The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved by a vote of 15 to 8 a piece of legislation that would open up huge areas of the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere for drilling of oil and natural gas. It also contains requirements for increases in renewable energy generation, and a number of other energy-related measures, but it seems a sad and regressive alternative to Waxman-Markey, which may reach a floor vote in the House by next week.
There has been talk for a while that the American Clean Energy and Security Act (Waxman-Markey) might have more trouble passing the Senate than the House, but it is very clearly the primary game in town when it comes to overhauling the US energy system and, of course, trying to bring greenhouse gas emissions down to fight global warming. The Senate measure would open up areas for natural gas and oil drilling like the Destin Dome and the Eastern Gulf planning area (although in the Eastern Gulf no drilling could occur within 45 miles of the coastline), and also provides a federally guaranteed $30 billion for a natural gas pipeline into Alaska. It contains no provisions at all about greenhouse gas emission reductions. Sure, it requires that sellers of electricity obtain at least 12 percent of power from renewable sources or energy efficiency improvements by 2020, but Waxman-Markey has that stuff too.
And to highlight the strangeness of these somewhat competing bills, John Broder of the New York Times reported yesterday that “the bill’s fate is highly uncertain” and that Senate leaders are waiting to see what happens with Waxman-Markey in the House before doing anything. Great. The press release from the Senate committee for some reason highlighted the fact that putting together their bit of legislation required “39 bipartisan staff briefings, 20 formal hearings and 11 open business meetings,” as if bragging that they’ve wasted incredible amounts of time for legislation that is basically the underachieving younger brother of Waxman-Markey.
Read today's NYT. Natural gas is poised to be the key to meeting the actual greenhouse goals of the Waxman bill — so perhaps they're not so opposing afterall.
Still no mention of the big push by industry, government and many in Big Green for more biomass incinerators (or BIOMESS as we like to say). Grist is truly asleep at the switch on this one. If all these supposed “renewable” sources of energy are built you can kiss your improved air quailty and a good number of forests goodbye. Some of these incinerators will be burning toxic C&D materials, some will be burning “eco cubes” made from trash!, some will be burning both! Others will be burning whole trees along with slash and calling it “carbon neutral” (even though it will take decades for those carbon sequesting trees to grow back) and leading to more clearcutting. Biomass is a BIOMESS. Wake-up!