Late last Friday evening, Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) released the latest update (known in Washington as the “chairman’s mark”) to their sweeping global warming legislation, announcing “the carbon allocation winners” prior to this week’s Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearings on the bill.
According to the Wall Street Journal:
The proposal by Ms. Boxer, of California, and Mr. Kerry, of Massachusetts, is likely to go through several iterations, as lawmakers seek to gain enough support to pass the measure on the Senate floor.
As was the case in the US House, many expect this comprehensive bill to change in a number of ways relative to its original version. That includes the possibility of the authors clearing some space for a low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS), effectively blocking Canadian oil from reaching US consumers.
Canada’s sands represent the largest crude oil reserves outside of the Middle East, and help meet nearly 20 percent of the US’s daily energy needs. Cutting off affordable North American energy supplies would only deepen our dependence on some of the most unstable regions of the world. This is not only bad policy, but it also runs counter to President Obama’s stated energy goals, too.
In fact, recently Tony Podesta, the one-time Clinton White House chief of staff and informal Obama environmental advisor, discussed an LCFS with The Globe and Mail:
“I think a low-carbon fuel standard is probably in the offing.” As an early proponent of California’s low-carbon fuel standard Mr. Podesta also said the Canadian oil sands would still be penalized heavily under a federal fuel regulation, which he expects to be eventually adopted.
President Obama even sponsored LCFS legislation while serving in the Senate, leading many observers to believe Congress may eventually pass a national, one-size-fits-all fuel mandate.
Major news organizations and independent research experts are taking notice of this threat to consumers, too. Today, Wall Street Journal’s Keith Johnson writes this about a new report by energy consultants Wood Mackenzie:
Cap-and-trade legislation will cost U.S. refiners about $100 billion a year by 2015 and put them at a competitive disadvantage to refiners in Europe.
There’s another irony to the climate legislation, Wood Mac notes: While it would hit refiners hard, it doesn’t seem that it would actually do much to reduce U.S. demand for oil products. “The impact of the higher fuel costs (projected for the near term) is not anticipated to have a material impact on oil product demand, with other legislative measures (auto fleet efficiency and Low Carbon Fuels Standards) being much more significant,” the report concludes.
As the U.S. Senate begins debate on climate change legislation tomorrow, American consumers who oppose higher fuel costs and favor North American energy over overseas imports should send a loud message to Congress that an LCFS is wrong for our security and for our pocketbooks.
