Nathanael Greene's Blog
Bush signs energy bill--political momentum on climate builds
December 19, 2007
Posted by Nathanael Greene in Moving Beyond Oil , Solving Global Warming , U.S. Law and Policy
Just a few hours ago, President Bush signed into law an energy bill that requires more efficient cars and trucks, more and better renewable fuels, more efficient light bulbs, and more efficient appliances. As everyone is quick to acknowledge, the bill could have been better (e.g. see our own press release) if it had included a renewable electricity standard and tax incentives for renewables and energy efficiency. But make no mistake about it--this bill is a big deal.
We (and by we I really mean our new crack analyst Brian Siu) did the number crunching on the global warming pollution reductions from the energy bill. The bottom line is that even under conservative assumptions, the bill will provide 13 to 19 percent of the cumulative 2010-2030 reductions that would be required under the Lieberman-Warner climate bill. The range is dependent on the rigor of implementation. The Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill (S.2191) was approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee on December 5 and would reduce US emissions by around 65 percent from 2005 emissions by 2050.
How much got left on the cutting room floor when then renewable electric standard and tax package got axed? 3 to 4 percent. Each measure would have reduced emissions cumulative 2010-2030 emissions by 1.6 to 2 percent of S.2191 requirements.
Here's how the 13-19 percent breaks down among the major provisions of the energy bill:
| Title Policy | Percent of S. 2191 2010-2030 Cumulative Reductions in 2030 |
| Title I CAFE | 6.1-7.7% |
| Title I Medium & Heavy Duty Vehicles | 0.8-1% |
| Title II RFS | 2.4-3% |
| Title III Appliances and lighting | 3-3.7% |
| Title IV Building and Industrial Program | 0.3-3.5% |
| Total | 12.6-18.9% |
Now I'm an optimist. I don't believe that misinformed whining motivates action, but blind optimism is no basis for action either. In my last post, I wrote about how important the greenhouse gas standards and environmental safeguards are to the large new renewable fuel standard, and I also wrote about how important follow up will be to make sure this law is implemented in the best possible way. We also need to follow up politically. We need to thank the heroes and spank the villains on Capitol Hill. The editorial board at the New York Times gets a good start with a tip of the hat to Dingell and a wag of the finger for Landrieu. Other heroes include in the House Pelosi, Hoyer, Markey, the Udalls, Platts, Harman, and Van Hollen and in the Senate Reid, Durbin, Boxer, Inouye, Bingaman, Kerry. Specter deserves a wag of the finger.
In the end, the law does good things in and of itself, but perhaps just as importantly the bill is a sign of real movement on climate change. To use the train-leaving-the-station metaphor, the ground swell of public awareness is the crowd waving good-bye from the platform and state actions to date are the locomotive taking the slack out from between the cars. But the energy bill is the first sign of actual movement--seeing the platform start to actual slide by the window. The energy bill will not stop global warming or even give the United States any authority to lead on this ultimate environmental challenge, but say it out loud... "Energy bill and Bali and Lieberman and Warner and energy bill and Bali and..." You can almost feel the tracks and the acceleration in your bones. We can make it happen.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Trackbacks
- Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 Passes on December 21, 2007 5:56 PM
- Earlier this week, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The law includes an expansion of the Renewable Fuel Standard to 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. As the largest producer of ethanol in
Comments are closed for this post.

- Nathanael Greene
- Senior Policy Analyst
- New York City
- I work on clean energy technologies and policy that will advance them -- energy efficiency...
- more→
Feeds: Stay Plugged In
Switchboard Archives
- A conversation with a spokesperson for the National Corn Growers Association and his friend from the American Farmland Trust | By Tom Philpott | Grist | Victual Reality | 25 Oct 2007
- Very interesting.
- posted by Nathanael Greene
- New EcoFarm: Are We all Together in the Bioeconomy
- A good opinion piece about the need to move away from the "us vs them" mentality that has dominated ag-environmentalist relations through a marriage of global and local in the bioeconomy.
- posted by Nathanael Greene
- Can lignin hold roads together?
