Just how much impact will new House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming really have? Grist talks to the chairman
With auto industry stalwart John Dingell in charge of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Democrats wanted to ensure that lawmakers and the rest of the country got an earful of global warming issues. So House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged the House to create a new committee to address energy issues, including global warming and fuel economy. Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts is the chairman. The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming sets up a confrontation, at least in drawing attention to the issue and helping set the political agenda, with Dingell's committee. Pelosi says Markey's committee won't have any legislative power but the intent is clear: get moving on climate and energy issues. In an interview with David Roberts of Grist, Markey extols the virtues of boosting CAFE standards. He noted that the country's dependence on foreign oil dropped dramatically after President Ford signed the law mandating that automakers double their fuel economy. But he also noted the loopholes left for SUVs and trucks.
"So now, over the last 20 years, we've climbed from 27 percent dependence to 60 percent dependence on imported oil," said Markey.
Markey once introduced legislation that mandated 10mpg improvement over 10 years but Republication leadership kept it under wraps. Markey says his bill mandates fuel economy improvements while President Bush's plan allows the Department of Transportation to have full discretion over imposing fuel economy increases.
"From my perspective, the Bush administration imposes a mandate on American troops -- it says they have to be over in the Middle East. We need a similar mandate on the auto companies, so the costs of reducing our dependence on oil from the Middle East are placed back here, in the United States -- so that we all help fight this war, not just the Army and the Marines," says Markey.
Markey also has comments on cap-and-trade bills, carbon tax, coal and Al Gore. Interesting reading.
[Source: David Roberts / Grist]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mike Z 3:33PM (3/23/2007)
"So now, over the last 20 years, we've climbed from 27 percent dependence to 60 percent dependence on imported oil,"
Well Duh! The US peaked and is in decline, and Oil companies are not allowed to drill in the two remaining areas that might hold large quantities of oil (Gulf and ANWR). Someone who says something that has such a self-obvious answer is going to held the committee that is going to fix this???!!!
Also the comment about the Middle East is wrong too. Take oil revenue out of their and it become Somalia, we would still be there.
Reply
Chris 8:42PM (3/23/2007)
Geez, what's with all the right wingers on AutoBlogGreen lately? Uh, we don't ween ourselves off oil by drilling for more! Getting off FOREIGN oil is only half the point, stopping pollutants and excessive CO2 from getting into the atmosphere is the other!
Reply
John Thacker 9:37AM (3/26/2007)
"So now, over the last 20 years, we've climbed from 27 percent dependence to 60 percent dependence on imported oil," said Markey.
It's MUCH cheaper to pump out oil from Saudi Arabia than from wells in the US. If we reduce our oil usage, then the first oil we stop using is the most expensive to pump, which includes a higher percentage of US produced oil (and some of the Canadian oil sands oil). Thus, if we reduce our oil usage, our "dependence" on foreign oil goes up, in the sense that a larger, not smaller, percentage of our oil will be obtained from imported oil.
The percentage of imported oil decreased in the 70s because the price of oil increased dramatically due to OPEC's cartel activities. Hence, it became more profitable to drill for and pump US oil.
So his statement is completely illogical and his argument about dependence does not follow. Of course, reducing oil usage still makes sense. (Even if CAFE increases don't, since they're a particularly inefficient way to do so. It would be much more sensible to increase the gas tax but rebate it back in a fair way so that it isn't regressive, such as by decreasing the lowest tax bracket.)
And of course Kyoto remains signed and the Senate is still free to take it up, but won't of course.
Reply