fuel prices remain high, consumers will not need for the market to be rigged towards more fuel-efficient vehicles: they will vote with their pocketbooks.

By contrast, mandating a five-fold increase in the renewable fuels standard (RFS) would make a HUGE difference compared with no mandate. Without it, the production of biofuels -- and the accompanying subsidies and pressure on agricultural markets -- would almost certainly be much less. The ethanol lobby knows this, which is why it is fighting so hard for the provision.

]]> An important criterion for legislation ...

... is how much difference government intervention makes compared with the outcome that could be expected to happen in the absence of that intervention.

Since there is no technical barrier to achieving a 35 mpg average fuel economy for new cars today (several European countries are already there), how much difference is establishing a CAFE standard of 35 mpg in 2020 really going to make? If fuel prices remain high, consumers will not need for the market to be rigged towards more fuel-efficient vehicles: they will vote with their pocketbooks.

By contrast, mandating a five-fold increase in the renewable fuels standard (RFS) would make a HUGE difference compared with no mandate. Without it, the production of biofuels -- and the accompanying subsidies and pressure on agricultural markets -- would almost certainly be much less. The ethanol lobby knows this, which is why it is fighting so hard for the provision.

]]> Comment #5 by JuliaBovey http://www.grist.org/article/energy-bill-for-dummies/ Mon, 05 Nov 2007 01:26:39 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/energy-bill-for-dummies/5 NRDC does NOT oppose Cape Wind!

NRDC not support wind? Are you kidding? NRDC is an enthusiastic supporter of wind power and believes that offshore wind is hugely promising. We have been watching the Cape Wind project since its conception and firmly believe the environmental review process the project is going through should be allowed to run its course. If fully and thoroughly pursued, this process will provide a scientific basis for determining the projects merit. So far there is every sign that the process is being thoroughly pursued.

Bottom line: we like what we see, but we're withholding judgment until the review process is completed, and we vigorously oppose efforts to kill the project before the review is completed.

]]> NRDC does NOT oppose Cape Wind!

NRDC not support wind? Are you kidding? NRDC is an enthusiastic supporter of wind power and believes that offshore wind is hugely promising. We have been watching the Cape Wind project since its conception and firmly believe the environmental review process the project is going through should be allowed to run its course. If fully and thoroughly pursued, this process will provide a scientific basis for determining the projects merit. So far there is every sign that the process is being thoroughly pursued.

Bottom line: we like what we see, but we're withholding judgment until the review process is completed, and we vigorously oppose efforts to kill the project before the review is completed.

]]> Comment #6 by JuliaBovey http://www.grist.org/article/energy-bill-for-dummies/ Mon, 05 Nov 2007 01:31:45 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/energy-bill-for-dummies/6 I should have noted the bad biofuels in the bill

You're right, the biofuels provision in the bill is terrible and we here at NRDC are devoting countless late nights to fighting it. I was trying to point out the two good things in the bill. A list of bad things in the bill would require another post, but that post would certainly headline with the biofuels provision. We need what we here are calling "biofuels done right"  - which means safeguards to prevent destruction of open lands, wildlife habitat, water supplies and other natural resources.

]]> I should have noted the bad biofuels in the bill

You're right, the biofuels provision in the bill is terrible and we here at NRDC are devoting countless late nights to fighting it. I was trying to point out the two good things in the bill. A list of bad things in the bill would require another post, but that post would certainly headline with the biofuels provision. We need what we here are calling "biofuels done right"  - which means safeguards to prevent destruction of open lands, wildlife habitat, water supplies and other natural resources.

]]> Comment #7 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/energy-bill-for-dummies/ Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:37:40 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/energy-bill-for-dummies/7 Thank you, Julia

That is encouraging news. I think that if one truly imposes a criterion like no "destruction of open lands, wildlife habitat, water supplies and other natural resources", you will find that there would be very little production of agro-fuels, apart from a small amount from waste cooking oil, perhaps some additional from municipal solid waste (eventually), and a bit from crop wastes (or dedicated grasses or wood) that pass the sustainability test.

And don't forget: large-scale cultivation of biofuels -- even switchgrass or miscanthus -- could take fertile land away from agricultural use, which could lead to carbon emissions associated with land-use changes, as the resulting higher prices encourage the world farming frontier to expand into forests, grasslands and other (often carbon-rich) ecosystems.

And there remains the question of subsidies. By the calculations done by Doug Koplow for us, the rate of subsidization of biofuels is hundreds of dollars per metric ton of CO2-equivalent displaced by their use, even in a hypothetical cellulosic ethanol case (i.e., where we apply current subsidies to the predicted improvement in life-cycle GHG emissions achieved through cellulosic ethanol). I hope you would agree that there are many other ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that would be considerably more cost-effective.

]]> Thank you, Julia

That is encouraging news. I think that if one truly imposes a criterion like no "destruction of open lands, wildlife habitat, water supplies and other natural resources", you will find that there would be very little production of agro-fuels, apart from a small amount from waste cooking oil, perhaps some additional from municipal solid waste (eventually), and a bit from crop wastes (or dedicated grasses or wood) that pass the sustainability test.

And don't forget: large-scale cultivation of biofuels -- even switchgrass or miscanthus -- could take fertile land away from agricultural use, which could lead to carbon emissions associated with land-use changes, as the resulting higher prices encourage the world farming frontier to expand into forests, grasslands and other (often carbon-rich) ecosystems.

And there remains the question of subsidies. By the calculations done by Doug Koplow for us, the rate of subsidization of biofuels is hundreds of dollars per metric ton of CO2-equivalent displaced by their use, even in a hypothetical cellulosic ethanol case (i.e., where we apply current subsidies to the predicted improvement in life-cycle GHG emissions achieved through cellulosic ethanol). I hope you would agree that there are many other ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that would be considerably more cost-effective.

]]>