Energy Subsidies Black Not Green

ENERGY SUBSIDIES “BLACK NOT GREEN”

Our culture and economy in the US is one of consumption and not favorable to the energy trends that lean to greener technologies.  In a report released by the Environmental Law Institute they concluded that the US government provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewable energies.  The vast majority of subsidies for fossil fuels are written into the US Tax Code as permanent provisions in contrast to renewable energy subsidies which are typically given a termination date and are temporary.  Almost half of the subsidies provided for renewable energy goes to corn-based ethanol, the use of which remains controversial and questions about its effects on the climate remain.  Corn-based ethanol subsidies includes a 45-cent per gallon tax credit, a tariff placed on imported ethanol, and a variety of rules and laws enacted to ensure that gasoline is mixed with at least 10% if not 15% ethanol; and a requirement that 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel be blended with gasoline and diesel by 2022.  (Final Version)  All of this and we don’t even know if there is a positive effect of using corn-based ethanol.  While our government continues to subsidize the oil industry it fails to enact legislation that would promote alternative forms of energy.  For example the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 originally sought to cut subsidies to the petroleum industry.  After strong opposition and extensive lobbying the final bill was reduced to focusing on automotive fuel efficiency, development of biofuels, and energy efficiency in public buildings and lighting.  You might remember hearing about the requirement of consumers to purchase certain kinds of light bulbs and if they refused it would be added to their electric bill.  Items that did not make it past the Senate Republicans would have required utilities to produce 15% of their power from renewable energy and a tax package that would fund renewable energy through the repeal of $21 billion dollars in oil and gas tax breaks.  Other items that didn’t make it in the bill included the repeal of a variety of tax breaks given to the biggest oil companies, a provision that allows the US government to be paid royalties and collect fees on oil and gas leases for off-shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and an account to hold additional money to fund provision of the act.  All of these were denied.

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

Who are the users and who has the power?  When 83% of energy consumed in the US comes from fossil fuels and fossil fuel consumption resulted in 94.6% of CO₂ emissions in 2009 it is easy to conclude who are the users and who has the power.  However, does consumer demand change the playing field?  Does an educated and well informed voter make legislators take pause and consider the will of the people?  Certainly the US government does not have the will.  Unlike the governments of the UK, Germany, and Japan where energy efficiency is government imposed and exploration into alternative energy is a necessity not an afterthought.  The US Energy Information Administration, an independent and impartial energy information think tank organization projects that  the transportation sector accounts for 73 percent of total liquid fuels consumption in 2035, up slightly from 71 percent in 2009.  While the amount of imports will decrease the overall consumption is projected to increase.  Industry and electric generation are projected to remain flat.  Worldwide as projected crude oil prices increase so does domestic production so clearly price and energy policy will favor domestic production. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTIONS

Renewable electric generation is projected to account for about 25% of growth in electric generation.  This is supported by legislation for renewable fuel standards, state-level renewable electricity standards, and Federal tax credits.  Taxpayers will be funding alternative energy technology such as wind power generation and geothermal resources.  (Market Trends)  While electric generation from renewable and alternative energy sources grown by 72% for 2035 most of that growth will be seen in wind and biomass plants.  Most of this is again driven by tax credits and state sponsored requirements.

SUMMARY

Based on research conducted it appears clear to me that resistance to taking action to mitigate and adapt climate change is due to political jockeying and market driving forces.  While advancement in technology appears to open doorways to new frontiers in renewable and alternative energy it also opens up increased domestic production in non-renewable fuels.  If our thirst for consumption and our culture of acquiring more and more for our own self gain does not stop our hope for mitigating future climate change is all but lost. 

BRINGING IT HOME FOR OUR STUDENTS

This is a complex problem and one that students are likely to get lost trying to navigate.  I believe as a teacher I can begin by exploring a simple problem on a scale they are likely to understand.  Based on an initial survey of my students they all seemed to recognize that climate change involved some kind of warming and that its likely cause was fossil fuel consumption.  Most students recognized two contributing sectors of transportation and electric generation.  Beginning with electric generation you could present your students with the legislation that would have required all consumers to purchase and install fuel saving compact fluorescent light bulbs.  Even though this legislation was abandoned later it certainly sparks a great debate.  From the political angle you could present to students that the government in forcing them to purchase something that they may or may not want.  Engaging students in a dialogue about why this policy might be right or wrong would be useful before proceeding into some statistics.  How much energy do Americans use?  What are the sources of energy?  Does this contribute to greenhouse gas emissions?  How would this policy impact consumers?  How would this policy impact climate change in the future?  Does new technology always provide better solutions?  Another useful step would be to ask students to come up with a more useful alternative to this policy.  Ask students to consider mitigation and suggest policy that would be consumer friendly, advance the economic stability of the nation, and support fewer greenhouse gas emissions.  Ask students to consider the consequences of doing nothing and having to adapt to climate change as a result.  Finally ask students to consider if we can afford to do nothing.  The reality is that we will pay one way or another.  What kind of world would you rather live in?