The Anti-Sam Brownback Blog

Senator Sam Brownback was part of a group that yesterday unveiled their “Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act of 2005″. The Kansas City Star Explains:

Because two-thirds of the oil used in this country is used in transportation, the bill focuses on reducing oil consumption by changing the way Americans fuel their vehicles.

The legislation would include tax breaks, as much as 35 percent, and loan guarantees to get automakers to switch to gas-electric hybrids, advanced diesel or other alternative technologies, including ethanol.

Ten percent of all vehicles sold in the United States would have to be hybrids, hybrid-electric plug-ins, or operable on alternative fuels by 2012. That would rise to 50 percent by 2016.

It also includes new tax breaks for those who buy such vehicles for car fleets, and incentives for developing alternative fuels, such as ethanol from cellulosic biomass, research into use of lightweight material in cars, and the promotion of mass transit corridors.

Before I discuss what we know about the bill, I would like to point out there is much we do not know. I haven’t been able to find the text of the bill (it is not in thomas.loc.gov) so the only information we have has been fed to us in political sound bites.

That being said, I find one glaring problem with the bill that the KC Star mentions:

The bill’s supporters range from liberal Democrats to conservative Republicans, mainly because the bill avoids issues like increased drilling or mandated vehicle fuel-efficiency standards.

This is what kills me. They are happy to talk about the way Americans fuel their vehicles, but are not willing to talk about the actual vehicles Americans drive. I don’t see the point if in ten years we have hybrid Hummers that instead of 7 mpg get 10 mpg. Fuel choices are an important piece of the puzzle, but are not all we need to address. This bill gains support by sacrificing hard issues.

Additionally, it looks as though this bill will be a boon to ethanol producers. Ethanol sounds great, but there needs to be more research as to the total energy cost of making the fuel. I have heard estimates that it uses more energy to produce make the ethanol product than the ethanol product provides. We need to be clear as to the real efficiency of the process. Will any politician bring that up? Not likely considering ethanol is the golden calf of the Iowa Caucuses. Every politician must worship at its feet in order to curry favor for Presidential election season.

I feel like this is a good first step. The reality is that talk is cheap. I want to see specifics and I want to see methods of enforcement. If any of these long term goals are going to be met we must start today.