Energy Bill Setbacks

After I got to do a happy post Sunday night about a good turn of events in the House-Senate energy bill conference (the abandonment of an MTBE-manunfacturer liability shield provision), I was disheartened - but unfortunately not surprised - to read last night that some of the Senate's important conservation provisions have also been stricken from the bill at the demands of House Republicans.

The Washington Post and New York Times (among others) report that Senate-backed measures to require 10% of U.S. electricity generation to come from renewable sources by 2020 and to "direct the president to find ways to cut the nation's appetite for oil by one million barrels a day within 10 years" have been rejected in conference.

According to the Times, "Republican opponents of the plan said the fuel savings target could lead to unpopular restrictions like mandatory car pools and put too much responsibility for achieving the goal in the hands of the president." First, I think it might be just about time for some "unpopular restrictions." Point two ... if Congress isn't going to do anything, might it not be a good idea to let the president have a crack at it? Someone? Anyone? A reduction in oil comsumption is absolutely vital, and while my first choice would be increasing fuel efficiency standards, giving the president leeway would have been an acceptable alternative. But no.

The defeat of these provisions represents a victory for the short-term interests of the oil, gas and coal industries and their Congressional allies. It marks a severe defeat for national security, environmental well-being, and technological advancement. I hope that centrist senators and representatives will seriously consider the ramifications of passing an energy bill that now is skewed even more heavily toward increasing production and the enrichment of oil and gas companies, while doing far too little to slake the dangerous energy binge that this country has been engaging in for far, far too long.