Energy bill in two parts may make sense....

Today's post: Wednesday, 11-18-2009

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.

And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.

The energy & climate change bills that are now being considered are both in favor of slowing the use of fossil fuels and increasing non-fossil fuel energy sources from renewables to energy efficiency and even nuclear power.

It may make sense to take up the issue in two parts instead of one.

A recent news article says that moderate Democrats have pushed for a “climate light” bill that focuses only on energy provisions which would leave the cap-and-trade part until after the economy recovers.
The Energy and Natural Resources committee passed an energy bill with bipartisan backing in June. And one moderate Democrat, Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said he has found that a bill including renewable fuels mandates, energy-efficiency measures, and increased domestic exploration could attract significant Republican support.
The Kerry, Graham, Lieberman bill would cover both parts but would have some increased drilling for oil in the United States and increases in nuclear power.

We do need to do both parts. But to some degree I agree that we should phase in the direct reduction of fossil fuel use with Cap & Trade or a carbon tax and revoking incentives and tax breaks for fossil fuel industries until far more of the alternative sources are in place AND until the economy begins to recover.
But, there may be no Energy bill able to pass both the Senate and the House that contains both boosting more desirable energy sources AND beginning to cut back immediately on fossil fuels.
In addition, the members of congress facing large parts of their voters who have been laid off or are concerned they might be, so these politicians want to be sure to support bills that create jobs and avoid those that will remove jobs.
Right now, boosting the desirable alternatives is the priority. And, since that would create jobs and make it economically safer to add measures to restrict fossil fuels later, it may be far more politically doable and practical to get that part passed now.
There are two good ways theoretically to do both parts.:

One is to pass both parts now; but have the phase in of the fossil fuel restrictions contingent on having far more of the more desirable energy sources in place and rapidly expanding plus a better economy with a far smaller unemployment rate.

The other is to pass the bill to rapidly increase the desirable energy sources now or very, very soon. And pass the part to restrict fossil fuels after far more of the more desirable energy sources are in place and rapidly expanding plus achieving a better economy with a far smaller unemployment rate.

Both methods would do the job. But moderate or conservative Democrats and Republicans, according to this information, will vote for the first of the two parts now and get it passed while trying to do both parts now may not.

I like the Kerry, Graham, Lieberman approach that contains both domestic energy increases from renewable energy sources that liberals support and some that conservatives support and does both.

But we may need to add to that approach dropping the direct regulation of fossil fuels now to get even that passed.

What may make sense is to pass a version of the Kerry, Graham, Lieberman approach that only contains the energy positive parts that will create jobs. And leave the rest for later.

And, what may make sense for liberals to do is to focus on:

being sure that bill does a superb, large scale job of seeing to it that far more renewable energy is installed and that the electricity transmission and management system needed to get much of that to the end users is built;

being sure that funds are directed to developing and expanding successful new technology to do this better and at lower cost;

being sure that a large program is included that will increase energy efficiency in every way likely to have a large scale effect;

& seeing to it that new domestic oil drilling and transport is done with minimum environmental impact and that the new nuclear plants get adequate funding to reliably protect themselves from terrorists.

Every single part of that approach is likely to create jobs and add to the energy going into our economy.

And, it may be doable by just doing that part for now.

To try to do both and winding up doing nothing would be a disaster.

Why throw out the baby with the bath water if the two part version will fail to be passed and we can get part one that builds far more desirable energy sources in place and passed?