As the U.S. Begins Energy Debate, Battles Expected Over ANWR, Emissions, and Development

Even before the tragedies of September 11, the Bush Administration and Congress had started the debate about a national energy policy. The debate has intensified since then, with many lawmakers concerned about U.S. dependence on imported oil.

By summer of last year, the President had announced his energy choices. They included:

• Large tax breaks to the oil industry,
• Development of 2500 new power plants (including nuclear),
• Little advancement in conservation efforts or renewable energy,
• No increase in fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards in vehicles, and
• Opening?up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to fossil fuel drilling.

Eager to support the President, the Republican-led House of Representatives, along with more- than-expected Democrats, passed last Fall energy legislation that mirrored the President's version.

The Democrat-led Senate did not even debate the issue before year's end, except for attempts by Alaska Senator Murkowski to open ANWR to drilling - which were defeated every time.

Within the first months of 2002, the Senate is expected to debate and pass energy legislation. Senator Daschle, President of the Senate, has offered an outline of his version which Washington?based advocates expect to be the starting point of the debate. People of faith should be prepared to make their voices heard. This energy policy will become one of the major environmental decisions our gov- ernment will make this decade.

Efficient energy use, conservation and the development of the cleanest technologies possible remain the wisest, most just, and most prudent means of fulfilling our moral obligations. Rooted in moral values and concern for God's creation and God's children, the faith community will support the following energy policy initiatives:

• Substantially increase vehicle fuel economy, across the board, and in the shortest feasible timeframe, and also require SUVs and mini- vans to meet the same standards as passenger cars.
• Develop strategies to encourage the auto industry to design and produce vehicles using hybrid? electric, fuel cell, and other promising clean technologies, and provide incentives for their purchase.
• Support substantially increased funding for inter?city rail and metropolitan mass transit to provide attractive and functional alternatives to single occupancy automobiles.
• Fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and increase its capacity with the least possible environmental damage.

Advocates will be urged to oppose policies that would allow drilling or mining in our nation's dwindling wild lands and places important to the traditional cultures of indigenous peoples. We specifically oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Conservation is a morally superior alternative to drilling in such places. Furthermore, conservation is also more effective, providing much greater benefits that are more permanent, rather than a modest and short?lived increase in oil supply.

Clean Energy Act

In March 2001, Senator Jeffords of Vermont introduced the Clean Energy Act. The Act will require significant reductions in the emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and mercury from power plants. These reductions will protect public health and the environment by requiring outdated power plants to meet modern pollution control standards.

Though the Jeffords legislation was introduced last year, the Senate did not take action. Envi- ronmental advocates are poised to encourage the Senate to take action this year.

Each of the pollutants men- tioned above causes massive damage to human health and the environment. Sulfur dioxide causes acid rain and respiratory disease. Nitrogen oxides are the primary cause of ozone pollution (smog) that harms millions of Americans each summer. Carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas most directly linked to global warming. And mercury poisons many lakes and rivers throughout the United States, causing their fish to be unfit for human consumption.

Power plants emit more of these damaging pollutants into the environment than any other source. The Clean Air Act and other environmental measures have not succeeded in lowering power plant pollution.

The Clean Energy Act establishes a nationwide cap on emissions of these four damaging pollutants from all power plants. By 2005, nationwide emissions could be as follows:

• Sulfur-dioxide power plant emissions are capped at 3.58 million tons annually (roughly a 75 percent reduction from 1997 emissions);
• Nitrogen-oxides power plant emissions are capped at 1.66 million tons annually (roughly a 75 percent reduction from 1997 emissions);
• Carbon-dioxide power plant emissions are capped at 1.914 billion tons annually (roughly the equivalent of the 1990 emission level); and
• Mercury power plant emissions are capped at 5 tons annually (roughly a 90 percent reduction from 1997 emissions).

These emissions cuts are readily achievable, targeted to further the goals of the Clean Air Act, and necessary to decrease the high degree of health and environmental damage caused by power plant pollution.

The Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted by more than 160 nations in Kyoto, Japan on December 11, 1997. The Protocol is the culmination of negotiations on global warming which were initiated more than a decade ago. It sets binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions for developed countries (an average greenhouse gas emissions reduction of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels) - those most responsible for the current levels of global warming pollution. It also creates significant incentives for developing countries to control their emissions as their economies grow.

While the Protocol is a significant achievement, it also remains a work in progress; specifically in the treatment of the world's forests, and in the guidelines for an international pollution trading regime. How these components are designed will ultimately determine the treaty's effectiveness. The Protocol restricts emissions of six greenhouse gases; carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydro- fluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

The United States, the leading industrialized nation in emitting greenhouse gases, has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Early in President Bush's new administration, the President announced that the United States would pull?out of the Protocol negotiations. Since that time, the United States has not had an official role in moving the Protocol along.

Environmental advocates will be working to encourage the Administration to change its stance on The Kyoto Protocol. The world community will be meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa in late August of this year for the second World Earth Summit - the tenth anniversary of the first summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It is expected that many leading governments will have ratified The Kyoto Protocol by the time of the Johannesburg meeting, making the Protocol world law. It is important that President Bush attend the meeting and provide U.S. support.

In Rio in 1992, the global warming treaty committed the United States to achieving "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the climate system." Specifically, the Rio Accord sought to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to their 1990 levels, by 2000. Former President Bush committed to this level of carbon dioxide reduction on behalf of the U.S., and the U.S. Senate ratified the Rio Accord.

The Jeffords Clean Energy Act noted above would cap power plant carbon-dioxide emissions at the 1990 levels by 2005, five years after the date agreed to by President Bush in the Rio Accord. The Jefford's legislation is a modest step, but the United States is already falling behind. Advocates need to encourage the Senate to pass the Clean Energy Act and encourage the current President Bush to helpfully participate in this year's World Earth Summit.

Clean Water

There is an apparent consensus among environmental groups and federal and state regulators that some methods of addressing non?point sources of water pollution are necessary if we are to protect and restore our polluted waters. In 2002, congressional action and administration regulation through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on issues of clean water will definitely surface. Some of these issues include water pollution from industrial farming, power plant pollution and urban water runoff.
For people of faith, we understand that we have a special appreciation of the importance of revitalizing the waters of the earth that we have polluted.

Endangered Species

In this political climate, much of the environmental community's victories are scored by playing defense. Efforts to severely hamper the Endangered Species Act and the Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act of 2000 can be expected in this year's Congress. Advocates should be prepared to take action within Congress and the EPA.