Obama and Lugar introduce 'American Fuels Act'

Posted by David Roberts at 12:58 PM on 17 Mar 2006

Read more about: Barack Obama

I'm not in the habit of regurgitating press releases, but one I just got from Obama's office seems significant, so I'm reprinting it below the fold. (As I'm sure our faithful readers will hasten to point out, it's an ethanol bill.) Discuss.

U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) Friday said that they have introduced comprehensive legislation that will use alternative fuel technologies to greatly decrease America's dependence on foreign oil.

"For all of our military might and economic dominance, the Achilles' heel of the most powerful country on Earth is still the oil we cannot live without," said Obama. "I could give you all plenty of reasons why it's a good idea for this country to move away from an oil-based economy, but all we really need to know about the danger of our oil addiction comes directly from words spoken by Osama bin Laden: 'Focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the Gulf area, since this will cause them to die off [on their own].'"

Obama and Lugar's bipartisan legislation, the American Fuels Act of 2006 (S. 2446), would take a four-step approach to reducing America's dependence on foreign oil. First, the legislation would spur investment in alternative fuels by increasing the production of cellulosic biomass ethanol (CBE) to 250 million gallons by 2012. It would also create an Alternative Diesel Standard that will require 2 billion gallons of alternatives diesels be mixed into the 40 billion gallon annual national diesel pool by 2015. This proposal is modeled of the Renewable Fuels Standard, which has proved successful in increasing ethanol production and use.

Second, the legislation would help increase consumer demand for alternative fuels by providing a short-term, 35 cents per gallon tax credit for E85 fuel and by providing automakers with a $100 tax credit for every E85-capable Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV) produced.

Third, it would require the U.S. government to lead by example and increase access to alternative fuels by requiring the government to allow public access to alternative fueling stations located on federal government property and by requiring that only clean buses be eligible for federal cost sharing. It would also create establish a Department of Defense "fly-off competition" that would encourage private sector companies to compete to find the most energy efficient alternatives fuels for defense purposes.

Finally, the legislation would create a Director of Energy Security to oversee and keep America focused on its goal of energy independence. The Director of Energy Security would serve as the principal advisor to the President, the National Security Council, the National Economic Council and the Homeland Security Council.

"This bill will help tilt our energy balance toward alternative fuels, moving these fuels into additional markets and making them more widely available for consumers," said Lugar. "We believe that U.S. national security will be served by more robust coordination of all the elements that contribute to energy security. Consequently, the bill also would establish the post of Director of Energy Security, who would answer to the President. Our policies should be targeted to replace hydrocarbons with carbohydrates. Obviously this is not a short-term proposition, but we can off-set a significant portion of demand for oil by giving American consumers a real choice of automotive fuel. We must end oil's near monopoly on the transportation sector, which accounts for 60 percent of American oil consumption. I am pleased to join Sen. Obama in promoting this legislation and appreciate his initiative in drafting it."

Senator Obama said that while the reforms he and Senator Lugar have proposed will require sacrifice, they are attainable if America truly commits to the goal of energy independence.

"The President was absolutely correct when he said America is addicted to oil, but we can't continue to settle for piecemeal, bite-sized solutions to our energy crisis," said Obama. "We need a national commitment to energy security. Now is the time for serious leadership to get us started down the path of energy independence. The ideas Senator Lugar and I have proposed are bipartisan and common-sense and would take an enormous step towards energy independence."

Senator Richard Lugar is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Obama is also a member of the Foreign Relations Committee as well as the Environment and Public Works Committee.

For story: Obama and Lugar introduce 'American Fuels Act'
10 Comments | Post a Comment

details

As I understand it, it is pretty easy to make a flex-fuel vehicle. Just make sure the hoses and gaskets do not decompose when exposed to E85, and then reprogram the computer so that it will support the proper ignition sequence. I'd guess that costs well under $100 per vehicle.

I'm sure that is one reason GM chose it as their answer this year. It's quick, and they'd been doing it on a limited basis.

It gets more complicated when you try to figure how the subsidies work out at current ethanol production levels, and how they would change with expanded production. I see 51 cents per gallon thrown around as the current ethanol subsidy. Does the 35 cents go on top of that? Or does it go to a different constituency .. I mean industry?

And then there is the whole corn question. Corn is subsidized, and it is kind of a fuzzy proposition about how much you would have to expand corn production to produce serious amounts of ethanol fuel.

My gut feel is that ethanol will play a role, but that it will be costly enough that we have a choice: little ethanol cars ... or big SUVs, big subsidies, and of course big acreage world-wide.

by odograph at 3:06 PM on 17 Mar 2006

Infitesimal or minute?

Going from infitesimal to minute maybe? That could be an apt description of the amount of oil replaced with this bill. Over 6 years and 9 years for ethanol and biodiesel respectively.

Is that better than the present energy policy? It will have almost zero effect on foreign policy or fuel prices and no effect at all on global climate change, except maybe to accelerate it because of extra acreage in fuel crops destroying more biomass carbon sink.

The 100s of billions in subsidies given out to agribizz interests will divert capital from real solutions to the problems of global climate disaster, endless oil wars, and the resulting economic decline of the US.

That in turn is handing US superpower status over to emerging manufacturing corporate feudal kleptocracies like China and oil rich corporate feudal kleptocracies like Russia.

This is another campaign "contribution" (bribery disguised as free speech in the form of the right of corporations to "petition" THEIR government)raised by wasting taxpayer dollars on corporate welfare subsidies.

The usual ratio is around 1000 bucks borrowed from the future (the debt at the new 9 trillion national debt limit equals 25k per citizen) for every dollar invested in political bribery by the industry getting the corporate welfare.

"Invest" a buck through a rat like jack(abram)off, get 1000 back in the form of a Halliburton style contract (with america, newty and the K-streeters make good on their "contract with america").

