Environment

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Environment Archives page.

Bill Opponents Are Full of Energy: The Arguments Behind the Filibuster

A large minority in the Senate has blocked the passage of the energy bill with the threat of an extended debate, or filibuster.

Contrary to what one may expect, the energy issue is not totally divided along party lines. Thirteen Democrats have sided with Republicans in the effort to pass the bill, and seven Republicans have voted to filibuster.

In most of these cases, Senators are voting against their party in order to protect the interests of their state. Several Democrats have been swayed by a provision in the bill that drastically increases the use of corn-based ethanol, which is a gasoline additive.

Corn country

If you’ve ever driven from coast to coast, you know that Michigan, Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa, and South Dakota make up a large part of corn country. These states have Democratic Senators who have decided to back the Republican energy bill in order to support their farmers.

The legislation requires five billion gallons of corn-based ethanol to be produced and mixed with the gasoline supply each year. Proponents of this measure argue that ethanol makes for cleaner-burning fuel and reduces our reliance upon foreign oil.

Corn - the dark side.

Skeptics claim that ethanol has only a minor effect on air pollution and that this provision is merely a subsidy for already heavily-subsidized agribusiness.

David Pimental, Professor of Ecology and Agricultural Sciences at Cornell, argues that the production of ethanol requires more energy than the ethanol itself provides. He also says that ethanol production causes soil erosion and requires heavy pesticide use. In addition, it costs three times more money to produce than gasoline. Pimental explains that corn-based ethanol is too expensive to produce without tax-payer subsidies.

MTBE controversy

Corn-based ethanol would act as a substitute for the most common octane enhancer, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE).

The fight over MTBE is the most visible cause for the filibuster. On November 20, 2003, a day before the filibuster was announced, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) discussed several of the reasons that this bill should not be passed. She focused on a controversial provision that protects MTBE manufacturers from pending lawsuits over contamination.

Boxer explained that MTBE spills have contaminated most of the country, including the drinking water in some states. Boxer’s home state of California has been the most affected, with at least 97 drinking-water sources infected. This is almost double the 48 reported in California just two years ago.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that nationwide cleanup costs are estimated at $29 billion. Despite the expense, this bill prohibits communities from suing MTBE manufacturers for damages.

The details

Pete Domenici (R-NM), the bill’s sponsor, argues that it is ridiculous to sue the chemical producers for product spills. He explains that manufacturers are not responsible for the underground storage tanks that have leaked MTBE into the water. In addition, Domenici asserts that the government mandated the manufacture of MTBE in 1990 as part of the Clean Air Act. The law requires the production and use of a gasoline additive in order to cut air pollution. From his point of view, it is unfair to sue MTBE makers when it is the US government that requires its manufacture.

The bill’s opponents argue that the government did not authorize the manufacture of MTBE specifically. Rather, the Clean Air Act requires the production of an oxidant in general, and that oxidant could be corn-based ethanol or another additive. MTBE opponents believe that the chemical is defective, and that its producers are liable because they failed to warn the public of the dangers of the product.

The high cost of the energy bill

Several Republicans are against the energy bill because of its price tag. The bill will cost taxpayers $31 billion, most of which are subsidies to the oil, coal, natural gas, and ethanol industries.

In the debate on the Senate floor, Republican Don Nickles from Oklahoma explained that the legislation included too many tax cuts. Nickles has not voted to filibuster, yet, like many Democrats, he believes the legislation to be too expensive.

Senator Bill Frist (R-TN), one of the bill’s most vocal advocates, reminds Americans that, if passed, the bill would create thousands of jobs and boost the economy. To Frist and Domenici, $31 billion is a fair price to pay for what they consider to be a robust and comprehensive energy package.

What do you think? Read more about energy policy. Discuss this issue with other WomenMatter readers in one of our online forums, or contact your representatives.

Posted on: 11/25/2003

click here to go to next section

return to top