<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
<title>News Service: Media Review</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all"
href="http://www.public.iastate.edu/~nscentral/mr/styles/mr.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="print"
href="http://www.public.iastate.edu/~nscentral/mr/styles/print.css" />
</head>
<body>
<p class="media">The Stanford Daily</p>
<p class="date">01-24-08</p>
<h1>Op-Ed: Energized debate over Energy Act</p>
<p>By Grant Starrett, Megan Stacy and Irina Oberman </h1>
<p>In December 2007, Congress passed the Energy Act, with provisions including:
boosting gas mileage in manufactured cars, increasing biofuels in gas, phasing
out incandescent light bulbs and increasing research on carbon sequestration
technologies. Stanford in Government asked three campus political groups if this
legislation encompasses the best U.S. energy policy. </p>
<p>Energy Act hurts producers, consumers</p>
<p>Unfortunately, Congress cannot magically wave away all of our problems simply
by passing a law. In fact, our problems usually increase despite Congress' best
intentions. The case may prove no different with this year's energy bill, which
slaps new restrictive rules on our already struggling American car manufacturers
in Michigan, currently the nation's unemployment leader. But let us ignore for a
moment the pain that the bill will inflict on American workers and companies and
talk about the American consumer -- which includes all of us in this more
fragile economy. It's estimated that these oppressive regulations will increase
the costs of cars by as much as $10,000, boosting the average price of a vehicle
to nearly $40,000. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, we do feel that the United States government should do its best
to move our country toward energy independence. We need to invest substantially
in alternative energy, but we should also realize that higher gas prices will
force the market to do the same. After all, only six percent of our energy needs
are currently met by renewable sources of energy, and every year our consumption
grows more than the entire biofuel industry. We also need to initiate energy
exploration for more American resources, including limited portions of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Ultimately, we recognize the importance
of being good stewards of the environment -- but we also realize that this is
not some fanciful world in which our actions have no consequences. There must be
a balance that ensures the strength of the American economy -- and the jobs of
American workers. </p>
<p>This perspective was written by Grant Everett Starrett '10, representing the
Stanford Conservative Society. </p>
<p>Improve Energy Act by stopping big oil</p>
<p>The Energy Act is an indisputably important step toward sound energy policy
for the United States. For the first time in more than 30 years, legislators
have agreed to increase minimum efficiency standards for cars. By 2020, new auto
fleets must average at least 35 miles per gallon, compared to the 25 miles per
gallon requirement today. According to The Washington Post, this requirement
could reduce American oil use by 1.1 million barrels a day, the equivalent of
taking 28 million cars off the road. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, President George W. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress
continue to side with oil executives by keeping tax breaks for oil companies in
place, effectively slamming the door on comprehensive changes in our energy
policy. Additionally, Republicans in Congress refused to allow a mandate that
utilities nationwide produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable
sources. With tax breaks for oil companies and no real commitment to renewable
fuels, we remain dangerously reliant on unstable and hostile parts of the world
to power our nation. </p>
<p>While the Energy Act moves the United States in the right direction by
implementing gradual but significant steps toward reducing our dependence on
foreign oil, the act alone is not sufficient energy policy. As long as oil
companies get tax breaks from the government, there will be no financial
incentive for them to work toward innovative, more efficient solutions. This act
doesn't come close to solving our energy crisis, but it lays a foundation upon
which future solutions can be built. </p>
<p>Megan Stacy '07 wrote this opinion, representing The Stanford Democrats. </p>
<p>The downsides of the Energy Act</p>
<p>The recent 2007 energy bill is hardly an ideal energy bill, either for the
American people or even for world consumers in general. </p>
<p>The first issue of boosting gas mileage in cars has several negative impacts.
Beyond the implicit price increase in cars that must conform to the new
standards, it is not even clear that increasing the mileage standard will even
accomplish the goal of reducing carbon emissions and helping the environment;
many economists have shown that this sort of measure actually offers an
incentive to drive even more: If your car suddenly will go more miles for the
same price, you might actually take the job with a longer commute that you might
not have considered before.</p>
<p>Ethanol -- the favorite biofuel of the seeming enviro-enthusiasts -- was
mandated to increase by five times as a percentage in the composition of gas. If
there were sufficient market demand for ethanol, why would there be a need to
mandate its production? It is already far too expensive to be competitive. In
addition, the government is already spending a great deal of money subsidizing
its production; this measure has had far-reaching negative impacts on a variety
of sectors -- not just the price of gasoline. The use of corn for ethanol has
decreased the supply of corn for food and feed for cattle, which increases the
prices of food. Think this only affects the United States? Think again; we do
not have as much staple food to export to third world countries, and other
countries that grow corn, such as Mexico, have seen their prices of tortillas
and basic foods for the poor increase dramatically. According to an study, the
fivefold increase in the ethanol mandate could cost each household over several
hundred dollars annually in food bills.</p>
<p>These are just two issues that are fundamentally wrong with this bill. Energy
independence is something that the United States must take seriously, but these
measures have gone it about in quite the wrong way, at the detriment of every
American consumer.</p>
<p>Irina Oberman '09 is the vice president of the Stanford College Republicans.
</p>
<p></p>
</body>
</html>
0