- On the one hand using lignin from cellulosic ethanol plants to stabalize roads has a nice geewiz factor. On the other hand, using lignin to make better roads so that we can drive more and use more ethanol seems a little circular.
- posted by Nathanael Greene
more→



Comments
Joseph Romm (ClimateProgress) — Dec 20 2007 01:09 PM
Hmm. I completely disagree. I don't consider the bill a big deal nor do I think it "is a sign of real movement on climate change."
The fuel economy boost is good, but I have an article in Salon on the insanity that is America's ethanol policy.
As for climate change, I think the opposite is true. The energy bill shows how little interest there is in moving on climate change. The only serious provisions that addressed CO2 were oil-related and survived because they had obvious national security implications (plus oil prices are above $90). The CO2 savings were not why they passed.
If people (i.e. Republicans) cared about global warming, they wouldn't have filibustered the RPS and clean tech subsidies.
Nathanael Greene — Dec 20 2007 03:50 PM
Thanks for dropping by Joe. I'm a big fan of your work and certainly agree that US biofuels policy needs to get much more performance-based and economically efficient. However, your post and your article suggest that you haven't actually read the legislative language of the bill and aren't aware of the GHG standards imposed on renewable fuels by the bill. I'm not aware of anyone that's arguing that corn ethanol is THE solution to global warming, and now we've started requiring real benefits from renewable fuels. See my last post for more of the details on what we got and what more we need to do.
On climate policy momentum, we will agree to disagree, but I don't see how about 35 Senate Rs and 95 House Rs voting for mandatory lifecycle GHG standards isn't a sign of progress.
Joseph Romm (ClimateProgress) — Dec 20 2007 04:15 PM
I read the language. I just don't believe it means much.
I believe a full life-cycle GHG analysis (including Crutzen's recent work) would probably show that the vast majority of corn ethanol does NOT have "lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions at least 20 percent less than gasoline." But somehow I suspect we aren't going to stop making corn ethanol.
Also, the science suggests tree planting is better for GHGs than corn ethanol planting/processing. Does that mean the bill will require us to stop growing corn ethanol?
The bottom line: We're going to expand corn ethanol greatly under this bill, which is a not a good idea.
If you are right, then at the VERY least, this bill should kill all ethanol plants running on coal. I'm sure NRDC will be taking that to court. I look forward to seeing the outcome several years from now....
I can't wait for the courts to weigh in on "mandatory lifecycle GHG standards." Anybody can pretty much come up with any conclusion they want from a life cycle analysis -- as you well know just from the ones published in the last five years on corn ethanol. I feel sorry for any court that has to try to figure out what the "right" or even "best" answer is for corn ethanol.
So I don't think "35 Senate Rs and 95 House Rs voting for mandatory lifecycle GHG standards" means anything. How many Rs will be get for Lieberman-Warner? Not enough, I suspect.
I am, of course, a big fan of yours and NRDC's and none of my comments should be interpreted to suggest otherwise.
Nathanael Greene — Dec 21 2007 02:45 PM
Getting the lifecycle accounting right will certainly be a major challenge, but it's not one that we can simply ignore. To solve global warming we need to reduce the GHG emissions from transportation and after efficiency, reducing the carbon footprint of our fuels is the next most important step. A cap-and-trade policy is necessary but not sufficient--the capital inertia in the petroleum fuel industry is simply too great to change fast enough without carbon credit prices that would be politically untenable. So we need low-carbon fuel mandates (the RFS is a start, a CA style LCFS is part of L-W and should be the goal), which means that we need lifecycle accounting. No one ever said it would be easy, but that's saving the world for you.
Also, I don't mean to be polyannaish, but I do believe that we build expectations for action by showing that we can and have started to act. The risk that anyone except for the President would mistake the energy bill as a comprehensive response to climate change is small and we certainly need to educate any others that might make this mistake. However, casting the bill incorrectly as doing nothing just plays into the hands of those that would sell futility and despair. We want people to engage not disengage, and we do that by showing that there's something here to engage in.