Home
Polar Bear Plunge
Stay Updated
Donate
Calendar
Global Warming News
End Oil Subsidies
Basic Science
Hurricanes
Personal Action
Down with King Coal
Activist Tools
Essays and Writings
Contact Us




Find local climate groups near you (unavailable temporarily)

Home arrow Global Warming News

12/7/07 Broad Energy Bill Passed by House - WP
Broad Energy Bill Passed by House
Car Mileage, Renewable Power Addressed


By Jonathan Weisman and Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 7, 2007; Page A01

The House yesterday brushed aside a new White House veto threat and handily approved a comprehensive energy bill that would raise automobile fuel-efficiency standards for the first time in 32 years and require increased use of renewable energy sources to generate electricity.

The 235 to 181 vote sends the measure to the Senate today. There, Republicans hope to strip it of tax increases on the oil industry and the renewable-source requirement before a final version goes to President Bush. The White House objects to the bill on multiple fronts, including the prospect of tax boosts on oil companies, saying Bush would veto it.

But with energy prices soaring, lawmakers from both parties expressed strong support for fuel-efficiency standards, which Congress has not changed since the end of the muscle-car era in the mid-1970s. House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) called the package "nothing less than our nation's declaration of independence from foreign sources of energy."

Even House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) -- who assails the measure as a "no-energy" bill and as a tax increase that would raise, not lower, energy costs -- lauded the CAFE (corporate average fuel efficiency) standards as a good and reasonable compromise.

Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), said: "There is a real appetite to increase CAFE standards. The only question has been how much and how fast." He added: "Everybody understands we need to give Detroit a nudge. We just don't want to push them off a cliff."

Fourteen Republicans voted for the bill. Seven Democrats opposed it.

"In the end, I voted with my heart," said Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.), a Navy reservist, who backed the bill. "I'm out of the Navy, but still in the Navy, and I want instability in the Persian Gulf to no longer be a problem for the Pentagon. I really think this will help."

Under the measure, auto manufacturers' vehicle fleets would have to average 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40 percent increase over the current requirement. By that same deadline, 15 percent of the electricity generated by the nation's utilities would have to come from renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, as well as biomass.
ad_icon

The measure would provide tax incentives to bring about a sevenfold increase in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel by 2022, when a required 36 billion gallons of it would be on the market each year. Two-thirds of those gallons would have to be "cellulosic" -- derived from feedstock such as prairie grass and wood chips, or other non-corn-based biofuels.

The bill also includes appliance and light-bulb standards that would effectively phase out, by the middle of the next decade, the incandescent bulb invented by Thomas Edison.

To finance tax incentives for hybrid cars, ethanol production and renewable-energy development, the bill includes $21 billion in revenue increases, including a rollback of $13.5 billion in tax breaks for the five largest oil companies.

Not included in the energy bill is a clause that would limit the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to set standards for emissions from vehicle tailpipes. In April, the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The EPA must now issue regulations. The agency is weighing a waiver application that would allow California and a dozen other states to set their own standards.

Automakers and their allies want to make sure that, in the name of reducing greenhouse gases, the EPA does not issue even more demanding fuel-efficiency regulations.

The regulatory issue was singled out by the Bush administration yesterday. A statement of policy from the Office of Management and Budget complained that the energy bill "leaves ambiguous the role" of the EPA. The administration wants the Transportation Department, which traditionally has been more sympathetic to automakers than has the EPA, to have the final say over fuel efficiency.

Critics of the bill took aim at almost every component besides the fuel-efficiency standards. Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Tex.) said the biofuels target would set a mandate "that can't be met." Others said the renewable-source standard would put an unfair burden on Southeastern states, which are not considered good places for the generation of wind power. Supporters of the bill said, however, that those states are good sites for solar power plants.

Some of the bill's supporters were not enthusiastic about various parts of it.

"It will come as no surprise to anyone in this body that I have some reservations -- to put it mildly -- about how this legislation was assembled. Many have been complicit in the curious process that has yielded an imperfect product," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell (D-Mich.). "But it is probably the best product achievable."

But environmentalists and those who think that oil imports compromise U.S. national security were enthusiastic.

