Senator Chris Edwards (D-Eugene) and chair of the Senate
Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources, gave a statement following
the
Senate
passage of Senate Bill 324, continuing Oregon’s Clean Fuels Program, which
is aimed at reducing carbon pollution in automotive gasoline and diesel fuel in
Oregon. “Today, Oregon has taken a step toward joining the west coast in
adopting plans for creating a cleaner fuel future; a future that doesn’t depend
solely on foreign oil; a future that is more secure; a future that offers cleaner
choices for consumers…. The west coast is the 5th largest economy in the world
and Oregon is a significant part of that. What we do on the west coast actually
matters. This program, along with action from our west coast neighbors, will
forever change what is possible in the United States.” I don’t think so.
The argument for Oregon’s Clean Fuels Program depends upon
the aggressive deployment of biomass on the assumption that the use of biofuels
is carbon-neutral, that plants pull CO
2 back from the air when they
grow, offsetting the carbon emitted from burning them as fuel, which is all
true. But diverting a cornfield or a forest to produce energy means not using
it to do something else, like make food or store carbon. Consequently, using biomass
to produce energy could changes land uses, food supply and ecosystems
without
actually affecting climate change.
Moreover,
opponents of
reauthorization of Oregon’s Clean Fuels Program argue that it is very
expensive, that it increases the price of gasoline “by at least 19 cents per
gallon, and possibly much more.”
That’s not entirely a bad thing, of course. The best way to
discourage carbon emissions is to make them more expensive, which the Clean
Fuels Program does, albeit very inefficiently. Moreover, it is possible that
genetic engineering will reconfigure biological processes to boost their energy
output and that initiatives like the Clean Fuel’s Program will accelerate these
efforts, which really could be a game changer. But the Clean Fuel’s Program
seems a rather roundabout way to encourage the development of GMOs.
The best way to make carbon emissions more expensive is a
carbon
tax, as enacted by our west coast neighbors in British Columbia. That’s
what
I’d
like to see happen.
But, in the interim, the simplest, most direct way to
discourage carbon emissions would be to raise the state gas tax, which would
also provide funds needed for
road
maintenance and improvement.
As John Charles of the Cascade Institute explains, the
problem with this option is that it requires the approval of
three-fifths of the state legislative assembly, rather than the simple
majority necessary for non-tax measures like the Clean Fuels Program. Is it too
much to hope for a win-win legislative compromise in which the Clean Fuels
Program is given up in favor of across-the-board support for an equivalent
boost in the gas tax (with, perhaps, higher shares going to counties and
municipalities than is now the case)?
