Energy Bill Will Do Nothing To Diminish Foreign Oil Dependence

[hatrack]

WASHINGTON - Despite repeated calls by President Bush and members of Congress to decrease U.S. dependence on oil imports, a major energy bill that appears headed for passage this week would do nothing to reduce the country's need for foreign oil, according to analysts and interest groups. The United States imports 58 percent of the oil it consumes. Federal officials project that by 2025, the country will have to import 68 percent of its oil to meet demand. At best, analysts say, the energy legislation would slightly slow that rate of growth of dependence.

"We'll be dependent on the global market for more than half our oil for as long as we're using oil, and the energy bill isn't going to change that," said Ben Lieberman, who follows energy issues for the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. "There's a few measures to increase domestic production . . . and that would not do much."


EDIT

But the emerging package does not do what some analysts said would have the greatest impact on reducing U.S. oil demand and cutting imports: a requirement to increase fuel-efficiency standards for trucks and cars. Under strong pressure from the automobile industry, the House and Senate rejected higher efficiency standards. Lawmakers argued that doing so would require redesigns that would make vehicles unsafe and result in a loss of manufacturing jobs — arguments sharply disputed by advocates of fuel efficiency. "The single biggest step that Congress could take to reduce our oil dependency is to significantly increase the fuel economy standards of the cars and trucks that Americans buy and drive," said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which works on environmental issues.

EDIT

Environmentalists cited a provision of both the House and Senate bills that they said would result in more oil consumption and greater imports: extension of a provision designed to encourage auto manufacturers to produce vehicles that can run on either gasoline or a fuel blend of 85 percent ethanol. The provision allows automakers to receive fuel economy credit — and increase production of less-fuel-efficient vehicles — even if owners use only gasoline, environmentalists said. Few gas stations sell the ethanol blend, and many of the cars end up being fueled by gasoline, they said.

EDIT/END

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8705656/

[TheFarseer]

1. I can't tell you what this energy bill does

Nothing except drilling in Alaska as far as I can see. I think many DUers underestimate the value of Ethanol. What you don't seem to appreciate is that corn is going to be grown whether there is ethanol or not. It doesn't "use energy to gain energy" as people seem to think. Consider it a sunk energy cost. Farmers are not going to have land and not grow anything on it. That simply doesn't make sense under the current laws. The only thing Ethanol does is stretch out our oil and raise the price of corn. What's so bad about that? Someone might say tax payers are paying for it but you would just pay that same money at the pump to Middle East assholes instead of Americans who will circulate that money back through the economy. It's providing jobs and possibly stimulating valuable research into alternative fuels.


Of course encouraging people to buy hybrids and raising CAFE will stretch our oil also and the sooner we find something else to run our cars on the better.

OK, now I'm going to jump into my bomb shelter :hide:

[phantom power]

2. well, if they've got land they're just itching to use...

it may be that there are better things than corn we could grow on it. Industrial hemp comes to mind. Either for fuel, or for paper. Or textiles?

Or, we might use that land to grow algae for biodiesel.

Always assuming we aren't hit with 20-year droughts, in which case we may not be able to grow anything at all.

[TheFarseer]

3. You have to set up the infrastructure for that

there is an elevator that takes corn 4 miles down the road. Where's the nearest hemp elevator!?

[phantom power]

5. One thing is for sure,

we're going to have to set up new infrastructure for a lot of things, in order to replace fossil fuels. And it's all going to be hideously expensive. Every scheme I've priced out runs into the trillions of dollars. You pay big for generating capacity, and pay big again for the various supporting infrastructures that are required.

I don't think people are prepared for this unfortunate reality. Most people apparently are just waking up to the fact that there might be a problem, forget how much it's going to cost to solve it.

[Sorwen]

4. I support ethanol, but

we're using 12% of our corn production to supply 1.6% of our gasoline consumption. We could double our ethanol use to 8 billion gallons, and I support that, but it would still have a minimal impact on our demand for oil. I think we need to focus more on producing biofuels that are more energy efficient than corn-based ethanol such as biodiesel (from soybeans or other sources such as algae) or ethanol from switchgrass.

[TheFarseer]

6. soy biodiesel might be more realistic

It's very easy to switch from corn to soybeans. Maybe we can run tractors and combines on 100% soy biodiesel. That would be nice.