<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "
advertisement
![](http://s2.studylib.net/store/data/010738870_1-622ef0929c9c59a74495f82e32ed92a5-768x994.png "<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "")
<!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>