"Congress hasn't changed fuel-efficiency standards since the age of the eight-track tape player," said Jeremy Symons, director of the National Wildlife Federation's program on global warming. "From the point of view of solving the climate crisis and advancing the clean-energy economy, this is a big down payment on action."
ad_icon

For House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), passage of the bill was a hard-fought triumph that took nearly a year to secure. In addition to the broad popularity of the measure's fuel-efficiency standards, the promotion of ethanol won the legislation the allegiance of farm-state lawmakers from both parties.

"We will send our energy dollars to the Middle West and not the Middle East," Pelosi said on the House floor.

But she had to beat back challenges from the House's senior member, Dingell, who has long opposed fuel-efficiency mandates on his home-state auto industry. Democrats on Dingell's committee complained bitterly that Pelosi's handpicked negotiators largely circumvented them as the deal was put together.

Finally, Pelosi had to tamp down a threatened revolt by conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, who were angered by tax increases in the bill that could endanger their political careers.

In that sense, the triumph could be short-lived. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has called for a vote today to break off debate on the energy bill and move it to final passage. Senate Democratic leaders expressed strong support for the measure and will push hard for the 60 votes needed to break a threatened filibuster.

"We've got a chance, and America is watching," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). "They know what the price of gasoline is, what the price of a barrel of oil has gone up to, and they know that global warming is a reality. They expect the Congress to move forward on energy."

The Senate vote is expected to be close. Reid has summoned the chamber's four Democratic presidential candidates from the campaign trail for a motion to defeat a threatened filibuster, but if the Senate cannot muster the 60 votes needed, portions of the bill could be removed. These sections include many of the tax measures and, perhaps, the renewable-energy requirement on utilities.

 
Nov. 14-Where's that Energy Bill? NYT

NEW YORK TIMES
November 14, 2007
Editorial

Where’s That Energy Bill?

Two months ago, Washington was filled with hope that Congress would produce an energy bill that would begin to address the two great challenges of oil dependency and climate change. Each chamber had approved respectable if incomplete measures that could be combined in one outstanding bill. Then the bills disappeared into the back rooms as Democratic leaders tried to negotiate a final product.

These talks have now reached a dangerous point. With both houses feeling pressure to do something — anything — to deal with high oil prices, there’s a real danger that one or more essential provisions could be dropped just for the sake of producing a bill.

That’s not what the country needs. And it doesn’t have to happen if the leadership, Nancy Pelosi in the House and Harry Reid in the Senate, hold the line and insist on legislation equal to the country’s profound energy problems. Here are the main points of contention:

FUEL EFFICIENCY
The single most effective way to address the problem of oil imports and consumption is to improve the efficiency of cars and light trucks, which use more than two-thirds of all the oil burned in the United States. Efficiency standards have changed little in 30 years. The Senate bill mandates an ambitious 40 percent improvement by 2020. The House ducked the issue — but Ms. Pelosi promised to fight for stronger standards in later negotiations. She must now honor that pledge.

RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY
The House bill requires utilities to generate 15 percent of their power from renewable sources like wind by 2020. Republicans, pressured by a few big utilities like the Southern Company, blocked a similar provision in the Senate. Almost two dozen states have already figured out that this is both good for the environment and good for the economy and have enacted renewable energy standards, which will create jobs, stabilize natural gas prices and reduce global warming emissions.

Yet this provision is in greater danger than any other of getting tossed overboard. Ms. Pelosi should insist that it remain in the bill and Mr. Reid should enlist the support of governors from those nearly two dozen states to change Republican thinking in the Senate.

TAXING BIG OIL
The House rolled back some of the far too generous tax breaks granted to the oil industry in the 2005 energy bill.

The proceeds would be used to fund renewable energy initiatives. The House bill also contains some modest but overdue environmental protections for sensitive Western lands threatened by oil and gas drilling. Industry has been going berserk over both provisions. The House should stand its ground.

Even if the leadership gets all this right, it still won’t be a substitute for comprehensive climate change legislation. It would, however, represent an important down payment on that larger obligation. With so much more to be done, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid simply have to deliver a good energy bill.

