Environment & Energy

Any energy and environment policy begins with looking at two accepted but conflicting facts: we have a pollution problem that is hurting the environment and an economy and society that depend on electricity, oil, and natural gas, all of which produce emissions.

WomenMatter takes a look at the details of different strategies for our policy on energy and the environment. The policy options described below share the basic goal of decreasing those emissions. They differ on the specifics of how much to limit emissions and over how much time. Here we can read the specifics to learn the ways that each goes about trying to minimize the inevitable trade-offs of changing the basis of our economy, and then decide which one, if any, you support.

We need to pay close attention to the specific method and timeline of each plan. Also, take a look at the home-state of each plan’s sponsor, the specific environmental and economic concerns their constituents face, and whether they are politically at-risk in the upcoming primaries or election.

"Cap and Trade"

In the Senate, two presidential candidates and one very independent senator -- John McCain (R-Arizona), Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut), and Barak Obama (D- Illinois) -- have introduced a bill that would require the total of all industry to reduce their emissions to 2004 levels by 2012 and by a total of two-thirds by 2050.

The bill would allow companies to earn and trade emissions credits so that environmentally-friendly companies could sell their credits to businesses that want to avoid penalties for exceeding the caps; the approach is called "cap-and-trade."

The sponsors argue that the "cap and trade" system is a constructive, business-friendly approach to countering global warming while still setting a clear limit on total emissions.

Some opponents of the bill argue that the cap set by the bill is too stringent and will still hamper industry, resulting in a loss of current American jobs. Others point out that alternative energy projects could actually increase American jobs. Note the difference between measuring the national economy and focusing on the job you may have in your local area. A job in Michigan making SUV’s may go, and the employee may not be qualified for a job in solar energy or able to move to another part of the country.

Stabilization

Another approach is to stabilize emissions levels. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico) wants to cap emissions at their 2013 levels, giving companies plenty of time to anticipate the change. This legislation is clearly more business-friendly and expected to get some Republican and industry support.

Opponents say too-little too-late. They argue that the legislation ignores the immediacy of the greenhouse effect and has a "take care of it later" attitude.

Big cuts

On the other hand, Independent Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont) wants a 80 percent emissions reduction by 2050. Senator Barbara Boxer (California) is a big fan of the bill, which matters since she could help it to the floor as the chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

It’s electric

While the above bills focus on any and all industries that produce emissions, a bill by Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (California) would focus on electric companies only. Her measure would require electric utility companies to reduce their emissions by 25 percent by 2020. Feinstein explains that reducing electricity emissions by just 3.5 percent is equivalent to taking 650,000 cars off the road.

Unlike the above bills, this one is supported by the industry it targets. Six major utility companies are on board, including California’s PG&E Corporation and Florida Power and Light. Industry execs know that emissions caps are inevitable, so by participating in Feinstein’s legislation, they get to negotiate and set standards that have to be met by all competitors.

In the House

In the House, new Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s way of encouraging communication and collaboration across all geographic differences, while lending a higher profile to the issue has been to create a special committee dedicated to the global warming problem. The committee is designed to work with the tax writing, science, environmental, and energy aspects of the issue, each of which is the job of a different House committee. Pelosi has said that the new group will not step on other committees’ jurisdiction on these issues,

High profile

But the energy/environment profile has gone about as high as it can - all the way to the President’s State of the Union Address.

President Bush promoted energy independence and environmental standards in his State of the Union Address. Marking a change in his previous position over the past six years. He called for greater investment in carbon-control technology and biofuels in transportation and requested the authority to mandate stricter passenger-car fuel-efficiency standards: "We need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017."

President Bush also called for Congress to pass legislation that would reduce gasoline usage in the U.S. by 20 percent in the next 10 years. The result, Bush said, will cut oil imports from the Middle East by three-quarters.

However, the White House has reiterated its opposition to mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions. Click here for more information.

To explore our archive of past Environment Life Issue updates, click here.

What do you think?

Do you enjoy the comfort of heat or air conditioning at home or at the office? Do you live further than walking distance from where you work? Do you travel for business or for pleasure? In our current lives, we all depend on gas, oil, and electricity. It’s also no longer up for debate that the planet is suffering as a result.

We know that our planet will some day run out of oil and natural gas. Yet we live in a world where millions of people in places like China want to live as we do-- and increasingly have the economic wherewithal to do so. Just like the international supply of oil and natural gas, the environment is something that we have no choice but to step back and look at globally.

How much can we do on our own? How much can we require our government to do? Can we think bigger than ourselves at this moment? And can we face the future if we don’t?

Should emissions be capped? Which of the above bills do you support? Can we think about the future? Click here and tell your representative and senators NOW while the debate is on.

Article Posted on: 2/8/2007