The U.S. Ethanol and Coal Support Bill of 2007

On December 19, the United States passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This means that Congress passed the law, and the President signed it into law. While this law sounds like a promising step forward, a closer look reveals that it would have been more accurately called the Coal and Ethanol Support Bill.

For example, the law calls for a 400% increase in ethanol production, a field dominated by major corporations like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, which have been lobbying heavily for corn-based ethanol. The problems with corn-based ethanol are well-known: it may actually require more energy to make than it ultimately provides; as more farmers switch to corn-for-ethanol, the cost of food has been shooting up; and it is still industrial-scale agriculture, meaning massive use of toxic and petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides.

All new taxes on oil corporations, which would have gone to renewable energy, were scrapped - possibly because "this year alone the oil corporations have given members of Congress $75 million...."

There are some positives, of course: fuel economy standards are finally increasing, albeit very slowly, many U.S. federal buildings will have to produce as much energy as they use by 2030, and most incandescent bulbs will be banned by 2012.

Unfortunately, this analysis (http://www.celsias.com/2007/12/30/the-basket-our-e...) shows that the overall reduction is minimal.

...by 2020 the 2007 energy law will have reduced total U.S. CO2 emissions by...2.4% and by 2030 the reduction will be...4.7%.

Not good enough. Not nearly good enough. By contrast, the EU was calling for about ten times that reduction in Bali. Even business-friendly groups have stated that a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions is possible "through new industrial, building, and appliance efficiencies. The cost of these reductions...would pay for themselves during the lifetime of use." (http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_large_co2_cut...) And this 40% reduction is without doing anything about vehicles or power plants.

This "Ethanol and Coal Support Bill" contains a heavy emphasis on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). This is unproven technology that will take at least a decade of testing to even get to the point where we can do it on a large scale - and with no guarantees that the CO2 will stay in the ground.

Of course, the coal companies want to push risk onto others, so they are pushing for a limitation on liability of ten years! They are promising us the carbon dioxide is safe underground for eternity, but only want to give a 10-year warranty? So if - or, realistically, when - CO2 begins leaking to the surface, it will once again be our problem, not theirs.

Because the cost of CCS will eliminate coal's current price advantage, the real value of this "Ethanol and Coal Support Bill" is that:

• Coal and energy companies can now claim that CCS will soon be a viable way to prevent the climate crisis
• Coal and energy companies are proposing building "capture-ready" coal-fired generating plants now (there are many such plants proposed already) - and will promise to install carbon capture equipment as soon as someone figures it out

This is a very poor bill, and we should not support it. It is simply not enough. If we support it, we lose our legitimacy; people will think the climate crisis is not as imminent and dangerous as it most certainly is. Further, if the Green Party says that these tiny steps are acceptable, then people might as well vote Liberal or Conservative, because those parties will pass bills similar to this one.

We need to be bold and to be strong in our convictions. We know we are facing a devastating climate crisis, and that major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is urgently need. We must act accordingly.