 
Aug.7-Mosquito-borne 'Breakbone Fever' Flourishes in Warm Asia (AP)
 
Aug.7-2007 Already Record Year for Extreme Weather (MSNBC)
 
Aug.7-Inside the (Well-Funded) Warming Denial Machine (Newsweek)
 
June 19, 2007

The Earth today stands in imminent peril

...and nothing short of a planetary rescue will save it from the environmental cataclysm of dangerous climate change. Those are not the words of eco-warriors but the considered opinion of a group of eminent scientists writing in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
The Independent

Published: 19 June 2007

Six scientists from some of the leading scientific institutions in the United States have issued what amounts to an unambiguous warning to the world: civilisation itself is threatened by global warming.

They also implicitly criticise the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for underestimating the scale of sea-level rises this century as a result of melting glaciers and polar ice sheets.

Instead of sea levels rising by about 40 centimetres, as the IPCC predicts in one of its computer forecasts, the true rise might be as great as several metres by 2100. That is why, they say, planet Earth today is in "imminent peril".

In a densely referenced scientific paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A some of the world's leading climate researchers describe in detail why they believe that humanity can no longer afford to ignore the "gravest threat" of climate change.

"Recent greenhouse gas emissions place the Earth perilously close to dramatic climate change that could run out of control, with great dangers for humans and other creatures," the scientists say. Only intense efforts to curb man-made emissions of carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases can keep the climate within or near the range of the past one million years, they add.

The researchers were led by James Hansen, the director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who was the first scientist to warn the US Congress about global warming.

The other scientists were Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha and Gary Russell, also of the Goddard Institute, David Lea of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Mark Siddall of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York.

In their 29-page paper, "Climate Change and trace gases", the scientists frequently stray from the non-emotional language of science to emphasise the scale of the problems and dangers posed by climate change.

In an email to The Independent, Dr Hansen said: "In my opinion, among our papers this one probably does the best job of making clear that the Earth is getting perilously close to climate changes that could run out of our control."

The unnatural "forcing" of the climate as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases threatens to generate a "flip" in the climate that could "spark a cataclysm" in the massive ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland, the scientists write.

Dramatic flips in the climate have occurred in the past but none has happened since the development of complex human societies and civilisation, which are unlikely to survive the same sort of environmental changes if they occurred now.

"Civilisation developed, and constructed extensive infrastructure, during a period of unusual climate stability, the Holocene, now almost 12,000 years in duration. That period is about to end," the scientists warn. Humanity cannot afford to burn the Earth's remaining underground reserves of fossil fuel. "To do so would guarantee dramatic climate change, yielding a different planet from the one on which civilisation developed and for which extensive physical infrastructure has been built," they say.

Dr Hansen said we have about 10 years to put into effect the draconian measures needed to curb CO2 emissions quickly enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperature. Otherwise, the extra heat could trigger the rapid melting of polar ice sheets, made far worse by the "albedo flip" - when the sunlight reflected by white ice is suddenly absorbed as ice melts to become the dark surface of open water.

The glaciers and ice sheets of Greenland in the northern hemisphere, and the western Antarctic ice sheet in the south, both show signs of the rapid changes predicted with rising temperatures. "

The albedo flip property of ice/water provides a trigger mechanism. If the trigger mechanism is engaged long enough, multiple dynamical feedbacks will cause ice sheet collapse," the scientists say. "We argue that the required persistence for this trigger mechanism is at most a century, probably less."

The latest assessment of the IPCC published earlier this year predicts little or no contribution to 21st century sea level from Greenland or Antarctica, but the six scientists dispute this interpretation. "The IPCC analyses and projections do not well account for the nonlinear physics of wet ice sheet disintegration, ice streams and eroding ice shelves, nor are they consistent with the palaeoclimate evidence we have presented for the absence of discernible lag between ice sheet forcing and sea-level rise," the scientists say.

Their study looked back over more than 400,000 years of climate records from deep ice cores and found evidence to suggest that rapid climate change over a period of centuries, or even decades, have in the past occurred once the world began to heat up and ice sheets started melting. It is not possible to assess the dangerous level of man-made greenhouse gases.

"However, it is much lower than has commonly been assumed. If we have not already passed the dangerous level, the energy infrastructure in place ensures that we will pass it within several decades," the scientists say in their findings.

"We conclude that a feasible strategy for planetary rescue almost surely requires a means of extracting [greenhouse gases] from the air."

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Results 1 - 16 of 184
©2006-2009: U.S. Climate Emergency Council
| Designed by: VSD CONSULTING | Powered by Joomla | Login Admin |