 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
Energy |
|
We need a plan that increases environmentally responsible oil and gas production, diversifies our nation's energy consumption through greater use of renewable energy, like ethanol and wind, and promotes greater fuel efficiency and energy conservation. Earlier this spring the Administration published its recommendations for a national energy policy, which focused on efforts to increase production of energy, including drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Subsequently, the House of Representatives passed its energy plan, which called for drilling in ANWR, and provided tax incentives for a variety of energy production and conservation activities. I've asked the chairmen of key Senate committees to prepare legislation dealing with a range of energy-related topics, so that the full Senate can consider these issues during the fall. Daschle Goals: Congress should adopt an energy strategy that achieves four basic goals and has asked Senate committee chairmen to write legislation that meets the following criteria. Electricity and transportation fuels should be:
If you are interested in learning more about fuel prices, you may want to visit the following links. They will take you to Department of Energy fact sheets designed to help consumers understand how the prices of various fuels are determined on the open market. In addition, there is information on how supply disruptions have led to the severe price spikes in energy prices we've seen in recent years.
The ethanol industry is growing considerably, and new plants are being constructed. In South Dakota alone, ethanol production is expected to grow from 30 million gallons per year to over 200 million gallons per year by 2003. For more information, please visit the web site of the American Coalition for Ethanol.
To help foster the development of wind power, we need to extend the wind power tax incentives and establish tax incentives for the development and generation of solar, geothermal, and biomass projects. Earlier this year, I introduced S. 596, which will provide tax incentives for installation and use of these technologies.
Having weighed the environmental risks of drilling in the refuge, and the predictions of oil volumes that could be recovered economically from the refuge, I have decided to oppose efforts to drill in the refuge. The risks to caribou, polar bears, and other local wildlife, as well as the precedent for oil exploration in our nation's wildlife refuges, outweigh the small amount of oil that is likely to be recovered. A bipartisan group of senators who share that belief will join in the effort to ensure that the national energy policy developed by Congress does not allow drilling in the refuge.
The consequences of climate change most likely will be serious. The Environmental Protection Agency has found that global warming may harm the United States by altering crop yields, accelerating sea level rise, and increasing the spread of tropical infectious diseases. The development of international agreements to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases is critical to addressing this situation. In July, 1997, I voted for Senate Resolution 98, which expressed the sentiment that developing nations, especially the largest emitters, must also be included in any future, binding climate change treaty and that such a treaty must not result in serious harm to the United States economy. Unfortunately, instead of working with other nations to negotiate changes to the Kyoto Protocol that would be consistent with Senate Resolution 98, President Bush rejected the protocol and refused to participate in negotiations in Bonn, Germany during July, 2001, when 180 nations agreed to the rules implementing the protocol. In addition, the energy plan proposed by the Administration would increase greenhouse gases by 35 percent, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council report "Slower, Costlier and Dirtier: A Critique of the Bush Energy Plan." Dissatisfaction with the Administration's unwillingness to engage in the Kyoto process is growing. On August 3, 2001, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted unanimously for a Sense of the Congress resolution calling on the Administration to demonstrate international leadership in meeting the challenge of climate change. Specifically, the resolution says that the United States should take responsible action to ensure significant and meaningful reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. It also calls on the Administration to participate in international negotiations, including putting forth a proposal at the next meeting of the international community, with the objective of securing the United States' participation in a revised Kyoto Protocol or other future binding climate change agreements. I strongly support this resolution and other efforts in Congress to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, including legislation introduced by Senators Byrd and Stevens, S. 1008, which authorizes nearly $5 billion over ten years to address the challenge of global warming. That legislation recently was approved by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. I'll be working with key Senate committees to produce an energy policy for the nation that reduces emissions of greenhouse gases. |
Congress currently is undertaking a
vigorous debate over how Americans will meet their energy needs in
the future. High gasoline prices earlier this year, combined with
periodic power blackouts and extremely high energy prices in
California, brought energy issues to the attention of Congress and
consumers. The ongoing debate over climate change also has
sensitized Americans to the environmental consequences of our energy
choices. The questions is, how should Congress and the nation
respond, so that we can prevent these problems from occurring in the
future?