would you have voted for the energy bill? the House did

Well, the House passed the energy bill. For the most part, I think this is a good thing. The bill includes some important points:

* a long-overdue increase of CAFE standards, requiring an industry average of 35 MPG by 2020
* a requirement for energy-efficient appliances
* tax incentives for hybrid cars
* a repeal of $13.5 billion in tax breaks for oil companies
* a requirement that utilities produce 15% of their power from renewable sources

I've heard some valid arguments against some of these. The tax break for oil companies is repealing an incentive that was put in place only two years ago, so I can see how it seems a little unfair to be offering it and then jerking it away. And yes, of course it will raise the price of gas. That's going to happen anyway. Better now than later--maybe it will be more gradual this way.

The renewable utility requirement is a controversial one, too, because utility companies say that it's unfair that places such as, say, Atlanta, that have fewer solar and wind opportunities than Texas, be required to generate the same amount of power from renewable sources. But whenever I hear utility company representatives speak on environmental issues, the theme is that they're waiting for a federal standard before they really act to develop renewable sources--it's not economically feasible for them to do it unless they have some great incentives or are forced to do it. So I have no problem with forcing it. There are so many opportunities that are not being leveraged right now. Fifteen percent isn't that much--and there's even an out: they can buy renewable credits if they really can't make it happen with local resources. (Which is another weakness of the bill, but it ought to cut short that objection.)

The one point that I really don't like in the bill, however, is the requirement that ethanol fuel increase sevenfold by 2022. That's ridiculous. And saying that two-thirds of it should be cellulosic ethanol is just...absurd. I've blogged about this before: cellulosic ethanol technology is not ready to be deployed commercially, and the chances of it being ready that soon are not great. The side effects of corn ethanol are obvious: rising food prices, high energy costs, and soil depletion, to name a few. But cellulosic ethanol avoids very few of these. It doesn't create competition for food, other than in land use, but it does require a high energy input, it uses lots of water and fertilizer, and it depletes the soil. As Roscoe Bartlett said in the debate today (quoted on The Oil Drum), "We might mine our soils of organic matter to make fuel for a little while, but I don’t think that’s sustainable."

And if it's not sustainable, then what's the point?

So would I have voted for the bill? Probably, yes. There are more good points than bad, and in my opinion, it's better to take some action in a positive direction than to do nothing. The frustration of having to vote in favor of some really bad ideas in order to get the good ones passed is, well, just politics.

Which is why I will never be a politician.