If we all had guaranteed returns of a thousand for one like these corpoRATs, lost retirment pensions, soaring energy and food costs, and soaring health care costs would be no problem, but instead we the people are the ones paying the thousand dollars out in the form of borrowing on the national debt from nations like China.

Nice move boys, proud of yourselves? I bet they will grin from ear to ear as they tout this scam. And it's a "green" scam as well!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 5:45 AM on 18 Mar 2006

credit?

One thing I didn't notice until yeserday is that flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) receive a CAFE credit:

"A provision in the CAFE regulations allows alternative-fuel vehicles, such as those running on ethanol or natural gas, to earn an artificially high fuel economy credit for automakers' CAFE calculations. While the intent of the CAFE credit is to encourage the production and sale of vehicles that run on alternative fuels, automakers have largely embraced this incentive as a way to improve their fleet-average fuel economy figures and help meet mandated CAFE requirements without making across-the-board improvements on all their engines' efficiency."

more here

Maybe other folks here have been ahead of me on that and I've skimmed right past it ... but it just makes the GM yellow gas cap campaign just hurt a little deeper, doesn't it?

by odograph at 11:30 AM on 18 Mar 2006

Charisma not enough

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/weekinreview/19kornblut.html?hp&ex=1142830800&en=275bd491e 4401908&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Charisma and intellect are not enough. Integrity has to be an integral part of leadership.

Does this ethanol subsidy plan indicate a disturbing flaw in Sen. Obama's leadership abilities? One could argue that he has been taken in by corporate lobbyists, but that in itself is a terrible failing.

The fatal flaw of President Bush, he takes the lies of powerful advisers and lobbyists as fact.

Or is the fault of an environmental movement allowing itself to be coopted and used by corporate power? Then politicians ride the polluted stream of greenwashing effluent.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 9:02 AM on 19 Mar 2006

TV

Did anyone see the CNN special ("We Were Warned") yesterday?

It was interesting in that it painted an introduction to oil crisis, building on the easily visualized emergencies of hurricanes and terrorism, and then went to Brazil to visit the cane fields and ethanol plants.

The host noted with relish that, there he was, driving through cane fields in a GM car(!), running on ethanol. Is this our future?

We cut back to America and GM. And no lie, the showcased car was the Avalanche SUV. That's the very car (probably 15 mpg on gas and 10 mpg on ethanol) that I have been trashing as a symbol for the "wrong direction" pushed by the American ethanol lobby. The GM guy (CEO?) even made a quick comment trashing hybrids, to imply all we need is corn, and not fuel efficiency.

I think the show added up to a plus ... but it might have left too many viewers with the idea that, while Brazilians drive those funny little ethanol cars ... we all get Avalanches (hurray)!

FWIW, the show looks like it is on a few more times this evening. It is on regular CNN, called CNN Presents, subtitle "We Were Warned."

by odograph at 10:06 AM on 19 Mar 2006

Ethanol, and all

Barak is the latest liberal darling, and I think he's getting a bit of a free ride from greens on his constant ethanol boosterism. The junior senator from Illinois is joining hands here with his senior colleague from Indiana--a farm-state industrial ag water carrier of the old school--to promote an expensive and destructive diversion from doing the real work of promoting conservation.

Victual Reality

by Tom Philpott at 7:44 AM on 20 Mar 2006

Syriana Petition

Here's a petition concerned with America's dependence on oil. Participate.net, a website run by Participant Productions, has created a petition as a promotion for their movie, Syriana. Basically, the petition asks the CEOs of Ford, GM, and Chrysler to develop more hybrid cars. It's a good supplement to what Obama and Lugar are doing in the Senate. Here's the link:

http://www.participate.net/oilchange/telldetroit

Enjoy.

by fattmy at 12:58 PM on 22 Mar 2006

About those cars......

I wish there was half as much attention given to developing mass transit as to playing with hybrid cars, and ethanol cars and hydrogen cars....

Cars support suburban sprawl, require many other resources than just whatever fuel they use and are inefficient in as that most of them contain one person much of the time.

I think it shows one of the sad failures of American environmentalism that so much energy is spent trying to paint the tumor a nice color.

As to the China bashing, what in the heck is a kleptocracy??? Any place can be criticized, but name calling reflects prejudice rather than concern. We could all use a little more concern...

Patrick

by bookerly at 12:35 AM on 23 Mar 2006

Is mass transit a dead issue?

Good point, Patrick. Seems like greens have essentially ceded mass transit as too unpopular with the general public and, well, learned to love the car. I think it's a mistake. With gas prices rising and global-warming fears on the rise, seems like the time is ripe to push for public investment in mass transit.

Victual Reality

by Tom Philpott at 4:35 AM on 23 Mar 2006

Suburban Bus Lines Need Love too!!

I am a city guy, and one who generally hates the suburbs (umm, hates the sins, but not the sinners???). However I found myself (due to a bad heart, no not that kind! (grin)) living in the suburbs for about two years at one point.

And for various reasons related to the bad heart (she used the car), I had to take the local bus (when I couldn't walk or bike). I had always had a prejudice against suburban bus systems believing them to be mostly non-existent, or slow and expensive at best.

To my amazement, this was not true. There was actually a fairly decent bus system, and it wasn't so expensive, nor crowded, and the schedule wasn't as bad as I feared.

I guess this is in the nature of a plea to all of you who post on Grist and say that you can't live without your car because in your locale there are no alternatives. Consider looking harder and trying them out, at least occassionally. Also consider letting your local politicians know that money should be spent on them as well as on important things like golf courses and other amenities.. (okay, that was an unintentional slip back into sarcasm... maybe too early in the morning here).

Patrick

by bookerly at 3:20 PM on 23 Mar 2006

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.